Psalm 82 In The Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

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?

We've been over this already, Rob.

[Bill Hamblin]

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).

Interesting position. You don't know what it means for sure, but you know LDS interpretations are wrong. Since you don't know what it means, how can you know they're wrong?

[volgadon]

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.

My background might be showing, but my take on this is a little different. These are definitely gods, but given the Psalter's frequent concenr with social justice, Ps. 82 presents a kal va-homer (a fortiori) argument. If YHWH hasn't spared even the gods for their judiciary abuses, then all the more so he won't spare mortal rulers.

[maklelan]

My background might be showing, but my take on this is a little different. These are definitely gods, but given the Psalter's frequent concenr with social justice, Ps. 82 presents a kal va-homer (a fortiori) argument. If YHWH hasn't spared even the gods for their judiciary abuses, then all the more so he won't spare mortal rulers.

This is the argument of Prinsloo and Niehr. It technically addresses the gods, but the gods are a projection of human authority figures. I think its clear the implication is that the Babylonians have been naughty, but it's more helpful for their rhetoric to insist this implicates their gods so Yahweh can oust them and become politically universalized.

[Vance]

Interesting position. You don't know what it means for sure, but you know LDS interpretations are wrong. Since you don't know what it means, how can you know they're wrong?

It is a classic anti-Mormon position that I have seen many times.

1) They don't know what it means, BUT!!!

2) Mormons are wrong!!

LOL!!!!

I have seen it with 1 Cor 15:29 among other things.

[diglot]

It is a classic anti-Mormon position that I have seen many times.

1) They don't know what it means, BUT!!!

2) Mormons are wrong!!

LOL!!!!

I have seen it with 1 Cor 15:29 among other things.

lol at all the "anti-mormon" rhetoric that is thrown around here. Its as bad as all the "anti-Christian" rhetoric they throw around at CARM.

One doesn't have to know precisely what a verse means before one can adjudicate as what it does and does not support. To say otherwise is absurd IMO.

If someone shows me an apple, I may not know exactly what type of apple it is, but if its not green then that precludes the option that its a granny smith apple. Does that mean I'm "anti- granny smith"? No. It just means I'm using logic and common sense.

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[Vance]

lol at all the "anti-mormon" rhetoric that is thrown around here.

How can personal experience be "rhetoric"?

One doesn't have to know precisely what a verse means before one can adjudicate as what it does and does not support. To say otherwise is absurd IMO.

Ok, so then, why in your example below, don't you actually support this statement, rather than demonstrate the opposite?

If someone shows me an apple, . . .

How do you "know" it is an apple without having some "knowledge" on the subject?

. . . I may not know exactly what type of apple it is, . . .

BUT, you do "know" it is an apple, thus exhibiting that you actually do "know" some thing about the subject in question.

. . . but if its not green then that precludes the option that its a granny smith apple.

And how do you "know" this without having some knowledge on the subject?

Does that mean I'm "anti- granny smith"?

Off course not. What a silly and irrelevant question.

No. It just means I'm using logic and common sense.

Really now?

Edited November 15, 2011 by Vance

[LeSellers]

It is a classic anti-Mormon position that I have seen many times.

1) They don't know what it means, BUT!!!

2) Mormons are wrong!!

...

I have seen it with 1 Cor 15:29 among other things.

With 1 Cor (and probably the psalm, too), commentaries written before ~1840 were univocal in saying we don't know what it means, but here are possibilities, including vicarious baptisms for dead who had not accepted the Gospel in life. After the revelation on baptism for the dead, they continued to say they were ignorant, but they became nearly univocal in rejecting the LDS understanding of the passage.

I wish I had my references here so I could check out their views on tow additional passages. This psalm is one, the other is Luke 1:17. The latter is the only passage I know of quoted (or paraphrased) in each of the five standard works. Malachi 4:5~6; Luke, the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 25:5~6, the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:38~39, and six times in the Doctrine and Covenants. While these latter references wouldn't influence them too much (positively, anyway), one wonders how they handle the Lucan echo.

