Exaltation And Isaiah 43:10

[BCSpace]

Amen.

John 10:34-36 answers the Ps 82:6 gods question absolutely as divine gods and not human judges. Simply substitute "human judges" into John 10 and ask yourself "Where is the blasphemy?"

James Talmage Jesus the Christ Chapter 28 answers the Ye are Gods question the best.

"Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods. . ."

But doesn't this contradict what Talmage is saying? Maybe Talmage is wrong here.

I think ebeddoulos's answer has merit. But I've always assumed previously that Talmadge was wrong.

Have you made the substitution and asked yourself the question as I proposed? What answer did you come up with?

[Programmer]

Isaiah 43:10 has absolutely nothing to do with Theosis, or Eternal Progression: made possible by Eternal Marriage.

Isaiah 43:10 has everything to do with the Isrealites worshipping idols and Baal: and being commanded to worship Jehovah.

Context is everything: Something the man you met doesn't know anything about. God will deal with him someday in a manner he will not like.

[Billy]

I think ebeddoulos's answer has merit. But I've always assumed previously that Talmadge was wrong.

Have you made the substitution and asked yourself the question as I proposed? What answer did you come up with?

John 10

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are HUMAN JUDGES?

35If he called them HUMAN JUDGES, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The way I see it is that these unrighteous human judges were called gods (even though they were not gods), so if you can call them gods, why is it such a big deal if Christ calls himself the Son of God, why is the first not blasphemy to the Jewish leaders and the case with Christ it is?

The quote below probably explains it better

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4310.htm

"a. Is it not written in your law, "I said, â??You are godsâ??": The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods."

b. If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came: Jesus is saying "If God gives these unjust judges the title â??godsâ?? because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the â??Son of Godâ?? in light of the testimony of Me and My works?"

i. Jesus is not taking the statement "you are gods" in Psalm 82 and applying it to all humanity, or to all believers. The use of gods in Psalm 82 was a metaphor - and Jesus is exposing both the ignorance and inconsistency of His accusers here."

[Billy]

Context is everything: Something the man you met doesn't know anything about. God will deal with him someday in a manner he will not like.

What will happen to him?

[Lachoneus]

Actually I think a better verse for one God is in the next chapter of Isaiah, where God say he does not even know of any other God.

Isaiah 44

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

First, it should be noted that this passage as it appears in the KJV (and many other versions) is badly mistranslated. The last sentence should be translated, â??Is there a God beside me? Yes, there is no Rock; I recognize [acknowledge] none.â? The second occurrence of the word â??Godâ? in the KJV translation is actually from the Hebrew word for â??Rockâ? (tsur). Obviously there is only one God who is the Rock of Israel (2 Samuel 23:3). Therefore, this verse merely states that Jehovah does not recognize that any other god is the God and Rock of Israel.

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God. That which at first seems so simple is often found to be more complex when examined closely. For example, let us look at another passage in the Bible that uses similar wording. In Isaiah 47: 8, 10, speaking of the city of Babylon, we read:

Therefore hear now this, given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I, and none else beside me; I shall not sit a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: 9 . . . . 10 For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I, and none else beside me.

Do these verses literally mean that Babylon is the only city in the entire world such that there is â??none else besideâ? it? Should we accept these verses as teaching that Babylon is the only city in existence, just as Isaiah 44:8 teaches that Yahweh is the only God in existence? Clearly there are many cities other than Babylon. And yet these Bible verses say the same thing about the city of Babylon that Isaiah 44:8 says about God, that each of them is the only one and that none else exist.

A similar use of this Hebrew phrase is found in Zephaniah 2:15 in reference to the city Nineveh:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Does this verse really mean that Nineveh is the only city in the world? How do we reconcile this verse with Isaiah 47: 8, 10 in which Babylon declares that it is the only city in the world? How can Babylon and Nineveh each claim that there is â??none [other city] beside me?â?

