Are The Gods Of The Hebrew Bible Real?

[volgadon]

You are focusing on the definition of an obscure word,

Ketsef is hardly an obscure word. It occurs enough times in a certain context for us to understand what it means. If it is such an obscure word then we must decide that the other instances in the Bible are not refering to YHWH's wrath, but to something completely unknown. Now that is silly.

[Mike Richards]

I'll take a stab at this. ....

Thanks for the response, jo. I suppose I should have been more explicit in what I was asking. I'm familiar with the plan as you've laid it out. I am wondering if there is anything that we know that would preclude the following from being true:

1. Other (besides Jehovah) pre-mortal spirits attained "godhood" prior to experiencing their second estate. (I understand that defining "godhood" is problematic, but let's just use a generic idea of a being who can cause super-natural occurrences)

2. Elohim assigned these gods to be stewards of various nations

3. These gods failed to righteously fulfill their stewardships and were punished by losing some special privileged that avoided "dieing like men"

I guess I'm suggesting that our knowledge about pre-mortal existence is sufficiently limited to allow a great deal of flexibility in guessing how things might have happened. As you pointed out, for example, we understand that there was some sort of hierarchy--but we don't know much about it. The scriptures seem to indicate that there have been more than one divine council--some of which clearly happened after the earth was populated. If so, and if I understand the purpose of the council correctly, then it seems to me that some of the participants are very much gods and they do interact with people.

So, with this understanding, I personally wouldn't have any problem with the gods of the Hebrew bible being real gods, unless someone can show me how something I've suggested is not possible.

[zerinus]

In other words, don't pay attention to the words in the one verse I'm interested in, just pay attention to the other words and try to get a gist for what the rest of the chapter is saying? Is that really how you think it's best to exegete a single verse of scripture?

No, this is not true. Elisha did not promise that they would be mostly victorious, he promised that the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands. This means the Israelites would exercise unmitigated dominion over the Moabites. That what that phrase always means. You're trying hard to make the prophecy fit, but it simply does not. The Moabite king remained safe within his city and the Israelite forces were run off. That's not having the Moabites delivered into their hands, no matter how many different ways you try to parse the campaign.

Of course it is.

The rest of the chapter has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what this clause says.

No, the prophecy of Elisha was not fulfilled. The Moabites were not delivered into the hands of the Israelites. This last verse unequivocally shows that the prophecy was not fulfilled. You are so flagrantly begging the question that I am finding it difficult to believe you're being serious.

There's no complete victory when your army is run off at the walls of the city you're trying to conquer. It's really as simple as that.

The prophecy was that the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands. 2 Kgs 3:24-26 says they were going along winning their battles, but then v. 27 says they were run off without taking the main city where the Moabite king was stationed. I simply refuse to believe that you honestly think that that verse is inconsequential, and that the previous verses show the complete fulfillment of the prophecy.

So far no one has provided a remotely rational argument against my reading, and the notion that the verse where the Israelite forces are run off while besieging a city is an afterthought that does not bear on the question of whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled which promised the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands is nowhere near sufficient.

There's no use reasoning with this kind of fundamentalism, and I'm not going to waste my time.

To me it is obvious that you are forcing an interpretation on these scriptures that the context does not permit. It is clear that Elisha predicted a victory for the Israelites against Moab that was completely realized. Your disproportionate focus on 2 Kings 3:27, and disregard of the context of the rest of the chapter, give you a distorted picture of the events. Your reading of that verse that “God” (especially the Moabite god) had “indignation” against Israel is not warranted by the context. God is the only being that can have “indignation”. Man can as well. In that context, it is a more reasonable to read that it were the Moabites that had “indignation” against Israel. As for the circumstances of Israel turning away from Moab, the verse is simply to obscure to explain. The most logical reading is that the Israelites felt that they had accomplished their purpose, won their victory, therefore there was no need to continue the fight. The army was defeated in battle, and Elisha’s prophecy had been fulfilled to the letter. End of the story. “Deliver into thy hand” is a common expression used in the Bible meaning to gain victory in battle; and it is perfectly clear that the Israelites had obtained that victory, and the Moabites had been the losers, as Elisha had predicted. Your argument is flawed. You are fighting a lost cause. One should be willing to admit defeat in an argument, and not discredit oneself more by continuing to fight a losing battle.

[maklelan]

To me it is obvious that you are forcing an interpretation on these scriptures that the context does not permit.

