Were Biblical Kings Considered Gods?

[e=mc2]

Just name the time.

Isn't it obvious?! During the time that Herr Mr. Dr. Daniel C. Peterson is speaking at the FAIR Conference is ***THE*** time for us to be partying and gorging ourselves with something significant instead of snoring through the boring......

[e=mc2]

Bokovoy:

â??I, [God], created my king upon my holy hill of Zionâ?¦ You are my Son, I begat you this dayâ? (Psalm 2:6-7).

My translation from the Hebrew reflects the observations of Jeffery Tigay. In a recent article concerning Psalm 2, Tigay explains that the meaning of the term nsk in verse six, which is usually translated as 'set,' 'put,' 'installed,' 'established,' and 'appointed,â? should be understood as meaning 'create' or 'form.'

You never fail to stimulate the old cranium... as I have been spending my evening analyzing the Hebrew of the niphal verb here you translate as "created" namely - נִסַּכְתִּי - I found that, indeed, the NIV translates it as "fashioned from eternity." Of course, the Hebrew word וַיִּיצֶר vayyitser, here, of course, with the waw consecutive imperfect 3rd person, (the root in its Qal form is יצר yatsar) means to form or fashion as well. The TWOT notes that the derivative massek

[maklelan]

You never fail to stimulate the old cranium... as I have been spending my evening analyzing the Hebrew of the niphal verb here you translate as "created" namely - נִסַּכְתִּי - I found that, indeed, the NIV translates it as "fashioned from eternity." Of course, the Hebrew word וַיִּיצֶר vayyitser, here, of course, with the waw consecutive imperfect 3rd person, (the root in its Qal form is יצר yatsar) means to form or fashion as well. The TWOT notes that the derivative massek

[e=mc2]

I addressed this verse a bit ago in my blog (here), and HALOT provides two entirely different definitions for the word. There is the traditional reading, which derives from the root nsk, which is to melt, spread, or pour out. Then there is a second definition deriving from skk, which refers to a weaver's handgrip. The Niphal definition is "to be woven, shaped." A few scholars prefer the latter reading.

Yep! I read that also in the HALOT tonight about all the pouring, referring to libations. I also thought it rather interesting that C.L. Seow in his Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, revised, Abingdon Press, 1995: 289 mentioned that the Niphal form of verbs may indicate resulting state, that is, something resulting from the actions produced by the verbs, so sometimes the Niphal participles function as adjectives. And then there is good ole Dobson! His Learn Biblical Hebrew pp. 163ff was pretty decent also about what the Niphal is all about.

[maklelan]

Yep! I read that also in the HALOT tonight about all the pouring, referring to libations. I also thought it rather interesting that C.L. Seow in his Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, revised, Abingdon Press, 1995: 289 mentioned that the Niphal form of verbs may indicate resulting state, that is, something resulting from the actions produced by the verbs, so sometimes the Niphal participles function as adjectives. And then there is good ole Dobson! His Learn Biblical Hebrew pp. 163ff was pretty decent also about what the Niphal is all about.

If you're still in the market for a good Biblical Hebrew syntax, the best introduction I've found is Arnold and Choi's A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. The best reference syntax out there is Waltke and O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Another use of the Niphal is the denominative, which is commonly overlooked. This is a verbal form that is derived from a noun, rather than the other way around. For instance, Josh 22:9 uses a Niphal verb for "to possess," which comes from the noun 'ahuzzah (possession). The verb "to prophecy" is Niphal (see 1 Sam 10:11) and comes from the noun nabi' (prophet). The most common is the verb sb', "to swear," which derives from the word sheba' (seven). It literally means "to seven oneself," or "to bind oneself by seven things."

[e=mc2]

If you're still in the market for a good Biblical Hebrew syntax, the best introduction I've found is Arnold and Choi's A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. The best reference syntax out there is Waltke and O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Another use of the Niphal is the denominative, which is commonly overlooked. This is a verbal form that is derived from a noun, rather than the other way around. For instance, Josh 22:9 uses a Niphal verb for "to possess," which comes from the noun 'ahuzzah (possession). The verb "to prophecy" is Niphal (see 1 Sam 10:11) and comes from the noun nabi' (prophet). The most common is the verb sb', "to swear," which derives from the word sheba' (seven). It literally means "to seven oneself," or "to bind oneself by seven things."

Yep! I am ordering my Waltke tonight after work! Woo hoo!

[maklelan]

If only more people were as excited about Hebrew as you.

[mfbukowski]

The Niphal definition is "to be woven, shaped." A few scholars prefer the latter reading.