The answer to this question is that this ancient Hebrew phrase (â??there is none beside meâ?) simply does not mean what we 21st Century Westerners think it does. This phrase is not to be understood literally. Instead, it is a declaration of supremacy. Babylon boasts that it is superior to all other cities by declaring that no other cities exist, although it is obvious that other cities really do exist. Similarly, Nineveh boasts that it is superior to all other cities by declaring that no other cities exist, although it is obvious that other cities really do exist. In this same manner the verses about Yahweh being the only God are simply a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh above other gods by declaring that no other gods exist, although it is obvious that other gods really do exist.

That other gods exist beside Yahweh was certainly the understanding of Origin (A.D. 185â??ca.254), head of the Christian Church in Alexandria. Origin declared,

There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, â??Thank ye the God of gods,â? and â??The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.â? Now God, according to the Gospel, â??is not the God of the dead but of the living.â? Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: â??As there are gods many and lords many,â? and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others.

(Origen, â??Commentary on John,â? 10 The Ante-Nicene Fathers 315 (1886-1890; reprint, 1978-1981))

I know not any. This phrase does not mean that God is ignorant of the existence of any other gods, especially considering that He is called â??God of godsâ? (Deuteronomy10:17) and that He stands in the midst of a congregation of other gods (Psalm 82:6). In deed, God is called â??King of kingsâ? and â??Lord of lordsâ? precisely because other kings and other lords actually do exist. If other kings and lords did not exist, it would make no sense to call Him King of kings and Lord of lords. It is the same with His title â??God of gods.â? He is God of gods precisely because other gods actually exist. If other gods did not exist, it would make no sense to call Him God of gods. In fact, the point of Isaiah 44:8 (and other similar passages) is not that no other gods exist, but that only one of the many gods who exist is our God. As Paul explained, â??there are gods many and lords many,â? but there is only one God to us (1 Corinthians 8:6). Therefore, instead of expressing Godâ??s ignorance of other gods, this phrase merely refers to Jehovahâ??s refusal to recognize that any other god is the Rock of Israel. Of course there is no other God who is the Rock of Israel (2 Samuel 23:3). Nor is there any other God whom Jehovah recognizes as or admits is the God and Rock for Israel.

The meaning of this phrase is further illustrated in Hosea 8:4 where we see other things God says He does â??not know.â? In this verse God says, â??They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: . . ..â? Now an omniscient God obviously knows all about the kings and princes mentioned in this verse. Therefore, the point of the verse is not that God is ignorant of them, but that He does not recognize their authority as kings and princes because they were set up without His authority (â??but not by meâ?). This concept is also illustrated in Matthew 7:21-23. In verse 23 the Lord says to those who have acted without His authorization, â??I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.â? Obviously, the Lord does not literally mean that he does not know that these persons exist or is not acquainted with them and their actions, but that He does not recognize them as having acted with any authority from Him. Therefore, the phrase â??I know not anyâ? as it appears in Isaiah 44:8 does not mean that God is ignorant of the existence of any other gods, but that He does not recognize any other god but Himself as the Rock of Israel.

[Programmer]

What will happen to him?

He will be made to feel what he has imposed on others. Only the miraculous power of God can do this. As a punishment, it will not be pleasant. But he has his whole life to repent, so perhaps we could help him do so?

[Billy]

Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says "before" and "after" Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh's existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

"Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Yahweh."

This does not seem to be a true statement. Are you telling me that you cannot be exalted after Yahweh?

Isaiah 43

10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Jesus),

"and my servant whom I have chosen,

so that you may know and believe me

and understand that I am he.

Before me no god was formed,

nor will there be one after me.

11 I, even I, am the LORD (Jesus),

and apart from me there is no savior.

LDS Bible Dictionary

Jehovah

"The covenant or proper name of the God of Israel. It denotes the â??Unchangeable One,â? â??the eternal I AMâ? (Ex. 6: 3; Ps. 83: 18; Isa. 12: 2; Isa. 26: 4). The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it, but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh, or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, printed in small capitals.

Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth being born of Mary (see Mosiah 13: 28; Mosiah 15: 1; 3 Ne. 15: 1-5; D&C 110: 1-10). Although Ex. 6: 3 states that the God of Israel was not known by the name Jehovah before Mosesâ?? time, latter-day revelation tells us otherwise (Abr. 1: 16; Abr. 2: 8; cf. JST Ex. 6: 3); see also Gen. 22: 14)."

So these verses according to the LDS Bible Dictionary are speaking about the pre-mortal Jesus. " Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." So substituting the words as noted in the LDS Bible Dictionary it would read, "before Jesus, there was no God formed, nor will there be one after me."

Do LDS posters believe that the above verses are talking about the pre-mortal Jesus?

[BCSpace]

John 10

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are HUMAN JUDGES?

35If he called them HUMAN JUDGES, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The way I see it is that these unrighteous human judges were called gods (even though they were not gods), so if you can call them gods, why is it such a big deal if Christ calls himself the Son of God, why is the first not blasphemy to the Jewish leaders and the case with Christ it is?

The quote below probably explains it better

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4310.htm

"a. Is it not written in your law, "I said, â??You are godsâ??": The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods."

b. If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came: Jesus is saying "If God gives these unjust judges the title â??godsâ?? because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the â??Son of Godâ?? in light of the testimony of Me and My works?"

i. Jesus is not taking the statement "you are gods" in Psalm 82 and applying it to all humanity, or to all believers. The use of gods in Psalm 82 was a metaphor - and Jesus is exposing both the ignorance and inconsistency of His accusers here."

So the bottom line is that it's not blasphemy to call them human judges. Therefore, Christ's comparison does not work at all unless it's real and divine gods.

[Billy]

This phrase is not to be understood literally. Instead, it is a declaration of supremacy. Babylon boasts that it is superior to all other cities by declaring that no other cities exist, although it is obvious that other cities really do exist. Similarly, Nineveh boasts that it is superior to all other cities by declaring that no other cities exist, although it is obvious that other cities really do exist. In this same manner the verses about Yahweh being the only God are simply a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh above other gods by declaring that no other gods exist, although it is obvious that other gods really do exist.

I think that you make several good points, especially with the references you noted.

The counter argument to the supremacy theory that you propose is the according to LDS theology, LORD or Yahweh is the pre-mortal Jesus (LDS Bible Dictionary or my post above). So you are saying in essence that it is "simply a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh (premortal Jesus) above other gods" which would include Elohim. Is that your position?

[Lachoneus]

I think that you make several good points, especially with the references you noted.

The counter argument to the supremacy theory that you propose is the according to LDS theology, LORD or Yahweh is the pre-mortal Jesus (LDS Bible Dictionary or my post above). So you are saying in essence that it is "simply a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh (premortal Jesus) above other gods" which would include Elohim. Is that your position?

Of course not. But you knew that already, didn't you?

[BCSpace]

The counter argument to the supremacy theory that you propose is the according to LDS theology, LORD or Yahweh is the pre-mortal Jesus (LDS Bible Dictionary or my post above). So you are saying in essence that it is "simply a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh (premortal Jesus) above other gods" which would include Elohim. Is that your position?

It is a relative declaration because the Jews have not been introduced to any other Gods, including the Father. The Isaiah set must always be recognized with an eye towards the overall doctrine of the Bible which includes the plurality of Gods and Deification.

[Billy]

So the bottom line is that it's not blasphemy to call them human judges. Therefore, Christ's comparison does not work at all unless it's real and divine gods.

No, I think that he is trying to point out a double standard. He is saying that if they are men and it is OK to call them gods, then if I am just a man (obviously not but for argument sake) and call myself the Son of God, why is it not called blasphemy for the judges and it is for me?

[Billy]

It is a relative declaration because the Jews have not been introduced to any other Gods, including the Father. The Isaiah set must always be recognized with an eye towards the overall doctrine of the Bible which includes the plurality of Gods and Deification.