If you can't show that to be the case, though, it doesn't really matter how obvious it is to you. I have explained the context quite clearly and I have explained why your reading does not fit the context or the meaning of the relevant words. So far all you have provided in the way of evidence is the assertion that the Holy Ghost told you so.

It is clear that Elisha predicted a victory for the Israelites against Moab that was completely realized.

When your army is run off from a city you're trying to conquer so that you can renew a state of vassalage that a nation abandoned after the death of the previous king, you have not effected a military victory. As I said before, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you destroyed all the other cities and put holes in the wall of the city the king is in if you do not renew the vassalage, the king is not captured, and your army is run off. I don't know how to make this any clearer, nor do I know how to respond to what amounts to little more than "Nu-uh!"

Your disproportionate focus on 2 Kings 3:27, and disregard of the context of the rest of the chapter, give you a distorted picture of the events.

You cannot disregard the concluding verse of the entire pericope, especially when it contains the outcome of the entire military campaign (which was failure).

Your reading of that verse that “God” (especially the Moabite god) had “indignation” against Israel is not warranted by the context. God is the only being that can have “indignation”

This is nowhere to be found in the Bible. This is a dogma that you are imposing on the text. This is eisegesis that you're performing; that is, rather than getting the meaning out of the text (exegesis), you're putting a meaning into the text.

Man can as well. In that context, it is a more reasonable to read that it were the Moabites that had “indignation” against Israel.

The word is never used to mean that. You cannot argue that this bizarre contextualization upon which you insist actually gives that word a meaning it never had.

As for the circumstances of Israel turning away from Moab, the verse is simply to obscure to explain.

No it's not. It's crystal clear. Mesha sacrificed his son. Divine wrath overcame the Israelites. They turned around and took off.

The most logical reading is that the Israelites felt that they had accomplished their purpose, won their victory, therefore there was no need to continue the fight. The army was defeated in battle, and Elisha’s prophecy had been fulfilled to the letter. End of the story. “Deliver into thy hand” is a common expression used in the Bible meaning to gain victory in battle;

You do not have victory in battle if the catcher knocks you out two feet in front of home plate. They simply failed to renew Mesha's vassalage and were run off from the city in which he was stationed. That is not victory in battle in any corner of the universe, and no amount of "Nu-uh"s can change that.

and it is perfectly clear that the Israelites had obtained that victory, and the Moabites had been the losers, as Elisha had predicted. Your argument is flawed. You are fighting a lost cause. One should be willing to admit defeat in an argument, and not discredit oneself more by continuing to fight a losing battle.

You have yet to directly respond to a single one of my concerns. All you've done is insist over and over again that I am wrong and that you are right. I am honestly and sincerely shocked and appalled at the level of your discourse.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Spirit testifies to me that the Bible as a whole is true, and there is very little in it that might be false or incorrect. I don’t claim to have the kind of revelation that Joseph Smith had, which enabled him to correct some of the errors and supply many missing parts; but I don’t need to be able to do that in order to know that the Bible as a whole is true; and if there are any scribal errors in it, it is not such that it would prevent me from extracting correct doctrine from it with the help of the Spirit of the Lord.

The Bible provides its own context and history, which aids its correct interpretation. You don’t need to go much further afield for that purpose. Modern revelation also supplies many vital clues and missing parts. That is all that the gospel scholar needs to extract correct theology and the saving doctrines of the gospel which God has seen fit to reveal in our time.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with reading the Bible and Book of Mormon (and perhaps some other modern scripture) for inspiration and in order to discover the proper way to personal salvation. One doesn't have to be a Bible scholar for that -- particularly if one is informed by the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, of course, one is likely to find oneself in endless disputes over fundamental points of doctrine -- which in turn leads to the continuing schism and ever expanding denominationalism which plagues normative christianity.

However, debate over the minutiae of the Bible does entail a reasonable degree of familiarity with the historical, theological, and linguistic context. Joseph Smith himself believed that "our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 290-291). He and the Brethren spent time taking instruction in Hebrew from a Jewish teacher precisely for this very reason.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[zerinus]

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with reading the Bible and Book of Mormon (and perhaps some other modern scripture) for inspiration and in order to discover the proper way to personal salvation. One doesn't have to be a Bible scholar for that -- particularly if one is informed by the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, of course, one is likely to find oneself in endless disputes over fundamental points of doctrine -- which in turn leads to the continuing schism and ever expanding denominationalism which plagues normative christianity.