I did find one here:

[3.] He shall go in the spirit and power of Elias. That is, First, He shall be such a man as Elias was, and do such work as Elias did,—shall, like him, preach the necessity of repentance and reformation to a very corrupt and degenerate age,—shall, like him, be bold and zealous in reproving sin and witnessing against it even in the greatest, and be hated and persecuted for it by a Herod and his Herodias, as Elijah was by an Ahab and his Jezebel. He shall be carried on in his work, as Elijah was, by a divine spirit and power, which shall crown his ministry with wonderful success. As Elias went before the writing prophets of the Old Testament, and did as it were usher in that signal period of the Old-Testament dispensation by a little writing of his own (2Chr 21:12), so John Baptist went before Christ and his apostles, and introduced the gospel dispensation by preaching the substance of the gospel doctrine and duty, Repent, with an eye to the kingdom of heaven. Secondly, He shall be that very person who was prophesied of by Malachi under the name of Elijah (Mal 4:5), who should be sent before the coming of the day of the Lord. Behold, I send you a prophet, even Elias, not Elias the Tishbite (as the Septuagint has corruptly read it, to favour the Jews’ traditions), but a prophet in the spirit and power of Elias, as the angel here expounds it. [This he got right, good man!]

[4.] He shall turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, shall incline their hearts to receive the Messiah, and bid him welcome, by awakening them to a sense of sin and a desire of righteousness. Whatever has a tendency to turn us from iniquity, as John’s preaching and baptism had, will turn us to Christ as our Lord and our God; for those who through grace are wrought upon to shake off the yoke of sin, that is, the dominion of the world and the flesh, will soon be persuaded to take upon them the yoke of the Lord Jesus.

[5.] Hereby he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, that is, of the Jews to the Gentiles; shall help to conquer the rooted prejudices which the Jews have against the Gentiles, which was done by the gospel, as far as it prevailed, and was begun to be done by John Baptist, who came for a witness, that all through him might believe, who baptized and taught Roman soldiers as well as Jewish Pharisees, and who cured the pride and confidence of those Jews who gloried in their having Abraham to their father, and told them that God would out of stones raise up children unto Abraham (Mt 3:9), which would tend to cure their enmity to the Gentiles. Dr. Lightfoot observes, It is the constant usage of the prophets to speak of the church of the Gentiles as children to the Jewish church, Isa 54:5, 6, 13; 60:4, 9; 62:5; 66:12. When the Jews that embraced the faith of Christ were brought to join in communion with the Gentiles that did so too, then the heart of the fathers was turned to the children. And he shall turn the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that is, he shall introduce the gospel, by which the Gentiles, who are now disobedient, shall be turned, no so much to their fathers the Jews, but to the faith of Christ, here called the wisdom of the just, in communion with the believing Jews; or thus, He shall turn the hearts of the fathers with the children, that is, the hearts of old and young, shall be instrumental to bring some of every age to be religious, to work a great reformation in the Jewish nation, to bring them off from a ritual traditional religion which that had rested in, and to bring them up to substantial serious godliness: and the effect of this will be, that enmities will be slain and discord made to cease; and they are at variance, being united in his baptism, will be better reconciled one to another. This agrees with the account Josephus gives of John Baptist, Antiq. 18.117-118. "That he was a good man, and taught the Jews the exercise of virtue, in piety towards God, and righteous towards one another, and that they should convene and knit together in baptism.’’ And he saith, "The people flocked after him, and were exceedingly delighted in his doctrine.’’ Thus he turned the hearts of fathers and children to God and to one another, by turning the disobedient to the wisdom of the just. Observe, First, True religion is the wisdom of just men, in distinction from the wisdom of the world. It is both our wisdom and our duty to be religious; there is both equity and prudence in it. Secondly, It is not possible but that those who have been unbelieving and disobedient may be turned to the wisdom of the just; divine grace can conquer the greatest ignorance and prejudice. Thirdly, The great design of the gospel is to bring people home to God, and to bring them nearer to one another; and on this errand John Baptist is sent. In the mention that is twice made of his turning people, there seems to be an allusion to the name of the Tishbite, which is given to Elijah, which, some think, does not denote the country or city he was of, but has an appellative signification, and therefore the render it Elijah the converter, one that was much employed, and very successful, in conversion-work. The Elias of the New Testament is therefore said to turn or convert many to the Lord their God.

Sad, often so close, but so off the mark in general. Thank God for living prophets!

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Interesting position. You don't know what it means for sure, but you know LDS interpretations are wrong. Since you don't know what it means, how can you know they're wrong?

