changed Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 from another post: The phrase used by Joel S. Burnett is "concretized abstract plural" (A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim - SBL Dissertation Series 183), originally presented as the author's doctoral thesis at John Hopkins University, 1999, with P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.,serving as Dissertation Advisor. He writes:The usage in question, as explained in GKC [Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar - JS], is a variety of the abstract plural, which sums up "the conditions or qualities inherent in the idea of the stem. Examples include zequnim "old age," sanverim "blindness," onim "might," 'esot "counsel," harapot "contempt," neqamot "vengeance," and negidim "nobility" -- only a small sampling of a category that is abundantly represented in Biblical Hebrew. ...The term "concretized absract plural" is preferable to others that have been mentioned because it is more precise and not susceptible to the mistaken notion that the plural form implies a quality of might, excellence, or superiority which may or may not characterize the referent of the word. [He here notes Otto Eissfeldt's reference to the grammatical category "substantivisches Abstraktum."] Again, in the case of the abstract plural, the emphasis conveyed by the plural form pertains not to the object denoted but to the meaninf of the substantive itself. Thus the suffix form of betulim in Lev. 21:13 ("And he shall take a wife in her virginity") does not mean "mighty virgin" [or majestic virgin - JS] but "virginity," emphasizing the idea associated with the stem, i.e., an abstraction.He proceeds to trace examples from early Hebrew writing a well as comparable examples from Akkadian, Late Bronze Age Ugarit and Phoenician text.What I find lovely about this perspective is that it elevates the meaning of Elohim from some narcissistic "plural of majesty" to something far more substantive - what I like to refer to as the reification of Godliness. Elohim is a way of representing God as 'God[li]ness' - as the exemplar of qualities, as "That Which ..."Eloha is considered the singular of elohim, although it may be backformed. Elim is the plural of el (see Exod 15:11; Ps 29:1; 58:2; 89:7).
changed Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, (Old Testament | Deuteronomy 10:17)22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods,(Old Testament | Joshua 22:22)2 O give thanks unto the God of gods:(Old Testament | Psalms 136:2)47 ... your God is a God of gods,(Old Testament | Daniel 2:47)He can't be a "God of Gods" if no other gods exist...
Ron Beron Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Read the Gen 1:1 KFD article by Barney. My first impression is that I feel sorry for good men like Barney and other LDS apologists. It's almost painful to see the logical twists they make to try to defend a position. Anyway, it did sway me in one area. I can buy that Joseph was more knowledgeable in Hebrew than my OP implies, and I think I would reject the theory I threw out there in the OP. The more plausible theory would be that Joseph started with the plural god theology and then used his knowledge of Hebrew to manipulate a contrived but still somewhat defendable position on Gen 1:1.This is simply a total negation of the current understanding of how the ancients whether Hebrew or "pagan" believed. In Theophile Meek's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1942), pp. 21-43 he states, " NO MODERN scholar of any standing today believes that the Hebrews of the Patriarchal Period were anything but polytheistic," If anything JS was ahead of the academic curve in discussing God in plural sense. But while we debate the semantics of Elohim we are ignoring the very strong possiblity of Elohim representing the Neoplatonic belief that God exists in many emanations including us. Therefore, there is one God with many manifestations including the 6 billion or so humans inhabiting the earth. It might be right in saying that we too are Elohim.
Lance in TX Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I guess I am just wondering, is it LDS theology that one God created the world or several Gods created the world?John, Let me present my understanding to you and you can do what you want with it. This is what I understand based on the teachings of the Church (in and out of the Temple), what I have read from other scholars, prayed about, and studied from the Bible and the BoM. I don't speak for the Church or others on-line here.God our Father requested Jesus Christ to build the Earth, Stars, and Universe. Jesus Christ enlisted the assistance of other spirits in the Pre-Mortal Existence to help with this task (I will not list them here). God our Father gave Jesus Christ the knowledge, power, and authority to perform this work. Jesus Christ then gave that knowledge, power, and authority to those that He chose to help Him with this task.I look at it like this...God our Father = Architect & Means provider (Knowledge, power, and authority)Jesus Christ = General ContractorJesus Christ's appointed helpers = Sub-contractorsGod our Father put the blueprints together and created the plan. He then provided the means (Priesthood [Knowledge, power, and authority]) to perform this work.This does not lessen the role that anyone played in creating all things. Everything points back to God our Father.Does this help at all? Does any other LDS agree with my conclusion/example?
Joseph Antley Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Adam was a God?Something I kept repeating in my post was that there are different meanings of the word God. As a spiritual being with the ability to organize matter, Adam was -- in a limited sense -- a god.