However, debate over the minutiae of the Bible does entail a reasonable degree of familiarity with the historical, theological, and linguistic context. Joseph Smith himself believed that "our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 290-291). He and the Brethren spent time taking instruction in Hebrew from a Jewish teacher precisely for this very reason.

Okay, and how does that grand declaration fit in with the discussion I have been having with maklelan?

[zerinus]

If you can't show that to be the case, though, it doesn't really matter how obvious it is to you. I have explained the context quite clearly and I have explained why your reading does not fit the context or the meaning of the relevant words. So far all you have provided in the way of evidence is the assertion that the Holy Ghost told you so.

When your army is run off from a city you're trying to conquer so that you can renew a state of vassalage that a nation abandoned after the death of the previous king, you have not effected a military victory. As I said before, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you destroyed all the other cities and put holes in the wall of the city the king is in if you do not renew the vassalage, the king is not captured, and your army is run off. I don't know how to make this any clearer, nor do I know how to respond to what amounts to little more than "Nu-uh!"

You cannot disregard the concluding verse of the entire pericope, especially when it contains the outcome of the entire military campaign (which was failure).

This is nowhere to be found in the Bible. This is a dogma that you are imposing on the text. This is eisegesis that you're performing; that is, rather than getting the meaning out of the text (exegesis), you're putting a meaning into the text.

The word is never used to mean that. You cannot argue that this bizarre contextualization upon which you insist actually gives that word a meaning it never had.

No it's not. It's crystal clear. Mesha sacrificed his son. Divine wrath overcame the Israelites. They turned around and took off.

You do not have victory in battle if the catcher knocks you out two feet in front of home plate. They simply failed to renew Mesha's vassalage and were run off from the city in which he was stationed. That is not victory in battle in any corner of the universe, and no amount of "Nu-uh"s can change that.

You have yet to directly respond to a single one of my concerns. All you've done is insist over and over again that I am wrong and that you are right. I am honestly and sincerely shocked and appalled at the level of your discourse.

In post #65 you had asked the following question:

So can you respond to the problem with 2 Kgs 3:27, where the Moabite god is shown to overpower the Israelite forces who were promised military victory by Yahweh?

The answer is that 2 Kings 3:27 does not suggest that anything like that happened.

[maklelan]

In post #65 you had asked the following question:

The answer is that 2 Kings 3:27 does not suggest that anything like that happened.

Again you're ignoring the enormous problems with your argument to say nothing more than "Nu-uh!" if you really have nothing more to say in the way of a response to my concerns with your argument then you've quite decisively lost this debate.

[jo1952]

Again you're ignoring the enormous problems with your argument to say nothing more than "Nu-uh!" if you really have nothing more to say in the way of a response to my concerns with your argument then you've quite decisively lost this debate.

Wow - I didn't know that the purpose of exchanging our ideas and beliefs was supposed to be considered some kind of a contest; or to be judged by you according to your personal satisfaction.

Regards,

jo

[maklelan]

Wow - I didn't know that the purpose of exchanging our ideas and beliefs was supposed to be considered some kind of a contest; or to be judged by you according to your personal satisfaction.

Regards,

jo

Obviously one of the things that goes on on this board is debate. Regarding this exchanged being judged according to my personal satisfaction, I would challenge anyone who is reading to actually respond to my concerns with zerinus' argument about military victory in 2 Kgs 3:27. I think everyone here will find that there's simply no way to logically defend his argument. That should satisfy any and all concerns with my judgment of the outcome of this debate.

[volgadon]

Obviously one of the things that goes on on this board is debate. Regarding this exchanged being judged according to my personal satisfaction, I would challenge anyone who is reading to actually respond to my concerns with zerinus' argument about military victory in 2 Kgs 3:27. I think everyone here will find that there's simply no way to logically defend his argument. That should satisfy any and all concerns with my judgment of the outcome of this debate.

There isn't. The main objective wasn't achieved, and once they beat the retreat the enemy could unstop wells to their hearts delight.

[jo1952]

Thanks for the response, jo. I suppose I should have been more explicit in what I was asking. I'm familiar with the plan as you've laid it out. I am wondering if there is anything that we know that would preclude the following from being true:

1. Other (besides Jehovah) pre-mortal spirits attained "godhood" prior to experiencing their second estate. (I understand that defining "godhood" is problematic, but let's just use a generic idea of a being who can cause super-natural occurrences)

Hi mjr522:

Okay. Well, this is even better. So I'll continue stabbing, as it were....

