maklelan Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 I, on the other hand, provide the reader with Mr. McClellan's actual words and demonstrate by using documentation and various sources how McClellan's claims are faulty. He has not demonstrated at all how my position is incorrect out of those very same autographs.First: you provided no autographs. You provided modern compilations of texts that vary in absolutely every verse. Second, you did not provide and documentation of faulty claims. You simply provided the Greek and Hebrew and said "See he's wrong," despite the fact that you have no facility in either language and pointed to no specific grammatical or syntactical indicators of my error. Had Mr. McClellan paid more attention to my article he would have noted that I fall upon Hebrews 1 as an infallible proof for my assertion. Which presupposes the univocality of scripture, a fallacy I addressed in my very first post. What one New Testament text says regarding a Hebrew Bible text has little bearing on the interpretation of a Hebrew Bible text from centuries before. You actually have to explain why we should accept that a link is relevant. You did not such thing. It is not an alleged early 20th century idea I am advocating, but the very position of the Apostolic Church clearly seen in Hebrews 1:8-9.Which as I explained in my first post, is irrelevant to discerning the original intent of the author writing over half a millennium before.This has already been covered, obviously.No it hasn't.I don't know any translation that translates Exodus 7:1 as "judge", since it's clear from the context that Moses is a spiritual representative of God,Spritual representative of God? No such reading is clear from the context, however it is absolutely precluded by that context. Moses is made to appear as a deity in that he is to appear more powerful than Pharaoh. Assuming he is a god insofar as he represents God "spiritually" is a horribly fallacious retrojection of modern orthodoxy into a text that has nothing to do with that orthodoxy.But since Mr. McClellan has no desire to take Christ's words as a trustworthy source of interpretationI already explained why, twice. Trying to make me sound like a heretic only shows your argument only works from an orthodox point of view. From an aademic or objective point of view, your case is meaningless.Once one denies the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and still claim to believe in Him, as Mr. McClellan does since he is a good LDS faithful, no amount of substantial evidence will ever convict the hardened heart unless the grace of God break it.Again, you're appealing to dogmatism to win the argument, not facts or logic. I don't care what your orthodoxy thinks. I care what you can show. Don't bother appealing to orthodoxy again. We're not talking about the modern church, we're talking about ancient Jewish scripture.The NET's footnote provides some interesting thoughts for anyone who wishes to say these gods are truly heavenly beings. I don't take this position myself, but as the reader knows I desire to assume this position is correct to show that it in no way justifies the polytheistic Mormon Gods.The NET's footnote is a joke. Elyon is the head of that pantheon to which Yahweh directs his condemnation. If NET intends to assert that Elyon is a Canaanite deity distinct from Yahweh then they have quite a bit of explainind to do. In addition, the Hebrew Bible never once uses the word "El" to refer to the personal name of the Canaanite deity. It is either the God of Israel or a generic term for "god." Your commentary fails horribly to support its theology.Lest the issue be raised that "God" should be translated as "Gods", plural, because of the plural elohim, let's make perfectly clear that the singular is indeed the correct rendering. The word "stands" comes right after "God"; in Hebrew, it is ?????? [naw-tsab']. Not only does it indicate presidency (cf. 1 Kings 22:47, "There was no king in Edom at this time; a governor [??????] ruled.") but it is also a singular verb.No, it does not indicate presidency. As I explained numerous times, to stand in the assembly is to stand as a member and explicitly not as the ruler. I cited scholarship and numerous Bible passages. You ignored both and now make this demonstably false assertion with a horrible translation of a single verse as your only support. This is bush league scholarship and I warned you about responding without familiarizing yourself with the scholarship. Since you have made it clear you have no intention of engaging this debate honestly or respectfully, I see no reason to entertain your dilettantism any further. When you have read the scholarship I cited you get in touch with me, but if you are only interested in ignoring the scholarship in favor or amateur exegesis and appeals to dogmatic evangelical Bible translations then I don't have time to spare. Let me know when you can act like a scholar. If you respond that you've bested me, scared my off, or provided too much evidence for me to handle then I will be sorely disappointed in you. I explained that I expected familiarity with the scholarship and that I was happy to provide it to you if you couldn't get it yourself. You've obviously refused to do so, and for that slap in the face of scholarship, I will participate no further. Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.