I can see your point, but even if they have not been introduced to the father yet, it would still be a false statement that the premortal Jesus is supreme over other gods including Elohim.

[ebeddoulos]

So the question is "Is there a God beside me?"

And God answers "yea, there is no rock; I know not any."

Exactly! A Rock is not the equal of God. That was the point. One more time: â??Beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality. For example Zephaniah 2:15 contains the same wording as found in Isaiah 44:8. Just as the city in Zephaniah 2:15 was declaring it had no equal, God is declaring in Isaiah 44:8 that a rock is not his equal. Get it?

You say this means, "Isaiah was making a joke wiith about efficacy of idols made of stone to be worshiped as deity." I guess you are right, I don't get the joke. Does anybody else share your view on the meaning of this verse?

That this verse references a rock used in a sarcastic joking manner is nothing new. It has been in commentaries for well over 300 years.

"Yea, there is no God; I know not any; if any of you be wiser than I am, I am willing to be informed. It is a sarcastical speech. But this clause may be, and is by others, taken interrogatively, do not I know it? Is it not a certain and undeniable truth, that there is no other God?"(Matthew Poole, "English Annotations on the Holy Bible", [1685])

If you are saying that rock means a false God then the sentence reads

And God answers "yea, there in no false God; I know not any."

If God is talking about false Gods in this sentence then he is not being honest, because there are many false Gods and I am sure God knows about them.

I said what I meant to say. Read nothing into it. You should take it exactly as I wrote it. Period.

Hebrew for H6697

masculine noun

proper noun with reference to deity

1) rock, cliff

a) rocky wall, cliff

b. rock (with flat surface)

c) block of stone, boulder

d) rock (specific)

e) rock (of God)

f) rock (of heathen gods)

Even though you forgot your attribution for the above - it is not found in the original Strong's - I have no complaints. See definition following f)

A couple of other verses that show rock, not referring to a false God (6697)

Psa 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou [art] my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Psa 92:15 To shew that the LORD [is] upright: [he is] my rock, and [there is] no unrighteousness in him.

How about that. Both verses translates the Hebrew Tsuwr {tsoor} which means rock as rock. Wonder of Wonders. Rock being translated as rock. Will such miracles ever cease? You need better tap dance lessons, because as I pointed out earlier in Isaiah 44:8, Tsuwr {tsoor} is translated as god. In Hebrew it is a sarcastic play on words, a joke. Too bad your little anti-Mormon agenda does not allow you to get it, because it really is quite witty.

[Billy]

Exactly! A Rock is not the equal of God. That was the point

According to the LDS, pre-mortal Jesus is the God of the Old Testament which is usually listed as LORD or GOD, not as God as noted in this case according to the LDS Bible Dictionary. I find it interesting that the LDS Topical Guide has a list for Jesus Christ as Rock, and has an extensive list of references in both the OT and the NT. However, I do note that the verse in question is not listed below. The point being is that you say that Rock is not equal to God (also pre mortal Jesus in OT), but this is not true according to your own reference material.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/61

LDS TOPICAL GUIDE

JESUS CHRIST, ROCK

Gen. 49: 24 (D&C 50: 44) from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.

Deut. 32: 4 he is the Rock.

Deut. 32: 15 lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

1 Sam. 2: 2 neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Sam. 22: 2 Lord is my rock.

2 Sam. 23: 3 Rock of Israel spake to me.

Ps. 18: 2 Lord is my rock, and my fortress.

Ps. 18: 31 who is a rock save our God.

Ps. 18: 46 (1 Ne. 15: 15; 2 Ne. 4: 30; 2 Ne. 9: 45; Jacob 7: 25) my rock . . . the God of my salvation.

Ps. 61: 2 lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

Ps. 62: 6 he only is my rock.

Ps. 118: 22 (Matt. 21: 42; Luke 20: 17) stone which the builders refused is become the head stone.