I would say that the Holy Ghost attained godhood before experiencing His second estate. In fact, I'm not sure when He will, or what that will look like.

I would also say that the angels have achieved some type of godhood. Since I believe that all of us may actually be the angels, this opens the doors to all types of possibilities. Take for instance, the arch-angels. With the heirarchy within the realm of angels, there seems to be corresponding powers of super-natural abilities. In fact, I would consider that each one of us, as a spirit son or daughter, aka angels, that we all quite possibly have super-natural abilities. Remember, too, that we are eternal beings; therefore, there is always some level of super-naturalness to us.

2. Elohim assigned these gods to be stewards of various nations

I think this is an actuality. We have angels watching over us; and, with the heirarchy among them, I have no doubts that certain of them have very specific stewardships. This reminds me of the Book of Daniel. Here you can read about the spiritual battles that are going on with specific principalities of darkness.

Daniel 10:13-21(KJV)

13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

15 And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb.

16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.

17 For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me,

19 And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.

21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

At the least, I would say that Michael has been given the stewardship of the Israelites.

3. These gods failed to righteously fulfill their stewardships and were punished by losing some special privileged that avoided "dieing like men"

I only know of Satan and the 1/3 who followed him who have lost their second estate (dying like men).

I guess I'm suggesting that our knowledge about pre-mortal existence is sufficiently limited to allow a great deal of flexibility in guessing how things might have happened. As you pointed out, for example, we understand that there was some sort of hierarchy--but we don't know much about it. The scriptures seem to indicate that there have been more than one divine council--some of which clearly happened after the earth was populated. If so, and if I understand the purpose of the council correctly, then it seems to me that some of the participants are very much gods and they do interact with people.

So, with this understanding, I personally wouldn't have any problem with the gods of the Hebrew bible being real gods, unless someone can show me how something I've suggested is not possible.

I would agree. I also did post a comment about the distinction between a "false" and a "real" god; i.e., a "false" god IS a "real" god. It is just that a false god is a liar, etc.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Obviously one of the things that goes on on this board is debate. Regarding this exchanged being judged according to my personal satisfaction, I would challenge anyone who is reading to actually respond to my concerns with zerinus' argument about military victory in 2 Kgs 3:27. I think everyone here will find that there's simply no way to logically defend his argument. That should satisfy any and all concerns with my judgment of the outcome of this debate.

I think the real objective any of us have for participating in these discussions, should keep in mind that we have not been given a commandment to fight with each other over the interpretation of scripture. When we lose our focus and allow our egos to rule our actions, we are in no way keeping the second greatest commandment.

With every action we take, or any choice that we make, or every word that we speak, we are either serving God, or we are serving Satan.

If you want someone to discuss the verses in Kings with you, then that is ALL you need to say. Good grief; this is not a battle field where we seek victory over one another. It is a field where we are able to express what we believe; an opportunity to edify one another, and to foster our rejoicing of our Beloved Savior Jesus Christ.

Regards,

jo

[maklelan]

I think the real objective any of us have for participating in these discussions, should keep in mind that we have not been given a commandment to fight with each other over the interpretation of scripture. When we lose our focus and allow our egos to rule our actions, we are in no way keeping the second greatest commandment.

With every action we take, or any choice that we make, or every word that we speak, we are either serving God, or we are serving Satan.

If you want someone to discuss the verses in Kings with you, then that is ALL you need to say. Good grief; this is not a battle field where we seek victory over one another. It is a field where we are able to express what we believe; an opportunity to edify one another, and to foster our rejoicing of our Beloved Savior Jesus Christ.

Regards,

jo

So you're not going to defend his argument, you're just here to rebuke me because I think of this discussion as a debate?

[jo1952]

So you're not going to defend his argument, you're just here to rebuke me because I think of this discussion as a debate?

Your words:

Again you're ignoring the enormous problems with your argument to say nothing more than "Nu-uh!" if you really have nothing more to say in the way of a response to my concerns with your argument then you've quite decisively lost this debate.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

So you're not going to defend his argument, you're just here to rebuke me because I think of this discussion as a debate?

Your words:

Again you're ignoring the enormous problems with your argument to say nothing more than "Nu-uh!" if you really have nothing more to say in the way of a response to my concerns with your argument then you've quite decisively lost this debate.

Regards,

jo

[zerinus]

Again you're ignoring the enormous problems with your argument to say nothing more than "Nu-uh!" if you really have nothing more to say in the way of a response to my concerns with your argument then you've quite decisively lost this debate.

