Psalm 82 In The Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[jo1952]

http://www.gracebibl...s/sm030803.html

http://christianchat...04-ye-gods.html see post 4

*****also http://www.bluelette...25&topic=Psalms

Both use "ye are judges" as substitutions for the original.

Takes all kinds

I was hoping that the guy who made the video would have completed his comparison of what it looks like to change gods to judges in Psalm 82. IOW, to change gods to judges doesn't make sense when you continue to the part "but you will all die like men". Of course judges would die like men---judges WERE men---so what would have been the point of Jesus telling them the obvious? As such, it just doesn't make sense to change gods to judges. Of course, and interestingly, as we all know, Jesus died as and like a man even though He is a God; and He didn't get to become a "judge" (OUR Judge), until after His death/Atonement. This is an entirely different "order" of events. IOW, if a person changes gods to judges in Psalm 82, you are a judge first; and then you die like a man. However, Jesus who IS a God, died like a man BEFORE becoming our Judge.

Note to Maklelan: Looks good!!

Regards,

jo

[maklelan]

There is no disagreeance on any of what you said. But the part in which I struck out has no relevance to what I or ldsfaqs stated. You state divine beings but don't state it as no gods. Do you believe that there will be other gods or simply just divine beings? 43:10 ¹⁰Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

So you're saying that there will be a time after Yahweh's existence, and that there will be no gods created during that time? You don't seem to understand what "after me" means, despite the fact that it is clearly contrasted with "before me."

[Jesterss]

So you're saying that there will be a time after Yahweh's existence, and that there will be no gods created during that time? You don't seem to understand what "after me" means, despite the fact that it is clearly contrasted with "before me."

Or perhaps you clearly don't understand what it means. Yes, it was contrasted with before me, but there also is no time after God's existence. It is a matter of annointance and formation(creation) of a God. Since we understand life after this to be eternal, it's clearly not a meaning of after God in the sense that he no longer is God or some time when he ceases to exist. Since we can understand that concept, alpha and omega, and we clearly have the text telling us it is a case of formation, then it would be absurd to think of it as a time when God doesn't exist, since we know that will never be the case.

Your question is one poised out of either ignorance or pure arrogance.

[Rob Bowman]

All,

Dan wrote:

Yeah, I argue for the Israelites at Sinai reading of John 10. The Israelites were made immortal and thus divine in virtue of receiving the law. I argue that this reading has nothing to do with Psalm 82 as it was originally read, though. It was an innovation of the Greco-Roman period.

I'm interested to hear from the other LDS here what they think of this interpretation of John 10. On Dan's view, John 10:34-36 does not support or mesh with the LDS doctrine that human beings may by exaltation become gods. Furthermore, Psalm 82 also has no real connection to the LDS doctrine of humans becoming exalted to the status of gods, since in Dan's view Psalm 82 was referring to celestial beings (not exalted humans) as gods. Obviously, Dan's exegesis of these texts disagrees with one popular Christian interpretation as well, and there has been a lot of attention given to that angle, but his exegesis also disagrees with the conventional LDS use of these passages.

[maklelan]

Or perhaps you clearly don't understand what it means.

Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me. I'm not very informed when it comes to interpreting things like this in the Bible.

Yes, it was contrasted with before me, but there also is no time after God's existence.

Are you saying there was time before God's existence? Don't you think both reference points are just rhetoric?

It is a matter of annointance and formation(creation) of a God. Since we understand life after this to be eternal, it's clearly not a meaning of after God in the sense that he no longer is God or some time when he ceases to exist. Since we can understand that concept, alpha and omega, and we clearly have the text telling us it is a case of formation, then it would be absurd to think of it as a time when God doesn't exist, since we know that will never be the case.

In other words, if any gods were ever created, it was Yahweh who created them. None before or after him did it. This fits with his repeated assertion to have created the host of heavens and to be the god of gods. The fact that the author doesn't believe there was a before or after doesn't actually change the point of the rhetoric.

Your question is one poised out of either ignorance or pure arrogance.

Likely both. Anyway, see my previous comments on this topic here, here, here, here, and here. My second masters thesis also discusses this in much greater detail, but it's not finished yet. You can also refer to treatments by other scholars found here, here, here, and here.

[maklelan]

All,

Dan wrote:

I'm interested to hear from the other LDS here what they think of this interpretation of John 10. On Dan's view, John 10:34-36 does not support or mesh with the LDS doctrine that human beings may by exaltation become gods.