Let's say there are three exegetically live options for understanding Psalm 82 (human judges, Israelites at Mount Sinai, or supernatural powers ruling over different nations). (If you wish to add more, feel free, but the logic of my reasoning would not be affected.) I observe that none of these three options agrees with the interpretation that human beings may, if they have faith and do all of the requisite good works, become exalted to the status of gods. I also observe exegetically that the Psalmist is addressing beings of some sort existing in OT times and is referring to them as "gods" in the present ("You are gods," not "You may become gods"). This simple exegetical observation seems sufficient to set aside any interpretation that understands the text to be referring to a future potential exaltation or deification. I therefore conclude that such an interpretation is not viable, even if i remain undecided as to which of the three viable exegetical views is best.

[diglot]

How can personal experience be "rhetoric"?

 

I'm not saying personal experience is rhetoric.

Ok, so then, why in your example below, don't you actually support this statement, rather than demonstrate the opposite?

I'm not following what you mean sorry.

How do you "know" it is an apple without having some "knowledge" on the subject?

BUT, you do "know" it is an apple, thus exhibiting that you actually do "know" some thing about the subject in question.

Utterly irrelevant.

 

And how do you "know" this without having some knowledge on the subject?

Again, utterly irrelevant. I never said anything about not having any knowledge about the issue.

Off course not.  What a silly and irrelevant question.

So why call someone anti-Mormon just because they are not sure exactly what a verse means, yet are capable of determining what it does not mean. 

Really now?

Yes, really.

I think you have entirely missed the point of my last post, or you did understand it and are now just trying to obfuscate this whole issue.

[diglot]

I can't believe I'm having to debate (what to me at least) is an obvious and pretty much axiomatic truth. One does not have to know precisely what a text does mean in order to adjudicate what the text does not mean (or what concepts it does not support).

Edited November 15, 2011 by diglot

[Vance]

I think you have entirely missed the point of my last post, or you did understand it and are now just trying to obfuscate this whole issue.

Right back at you.

[Jesterss]

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

Ok let's actually address what my missed point was more in-depth, which will undoubtedly point out my ignorance of the entire LDS view of becoming God but here it is nonetheless.

You insist that Isaiah 43:10 is just rhetorical in stating that there is no time before or after God. I agree with the premise of no time before or after God, as I have already stated. But I don't agree that Isaiah 43:10 is rhetorical in just pointing out that obvious theology.

⁹ All the nations gather together

and the peoples assemble.

Which of their gods foretold this

and proclaimed to us the former things?

Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right,

so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”

¹⁰ “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,

“and my servant whom I have chosen,

so that you may know and believe me

and understand that I am he.

Before me no god was formed,

nor will there be one after me.

¹¹ I, even I, am the LORD,

and apart from me there is no savior.

¹² I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—

I, and not some foreign god among you.

You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God.

So the most obvious point of Isaiah is to agree that there is only one true God, he who created everything. There will be no God to have the power that he has.

So with that in mind, isn't it true that the LDS belief is that they can be progressed into becoming gods, but more importantly, once that happens, they can create spirit children?

Isn't it also a doctrine of JS that God was once a man as we are and became exalted?

With both of those concepts in mind isn't it easy to see why non-LDS believe that LDS are trying to project the ability to become equal to God? In turn, lessening the glory of the actual God?

If God has always been God and will always be the only true God, wherein no other God will be formed. How is it possible that God was once a man as we are? How can we become a God with him?

You already agreed that there were no Gods before God. So how was God just a man to become exalted? How was he born of heavenly parents? Wouldn't that make them higher than him? If not higher, it would most definitely make them equals, and put their existence prior to his.

About Isaiah 43:10. I believe it can be understood as rhetorical, that I don't disagree with, but that does not determine it as the soul meaning. If indeed God the Father had heavenly parents, then your religion has already denied this verse to be rhetorical at all, because there would have been a God before the true God (the one who created everything). That alone rebukes your idea of before and after.

If we understand the before and after me part. It can still (despite what you may believe) be understood as two different ideals. 1) Before and After me as in a time wherein God does not exist. 2) Before me, which obviously doesn't exist, or After God, wherein a time frame God exists, but no other Gods will be formed or exist.

Personally, I agree with Both.

[Jesterss]

Again, I haven't really ever studied this scripture before (Psalm 82:6) but upon further reading. I find it fascinating that verse 6 tells us that ye are gods, but verse 7 when contrasting verse 6 tells us that these gods will die just as mortal men. How can gods die? Isn't becoming a God to become eternal?

Other verses to consider when considering others "Gods"...

Psalm 96:5

Jeremiah 10:11

⁵For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

¹¹Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Jesterss

[maklelan]

Ok let's actually address what my missed point was more in-depth, which will undoubtedly point out my ignorance of the entire LDS view of becoming God but here it is nonetheless.