I think that statement applies to you.

Let me repeat: in post #65 you had asked the following question:

So can you respond to the problem with 2 Kgs 3:27, where the Moabite god is shown to overpower the Israelite forces who were promised military victory by Yahweh?

2 Kings 3:27 does not suggest that anything like that happened. The verse in question is as follows:

27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

Your reading of that verse is erroneous for the following reasons:

(1) Elisha’s prophecy was completely fulfilled. This was the prophecy:

18 And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will

deliver the Moabites also into your hand.

19 And ye shall

smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.

And here was the fulfilment:

24 And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and

smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country.

25 And they

beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.

The highlighted verses make clear that the prophecy had been fulfilled, and the Israelites had been victorious in battle against the Moabites. Only a very distorted reading of these verses would suggest otherwise.

(2) In the Bible, expressions such as “deliver into thy hands” means (among other things) defeat in battle, which is what the Moabites had suffered at the hands of the Israelites. It doesn’t necessarily mean complete subjugation or destruction of the contending nation, as your interpretation demands. For example, in Samuel 14:1–14, the expression “deliver into our hands” is used by Jonathan to signify the defeat of the Philistine garrison army, with the slaughter of about 20 Philistines. It doesn’t mean utter destruction or complete subjugation of the enemy.

(3) Your emphasis on the word “indignation” is misplaced. God is not the only being who can have “indignation;” man can too, as shown in these verses:

Nehemiah 4

:

1 But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews.

Esther 5

:

9 Then went Haman forth that day joyful and with a glad heart: but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king's gate, that he stood not up, nor moved for him, he was full of indignation against Mordecai.

2 Kings 3:27 says that there was “indignation” against Israel; but it doesn’t say where it came from. Your suggestion that it came from God (or worse still, from the Moabite god), has no contextual support. Indignation means anger, and the context more readily suggests the anger of the Moabites rather than that of God (or Moabite god), as the following more modern translations suggest:

New International Version

:

Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.

New Living Translation

:

Then the king of Moab took his oldest son, who would have been the next king, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. So there was great anger against Israel, and the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land.

God’s Word Translation

:

Then he took his firstborn son, who would have succeeded him as king, and sacrificed him on the wall as a burnt offering. There was bitter anger against the Israelites. So they went home to their own country.

The context suggests that the anger came from the Moabites, not from God (or Moabite god). And it certainly doesn't suggest that the Israelites had suffered any kind of defeat at the hand of the Moabites, as your interpretation would require.

Even assuming that there had been some kind of “divine indignation,” it would be more correct to suggest that it had came from one true God (perhaps because the Israelites had carried the war too far), rather than from the Moabite false god.

(4) There are many unknowns in these verses. The Israelites withdrawal could have had any number of causes, other than the unlikely one you are suggesting, such as the one suggested in this (non-LDS) Bible commentary:

and there was great indignation against Israel;

not of the king of Edom against them, for not rescuing his son, or because they were the means of this disaster which befell him; but of the king of Moab, who was quite desperate, and determined to hold out the siege to the utmost extremity: and they departed, and returned to their own land; the three kings, the one to Edom, the other to Israel, and the third to Judah; when they saw the Moabites would sell their lives so dear, and hold out to the last man, they thought fit to break up the siege; and perhaps were greatly affected with the barbarous shocking sight they had seen, and might fear, should they stay, something else of the like kind would be done.

Source

.

You do not put forward a compelling argument that your interpretation of these verses is the most logical or reasonable one.

(5) It goes against the tenor of the whole of the Bible to suggest it teaches that the false idolatrous Moabite god had the power to thwart the purposes of the one true omnipotent God.

Edited July 3, 2011 by zerinus

[maklelan]

Your words:

Again you're ignoring the enormous problems with your argument to say nothing more than "Nu-uh!" if you really have nothing more to say in the way of a response to my concerns with your argument then you've quite decisively lost this debate.

Regards,

jo

Yes, those are my words. How do they at all bear on my question? Are you going to engage zerinus' argument, or are you only here to rebuke me because I am approaching this exchange as a debate?

[maklelan]

I think that statement applies to you.

Let me repeat: in post #65 you had asked the following question:

2 Kings 3:27 does not suggest that anything like that happened. The verse in question is as follows:

27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

Your reading of that verse is erroneous for the following reasons:

(1) Elisha’s prophecy was completely fulfilled.