I've clarified in this thread that I understand John to be asserting a species of divinization. I just understand him to be entirely reinterpreting Psalm 82.

Furthermore, Psalm 82 also has no real connection to the LDS doctrine of humans becoming exalted to the status of gods, since in Dan's view Psalm 82 was referring to celestial beings (not exalted humans) as gods. Obviously, Dan's exegesis of these texts disagrees with one popular Christian interpretation as well, and there has been a lot of attention given to that angle, but his exegesis also disagrees with the conventional LDS use of these passages.

And I explain in my paper exactly what I think we can garner from this text. It should be up within a couple days.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I've clarified in this thread that I understand John to be asserting a species of divinization. I just understand him to be entirely reinterpreting Psalm 82.

Evidently, then, John 10 asserts a different "species" of divinization from the LDS species, as well as from the one in Psalm 82. The three species are incompatible with one another, as best I can tell.

You wrote:

And I explain in my paper exactly what I think we can garner from this text. It should be up within a couple days.

When you say what "we can garner" from Psalm 82, do you mean garner for theologically constructive purposes, or are you referring strictly to reaching historical conclusions about the beliefs of the unnamed author(s) or redactor(s) of the psalm?

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Evidently, then, John 10 asserts a different "species" of divinization from the LDS species, as well as from the one in Psalm 82. The three species are incompatible with one another, as best I can tell.

I don't think Psalm 82 is referencing any kind of divinization, but incompatibility doesn't really mean much. John is incompatible with the other three gospels on numerous levels, including soteriological and christological. James is incompatible with Paul. Revelation is incompatible with just about everything.

You wrote:

When you say what "we can garner" from Psalm 82, do you mean garner for theologically constructive purposes, or are you referring strictly to reaching historical conclusions about the beliefs of the unnamed author(s) or redactor(s) of the psalm?

Both. How one relates to history and beliefs has a lot to do with their theology.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In other words, if any gods were ever created, it was Yahweh who created them. None before or after him did it. This fits with his repeated assertion to have created the host of heavens and to be the god of gods. The fact that the author doesn't believe there was a before or after doesn't actually change the point of the rhetoric.

Likely both. Anyway, see my previous comments on this topic here, here, here, here, and here. My second masters thesis also discusses this in much greater detail, but it's not finished yet. You can also refer to treatments by other scholars found here, here, here, and here.

Too funny. Nothing like some one throwing out the "ignorance" card.

[diglot]

It's a common anti-mormon and christian teaching that the verses in question means "judges" not actually gods as stated.

Reason being is because most christians don't believe we actually are and can be gods, so they re-write the scripture to fit their theology.

They call LDS Theology "satanic" in this concept, because they believe satan wanted to be a god, and thus they consider that false doctrine when we say we also are gods and also can be gods.

Thus, he didn't mis-speak. He was simply addressing the common interpretation by other christians trying to weasel out of the we are actually gods teaching.

Yes, he misspoke. Saying that John 10.34 can be interpreted as "judges" is not the same thing as saying it can be translated as "judges."

I do not disagree that some mainstream Christians interpret Psalm 82 (and Jesus' usage of it) as a reference to human judges. I have seen one prominent Reformed apologist try his hardest to make that interpretation. But I don't remember reading or hearing anyone say that theoi in John 10.34 should be translated as "judges." I'm not saying no one has ever made that assertion, but if it has been asserted it is definitely a negligible minority opinion because as I said earlier in this thread, the translation of theoi as "gods" isn't exactly controversial in evangelical circles, but interpreting it as a reference to actual gods is.

Edited November 14, 2011 by diglot

[diglot]

All,

Dan wrote:

I'm interested to hear from the other LDS here what they think of this interpretation of John 10. On Dan's view, John 10:34-36 does not support or mesh with the LDS doctrine that human beings may by exaltation become gods. Furthermore, Psalm 82 also has no real connection to the LDS doctrine of humans becoming exalted to the status of gods, since in Dan's view Psalm 82 was referring to celestial beings (not exalted humans) as gods. Obviously, Dan's exegesis of these texts disagrees with one popular Christian interpretation as well, and there has been a lot of attention given to that angle, but his exegesis also disagrees with the conventional LDS use of these passages.

Rob, I am curious as to whether you think Psalm 82 is referring to human judges.

[Jesterss]

Are you saying there was time before God's existence? Don't you think both reference points are just rhetoric?