So this then relates to our discussion a few threads back about "putting on" flesh? I am also interested in Paul's use of "sarx"(flesh) (I think- unfortunately what Greek I know comes out of concordances) which I am told carries the connotation of meat stripped from the bone. This putting on and stripping off as garments is a set of images that interest me greatly. So is this in the same ballpark then?

[e=mc2]

So this then relates to our discussion a few threads back about "putting on" flesh? I am also interested in Paul's use of "sarx"(flesh) (I think- unfortunately what Greek I know comes out of concordances) which I am told carries the connotation of meat stripped from the bone. This putting on and stripping off as garments is a set of images that interest me greatly. So is this in the same ballpark then?

Um, I dunno. I shall have to ponder on this one. Mak and David are far better adept at the connections than I am, but if'n need be, I can come up with something.....

[maklelan]

So this then relates to our discussion a few threads back about "putting on" flesh? I am also interested in Paul's use of "sarx"(flesh) (I think- unfortunately what Greek I know comes out of concordances) which I am told carries the connotation of meat stripped from the bone. This putting on and stripping off as garments is a set of images that interest me greatly. So is this in the same ballpark then?

It's not quite the same. sarx has to do with flesh, and in John 1:14 the phrase ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, means "to tabernacle," which is to dwell in a temporary structure. A lot of people like to think of Christ's tabernacle as his fleshly body. In the Hebrew tradition the shekinah (cognate with ἐσκήνω) is the "indwelling" of God, but this isn't well represented in the Bible, and I don't think it's at play in this verse.

[mfbukowski]

It's not quite the same. sarx has to do with flesh, and in John 1:14 the phrase ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, means "to tabernacle," which is to dwell in a temporary structure. A lot of people like to think of Christ's tabernacle as his fleshly body. In the Hebrew tradition the shekinah (cognate with ἐσκήνω) is the "indwelling" of God, but this isn't well represented in the Bible, and I don't think it's at play in this verse.

I wish I knew Greek! If it was Latin, I could probably get by! But earlier in this verse, "the word became flesh" I think the word is "sarx" which is Strongs #4561? And what I really like is an alternate meaning for the word "become" here, Strongs # 1096 is "married"

1096. ginomai ghin'-om-ahee a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):--arise, be assembled, be(-come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.

So would it be totally off base if you translated the phrase "the Logos married (became one with) flesh and tabernacled in us"?

[mfbukowski]

In reality, the evidence for divinized kings in ancient Israel is really quite compelling.

Is this why everyone wants to worship our new president?

[e=mc2]

I wish I knew Greek! If it was Latin, I could probably get by! But earlier in this verse, "the word became flesh" I think the word is "sarx" which is Strongs #4561? And what I really like is an alternate meaning for the word "become" here, Strongs # 1096 is "married"

So would it be totally off base if you translated the phrase "the Logos married (became one with) flesh and tabernacled in us"?

Well, the theme of marriage of God (Jehovah) with Israel is well known... And so far as wishing to know Greek better, I'm with ya on that one! GRIN! We just gotta start hitting the books more is all.

[maklelan]

So would it be totally off base if you translated the phrase "the Logos married (became one with) flesh and tabernacled in us"?

It's a bit of a stretch, and I don't think it fits with the context. The surrounding verses pretty much exclusively talk about his entering the world and his preeminence here. For such a specific and unique reading of that extremely common word we would expect something in the text to point us toward a more technical meaning, or at least indicate it is meant to be understood some other way. I don't find any such indication in the text.

[Ron Beron]

Has anyone read the most recent FARMS article that seems to go with David's thesis, i.e.,

• Ancient Aspects of Nephite Kingship in the Book of Mormon by Todd R. Kerr
  

[e=mc2]

Has anyone read the most recent FARMS article that seems to go with David's thesis, i.e.,

• Ancient Aspects of Nephite Kingship in the Book of Mormon by Todd R. Kerr
  

Can anybody who misspells my first name as their last name be worth reading?

[Ron Beron]

Can anybody who misspells my first name as their last name be worth reading?

Hey, he may be a long lost brother, one "y" removed?!

[e=mc2]

Hey, he may be a long lost brother, one "y" removed?!

HOWLING LAUGHTER!!!! Now THAT'S funny!

[mfbukowski]

It's a bit of a stretch, and I don't think it fits with the context. The surrounding verses pretty much exclusively talk about his entering the world and his preeminence here. For such a specific and unique reading of that extremely common word we would expect something in the text to point us toward a more technical meaning, or at least indicate it is meant to be understood some other way. I don't find any such indication in the text.

OK thanks! That's what I was looking for - one way or the other!

[mfbukowski]

Well, the theme of marriage of God (Jehovah) with Israel is well known... And so far as wishing to know Greek better, I'm with ya on that one! GRIN! We just gotta start hitting the books more is all.