I pointed out in great detail that it absolutely was not. That is the concern that you've yet to directly address. You've only asserted that his prophecy was fulfilled and have ignored my reasons for concluding otherwise.

This was the prophecy:

18 And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.

19 And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.

And here was the fulfilment:

24 And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country.

25 And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.

The highlighted verses make clear that the prophecy had been fulfilled, and the Israelites had been victorious in battle against the Moabites. Only a very distorted reading of these verses would suggest otherwise.

What those verses show is that the prophecy was mostly fulfilled. The Israelites had been victorious in many battles against the Moabites, but in the final and decisive battle where they were fighting against the king himself, they were run off. The main part of Elisha's prophecy, that Moab would be delivered into Israelite hands, was absolutely not fulfilled. Moab remained autonomous and her king remained in power in a city that withstood the Israelite/Judahite/Edomite siege and ran those forces off. The vassalage that Moab threw off at the death of Ahab was not restored. As I have said many, many times, winning most of the battles doesn't matter if you fail in the last battle and ultimately fail to achieve the goal of the campaign.

(2) In the Bible, expressions such as “deliver into thy hands” means (among other things) defeat in battle, which is what the Moabites had suffered at the hands of the Israelites.

Up until the last battle, and in that battle the Moabites won, sending the Israelites packing. The Moabites were not ultimately delivered into the hands of the Israelites. They got away. Their country wash ravaged, but they escaped from the hands of the Israelites at the crucial juncture.

It doesn’t necessarily mean complete subjugation or destruction of the contending nation, as your interpretation demands. For example, in Samuel 14:1–14, the expression “deliver into our hands” is used by Jonathan to signify the defeat of the Philistine garrison army, with the slaughter of about 20 Philistines. It doesn’t mean utter destruction or complete subjugation of the enemy.

But it did mean the forces said to be delivered into their hands were completely at their mercy. They completely routed their forces and there was no indication that they had to retreat or were driven back after an initial advance. It meant the complete subjugation of the enemy forces that were said to be delivered into their hand.

(3) Your emphasis on the word “indignation” is misplaced. God is not the only being who can have “indignation;” man can too, as shown in these verses:

Nehemiah 4

:

1 But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews.

Esther 5

:

9 Then went Haman forth that day joyful and with a glad heart: but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king's gate, that he stood not up, nor moved for him, he was full of indignation against Mordecai.

Neither of those verses uses the word קצף.

2 Kings 3:27 says that there was “indignation” against Israel; but it doesn’t say where it came from. Your suggestion that it came from God (or worse still, from the Moabite god), has no contextual support.

I specifically said it could not have come from God, and the notion that it came from Chemosh not only has contextual support, it is the only reading that is contextually supported. The fact that wrath overtook an army that was attacking a city immediately following a dramatic sacrifice by the defending city makes it undeniable that the wrath was from the city's patron deity. In

this post

I show that this motif appears repeatedly in ancient literature. You have not responded to any of these facts, you have just nakedly asserted that I am wrong.

Indignation means anger, and the context more readily suggests the anger of the Moabites rather than that of God (or Moabite god), as the following more modern translations suggest:

New International Version

:

Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.

New Living Translation

:

Then the king of Moab took his oldest son, who would have been the next king, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. So there was great anger against Israel, and the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land.

God’s Word Translation

:

Then he took his firstborn son, who would have succeeded him as king, and sacrificed him on the wall as a burnt offering. There was bitter anger against the Israelites. So they went home to their own country.

You and all these translations are simply wrong. That word is never used in this way to refer to the wrath of a human. It does not mean that, period.

The context suggests that the anger came from the Moabites, not from God. And it certainly doesn't suggest that the Israelites had suffered any kind of defeat at the hand of the Moabites, as your interpretation would require.

I've explained exactly how the context actually does suggest exactly that. You've never directly engaged those comments, you've only said "Nu-uh!"

Even assuming that there had been some kind of “divine indignation,” it would be more correct to suggest that it had came from one true God (perhaps because the Israelites had carried the war too far), rather than from the Moabite false god.

Only if you import the presupposition that such an event could never happen, but since that's what this entire discussion is about, what you're doing is begging the question.

(4)

There are many unknowns in these verses. The Israelites withdrawal could have had any number of causes, other than the unlikely one you are suggesting, such as the one suggested in this (non-LDS) Bible commentary:

and there was great indignation against Israel;

not of the king of Edom against them, for not rescuing his son, or because they were the means of this disaster which befell him; but of the king of Moab, who was quite desperate, and determined to hold out the siege to the utmost extremity: and they departed, and returned to their own land; the three kings, the one to Edom, the other to Israel, and the third to Judah; when they saw the Moabites would sell their lives so dear, and hold out to the last man, they thought fit to break up the siege; and perhaps were greatly affected with the barbarous shocking sight they had seen, and might fear, should they stay, something else of the like kind would be done.