Isa. 8: 14 a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel.

Isa. 17: 10 not been mindful of the rock of thy strength.

Isa. 51: 1 (2 Ne. 8: 1) rock whence ye are hewn.

Acts 4: 11 stone which was set at nought of you builders.

Rom. 9: 33 (1 Pet. 2: 8; 2 Ne. 18: 14) lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence.

1 Cor. 10: 4 drank of . . . spiritual Rock . . . and that Rock was Christ.

1 Ne. 13: 36 Lamb, and my rock.

Jacob 4: 15 Jews . . . will reject the stone.

Hel. 5: 12 rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ.

Moses 7: 53 I am Messiah, the Rock of Heaven.

See also Matt. 16: 18.

[MormonMason]

It is a relative declaration because the Jews have not been introduced to any other Gods, including the Father. The Isaiah set must always be recognized with an eye towards the overall doctrine of the Bible which includes the plurality of Gods and Deification.

Well, that and the evidence that these chapters in Isaish were rewritten by someone after the exile. What the original actually said is unknown at the present time.

[cksalmon]

John 10

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are HUMAN JUDGES?

35If he called them HUMAN JUDGES, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The way I see it is that these unrighteous human judges were called gods (even though they were not gods), so if you can call them gods, why is it such a big deal if Christ calls himself the Son of God, why is the first not blasphemy to the Jewish leaders and the case with Christ it is?

The quote below probably explains it better

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4310.htm

"a. Is it not written in your law, "I said, â??You are godsâ??": The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods."

b. If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came: Jesus is saying "If God gives these unjust judges the title â??godsâ?? because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the â??Son of Godâ?? in light of the testimony of Me and My works?"

i. Jesus is not taking the statement "you are gods" in Psalm 82 and applying it to all humanity, or to all believers. The use of gods in Psalm 82 was a metaphor - and Jesus is exposing both the ignorance and inconsistency of His accusers here."

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to rob Jesus' citation of Psalm 82 of any usefulness as an apologetic for his own divinity. In effect, it makes Jesus' analogy into something like this: "Why are you criticizing me for claiming real divinity? After all, Psalm 82 speaks metaphorically about 'divine' humans."

If Jesus understood Psalm 82 in a completely metaphorical sense, what are the implications, in context, for Jesus' use of this passage in light of his claim to divinity (as the "Son of God")? Was Jesus portraying himself as merely a "human judge" who can metaphorically (though not in reality) refer to himself as "divine" (

[Cold Steel]

Who, or what, is God? When we say God is ONE, what do we mean? When Isaiah's God says He is the only God and that there are no others, what are we to make of that? How can Christians say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God?

Clearly GOD is a plural term. It's much like the word FAMILY. This was something the Israelites were not ready for at the time Isaiah wrote and preached. God wanted them to understand that He is not one God of many, but was the only God they were to worship.

When we become as God, we don't just become "a god," but rather, we become GOD. We join into that plurality just as we might join a family. Jesus clearly teaches this in the New Testament, where He prays to the Father that the apostles may become ONE, just as "WE" (Christ's word) are ONE. The New Testament does draw a distinction between Jesus and God, with the apostles speaking of Jesus "AND" God in the same sentence. So Christians find themselves in the same conundrum as we Latter-day Saints. If Jesus and God are separate, but one, what can we make of that? We might conclude that Jesus is not God, or we might conclude that Isaiah is wrong; but taking everything in context, it seems like God and the Son of God can both be inclusive in the term "God" (eloheim).

So the answer is quite simple. When taken in context, the term GOD is inclusive of many. How many? Who knows, for scripture has not limited GOD to be only the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Perhaps there are billions and billions of gods who are, in fact, inclusive in the term GOD. After all, when we speak of the word FAMILY, how many people can be in a family? The answer is, there's no limit.

