Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[Catherine Aurelia]

Not worship, but the iconography is crystal clear. This isn't really a topic that's open for debate. Fertility is without question a main focus of the temple.

And you seem to have a real hard time accepting facts when they conflict with your dogmas.

Could you link us to just one evangelical scholar who believes that the oxen were fertility symbols in the temple?

[Catherine Aurelia]

He's a good Hebraist, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe that David Bokovoy, another very fine Hebraist and a doctoral student in Hebrew Bible in one of the finest Hebrew Bible programs in America, has concurred with him.

I would defer to their reading of the Hebrew.

But I very much doubt that either one of them -- or any other minimally mainstream and sane Latter-day Saint -- believes that Yahweh, rather than Adam, is the father of Cain.

Not in recent decades I'm not. As I show in the article to which I've referred you (and which, I'm guessing, you have not read).

http://mi.byu.edu/pu...d=51&chapid=258

Incidentally, if you can find a real discussion of "ontology" anywhere in the Bible, I hope you'll point it out to me.

I do Greek and Arabic philosophy, in which there's a lot of discussion of ousia or "being," but I've never seen anything of the kind in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. What, I ask, has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

My good friend the late David Noel Freedman abominated the word obvious, and virtually always struck it from works that he edited -- and he edited lots of them -- because, as he once told me while editing something of mine, obvious and obviously are very often used, as you've just used the word, by people who seek to disguise the weakness of their case via bluster.

It's one of the keys. No doubt. But knowing the relevant languages and having a good dictionary are also relevant. As is letting the text speak for itself, without seeking to impose one's own foreign concepts upon it.

That's why very few scholars today hold to the position on the term elohim that you pretend is so obvious and, it seems, even commonly recognized except by disingenuous Mormon apologists such as myself.

Well, thank you for your view. I'll take it as meaning you believe the text indicates Yahweh fathered Cain. You cite one other individual who concurs with mak, and now you.

As far as the nature of God - surely you know God is Spirit, and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Ps. 82 indicates that the elohim referred to will "die like men." Since you insist that elohim must only be a reference to gods, do you deny also the possibility that elohim, in this case, is used in a metaphorical manner? John 10 has Jesus referring to humans as gods - thus we can see the Jews used this in a metaphorical sense as well as a literal sense.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, thank you for your view. I'll take it as meaning you believe the text indicates Yahweh fathered Cain. You cite one other individual who concurs with mak, and now you.

I've never really thought about the issue, but I know that Mak and David are excellent Hebraists, so I see no reason to contradict them.

Do you know Hebrew? If you disagree with Mak and David's reading of the Hebrew, can you supply any actual Hebrew/linguistic reasons to support your disagreement?

We can interpret texts as we like, but we're not free to simply change them. The Hebrew says what it says, whether the reader is a Christian or an evangelical.

As far as the nature of God - surely you know God is Spirit, and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

I'm aware of that verse, and I believe it. I don't know whether you interpret it correctly, though. I rather doubt it.

Ps. 82 indicates that the elohim referred to will "die like men." Since you insist that elohim must only be a reference to gods, do you deny also the possibility that elohim, in this case, is used in a metaphorical manner? John 10 has Jesus referring to humans as gods - thus we can see the Jews used this in a metaphorical sense as well as a literal sense.

I've written an article on this topic. (Perhaps I've mentioned it before?) If you want to know my position, and how I got there, you can read my article, which I believe I've mentioned here previously:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=258

The link I just provided will take you to an article that I've written on this subject, and which I believe I've mentioned previously on this thread. If you're interested in knowing my position, and the evidence and reasoning with which I support it, feel free to read my article. I think I've mentioned it here, previously.

[Zakuska]

Could you link us to just one evangelical scholar who believes that the oxen were fertility symbols in the temple?

You do realize what the "lily" symbolized in the ancient near east and early Christianity?

It was also a popular flower in ancient Jewish civilization. It is mentioned in the old testament as well as the new. With the advance of Christianity, the lily became the symbol of chastity and virtue. The lily became closely associated with the Virgin Mary, one of the many instances where an attribute of a pagan deity (Aphrodite, Hera, the Triple Hecate) was adopted by Christ's Mother. Through its association with the Virgin it also became the symbol of virgin martyrs and numerous saints. In both the Christian and pagan popular tradition, the significance of the lily as a fertility symbol coincides. St. Anthony of Padua, the protector of marriage is also the patron of procreation. In Greek marriage ceremonies the priest places over the brides head a crown of lilies garnished with ears of wheat ,as a symbol of purity and abundance.

http://www.sfheart.com/lily.html

1 Kings 7

25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.