Source

.

And this is just a poor apologetic attempt to find some answer other than the clear one, namely that Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces. The word in question here simply cannot refer to the wrath of the king of Moab. The word's usage and the immediate context make that clear. His act of desperation cannot be interpreted as a great indignation that swept over the Israelite forces. That's a ludicrous reading.

You do not put forward a compelling argument that your interpretation of these verses is the most logical or reasonable one.

Your simply stating that does not actually show it to be true. You have to back up your assertion with an argument, which you have shown you cannot do.

(5)

It goes against the tenor of the whole of the Bible to suggest it teaches that the false idolatrous Moabite god had the power to thwart the purposes of the one true omnipotent God.

It does not go against the tenor of the whole Bible if you recognize that the Bible recognizes the existence and potency of the other gods on numerous occasions. An honest and objective reading will show that to be the case. It is only problematized when someone sets out with the conclusion already in mind that such cannot be allowed to be the case. Again, all the evidence is stacked against you and all you seem to be able to do is flippantly dismiss my argument and reassert the very assertions I've shown to be fallacious and uninformed.

And please, please, please stop using different colors. It gives every line an opening and closing color stamp, and it makes formatting my response so very complicated.

Edited July 3, 2011 by maklelan

[zerinus]

I pointed out in great detail that it absolutely was not. That is the concern that you've yet to directly address. You've only asserted that his prophecy was fulfilled and have ignored my reasons for concluding otherwise.

What those verses show is that the prophecy was mostly fulfilled. The Israelites had been victorious in many battles against the Moabites, but in the final and decisive battle where they were fighting against the king himself, they were run off. The main part of Elisha's prophecy, that Moab would be delivered into Israelite hands, was absolutely not fulfilled. Moab remained autonomous and her king remained in power in a city that withstood the Israelite/Judahite/Edomite siege and ran those forces off. The vassalage that Moab threw off at the death of Ahab was not restored. As I have said many, many times, winning most of the battles doesn't matter if you fail in the last battle and ultimately fail to achieve the goal of the campaign.

Up until the last battle, and in that battle the Moabites won, sending the Israelites packing. The Moabites were not ultimately delivered into the hands of the Israelites. They got away. Their country wash ravaged, but they escaped from the hands of the Israelites at the crucial juncture.

But it did mean the forces said to be delivered into their hands were completely at their mercy. They completely routed their forces and there was no indication that they had to retreat or were driven back after an initial advance. It meant the complete subjugation of the enemy forces that were said to be delivered into their hand.

Neither of those verses uses the word קצף.

I specifically said it could not have come from God, and the notion that it came from Chemosh not only has contextual support, it is the only reading that is contextually supported. The fact that wrath overtook an army that was attacking a city immediately following a dramatic sacrifice by the defending city makes it undeniable that the wrath was from the city's patron deity. In this post I show that this motif appears repeatedly in ancient literature. You have not responded to any of these facts, you have just nakedly asserted that I am wrong.

You and all these translations are simply wrong. That word is never used in this way to refer to the wrath of a human. It does not mean that, period.

I've explained exactly how the context actually does suggest exactly that. You've never directly engaged those comments, you've only said "Nu-uh!"

Only if you import the presupposition that such an event could never happen, but since that's what this entire discussion is about, what you're doing is begging the question.

And this is just a poor apologetic attempt to find some answer other than the clear one, namely that Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces. The word in question here simply cannot refer to the wrath of the king of Moab. The word's usage and the immediate context make that clear. His act of desperation cannot be interpreted as a great indignation that swept over the Israelite forces. That's a ludicrous reading.

Your simply stating that does not actually show it to be true. You have to back up your assertion with an argument, which you have shown you cannot do.

It does not go against the tenor of the whole Bible if you recognize that the Bible recognizes the existence and potency of the other gods on numerous occasions. An honest and objective reading will show that to be the case. It is only problematized when someone sets out with the conclusion already in mind that such cannot be allowed to be the case. Again, all the evidence is stacked against you and all you seem to be able to do is flippantly dismiss my argument and reassert the very assertions I've shown to be fallacious and uninformed.