Now sectarian Christians may come apart at the seams over this, but they cannot refute it without refuting their own trinitarian doctrines. Neither can they disprove it from the Bible. I'll even go so far to say that it's the only interpretation that closes a multitude of seeming contradictions in holy writ. After all, it was GOD who used the familial terms "Father, Son and so forth, with us as "sons" and "co-inheritors" with Christ. In fact, using familial terms without a "Mother" would be wholly inappropriate. But there we must stop....

[ebeddoulos]

According to the LDS, pre-mortal Jesus is the God of the Old Testament which is usually listed as LORD or GOD, not as God as noted in this case according to the LDS Bible Dictionary. I find it interesting that the LDS Topical Guide has a list for Jesus Christ as Rock, and has an extensive list of references in both the OT and the NT. However, I do note that the verse in question is not listed below. The point being is that you say that Rock is not equal to God (also pre mortal Jesus in OT), but this is not true according to your own reference material.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/61

LDS TOPICAL GUIDE

JESUS CHRIST, ROCK

Gen. 49: 24 (D&C 50: 44) from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.

Deut. 32: 4 he is the Rock.

Deut. 32: 15 lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

1 Sam. 2: 2 neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Sam. 22: 2 Lord is my rock.

2 Sam. 23: 3 Rock of Israel spake to me.

Ps. 18: 2 Lord is my rock, and my fortress.

Ps. 18: 31 who is a rock save our God.

Ps. 18: 46 (1 Ne. 15: 15; 2 Ne. 4: 30; 2 Ne. 9: 45; Jacob 7: 25) my rock . . . the God of my salvation.

Ps. 61: 2 lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

Ps. 62: 6 he only is my rock.

Ps. 118: 22 (Matt. 21: 42; Luke 20: 17) stone which the builders refused is become the head stone.

Isa. 8: 14 a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel.

Isa. 17: 10 not been mindful of the rock of thy strength.

Isa. 51: 1 (2 Ne. 8: 1) rock whence ye are hewn.

Acts 4: 11 stone which was set at nought of you builders.

Rom. 9: 33 (1 Pet. 2: 8; 2 Ne. 18: 14) lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence.

1 Cor. 10: 4 drank of . . . spiritual Rock . . . and that Rock was Christ.

1 Ne. 13: 36 Lamb, and my rock.

Jacob 4: 15 Jews . . . will reject the stone.

Hel. 5: 12 rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ.

Moses 7: 53 I am Messiah, the Rock of Heaven.

See also Matt. 16: 18.

Man you really are tap dancing. The verse in question, i.e., Isaiah 44:8, is not referencing Jesus Christ, unless of course you are saying that Jesus Christ is a false God. Are you? Is your argument that Isaiah 44:8 says this:

• â??Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God {H6697 צר צוּר tsûr tsûr tsoor, tsoor = Christ the Rock }; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 )
  

If so I prefer my exegesis over your eisegesis:

• â??Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God {H6697 צר צוּר tsûr tsûr tsoor, tsoor = Idol made of Rock}; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 )
  

Somehow, I think that is not what you meant. Typical of anti-Mormons you just started tossing a lot of chaff into your wake in the hope that we [sarcasm] poor Biblically illiterate Mormons [/sarcasm] would lock onto something else so you could extricate yourself from the predicament in which you found yourself.

It didn't work.

One more time: Isaiah 44:8 is saying that God has no equal among the gods and certainly not among false gods such as those made of stone.

â??Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 )

It uses the very same phrasing that Zephaniah 2:15 uses to show Ninevah's self-declared status.

"This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand." (Zephaniah 2:15)

This is Matthew Henry's take:

â??How flourishing Nineveh's state had formerly been (Zep_2:15): This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly. Nineveh was so strong that she feared no evil, and therefore dwelt carelessly and set danger at defiance; she was so rich that she thought herself sure of all good, and therefore was a rejoicing city, full of mirth and gaiety; and she had such a dominion that she admitted no rival, but said in her heart, â??I am, and there is none besides me that can compare with me, no city in the world that can pretend to be equal with me.â? (Matthew Henry, â??Matthew Henryâ??s Commentary on the Whole Bibleâ?, USA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1998], Vol. 4, pg. 1087)

As I have repeatedly said, â??beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality or in the case of Isaiah 44:8 the lack thereof.