Ron Beron Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Something I kept repeating in my post was that there are different meanings of the word God. As a spiritual being with the ability to organize matter, Adam was -- in a limited sense -- a god.The Sumerian myth has Adam being created from the red clay of the earth and the blood of the slain god We.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 This is simply a total negation of the current understanding of how the ancients whether Hebrew or "pagan" believed. In Theophile Meek's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Mar., 1942), pp. 21-43 he states, " NO MODERN scholar of any standing today believes that the Hebrews of the Patriarchal Period were anything but polytheistic," If anything JS was ahead of the academic curve in discussing God in plural sense. But while we debate the semantics of Elohim we are ignoring the very strong possiblity of Elohim representing the Neoplatonic belief that God exists in many emanations including us. Therefore, there is one God with many manifestations including the 6 billion or so humans inhabiting the earth. It might be right in saying that we too are Elohim.This is something that I have been thinking alot about the past 2 days. I was just thinking that if we play out the idea of eternal progression nad we think that we will be Gods with our own children and it plays out like it did here on this earth, would there ever be a time that we were not a god? THe answer is now as psalms 82 states that we are gods children of the most high. I think about this when we get the claissic EV line of "Jesus was a created being who wasn't always God". The answer even in our case would be "yes we have always been a god per psalms 82.Interesting thoughts.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 John, Let me present my understanding to you and you can do what you want with it. This is what I understand based on the teachings of the Church (in and out of the Temple), what I have read from other scholars, prayed about, and studied from the Bible and the BoM. I don't speak for the Church or others on-line here.God our Father requested Jesus Christ to build the Earth, Stars, and Universe. Jesus Christ enlisted the assistance of other spirits in the Pre-Mortal Existence to help with this task (I will not list them here). God our Father gave Jesus Christ the knowledge, power, and authority to perform this work. Jesus Christ then gave that knowledge, power, and authority to those that He chose to help Him with this task.I look at it like this...God our Father = Architect & Means provider (Knowledge, power, and authority)Jesus Christ = General ContractorJesus Christ's appointed helpers = Sub-contractorsGod our Father put the blueprints together and created the plan. He then provided the means (Priesthood [Knowledge, power, and authority]) to perform this work.This does not lessen the role that anyone played in creating all things. Everything points back to God our Father.Does this help at all? Does any other LDS agree with my conclusion/example?Careful Markk might come here and assert that the Gods were co-equal when it came to organizing the earth. Lol.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 it's obvious the Genesis author was a monotheistObvious to whom?
Mike Reed Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Sorry, robuchan, but you are way out of your league on this one. Choose your battles, buddy. Choose your battles.
Calm Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Anyone bother to post Abraham 3 and 4 yet? I suppose if one believe that this isn't true revelation, one could theorize that the use of the plural "the Gods" here was a result of Joseph's alleged mistranslation, but if one assumes it's revelation then we have multiple sources attesting to the plurality of Gods (now what this exactly means can still be debated, of course).
John Larsen Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Something I kept repeating in my post was that there are different meanings of the word God. As a spiritual being with the ability to organize matter, Adam was -- in a limited sense -- a god.Yes, but is this something that you just made up? Do you have any references to this theory outside yourself. Not that I have a problem with that, I have just never read your broad definition of the word God anywhere else. I have especially never read anything as liberal in the definition that Sargon provided. His definition renders the word meaningless, yours only less so.
robuchan Posted October 17, 2009 Author Posted October 17, 2009 Obvious to whom?OK I admit I overstated that. But Barney said himself in the article referred to that everyone believes "P" is a monotheist and the only possibility for a polytheism for the word Elohim is that a polytheist believer created the story and passed it down eventually to "P" who fixed all the text except for missing the Gen 1:26 verse.
robuchan Posted October 17, 2009 Author Posted October 17, 2009 Sorry, robuchan, but you are way out of your league on this one. Choose your battles, buddy. Choose your battles.Mike Reed, I'm new here and I'm sure I'm making a huge mistake by not bowing down to you, and you may be a Mopologist demi-god, but I'm not here to fight any battles. And I'm not got going to believe something just because you tell me to. I'm not a Bible scholar, but this stuff is no different than any other area of life. If you're intelligent you'll pick it up and you'll hang just fine. If you're illogical or close-minded it doesn't matter how much schooling you've had in the area, you'll still look stupid. If you don't think I understand the subject, show me where I'm wrong.
Nevo Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Mike Reed, I'm new here and I'm sure I'm making a huge mistake by not bowing down to you, and you may be a Mopologist demi-god...
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Just a tip: You might want to read some of Mike's many posts or possibly even check out his blog before calling him a 'Mopologist demi-god'....
