Olavarria Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HYpGHXagBA&feature=relatedAbraham 4:1And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. Edited July 16, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria
LeSellers Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 Does anyone else think this is cool?Does anyone else think this is cool?I do!I do!Too much to digest all at once, though. 'More, later, maybe.Lehi
awh204 Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HYpGHXagBA&feature=relatedAbraham 4:1And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.This is epically cool, since the woman who presented this programme is my lecturer, and the supervisor of my Master's dissertation!
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 This is epically cool, since the woman who presented this programme is my lecturer, and the supervisor of my Master's dissertation! Neat, which school?
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 This is epically cool, since the woman who presented this programme is my lecturer, and the supervisor of my Master's dissertation! Neat, which school?
Xander Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 What is so cool about this?This is not particularly surprising, since Joseph Smith was learning Hebrew at the time he formed this doctrine. He admitted he was in discussion with Hebrew experts at the time. What I find particularly interesting is that his "inspired" version of the creation, as it appears in the canonized Book of Moses, doesn't mention anything about multiple gods. But in his version in the Book of Abraham, he is careful to point out the plural nature of eloheim. Why?The difference is that the Book of Moses was written in 1830-31 whereas chapter four of the Book of Abraham was produced roughly a decade later, after he had studied Hebrew with "learned Jews" and after he had formulated his newer doctrine concerning the plurality of gods.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Does anyone else think this is cool?Yes, of course it is, and the lecturer in this BBC series is not afraid to state the obvious.You'll note that Xander (Kevin Graham?) virtually admits that Joseph is correct and then immediately attempts to soften the blow by claiming that Joseph got it all from some Jewish experts. Trouble is that even a plethora of Jewish experts wouldn't have said such a thing in Joseph's day, and Joseph himself benefited only from a very elementary series of classes on Hebrew from his Sephardic instructor named J. Seixas.
Xander Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Yes, of course it is, and the lecturer in this BBC series is not afraid to state the obvious. Why would she be afraid? Is she in danger of being killed? It looks to me like she has more an incentive of stating this, rather than the popular opinion among theologians. You'll note that Xander (Kevin Graham?) virtually admits that Joseph is correct and then immediately attempts to soften the blowWhat "blow"?by claiming that Joseph got it all from some Jewish experts. Trouble is that even a plethora of Jewish experts wouldn't have said such a thing in Joseph's daySo Joseph Smith lied? I don't think he did. I think he was telling the truth when he said a Jewish expert confirmed this for him.Joseph himself benefited only from a very elementary series of classes on Hebrew from his Sephardic instructor named J. Seixas.Now look who is trying to soften the blow. Joseph Smith understood more Hebrew than you're willing to concede, apparently. Sometimes he knows a lot, and other times he knows very little. It alll depends on the apologetic flavor of the month. Edited July 10, 2011 by Xander
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 What is so cool about this?Because Mormonism is the only Abrahamic faith that holds to El(ohiem) presiding over His Council of Gods, a theology that predates that of the Hebrew Bible.
Xander Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 Because Mormonism is the only Abrahamic faith that holds to El(ohiem) presiding over His Council of Gods, a theology that predates that of the Hebrew Bible.No it isn't. If you'd pay attention to what other faith experts have said on this matter, few of them deny that a council of divine beings existed. What they usually reject is the LDS understanding of the word "elohim." In the video an orthodox Jew was interviewed and he admitted this as well, but he disagreed that these other gods were anything other than created beings by the one supreme God. They were subservient to him, they were not equal.So it seems to me that Mormon apologists are playing semantics here, as if the Bible and archaeology actually supports their doctrine of God, when in fact the Ancient Jews had more in common with the Canaanites. Do you really want to associate the Mormon God with animal Gods like El, the great Bull, who procreates with a divine heifer? I guess the point here is that it doesn't really matter what the Ancient Israelites believed, but if you want to draw parallels, however superficial, you should at least point out the discrepancies as well. Few apologists have been willing to do this.
Libs Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 I thought the neatest part was about the acknowledgement of a female counterpart, Asherah.