Never stated that. Point out where I said there was....

In other words, if any gods were ever created, it was Yahweh who created them. None before or after him did it. This fits with his repeated assertion to have created the host of heavens and to be the god of gods. The fact that the author doesn't believe there was a before or after doesn't actually change the point of the rhetoric.

You're making assumptions as to what I am saying when in fact, all I ever stated was that there will be no gods created. God is God. Period.

My second masters thesis also discusses this in much greater detail, but it's not finished yet.

Arrogance it is then

[Jesterss]

Too funny. Nothing like some one throwing out the "ignorance" card.

nothing like someone not understanding what someone meant by it either.. ... false assertions on someones belief/statements is ignorance..

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

nothing like someone not understanding what someone meant by it either.. ... false assertions on someones belief/statements is ignorance..

Yeah pot meet kettle. Arrogance it is then.

You know communication is a 2 way road. Instead of just assuming the issue is with the other person why don't you take a look at your self first?

[maklelan]

Never stated that. Point out where I said there was....

When you quote Isa 43:10 you only bolded the portion that said "neither shall there be after me," as if to highlight that clause as the significant one. When I pointed out that the it was contrasted with a time before Yahweh you only insisted that there was no time after God's existence, as if the "before me" issue didn't require any qualification. Now, obviously you didn't do that on purpose. You just didn't think about it and still haven't thought about the implications of saying that Isa 43:10 means that, during the periods of time that never existed, no gods existed. That's a meaningless statement. All you're doing is making reflexive jabs at my comments without thinking about the larger argument, and I was just taking advantage of that to make a rhetorical point. You're not engaging my argument, you're just barking "Nu-uh!" at whatever I say.

You're making assumptions as to what I am saying when in fact, all I ever stated was that there will be no gods created. God is God. Period.

But Isa 43:10 does not say there will be no gods created. It only says that there will be no gods before or after Yahweh. Now, we both agree that the author does not believe that there is a before or an after, so we have two options for understanding the author's rhetoric. Either his comment is a tautology or it's just a hyperbolic way of saying that the gods are subordinate and inferior to Yahweh. I suggest the latter, and the rest of rhetoric in Deutero-Isaiah fully supports my reading. For instance, the gods are called "nothing," and "vanity." The nations are also called "nothing" and "vanity," as are the people who fight against God and the people who make idols. Does this mean the nations and the people who fight against God and make idols don't exist? Of course not. The rhetoric means they're inconsequential, not non-existent. Yahweh says I am God and there is no other, but so does the personified Babylon when speaking about her relationship to her contingency. Does this mean Babylon is insisting she is the only city in existence? Of course not. She is saying she is above reproach and untouchable. She is appealing to the same rhetoric as Yahweh. That rhetoric, of course, has no reference to the existence of other gods, just to Yahweh's transcendence. There is simply no text in any portion of the Hebrew Bible that denies that other gods exist. In fact, the Bible frequently acknowledges that they exist. This is absolutely undeniable. We can move down into Second Temple literature and see numerous explicit references to other gods, even other gods that fight alongside Yahweh against the forces of evil. By the time of the New Testament the other gods have been demoted to the station of angels, and the word "god" has become uncomfortable in reference to them. They're still there, though, and Patristic and rabbinic literature acknowledges it when they're not too uncomfortable to do so.

Your position is a naive and fundamentalist position that must assert a number of anti-intellectual and pseudo-academic axioms before its exegesis can even get off the ground. Since those axioms cannot be supported (inerrancy, univocality, etc.), when questioned, the response is always ad hominem, obfuscation, or to just plain run away. Which will you do?

Arrogance it is then

Fine. I'm arrogant. This doesn't at all change the fact that I've provided an argument that you are unwilling and unable to engage. Do you have a response to the arguments that I've provided, or is it just your intention to infer that because I'm arrogant, you are exempt from responding to critical oversights I've identified in your exegesis? This writer believes it's the latter.

[Jesterss]

Yeah pot meet kettle. Arrogance it is then.

You know communication is a 2 way road. Instead of just assuming the issue is with the other person why don't you take a look at your self first?

Didn't begin with me. He made the first assumption on what I believed, or what he wanted me to believe, not sure which... and I always evaluate myself..

[maklelan]

Didn't begin with me. He made the first assumption on what I believed, or what he wanted me to believe, not sure which... and I always evaluate myself..

I made no assumption about what you believed. I was pointing out what your rhetoric failed to address.