26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

These Fertility symbols were on the basin which was supported on the "hind portions" of the twelve oxens. The fetrility symbology is right there in plane sight for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

[Catherine Aurelia]

I've never really thought about the issue, but I know that Mak and David are excellent Hebraists, so I see no reason to contradict them.

Do you know Hebrew? If you disagree with Mak and David's reading of the Hebrew, can you supply any actual Hebrew/linguistic reasons to support your disagreement?

Of course I don't know Hebrew. However, I have a Jewish friend who is an excellent Hebraist as well - Yeshiva, Orthodox, the whole thing - he was abashed when I told him what was being stated about that passage. As you know, Jewish scholars learn to read the ancient texts, which have been carefully preserved according to the Jewish tradition. It is not a case where the only Hebrew he knows is modern Hebrew. Jewish authorities in Hebrew live and breath the language. However, if you wish, I could ask a Doctor in the field, because mak, in any case, does not have his doctorate, and I believe that this issue needs an appeal to a higher authority than someone who has yet to finish his masters, don't you?

We can interpret texts as we like, but we're not free to simply change them. The Hebrew says what it says, whether the reader is a Christian or an evangelical.

Yes, I agree. However, we can see that elohim is used in a variety of ways, at least according to the best scholarship. You can use a simple concordance to see that. McKeever points it out, and other than saying McKeever is all wrong, I have not seen him refuted here or elsewhere.

I'm aware of that verse, and I believe it. I don't know whether you interpret it correctly, though. I rather doubt it.

However, Dr. Peterson, thousands of other scholars clearly agree with me, since this has been the translation through the ages. Could you tell us why the verse which states the elohim will die like men is incorrectly translated?

I've written an article on this topic. (Perhaps I've mentioned it before?) If you want to know my position, and how I got there, you can read my article, which I believe I've mentioned here previously:

http://mi.byu.edu/pu...d=51&chapid=258

Thank you for the link.

The link I just provided will take you to an article that I've written on this subject, and which I believe I've mentioned previously on this thread. If you're interested in knowing my position, and the evidence and reasoning with which I support it, feel free to read my article. I think I've mentioned it here, previously.

Again, thank you.

[Flyonthewall]

We can interpret texts as we like, but we're not free to simply change them. The Hebrew says what it says, whether the reader is a Christian or an evangelical.

That's good...

[maklelan]

No, he was carefully questioned by several on the board.

And I made my position crystal clear. You (and everyone else) ignored what I said.

He said that he believed the translation indicates that Cain's father is Yahweh, not Adam. It is possible that he did not personally believe this, but if so, he did not articulate that.

No, I quite clearly articulated that.

By the way, I'd like to respond to these accusation from RCM:

When one of you reminded maklelan that he said he was leaving carm, but now he was back again..........and his response was that someone had requested that he stay. That someone is most likely Daniel Peterson.

Actually it was someone from CARM. I was asked to stay because they thought I always stimulated lively debate and there weren't enough LDS around to keep things interesting.

When someone is doing research for a doctoral dissertation and they have some ideas they want to write about especially in the area of theology, they need someone to discuss ideas with in order to see if their arguments will stand up against theological criticism.

My research has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of theology, and there is no such thing as "theological criticism" in academia. This is something that only exists within faith traditions. Academia doesn't care one iota about whether something is theologically true. In addition, I am a text and historical critic.

maklelan was doing that just now with the subject Athanasius and others of you have confronted him on.........the Mormon doctrine of 'Adam - God' in conjunction with the Mormon doctrine of 'pre-existence' in conjunction with 'Sons of Adam' in Deuteronomy 32:8 in conjunction with 'ye are gods' in Psalm 82:6, are all part of a theological argument maklelan is trying to weave together with mesopotamian evidence in order to support Mormon doctrine as ancient beliefs originally held by the Jewish people.

This couldn't be further from the truth. I have no interest whatsoever in Adam-God or pre-existence. "Sons of Adam" is the wrong cola in Deuteronomy 32:8, and my argument isn't theological in any sense of the word. Lastly, I'm primarily using Syro-Palestinian texts to establish the religio- and socio-political context of the composition of these texts. Mesopotamian texts are further removed from the Bible, for the most part.