You insist that Isaiah 43:10 is just rhetorical in stating that there is no time before or after God. I agree with the premise of no time before or after God, as I have already stated. But I don't agree that Isaiah 43:10 is rhetorical in just pointing out that obvious theology.

But it doesn't point out that "obvious theology." The rhetoric actually ignores it.

So the most obvious point of Isaiah is to agree that there is only one true God, he who created everything.

Not, that's not the obvious point at all.

There will be no God to have the power that he has.

Saying there will be none that have the power he has is quite different from saying there are no other gods.

So with that in mind, isn't it true that the LDS belief is that they can be progressed into becoming gods, but more importantly, once that happens, they can create spirit children?

Yes, that is the LDS view.

Isn't it also a doctrine of JS that God was once a man as we are and became exalted?

It's not a doctrine, but it was a teaching of is.

With both of those concepts in mind isn't it easy to see why non-LDS believe that LDS are trying to project the ability to become equal to God?

No. Latter-day Saints have consistently pointed out that they don't believe they will ever become equal to God. God will always be over them. In terms of ontological hierarchy, I can reach every age that my father reached, but I will never overtake him. With God, his divinization of humanity only adds to his glory. In short, he takes a step forward with every step that we take toward him.

In turn, lessening the glory of the actual God?

Latter-day Saints find the notion puzzling that if God has the power to bring mortals up to his divine station, that means his glory is diminished. Latter-day Saints believe that such a view of salvation actually compounds God's glory.

If God has always been God and will always be the only true God, wherein no other God will be formed. How is it possible that God was once a man as we are? How can we become a God with him?

For Latter-day Saints who accept the teaching that God was once a man, God has always been God as far as we're concerned. I have always been my daughter's father, but I have not always been a father.

You already agreed that there were no Gods before God.

You misrepresent me. I have already agreed that the author of Deutero-Isaiah believed there were no gods before God. You also continue to ignore my concerns with your equivocation regarding the words "God" and "god."

So how was God just a man to become exalted? How was he born of heavenly parents? Wouldn't that make them higher than him? If not higher, it would most definitely make them equals, and put their existence prior to his.

Absolutely, and for the earliest Israelites, Yahweh was not the highest god.

About Isaiah 43:10. I believe it can be understood as rhetorical, that I don't disagree with, but that does not determine it as the soul meaning.

But can you give a decent reason to conclude that more than one "soul"meaning is in view?

If indeed God the Father had heavenly parents, then your religion has already denied this verse to be rhetorical at all, because there would have been a God before the true God (the one who created everything). That alone rebukes your idea of before and after.

But this presupposes that the author of Deutero-Isaiah is right. I don't make that presupposition. Additionally, I'm not trying to defend the LDS view, I'm just pointing out that your exegesis is wrong.

If we understand the before and after me part. It can still (despite what you may believe) be understood as two different ideals. 1) Before and After me as in a time wherein God does not exist. 2) Before me, which obviously doesn't exist, or After God, wherein a time frame God exists, but no other Gods will be formed or exist.

The second option is clearly not in view. "Before me" and "after me" do not mean "not before me" and "not after me."

Personally, I agree with Both.

That's because your exegesis is presuppositional and uninformed.

[maklelan]

Again, I haven't really ever studied this scripture before (Psalm 82:6) but upon further reading. I find it fascinating that verse 6 tells us that ye are gods, but verse 7 when contrasting verse 6 tells us that these gods will die just as mortal men. How can gods die? Isn't becoming a God to become eternal?

This objection is bush league. Gods died all the time in antiquity. You should check out, for starters, the following article, from the book Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism: Peter Machinist, “How Gods Die, Biblically and Otherwise: A Problem of Cosmic Restructuring.” Here's the abstract:

One characteristic that is conventionally associated with deities in the ancient Near East, indeed generally, is immortality. But the fact is that a number of ancient Near Eastern, as well as other, religious traditions have a category of dead gods. The death of gods in these traditions does not normally mean a lack of existence, or even of capability, but a translation to a different kind of existence and sphere of existence from that of life, still as gods; and the translation may even be understood as one that can be reversed. Against this broader conception, the present paper looks more specifically at the concept of dead gods in the Hebrew Bible. Something of the broader conception, it will be argued, is preserved by the Biblical authors, yet there seems to be something different as well, evident, most notably, in Psalm 82. What that something is, what possible analogies or background, if any, it may have in the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean world, and how it may be related to the conception of deity connected with the Israelite God, Yahweh – these will be the focus of our discussion.