[Jesterss]

When you quote Isa 43:10 you only bolded the portion that said "neither shall there be after me," as if to highlight that clause as the significant one.

Because that was in reference to what was being discussed. Nobody has argued that there were gods before God. Or therefore I would have bolded the first portion... You're just trying to assume that I somehow don't understand the extent of what I was discussing... which is still, quite arrogant, and wrong...

When I pointed out that the it was contrasted with a time before Yahweh you only insisted that there was no time after God's existence, as if the "before me" issue didn't require any qualification. Now, obviously you didn't do that on purpose. You just didn't think about it and still haven't thought about the implications of saying that Isa 43:10 means that, during the periods of time that never existed, no gods existed. That's a meaningless statement. All you're doing is making reflexive jabs at my comments without thinking about the larger argument, and I was just taking advantage of that to make a rhetorical point. You're not engaging my argument, you're just barking "Nu-uh!" at whatever I say.

No you made the assertion that I thought there could possibly be a time after God where no gods existed, which I never stated. Now you're saying that I have not understood that you meant that I have to consider the context of the verse comparing that there was no God formed before God, and there will be none created after Him, which, funny enough, I actually already stated that as well, you're just trying to trap me with pretentious rhetoric. Not working...

But Isa 43:10 does not say there will be no gods created. It only says that there will be no gods before or after Yahweh.

I wrongly lower-cased God when I wrote my reply to lds or alter, whichever it was when I stated my disagreeance in questioning the existence of Gods.. Was meant to be upper-case G..

With that in mind, I'm assuming you just did the same with your first sentence here as well. But in response, it does indeed say there will be no Gods created.

"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

So using the same logic you instituted earlier, its clear to see that the after me, is being conjoined with the before me... Therefore, since there was no God formed before God, there likewise, will be no God formed after him (and since we agree he always exists, we can safely assume that after God is anytime in our understanding of time, 3,000 years ago, 20 years from now, etc..).

Now, we both agree that the author does not believe that there is a before or an after, so we have two options for understanding the author's rhetoric. Either his comment is a tautology or it's just a hyperbolic way of saying that the gods are subordinate and inferior to Yahweh. I suggest the latter, and the rest of rhetoric in Deutero-Isaiah fully supports my reading. For instance, the gods are called "nothing," and "vanity." The nations are also called "nothing" and "vanity," as are the people who fight against God and the people who make idols. Does this mean the nations and the people who fight against God and make idols don't exist? Of course not. The rhetoric means they're inconsequential, not non-existent. Yahweh says I am God and there is no other, but so does the personified Babylon when speaking about her relationship to her contingency. Does this mean Babylon is insisting she is the only city in existence? Of course not. She is saying she is above reproach and untouchable. She is appealing to the same rhetoric as Yahweh. That rhetoric, of course, has no reference to the existence of other gods, just to Yahweh's transcendence. There is simply no text in any portion of the Hebrew Bible that denies that other gods exist. In fact, the Bible frequently acknowledges that they exist. This is absolutely undeniable. We can move down into Second Temple literature and see numerous explicit references to other gods, even other gods that fight alongside Yahweh against the forces of evil. By the time of the New Testament the other gods have been demoted to the station of angels, and the word "god" has become uncomfortable in reference to them. They're still there, though, and Patristic and rabbinic literature acknowledges it when they're not too uncomfortable to do so.

This is indeed on topic as far as Psalm 82, which I won't pretend to have understood or studied, so I won't venture to make a rebuttle on this. I will agree that there are numerous references to "gods" in the bible, but Isaiah 43 discusses the formation of Gods, not gods... To note, (slightly off topic) I think it all equates to what the understanding of LDS believe humans will become gods and how non-LDS perceive the becoming of gods equivalent to being a God (when encompassing the entire process of equating God to having humanly flesh, etc..).

Your position is a naive and fundamentalist position that must assert a number of anti-intellectual and pseudo-academic axioms before its exegesis can even get off the ground. Since those axioms cannot be supported (inerrancy, univocality, etc.), when questioned, the response is always ad hominem, obfuscation, or to just plain run away. Which will you do?

anti-intellectual huh? I guess if we disagree I must not be intellectually sound huh.. whoops.. I'll have to work on that one.. Your issue is that you make a lot of assumptions on someones beliefs rather than trying to listen and have a legitimate discussion. Provide me with where I have been errant in my exegesis..