David Bokovoy Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Hello Robuchan,OK I admit I overstated that. But Barney said himself in the article referred to that everyone believes "P" is a monotheist and the only possibility for a polytheism for the word Elohim is that a polytheist believer created the story and passed it down eventually to "P" who fixed all the text except for missing the Gen 1:26 verse.I would like to express appreciation for your sincerity which is evidenced by the fact that you took the recommendation to read Barney's article. Unfortunately, too many people who post questions on internet discussion boards don't bother to actually pursue the secondary readings recommended by LDS apologists. In my estimation, Kevin Barney is an outstanding scholar and the article in question was a great place to begin your quest to understand LDS thought on this matter. Kevin is correct that most biblical scholars believe that Genesis 1 derives from a Priestly author. Older research on the Priestly writings in the Old Testament often argued that the Priestly texts in the Bible feature a strict monotheistic theology, unlike other portions of the OT which are clearly henotheistic. This view, however, is no longer the norm for current scholarship.I myself have done quite a bit of work on the matter. Today, many scholars do not believe that the Priestly writers, including the author of Genesis 1, were monotheists. The topic was most recently addressed by Paul Niskanen in the Journal of Biblical Literature, no. 3, (2009) in an article entitled, "The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of 'dm in the Image of 'elhym." Concerning the current scholarly view regarding the plurality of speech in Genesis 1, Niskanen writes, "the plural of deliberation and the address to the heavenly court are currently the most popular interpretations, but there remains no full consensus" (425).This is the most recent comment in print from the flagship journal for biblical scholarship. And while it is true that there does not presently exist a consensus on the matter, the vast majority of scholars interpret God's speech as comments directed to the gods of the heavenly court. In light of what we know today about the Old Testament, I personally believe that Joseph's views regarding a plurality of deities who exist in a council structure represent one of the greatest pieces of evidence for the Prophet's inspiration.best,--DB
WalkerW Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Someone may have already referenced this (considering I didn't read over all the posts), but the New English Translation Bible Commentary (2005 Biblical Studies) says this on Gen. 1:26: "The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs...In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court." This is just to second what David said.
WalkerW Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 In light of what we know today about the Old Testament, I personally believe that Joseph's views regarding a plurality of deities who exist in a council structure represent one of the greatest pieces of evidence for the Prophet's inspiration.I'm actually doing a series of posts (I've only completed one. I just started.) on my blog for an agnostic friend of mine as to why I believe the LDS Church. These will address the main evidences that I find convincing. They are (thus far):1. Personal Spiritual Experiences2. The Book of Mormon Witnesses (w/ a side note about discoveries of Middle Eastern metal plates)3. The Witnesses of the BoM Translation (w/ side notes on Uto-Aztecan language and Skousen's textual research)4. The Discovery of NHM 5. The 'Divine Council' discoveries including the Ugaritic texts6. The Witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus ChristI completely agree that Joseph Smith's knowledge of ancient Israelite is convincing evidence to his claimed prophetic calling.
Mike Reed Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Mike Reed, I'm new here and I'm sure I'm making a huge mistake by not bowing down to you, and you may be a Mopologist demi-godIt may be up for debate as to whether I am a demi-god or not. But no... I am no mopologist. At least, I am not one any more. I lost my faith in Mormonism a few years ago. But I think I've been around mopologetics long enough, and have done enough research of my own, to know that there are certain areas of debate that Mormons have an sizable advantage (relative to other Christian denominations). This is one of those areas. And to make matters worse for you, you have caught the attention of some scholars in this forum who have done a great deal of research on this topic. So my advice to you is, rather than state absolutes, proclaim what is obvious, or criticize Mormons up front, it may be best for you to simply ask questions. Take it for what its worth. Good luck.
maklelan Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I know I'm jumping in a little late, but the Wikipedia article cited in the OP is just abominable. I discuss its shortcomings a little on my blog if anyone is interested. You can find it here.
WalkerW Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I know I'm jumping in a little late, but the Wikipedia article cited in the OP is just abominable. I discuss its shortcomings a little on my blog if anyone is interested. You can find it here.I'm glad you wrote on it. I can't tell you how many times I've been referenced to Wikipedia when discussing elohim. And I'm much more alert when Strong's Concordance is brought up thanks to you. Much appreciated. Good luck at Oxford, by the way.
Sargon Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I have especially never read anything as liberal in the definition that Sargon provided. His definition renders the word meaningless, yours only less so.It can't be said that my definition is liberal, because I didn't provide just one definition. As I initially said, we have to know what is meant by "god" when we say that more than one god created the Earth. LDS generally believe that more then just the Godhead was involved (especially Adam), and this is we generally read statements in Abraham about the "gods".
erichard Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I know I'm jumping in a little late, but the Wikipedia article cited in the OP is just abominable. I discuss its shortcomings a little on my blog if anyone is interested. You can find it here.Anyone can edit [most] wikipedia articles. Please go in and add your insights! Don't remove theirs, just add that others see things differently, and then give your understanding...R
maklelan Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Anyone can edit [most] wikipedia articles. Please go in and add your insights! Don't remove theirs, just add that others see things differently, and then give your understanding...RThe problem is these hot button issues usually have people trolling round ready to pounce on any changes and delete them. The discussion on the relevant page accuses a couple different people of doing this repeatedly, so whatever I add is just going to be deleted or changed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.