I confronted maklelan in regards to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 some time back on the Judaism forum and maklelan violated all the rules of Hebrew poetry in regards to the 'Song of Moses' in order to support his argument, the ends justify the means so to speak

No such thing ever happened. RCM simply asserted that I was wrong and that I was "violating all the rules of Hebrew poetry." Not only did I explain exactly why that was untrue, but I invited RCM to show he understood the most basic Hebrew prose. He refused to participate.

It was then that I realized maklelan had an agenda he was wanting to push and he defends it as radically as Brigham Young defended his statements.

If maklelan's doctrinal dissertation is to have any real significance for the LDS - Mormon Church, it has to stand up against Biblical criticism, that is why he discusses the subjects he does, and that is why he is here.

If RCM thinks that CARM provides a legitimate test of my scholarship then RCM is out of his freaking mind. CARM is for fun when I'm bored. It's an academic joke (and will forever remain so as long as Strong's is treated as anything other than a convenient block to prop up my daughter's crib when her acid reflux gets bad). I receive actual feedback for my scholarship from the best scholars on the planet in the fields in which I work. The only person who knew Hebrew better than a freshman on his first day of class supported my positions and left a long time ago. You're left with people like Biblos, who thinks the word ????? in ???? ????? is an adjective meaning "mighty" in the phrase "mighty thunder." "Nu-uh!" isn't really legitimate feedback anyway.

I see the same thing in maklelan; he sees the need for the LDS Church to establish its credibility in ancient Israel, as the LDS Church has not been able to establish credibility in the historical Book of Mormon accounts in the Americas.

And I can guarantee you maklelan is being given insight on the process and opportunities he needs to take advantage of, by Daniel Peterson and others LDS scholars, in order that his doctoral achievements maximize the benefits for the LDS Church and alsor for maklelan's career.

Flat wrong and utterly idiotic. I have been in contact with exactly zero LDS/BYU/Church affiliated professors in the course of my research. I have been in contact, however, with dozens of agnostic, Jewish, and Christian scholars at Oxford and elsewhere about my research. I am supported by them all. I haven't seen or spoken with Dr. Peterson since before I graduated from BYU, and my master's and doctoral dissertations are being written because I find the subject matter fascinating. As I explained several times on the other board, my dissertation has nothing to do with Mormonism. In fact, many of the things I discuss (such as Gen 4:1 and Yahweh's conception of Cain, Yahweh as an Israelite analog to the storm god Baal, Yahweh as a national deity until the exile, the Chaoskampf, Satan as a Second Temple Period innovation, etc) are not at all related to any Mormon doctrine.

[maklelan]

Could you link us to just one evangelical scholar who believes that the oxen were fertility symbols in the temple?

Evangelical? You have a lot to learn about what makes scholarship legitimate. I'll give you a Catholic and an Evangelical off the top of my head: Othmar Keel and Richard Hess.

[dblagent007]

Very interesting topic, especially since I have been trying to determine which translation of the bible best represents the earliest text rather than the translators' biases. I checked the NRSV, NASB, and New Jerusalem Bible and none of them translated Genesis 4:1 this way. Is there a Bible translation that is rigidly faithful to the earliest text? If there is, I sure would like to find it.

[maklelan]

Very interesting topic, especially since I have been trying to determine which translation of the bible best represents the earliest text rather than the translators' biases. I checked the NRSV, NASB, and New Jerusalem Bible and none of them translated Genesis 4:1 this way. Is there a Bible translation that is rigidly faithful to the earliest text? If there is, I sure would like to find it.

NRSV comes the closest, and it often explains translations choices in footnotes, but all Bible translations are going to err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this, especially if the committee is tied to a specific faith tradition. The upcoming Biblia Hebraica Quinta will have commentary on important textual considerations, but that's not a translation.

[bluebell]

No, he was carefully questioned by several on the board. He said that he believed the translation indicates that Cain's father is Yahweh, not Adam.

Um, that's what i said-

"It doesn't appear that mak believes it either-only that that's more or less the literal translation of Gen. 4."

You do see the difference between acknowledging that a text says something, and whether or not you agree with what it is saying, right? I'm not trying to be snarky, it just seems you are having extreme difficulties with the difference and it's odd.

It is possible that he did not personally believe this, but if so, he did not articulate that.

Why didn't you ask him instead of merely assuming such and then repeating his alledged beliefs to a third party?