TAO Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) So Joseph Smith lied? I don't think he did. I think he was telling the truth when he said a Jewish expert confirmed this for him.What the Jewish expert actually said was this would be the literal translation, though that it was not correct "for the reason that it would ruin Christianity".Thus, your point doesn't make very good sense, as he did not learn it from this person, but came to this person after reaching this conclusion.Now look who is trying to soften the blow. Joseph Smith understood more Hebrew than you're willing to concede, apparently. Sometimes he knows a lot, and other times he knows very little. It all depends on the apologetic flavor of the month.It all depends on a person's flavor of the mouth you mean. It is no different if it comes from an apologetic flavor of mouth, as if it comes from a critic's flavor of the mouth. Everyone has flavor. Me included =P.Best Wishes,TAO Edited July 10, 2011 by TAO
volgadon Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 In the video an orthodox Jew was interviewed and he admitted this as well, but he disagreed that these other gods were anything other than created beings by the one supreme God. They were subservient to him, they were not equal.You'll be hard pressed to find that philosophical divide between created and non-created beings before Saadiah Gaon's writings and the Karaite polemic.
Xander Posted July 10, 2011 Posted July 10, 2011 What the Jewish expert actually said was this would be the literal translation, though that it was not correct "for the reason that it would ruin Christianity".That isn't what he said at all. Where are you getting this stuff?Thus, your point doesn't make very good sense, as he did not learn it from this person, but came to this person after reaching this conclusion.My point makes perfect sense. Joseph Smith was studying Hebrew, had been in contact with learned Jews, so naturally he came across the plural nature of elohim and decided it would be best translated "gods throughout." That's it. That explains why he did this. You can't say it was by divine revelation, and therefore evidence of his prophetic call, because the evidence doesn't support it. This is driven by apologetic presuppositions that are without basis.
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Here's the quote everyone is quibbling over.The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"—"The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good. Edited July 10, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) No it isn't. If you'd pay attention to what other faith experts have said on this matter, few of them deny that a council of divine beings existed. What they usually reject is the LDS understanding of the word "elohim." In the video an orthodox Jew was interviewed and he admitted this as well, but he disagreed that these other gods were anything other than created beings by the one supreme God. They were subservient to him, they were not equal.No, your right. I'm sure the Jewish rabbi also believes that God looks like a Man, has a Wife and that the gods in the council are Their Offspring. I stand corrected. So it seems to me that Mormon apologists are playing semantics here, as if the Bible and archaeology actually supports their doctrine of God, when in fact the Ancient Jews had more in common with the Canaanites. Do you really want to associate the Mormon God with animal Gods like El, the great Bull, who procreates with a divine heifer?I don't have a problem with that. How much worse is that to associating Him with an omnipresent cosmic mind, that is one in three and three in one?I guess the point here is that...if you want to draw parallels, however superficial, you should at least point out the discrepancies as well. Few apologists have been willing to do this.Touche. Edited July 10, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 I thought the neatest part was about the acknowledgement of a female counterpart, Asherah.That too.
Olavarria Posted July 10, 2011 Author Posted July 10, 2011 My point makes perfect sense. Joseph Smith was studying Hebrew, had been in contact with learned Jews, so naturally he came across the plural nature of elohim and decided it would be best translated "gods throughout." That's it. That explains why he did this. You can't say it was by divine revelation, and therefore evidence of his prophetic call, because the evidence doesn't support it. This is driven by apologetic presuppositions that are without basis.If angelic visitations, theophanies and dreams were the only ways of receiving revelations, in Mormonism, then I would agree with you. They are not, so I don't.
Xander Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 If angelic visitations, theophanies and dreams were the only ways of receiving revelations, in Mormonism, then I would agree with you. They are not, so I don't.You can call studying foreign languages "revelation" if you want to, but my point is there is no evidence God was involved, no matter what you choose to call it. I read stuff all the time and learn it on my own.When I speak to my children in Portuguese, this has nothing to do with revelation from God.
Ahab Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 bumpI'd like to hear what you consider to be so cool about it, Pedro.I think the fact that our Father and all or at least most of the rest of us came down here and created this planet is pretty cool, too, but since I already know what I think about it I'd rather hear more from you with hopes that maybe you'll say something that I haven't heard yet.
Recommended Posts