[cksalmon]

So the answer is quite simple. When taken in context, the term GOD is inclusive of many. How many? Who knows, for scripture has not limited GOD to be only the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Perhaps there are billions and billions of gods who are, in fact, inclusive in the term GOD. After all, when we speak of the word FAMILY, how many people can be in a family? The answer is, there's no limit.

Whenever I come across this sort of statement about the nature of God, it strikes me an abuse of the biblical materials. Here, you've merely asserted that "GOD" (in the univocal sense you're preferencing at this point) denotes a single species-class. I don't believe this assertion is supportable via a fully-orbed, sustained, and rigorous engagement with the relevant OT/NT materials.

[consiglieri]

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

The first thing I would say is that it is likely the person who wrote this believed in one God and only one God, and appears to have been writing this in opposition to others who believed in more than one God. Who were the others, one might wonder?

Also, why are the words put in God's mouth, "Before me was no God formed"?

In other words, why would the text speak about gods being "formed" at all? It may be that this was used to address the worship of idols who were indeed formed by the hand of man.

And yet, that raises its own question as to why a God who presumably existed before man did would feel the need to say that no such gods were "formed" before him. If he were referring to idol-gods "formed" by man, would that not be self-evident?

And as has surely been brought up by now, why would a God who presumably existed from forever be speaking about anything even theoretically happening before he existed?

Or is this God implying that he, too, was "formed"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Billy]

A Rock is not the equal of God. (From your previous post)

Man you really are tap dancing.

Please read my answer more closely, because I don't think you got it. You said that a rock is not equal of God. I showed you several scriptures from YOUR own LDS website that proves that Rock can be a metaphor for Christ, who is God. I was repling directly to your statement about "A Rock is not the equal of God" statement. I was not referring to Isaiah 44 in my reply in that specific post.

TOPICAL GUIDE

JESUS CHRIST, ROCK

Deut. 32: 4 he is the Rock.

Deut. 32: 15 lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

1 Sam. 2: 2 neither is there any rock like our God.

2 Sam. 22: 2 Lord is my rock.

2 Sam. 23: 3 Rock of Israel spake to me.

Ps. 18: 31 who is a rock save our God.

Ps. 18: 46 (1 Ne. 15: 15; 2 Ne. 4: 30; 2 Ne. 9: 45; Jacob 7: 25) my rock . . . the God of my salvation.

Moses 7: 53 I am Messiah, the Rock of Heaven.

". . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no Idol made of Rock; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 )

One more time: Isaiah 44:8 is saying that God has no equal among the gods and certainly not among false gods such as those made of stone.

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no Idol= Rock; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 ) Your translation using f below

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God=Rock; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 ) My translation using e below

Both quotes can be constructed by the reference below. Yours is no more correct than mine.

YOU state that, "One more time: Isaiah 44:8 is saying that God has no equal among the gods and certainly not among false gods such as those made of stone. "

I agree with your statement that that "GOD HAS NO EQUAL", because there is only one God.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon...06697&t=kjv

Lexicon Results for tsuwr (Strong's H6697)

masculine noun

proper noun with reference to deity

e) rock (of God)

f) rock (of heathen gods)

Hebrew for H6697

Going to the LDS website, I wanted to see the cross references on the word that we are discussing to help understand the LDS point of view. Unfortunately this seems to lead to more confusion, rather that clearing things up.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/44/8b

"8 aFear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no bGod; I know not any."

Link from 8b cross references to this verse below

8b Isa. 45: 5 (5-22).

"5

[Billy]

Duplicate posts 48-50

Sorry, I hit the submit button, waited, nothing, hit it again, etc. and finally all posted at the same time.

[Billy]

Delete

[Billy]

Duplicate