It seems like that question would have been one of the first one's asked.

[maklelan]

Um, that's what i said-

"It doesn't appear that mak believes it either-only that that's more or less the literal translation of Gen. 4."

You do see the difference between acknowledging that a text says something, and whether or not you agree with what it is saying, right? I'm not trying to be snarky, it just seems you are having extreme difficulties with the difference and it's odd.

This is kinda the m.o. over there. Ignore anything that undermines your rhetoric, even if it means repeatedly demanding exactly what it is you're ignoring. I explained myself quite clearly several times over there and was ignored absolutely every time, only to have the same accusations raised again and again.

[Garden Girl]

This has been an interesting thread...

Every now and then I'll tune in to one evangelical pastor... Pastor Arnold Murray of TV's Shepherd's Chapel program... for his question/answer portion just to see what he has to say. He teaches that Cain was sired by Lucifer as he tempted Eve. He cites as his proof Genesis 5, which lists the generations of Adam, which do not include Cain but start with Seth (Abel being dead). Thus, Cain was not part of Adam's line, but a result of Eve submitting to Lucifer in the garden.

I believe Pastor Murray sees himself as a scholar and regularly refers to the Hebrew, etc., regarding scriptural passages. I have no idea if his view is shared by other evangelicals.

GG

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course I don't know Hebrew.

That has been obvious.

However, I have a Jewish friend who is an excellent Hebraist as well - Yeshiva, Orthodox, the whole thing - he was abashed when I told him what was being stated about that passage. As you know, Jewish scholars learn to read the ancient texts, which have been carefully preserved according to the Jewish tradition. It is not a case where the only Hebrew he knows is modern Hebrew. Jewish authorities in Hebrew live and breath the language.

That's all very nice.

The fact remains, however, that the overwhelming consensus of the serious scholarship on this topic no longer agrees with your position, and hasn't done so for decades. The fact that you know an Orthodox Jew who feels otherwise is of no particular significance.

However, if you wish, I could ask a Doctor in the field, because mak, in any case, does not have his doctorate, and I believe that this issue needs an appeal to a higher authority than someone who has yet to finish his masters, don't you?

Don't bother. I've already consulted plenty of experts. I cite many of them in the article to which I've provided a link:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=258

However, we can see that elohim is used in a variety of ways, at least according to the best scholarship.

You're wrong. The "best scholarship" of the past several decades is overwhelmingly arrayed against you on this issue. I demonstrate this in the article to which I've directed you:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=258

You can use a simple concordance to see that.

I suspect that you regard "a simple concordance" -- probably Strong's -- as "the best scholarship." Am I right?

If so, you're wrong.

McKeever points it out, and other than saying McKeever is all wrong, I have not seen him refuted here or elsewhere.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=258

Is Bill McKeever a Hebraist, by the way?

However, Dr. Peterson, thousands of other scholars clearly agree with me, since this has been the translation through the ages.

It has virtually disappeared, though, during the last several decades of serious scholarship. I illustrate this in the article to which I supplied a link:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=258

Why has it disappeared? Because it's untenable.

Could you tell us why the verse which states the elohim will die like men is incorrectly translated?

No.

Can you tell us why you imagine that I think that the verse is incorrectly translated? Because, well . . . I don't.

Incidentally, I don't know whether this has been mentioned yet, but Dr. Michael Heiser, a good guy and an excellent scholar who, so far as I'm aware, continues to consider himself an evangelical -- and even, briefly, came here to post on this board -- has some very good, relevant things to say at his web site on the divine council, which is accessible through the following:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

[Catherine Aurelia]

Evangelical? You have a lot to learn about what makes scholarship legitimate. I'll give you a Catholic and an Evangelical off the top of my head: Othmar Keel and Richard Hess.

Or, if you prefer, an Anglican scholar. They are the best scholars you know, besides the Jesuits. A Jesuit if possible would be the very best.

[dblagent007]

NRSV comes the closest, and it often explains translations choices in footnotes, but all Bible translations are going to err on the side of caution when it comes to things like this, especially if the committee is tied to a specific faith tradition. The upcoming Biblia Hebraica Quinta will have commentary on important textual considerations, but that's not a translation.

I found the following NASB version, which seems to accord with what you are saying:

"Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with {the help of} the LORD."

It at least puts "the help of" in brackets to show that this was added (I assume that is what the brackets mean).

[Catherine Aurelia]

And I made my position crystal clear. You (and everyone else) ignored what I said.