And please, please, please stop using different colors. It gives every line an opening and closing color stamp, and it makes formatting my response so very complicated.

Your arguments are not valid, and do not require further discussion. Remember, this is a public forum. It is the other readers who will be the ultimate judges as to who has presented the stronger argument. I leave the final judgement to them. There is no need to add anything further to what I have already said.

[maklelan]

Your arguments are not valid, and do not require further discussion.

You've not provided any real discussion to begin with. You simply asserted that I was wrong and failed to respond to any of the concerns I raised about your assertions. Instead you just reasserted your original assertions.

Remember, this is a public forum. It is the other readers who will be the ultimate judges as to who has presented the stronger argument. I leave the final judgement to them. There is no need to add anything further to what I have already said.

That's your prerogative.

[WalkerW]

As another reader of the board, Maklelan's arguments are not only stronger (and in my view correct), they can actually be called arguments. Zerinus' posts rarely raise to the level of a coherent argument.

This seems to be the case with most of Zerinus' posts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As another reader of the board, Maklelan's arguments are not only stronger (and in my view correct), they can actually be called arguments. Zerinus' posts rarely raise to the level of a coherent argument.

This seems to be the case with most of Zerinus' posts.

If nothing else this was a better read than trying to argue weather caffeine has any part as pertaining to the WoW. I enjoyed the debate, and yes, it is a or was a debate.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay, and how does that grand declaration fit in with the discussion I have been having with maklelan?

I was attempting to respond to your claim that

The Spirit testifies to me that the Bible as a whole is true, and there is very little in it that might be false or incorrect. I don’t claim to have the kind of revelation that Joseph Smith had, which enabled him to correct some of the errors and supply many missing parts; but I don’t need to be able to do that in order to know that the Bible as a whole is true; and if there are any scribal errors in it, it is not such that it would prevent me from extracting correct doctrine from it with the help of the Spirit of the Lord.

The Bible provides its own context and history, which aids its correct interpretation. You don’t need to go much further afield for that purpose. Modern revelation also supplies many vital clues and missing parts. That is all that the gospel scholar needs to extract correct theology and the saving doctrines of the gospel which God has seen fit to reveal in our time.

I'm not sure that the Bible in the KJV always "provides its own context and history," and I fear that you and Maklelan are talking past each other since you are each coming at the fundamental questions using very different methods.

You might want to approach such difficult issues with a willingness to at least consider the scholarly approach which Brother Joseph so obviously thought important. That is, as long as you take the trouble to address such questions seriously, at least consult some of the professional Bible commentaries at your local public library, including (just for example) the Anchor Bible translation-commentary series or the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Many serious books and articles have been written about the context and history of the biblical world which I'm sure you would find fascinating and informative. Indeed, I can recall almost a half-century later now just how enthralled I was when I first went to Israel without a clue as to what I was seeing and hearing, but I started traveling the country, reading books by such authors as Josephus, and gradually learning to dig a little deeper. The surprise of discovery and the richness of new information has not ceased to interest me all these years later. It even helps me in Sunday School.

[Robert F. Smith]

As another reader of the board, Maklelan's arguments are not only stronger (and in my view correct), they can actually be called arguments. Zerinus' posts rarely raise to the level of a coherent argument.

This seems to be the case with most of Zerinus' posts.

I guess, if you like the WWF, and if you fully agree with Maklelan's main point, "namely that Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces." I think that that was the thing that stuck in Zerinus' craw the most -- quite aside from all the ad hominems..

Zerinus might have been far more comfortable believing that the God of Israel had himself sent the Assyrians packing after their unsuccessful seige of Jerusalem in the days of King Hezekiah and the Prophet Isaiah (II Kings 19). So did Chemosh likewise drive off the Israelites (II Kings 3)? We even have the Moabite Mesha Stele to provide the direct point of view of the Moabites (and the very same King Mesha) about how they routed the Israelites on another occasion. The analogy is pretty clear, as is the analogy with kings Ahaz and Manasseh of Judah offering their own sons as a human sacrifices (II Kings 16:3, 21:6).

Who is correct? Well, the New Jerusalem Bible inserts a note (l) to II Kings 3:27, saying "The king of Moab sacrificed his son in a desperate attempt to placate his god Chemosh. Performed on the ramparts, the sacrifice provoked panic among the beseigers, who seem to have expected Chemosh to intervene." The New Oxford Annotated Bible agrees with this assessment. That is not quite the same as "Chemosh drove off Yahweh's forces."