Yep! I totally agree! Well hittin' my old concordance I come up with #1096, "ginomai" also being translated "married" everywhere that english word appears in these verses:

Romans 7:3&4

3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Of course the context is totally different, but the word is the same....

What is interesting to me is that in the resurrection of course our telestial flesh is transformed into celestial flesh (hopefully) by becoming one with "the body of Christ" -- and then the parallels with sealing and celestial marriage - becoming one flesh and all.

So this notion of him "marrying" telestial flesh found in John, to bring this all about would be a cool quid pro quo - the savior married telestial flesh so we can marry celestial flesh. And this of course coheres with the alleged "bridegroom" ceremonies and all the other bridegroom scriptures.

I think that notion is there in Paul -- he is the one who develops it, but it would be cool if it was in John too as a reflection-- it would be "two witnesses" of the same idea. As LDS I think we are uniquely suited to analysis of this whole celestial marriage/ one flesh theme at least in the epistles if not in thre rest of the NT. So if it's there, it could be a subtle NT "bullseye" for LDS doctrine. My opinion is that it's there. So does it still look far fetched, or could there be something to it? I just wish I knew more Greek!

Another parallel:

1Cor 15:

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, (ginomai- I guess more like "that body it shall become") but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

So like the quote above, we have the idea of dying, this time not to the law, but the death of the plant to yield the grain which "ginomai" transformed into a living plant. So there is at least two examples where Paul is using the same word for the same concept---- gotta be something to it!

Perhaps a play on words where Paul is using the ambiguity to imply marriage in such an ambiguous word so that only a few will "get it"? Connected with many of these instances, he speaks of the "mystery" of the flesh as well -- so this may give creedence to the idea that some kind of hidden usage was implied?

[e=mc2]

mfbukowski:

I just wish I knew more Greek!

Piece a cake! Just devote a few minutes (hours, whatever) a day to it, and I guarantee you in time, you will become perfectly fluent in it. I am doing this, and I must say, it really works! It will take me several years because I do, after all, have to work for a living (RATS!....DOUBLE DRATS!! ) so I am going slow, too slow, but on the other hand I have learned really well how to use Lexicons (it helps that I actually read em, yeah, I'm that kinda idiot) Dictionaries and Grammars as well as commentaries of all kinds that expound on the grammar. A little here and a little there, and it comes together........ I do the same with Hebrew and Aramaic.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Many cultures considered their kings or emperors to be â??godsâ?, especially Japan. Some even consider this guy a god...

[e=mc2]

Many cultures considered their kings or emperors to be â??godsâ?, especially Japan. Some even consider this guy a god...

They aren't far off at that either..........we are *all* Goddesses & Gods, even if in embryo right now.

[Ron Beron]

Many cultures considered their kings or emperors to be "gods", especially Japan. Some even consider this guy a god...

Having lived there I have found that anything unique or out of the ordinary was considered deity. Probably explains why they built a temple to me. hmmmmmm.....

[e=mc2]

Yep! I totally agree! Well hittin' my old concordance I come up with #1096, "ginomai" also being translated "married" everywhere that english word appears in these verses:

Of course the context is totally different, but the word is the same....

What is interesting to me is that in the resurrection of course our telestial flesh is transformed into celestial flesh (hopefully) by becoming one with "the body of Christ" -- and then the parallels with sealing and celestial marriage - becoming one flesh and all.

So this notion of him "marrying" telestial flesh found in John, to bring this all about would be a cool quid pro quo - the savior married telestial flesh so we can marry celestial flesh. And this of course coheres with the alleged "bridegroom" ceremonies and all the other bridegroom scriptures.

I think that notion is there in Paul -- he is the one who develops it, but it would be cool if it was in John too as a reflection-- it would be "two witnesses" of the same idea. As LDS I think we are uniquely suited to analysis of this whole celestial marriage/ one flesh theme at least in the epistles if not in thre rest of the NT. So if it's there, it could be a subtle NT "bullseye" for LDS doctrine. My opinion is that it's there. So does it still look far fetched, or could there be something to it? I just wish I knew more Greek!

Another parallel:

So like the quote above, we have the idea of dying, this time not to the law, but the death of the plant to yield the grain which "ginomai" transformed into a living plant. So there is at least two examples where Paul is using the same word for the same concept---- gotta be something to it!

Perhaps a play on words where Paul is using the ambiguity to imply marriage in such an ambiguous word so that only a few will "get it"? Connected with many of these instances, he speaks of the "mystery" of the flesh as well -- so this may give creedence to the idea that some kind of hidden usage was implied?

This entire verse of Romans 7:4 is very interesting! The idea here is that we should be joined to another (eis to genesthai heter