No, I quite clearly articulated that.

Apparently everybody, including myself, missed your articulation. Would you care to do so again? I take it you believe that the Bible teaches that Yahweh had sexual relations with Eve, but that you personally don't believe this. Is that about it?

By the way, I'd like to respond to these accusation from RCM:

I'll refer him to this site, or pass along the information. I really don't know him at all.

Actually it was someone from CARM. I was asked to stay because they thought I always stimulated lively debate and there weren't enough LDS around to keep things interesting.

Well, I would like you to be back on the board, frankly. How come they suspended you?

My research has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of theology, and there is no such thing as "theological criticism" in academia. This is something that only exists within faith traditions. Academia doesn't care one iota about whether something is theologically true. In addition, I am a text and historical critic.

Of course, Christians do care, and when you come with something so at odds with all Christian doctrines and tradition, you have to expect some reaction. It would be better for you, mak, if you didn't act so hostile toward people, and condescending. This is why people react as they do to you. I know things on CARM can get rough, and I've been banned and suspended a few times myself when interacting with the Bahai'ists and Wiccans - I pretty well ignore them now. In my professional life, I had to interact with people of all levels of society (I was a caseworker), and I found that the best way to get people to respond to you was to let them know that you didn't consider yourself above them, but respected their personhood. This is why I always got long with my clients. (Just a little suggestion).

This couldn't be further from the truth. I have no interest whatsoever in Adam-God or pre-existence. "Sons of Adam" is the wrong cola in Deuteronomy 32:8, and my argument isn't theological in any sense of the word. Lastly, I'm primarily using Syro-Palestinian texts to establish the religio- and socio-political context of the composition of these texts. Mesopotamian texts are further removed from the Bible, for the most part.

No such thing ever happened. RCM simply asserted that I was wrong and that I was "violating all the rules of Hebrew poetry." Not only did I explain exactly why that was untrue, but I invited RCM to show he understood the most basic Hebrew prose. He refused to participate.

If RCM thinks that CARM provides a legitimate test of my scholarship then RCM is out of his freaking mind. CARM is for fun when I'm bored. It's an academic joke (and will forever remain so as long as Strong's is treated as anything other than a convenient block to prop up my daughter's crib when her acid reflux gets bad). I receive actual feedback for my scholarship from the best scholars on the planet in the fields in which I work. The only person who knew Hebrew better than a freshman on his first day of class supported my positions and left a long time ago. You're left with people like Biblos, who thinks the word ????? in ???? ????? is an adjective meaning "mighty" in the phrase "mighty thunder." "Nu-uh!" isn't really legitimate feedback anyway.

Flat wrong and utterly idiotic. I have been in contact with exactly zero LDS/BYU/Church affiliated professors in the course of my research. I have been in contact, however, with dozens of agnostic, Jewish, and Christian scholars at Oxford and elsewhere about my research. I am supported by them all. I haven't seen or spoken with Dr. Peterson since before I graduated from BYU, and my master's and doctoral dissertations are being written because I find the subject matter fascinating. As I explained several times on the other board, my dissertation has nothing to do with Mormonism. In fact, many of the things I discuss (such as Gen 4:1 and Yahweh's conception of Cain, Yahweh as an Israelite analog to the storm god Baal, Yahweh as a national deity until the exile, the Chaoskampf, Satan as a Second Temple Period innovation, etc) are not at all related to any Mormon doctrine.

I'll be sure to let him know what you say. On a personal level, mak, do you have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ?

[ERMD]

Here we go...

[dblagent007]

Catherine Aurelia:

Of course, Christians do care, and when you come with something so at odds with all Christian doctrines and tradition, you have to expect some reaction. It would be better for you, mak, if you didn't act so hostile toward people, and condescending.

Oh please. I went to CARM a few times and it, by far, has the highest number of hostile condescending posters I have ever encountered. I tried to discuss religion, but every time I posted a link to a website that explained their misconceptions, the link was removed because it violated the rule against linking to cult websites or some such nonsense.

Mak, just for participating over there, you deserve to be saved in the kingdom of God forever, which I am sure you will since you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior long ago (as have the vast majority of Mormons - I know I have).

[Catherine Aurelia]

This has been an interesting thread...