Fine. I'm arrogant. This doesn't at all change the fact that I've provided an argument that you are unwilling and unable to engage. Do you have a response to the arguments that I've provided, or is it just your intention to infer that because I'm arrogant, you are exempt from responding to critical oversights I've identified in your exegesis? This writer believes it's the latter.

This is the first substantial post you actually submitted anything worth discussing.. and the beef of it had nothing to do with anything I have asserted... lol..

[maklelan]

Because that was in reference to what was being discussed. Nobody has argued that there were gods before God. Or therefore I would have bolded the first portion... You're just trying to assume that I somehow don't understand the extent of what I was discussing... which is still, quite arrogant, and wrong...

Arrogant or not, I see no indication you do understand the extent of what you're discussing.

No you made the assertion that I thought there could possibly be a time after God where no gods existed, which I never stated.

It was rhetorical. Of course I don't think you believe that. I was simply asking the question to rhetorically point out that your emphasis is on an assertion that rests on a premise you reject. In other words, why would you point to a scripture and say, "See, there aren't going to be any gods after Yahweh" when you clearly don't believe there will be a time at all after Yahweh? It would be the equivalent of pointing to a scripture that said, "there are no other gods in the ninth dimension" and then insisting that proves there are no other gods. I've explained this. You're just getting your own story tied in knots by trying to prove me wrong here.

Now you're saying that I have not understood that you meant that I have to consider the context of the verse comparing that there was no God formed before God, and there will be none created after Him, which, funny enough, I actually already stated that as well, you're just trying to trap me with pretentious rhetoric. Not working...

I honestly cannot make sense out of this paragraph. You don't have to contextualize the verse at all to see that it does not reject the existence of other gods. It only points out that there were no gods created independently of Yahweh, which is perfectly in line with the rest of Deutero-Isaiah's position on the other gods anyway. None of these texts indicates other gods don't exist. All they do is insist the other gods are irrelevant compared to Yahweh.

I wrongly lower-cased God when I wrote my reply to lds or alter, whichever it was when I stated my disagreeance in questioning the existence of Gods.. Was meant to be upper-case G..

Actually the lower-case "g" is correct, unless you're using "God" as a personal name, and if that's the case, then you're rhetoric is just silly. אל can be used as generically as אלהים.

With that in mind, I'm assuming you just did the same with your first sentence here as well. But in response, it does indeed say there will be no Gods created.

After Yahweh. Correct. Since you believe there will never exist an "after Yahweh," though, the assertion is meaningless. It would be like saying there will be no gods creates in the non-existent parallel universe. It's meaningless.

"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

So using the same logic you instituted earlier, its clear to see that the after me, is being conjoined with the before me... Therefore, since there was no God formed before God, there likewise, will be no God formed after him (and since we agree he always exists, we can safely assume that after God is anytime in our understanding of time, 3,000 years ago, 20 years from now, etc..).

No, אחרי doesn't mean "after the point at which I begin to exist." It means after his existence has come to an end.

This is indeed on topic as far as Psalm 82, which I won't pretend to have understood or studied, so I won't venture to make a rebuttle on this. I will agree that there are numerous references to "gods" in the bible, but Isaiah 43 discusses the formation of Gods, not gods...

Oh, it does? Please show me where in the following the text specifically indicates it means "Gods" and not "gods" (two different English uses of the exact same Hebrew word, which word isn't even in this verse):

לפמי לא נוצר אל ואחרי לא יהיה

I'll save you the suspense: there is no such indication. That distinction only exists in English. אל is entirely singular, and means "god." The idea of "God" is a purely modern one.

To note, (slightly off topic) I think it all equates to what the understanding of LDS believe humans will become gods and how non-LDS perceive the becoming of gods equivalent to being a God (when encompassing the entire process of equating God to having humanly flesh, etc..).

I cannot make sense of this sentence either. This is a run-on sentence that has clause after clause embedded within it without any indicator of what kind of syntactical relationship with the previous clause is to be understood.

anti-intellectual huh? I guess if we disagree I must not be intellectually sound huh.. whoops.. I'll have to work on that one.. Your issue is that you make a lot of assumptions on someones beliefs rather than trying to listen and have a legitimate discussion. Provide me with where I have been errant in my exegesis..

First, you completely misunderstand the rhetorical point of Isa 43:10, and I've already explained that in full. Second, you're trying to insist that Hebrew distinguishes between "Gods" and "gods," which is impossible. When you can deal with those two we can move on.