You may be right that I am a theological and biblical knuckle-dragger, but Harvard University's Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages agrees with me. Perhaps you can just accuse him of ignorance and/or arrogance as well.

Other verses to consider when considering others "Gods"...

Psalm 96:5

Actually the word translated there as "idols" really just means "worthless things." The rhetoric is identical to that of Deutero-Isaiah, where the gods, the nations, and the people who make idols and fight against Israel are all "nothings," "vanity," and "worthless."

Jeremiah 10:11

Gee, that sounds like Psalm 82, doesn't it?

Edited November 15, 2011 by maklelan

[Jesterss]

But it doesn't point out that "obvious theology." The rhetoric actually ignores it.

Then what is it pointing out if it's not saying there will be no God before or after God?

Not, that's not the obvious point at all.

Now you're just arguing to argue, because that's clearly the point.

Saying there will be none that have the power he has is quite different from saying there are no other gods.

Agreed. That may have been a conclusion drawn from other areas of the bible to support my claim. But to be the only God, means you are supreme to all things and therefore possess the highest power. And if there will not be any other God created, then nothing can obviously obtain his power... Still goes with this scripture..

No. Latter-day Saints have consistently pointed out that they don't believe they will ever become equal to God. God will always be over them. In terms of ontological hierarchy, I can reach every age that my father reached, but I will never overtake him. With God, his divinization of humanity only adds to his glory. In short, he takes a step forward with every step that we take toward him.

So then with my understanding, you believe the ability for humans, once they become gods, to create spirit children, is just adding to the glory of God and not taking away from him? Okay. Point taken. Still leaves gaps though. See below.

For Latter-day Saints who accept the teaching that God was once a man, God has always been God as far as we're concerned. I have always been my daughter's father, but I have not always been a father.

Still does not address the issue that there was then a God or Gods before God, in which he must call God. If God was created by other Gods, he could not possibly be Alpha. And it compounds the issue of him telling us that there was no God before him.

You misrepresent me. I have already agreed that the author of Deutero-Isaiah believed there were no gods before God. You also continue to ignore my concerns with your equivocation regarding the words "God" and "god."

God is the title given to God the Father, wherein god is any being who possesses authority or is being idolized by another being.

Absolutely, and for the earliest Israelites, Yahweh was not the highest god.

So then where is Asherah in the BOM?

But can you give a decent reason to conclude that more than one "soul"meaning is in view?

Already did. You just don't accept it. See below...

But this presupposes that the author of Deutero-Isaiah is right. I don't make that presupposition. Additionally, I'm not trying to defend the LDS view, I'm just pointing out that your exegesis is wrong.

No, you are pointing out that my exegesis does not line up with your exegesis, in which case you have listened to other historians and teachers that share your view and propose it as the only right answer. Many people teach false doctrines. That's a fact.

The second option is clearly not in view. "Before me" and "after me" do not mean "not before me" and "not after me."

So you're telling me that, "before me no god was formed", does not mean "not before me".. and that "nor will there be one after me" does not really mean "not after me"?... of course if you remove the no and nor, then you would be right, but no and nor exist in the sentence...so, word for word of course they aren't the same, but in context... pretty sure that is indeed what they mean... You have a funny understanding of the english lexicon.

[altersteve]

God is the title given to God the Father, wherein god is any being who possesses authority or is being idolized by another being.

God is the title also given to Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

So then where is Asherah in the BOM?

Who cares?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So then where is Asherah in the BOM?

This is pure deflection. This has nothing what so ever to do with the topic at hand.

FYI She is there if one is willing to look.

[maklelan]

Then what is it pointing out if it's not saying there will be no God before or after God?

I've already pointed this out multiple times.

Now you're just arguing to argue, because that's clearly the point.

I've explained exactly why that can't be the point.

Agreed. That may have been a conclusion drawn from other areas of the bible to support my claim. But to be the only God, means you are supreme to all things and therefore possess the highest power. And if there will not be any other God created, then nothing can obviously obtain his power... Still goes with this scripture..

You're preaching Xenophanes, not Deutero-Isaiah. Obviously you're preaching it because Trinitarianism is a remnant of that tradition, mediated through Plato.

So then with my understanding, you believe the ability for humans, once they become gods, to create spirit children, is just adding to the glory of God and not taking away from him? Okay. Point taken. Still leaves gaps though. See below.