Every now and then I'll tune in to one evangelical pastor... Pastor Arnold Murray of TV's Shepherd's Chapel program... for his question/answer portion just to see what he has to say. He teaches that Cain was sired by Lucifer as he tempted Eve. He cites as his proof Genesis 5, which lists the generations of Adam, which do not include Cain but start with Seth (Abel being dead). Thus, Cain was not part of Adam's line, but a result of Eve submitting to Lucifer in the garden.

I believe Pastor Murray sees himself as a scholar and regularly refers to the Hebrew, etc., regarding scriptural passages. I have no idea if his view is shared by other evangelicals.

GG

I think you would be wise to read this: http://www.watchman.org/profile/murraypro.htm

Arnold Murray is NOT an evangelical, and we consider him to be heretical in some of his teachings.

[Chaos]

On a personal level, mak, do you have a relationship with God Jesus Christ?

Do not witness, evangelize or proselyte on this board. I suggest you clean up your attitude quickly.

[Thorkyll]

Mak, just for participating over there, you deserve to be saved in the kingdom of God forever, which I am sure you will since you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior long ago (as have the vast majority of Mormons - I know I have).

He might have embraced Jesus as his "personal savior", but at the end of the day Jesus is just

another "nuh-uh" ignoramus as far as Mak is concerned. Not only does Mak claim that the likes

of the Talmudic sages, Maimonides, Rashi, Isaak of Troki, and Jewish scholarship of the last two

thousand years were "incompetent" at understanding Hebrew (and that he knows Hebrew better

than any of them); Mak has stated several times that he -- by virtue of an undergraduate degree

from BYU* -- knows Hebrew better than Jesus of Nazareth himself. Apparently, Jesus was mistaken

in his understanding of the word elohim in Psalm 82. Only by virtue of recent readings of pagan

non-biblical fairytales can the true meaning of elohim be understood. Sorry Jesus, next time you

decide to give one of your unscholarly "nuh-uh" sermons, you better step aside and let Mak do

the talking to save yourself any embarrassment.

* And don't try the "Oxford" high and mighty infallibility shtick with me; He's only been at Oxford for

5 weeks now, and he's been claiming all this garbage for a lot longer than that!

Kind Regards,

Thorkyll

This is inappropriate and uncalled for. You are banned from the thread and if you aren't capable of talking about the subject instead of the poster find yourself another board.

[Daniel Peterson]

Kind Regards,

Thorkyll

I assume the "kind regards" comment was meant ironically (even if perhaps unconsciously so).

The fact is that there's a lot of scholarship out there, and that Mak is in line with it while his detractors here and at that abysmal other place simply aren't -- a fact that no amount of crowing or witnessing or name-calling is going to change.

[dblagent007]

He might have embraced Jesus as his "personal savior", but at the end of the day Jesus is just

another "nuh-uh" ignoramus as far as Mak is concerned.

I don't seem to recall Mak referring to Jesus as an ignoramus. Calvinists on the other hand . . . (can't say I disagree with him on that score).

Not only does Mak claim that the likes of the Talmudic sages, Maimonides, Rashi, Isaak of Troki, and Jewish scholarship of the last two thousand years were "incompetent" at understanding Hebrew (and that he knows Hebrew better than any of them); Mak has stated several times that he -- by virtue of an undergraduate degree from BYU* -- knows Hebrew better than Jesus of Nazareth himself.

Well, you would be surprised what an undergraduate degree at BYU can do for you. We usually try to keep this secret, but it is true, an undergraduate degree from BYU pretty much makes you smarter than Jesus. I have a graduate degree from BYU so I, of course, consider people like Einstein, Newton, and so forth as pretty much bush-league.

Apparently, Jesus was mistaken in his understanding of the word elohim in Psalm 82. Only by virtue of recent readings of pagan non-biblical fairytales can the true meaning of elohim be understood. Sorry Jesus, next time you decide to give one of your unscholarly "nuh-uh" sermons, you better step aside and let Mak do the talking to save yourself any embarrassment.

I doubt Jesus was mistaken, but I have a hunch that the interminable layers of dogma applied to his words over the centuries probably are mistaken in many respects.

But, really, what difference does this make? Most Mormons I know have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior so in the rapture we will be right there with you, even if your little brand of dogma happens to be right.

[Ron Beron]

This is a reason Israelite temples were replete with fertility imagery. The oxen under the brazen sea aren't oxen for nothing.

Ah yes...the bull imagery. It does keep coming up, doesn't it? Even in India one manifestation of Vishnu is the bull. I forget about the brazen sea.