This is the first substantial post you actually submitted anything worth discussing.. and the beef of it had nothing to do with anything I have asserted... lol..

I'm willing to accept this, largely because I don't believe you know what you're asserting. Let's deal with the "Gods/gods" thing first. How do you identify a distinction in the Hebrew?

Edited November 15, 2011 by maklelan

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I don't think Psalm 82 is referencing any kind of divinization, but incompatibility doesn't really mean much. John is incompatible with the other three gospels on numerous levels, including soteriological and christological. James is incompatible with Paul. Revelation is incompatible with just about everything.

Are these incompatibilities, in your opinion, primarily the result of alterations to the texts of the books in question, inaccuracies in translation, or actual differences of content and beliefs of the authors?

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me. I'm not very informed when it comes to interpreting things like this in the Bible.

Are you saying there was time before God's existence? Don't you think both reference points are just rhetoric?

In other words, if any gods were ever created, it was Yahweh who created them. None before or after him did it. This fits with his repeated assertion to have created the host of heavens and to be the god of gods. The fact that the author doesn't believe there was a before or after doesn't actually change the point of the rhetoric.

Likely both. Anyway, see my previous comments on this topic here, here, here, here, and here. My second masters thesis also discusses this in much greater detail, but it's not finished yet. You can also refer to treatments by other scholars found here, here, here, and here.

Second masters thesis? You slouch, you!

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Are these incompatibilities, in your opinion, primarily the result of alterations to the texts of the books in question, inaccuracies in translation, or actual differences of content and beliefs of the authors?

Actual differences. There are numerous ideological differences. James flatly rejects Paul's idea of salvation by faith. John's christology is far more informed by Hellenic Judaism than the others. Matthew is a Judaizer, insisting that Law of Moses will remain in effect until the heavens and the earth pass away. Luke is not, and the Law of Moses was only in effect until John the Baptist. The heavens and earth phrase becomes a comment on how difficult it would be for the law to pass away. The New and Old Testaments are full of ideological differences.

[Rob Bowman]

diglot,

You wrote:

Rob, I am curious as to whether you think Psalm 82 is referring to human judges.

That used to be my position, though I'm no longer sure about it. The strongest exegetical evidence for this view internal to the psalm is its exhortation in verses 2-4; I still find this material difficult to work into the view that the "gods" there are supernatural beings assigned to various nations. On the other hand, the "assembly of the gods" in verse 1 and the conclusion of the psalm referring to God as the judge and owner of all the nations (v. 8 ) are perhaps most easily explained with the national deities interpretation. Really, the whole psalm is so brief and so cryptic that I find it difficult to show that one view is clearly superior to all other views. It may be that some combination of these views is closer to the original idea, i.e., that the actions of wicked leaders on earth reflect the domination of wicked "gods" in the nations.

What seems clear to me is that none of the widely discussed exegetical options for Psalm 82 supports the LDS doctrine of exaltation to godhood (or the patristic doctrine of deification, for that matter).

Edited November 15, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Actual differences. There are numerous ideological differences. James flatly rejects Paul's idea of salvation by faith. John's christology is far more informed by Hellenic Judaism than the others. Matthew is a Judaizer, insisting that Law of Moses will remain in effect until the heavens and the earth pass away. Luke is not, and the Law of Moses was only in effect until John the Baptist. The heavens and earth phrase becomes a comment on how difficult it would be for the law to pass away. The New and Old Testaments are full of ideological differences.

What does it mean, in your view, to affirm that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, if the Bible, apart from problems of transmission or translation, contains such radically disparate teachings?

[diglot]

diglot,

You wrote:

That used to be my position, though I'm no longer sure about it. The strongest exegetical evidence for this view internal to the psalm is its exhortation in verses 2-4; I still find this material difficult to work into the view that the "gods" there are supernatural beings assigned to various nations. On the other hand, the "assembly of the gods" in verse 1 and the conclusion of the psalm referring to God as the judge and owner of all the nations (v. 8 ) are perhaps most easily explained with the national deities interpretation. Really, the whole psalm is so brief and so cryptic that I find it difficult to show that one view is clearly superior to all other views. It may be that some combination of these views is closer to the original idea, i.e., that the actions of wicked leaders on earth reflect the domination of wicked "gods" in the nations.

What seems clear to me is that none of the widely discussed exegetical options for Psalm 82 supports the LDS doctrine of exaltation to godhood (or the patristic doctrine of deification, for that matter).

Thanks