I didn't see you point out any gaps.

Still does not address the issue that there was then a God or Gods before God, in which he must call God.

This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. What is the antecedent for "in which"?

If God was created by other Gods, he could not possibly be Alpha.

He sure could. I'm the first and only dad my daughter has ever had and ever will have. I am her Alpha and Omega in terms of fatherhood.

And it compounds the issue of him telling us that there was no God before him.

You don't appear to know what it means for something to "compound" an issue. I very clearly distinguished between Deutero-Isaiah's ideologies and modern Mormon ideologies, though. You're still trying to argue that there is incongruity between two ideologies I have explicitly said I don't believe are unified. You aren't paying attention.

God is the title given to God the Father, wherein god is any being who possesses authority or is being idolized by another being.

I've asked you multiple times already to show me why I should accept that there's a difference between אלהים and אלהים in the Hebrew Bible. You've ignored my question and yet you still reassert yourself. I'm afraid I'm going to have to issue a formal CFR. Show me why I should believe that the single Hebrew word elohim means two mutually exclusive things. You'll be in violation of board rules if you refuse to answer.

So then where is Asherah in the BOM?

This has nothing to do with this discussion.

Already did. You just don't accept it. See below...

I have seen no such reason, and I don't think you can link me to one.

No, you are pointing out that my exegesis does not line up with your exegesis, in which case you have listened to other historians and teachers that share your view and propose it as the only right answer. Many people teach false doctrines. That's a fact.

No, I've explained in great detail why your exegesis is mistaken, and what others have said has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I have said. My conclusions are my own, and I can defend them on my own. So far you've yet to defend anything of your own. You can't show that more than one meaning is in view in Isa 43:10; you can't show that elohim means both "God" and "god"; you can't show that my exegesis is flawed in the least. All you can do is bark that I'm wrong.

So you're telling me that, "before me no god was formed", does not mean "not before me".. and that "nor will there be one after me" does not really mean "not after me"?... of course if you remove the no and nor, then you would be right, but no and nor exist in the sentence...so, word for word of course they aren't the same, but in context... pretty sure that is indeed what they mean...

So although negating particles do not appear in the context, the context is still such that it negates the statement's content words. Please explain.

You have a funny understanding of the english lexicon.

I'm not the one who referred to "the soul meaning." I'm tired of your evasiveness. I've issued a formal CFR here. Respond to it or you will be reported.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

So then where is Asherah in the BOM?

Who cares?

*raises hand* I do, I do! (Despite the fact that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.)

See Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8 - 23 by Daniel C. Peterson.

And now back to your regularly-scheduled thread.

[altersteve]

*raises hand* I do, I do! (Despite the fact that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.)

See Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8 - 23 by Daniel C. Peterson.

And now back to your regularly-scheduled thread.

Haha, I care too. I just meant that his question had nothing to do with the thread topic.

That's a fascinating article, by the way. Things like that make me realize how much there is to learn from the Book of Mormon, and how amazing the Book of Mormon is. Thanks for the link, Jeremy!

[Jesterss]

No, I've explained in great detail why your exegesis is mistaken, and what others have said has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I have said. My conclusions are my own, and I can defend them on my own. So far you've yet to defend anything of your own. You can't show that more than one meaning is in view in Isa 43:10; you can't show that elohim means both "God" and "god"; you can't show that my exegesis is flawed in the least. All you can do is bark that I'm wrong.

I can't? That's funny, because if you bothered to read any other interpretation of the bible other than the KJV you would see this exact point..

¹⁰ “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

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 what again was your point for a CFR? and trying to tell me that there is no difference? obviously there is no difference, but when referencing between God (the father, son, holy ghost) and gods (other entities such as silver, gold, ruling authorities of humans, etc..) there is a difference...Pretty sure the people who translated the bible (whether you agree with any of them or not) know how to translate much better than you and your research of those doing the actual translating...

Edited November 16, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jesterss]

This is pure deflection. This has nothing what so ever to do with the topic at hand.

FYI She is there if one is willing to look.

It has to do with his answer saying the israelites believes in many gods. So in fact, it does pertain to what was stated by maklelan...

Perhaps you could provide the text in which she appears..

[Jesterss]

*raises hand* I do, I do! (Despite the fact that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.)

See Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8 - 23 by Daniel C. Peterson.

And now back to your regularly-scheduled thread.

Isn't maklelan the one who wrote that?