Psalm 82 In The Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[maklelan]

I can't?

No, you 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.

If I bothered to read any other interpretation than the KJV? Have I once given any indication whatsoever that I use the KJV at all? What point, exactly, does the NIV make that the KJV doesn't make? How does this at all engage my exegesis?

So what again was your point for a CFR?

To try to get you to give me some kind of support for an idea you keep implying.

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...

No, there is no difference. Now, you claimed there was. Can you show there is, or can you just naively insist there is?

[Jesterss]

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

I subscribe to no religion or philosophical teaching... sorry

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

Let me spell it out again for you. If God had parents, which you still haven't said whether you believe it, but since this is an LDS forum, and you are LDS, I'm "assuming" that you do. So if God had parents, they must have been Gods. And therefore, being Gods, would have preceded God. Which would directly conflict with Isaiah 43:10 and there being no God before him. That better?

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.

But God is said to be the creator of EVERYTHING. not just us and not just humans...

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.

I'm paying attention. You just fail to see the connections..

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.

You can't state that אלהים and אלהים are different because it's the exact same Hebrew word. Obviously. But you can't just take the words out of context and say that it's the exact same thing every time. Especially in Hebrew. If the words were just that, then there wouldn't be so many different renditions of the word God in the Bible at all...

This has nothing to do with this discussion.

It has to do with your assertion that the israelites believed in many Gods. and if there were other gods as you suppose, why then isn't Asherah mentioned in the BOM as the wife of God if your revelation is so accurate?

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.

What? Are you seriously confused here or what?

[maklelan]

Isn't maklelan the one who wrote that?

Daniel O. McClellan =/= Daniel C. Peterson. I know the first names are the same, but that actually doesn't make us the same person.

[Jesterss]

If I bothered to read any other interpretation than the KJV? Have I once given any indication whatsoever that I use the KJV at all? What point, exactly, does the NIV make that the KJV doesn't make? How does this at all engage my exegesis?

Nope, but you refuse to see that the same word Elohim, was translated as God, and as god....

No, there is no difference. Now, you claimed there was. Can you show there is, or can you just naively insist there is?

I only claimed there was a difference when discussing it with some people around here. I've been corrected before so I wanted to use capitalization when referring to God the Father and lowercase when referring to material or ruling authorities as gods.. That was the clarity I was making. Because there is a difference in that...

[Jesterss]

Daniel O. McClellan =/= Daniel C. Peterson. I know the first names are the same, but that actually doesn't make us the same person.

Oh I was just recalling from earlier didn't actually memorize your name... My mistake.

[maklelan]

I subscribe to no religion or philosophical teaching... sorry

This doesn't mean your perspective is not informed primarily by traditional Trinitarian ideologies.

Let me spell it out again for you. If God had parents, which you still haven't said whether you believe it, but since this is an LDS forum, and you are LDS, I'm "assuming" that you do.

Don't make any assumptions about what I believe. It'll save both of us a bunch of time.

So if God had parents, they must have been Gods. And therefore, being Gods, would have preceded God. Which would directly conflict with Isaiah 43:10 and there being no God before him. That better?

No, because you're still pointing to a conflict between two different worldviews that I have never said should be conflated. This is what you don't seem to be able to grasp.

But God is said to be the creator of EVERYTHING. not just us and not just humans...

In some places, yes. In other places, no.

I'm paying attention. You just fail to see the connections..

You can't state that אלהים and אלהים are different because it's the exact same Hebrew word. Obviously. But you can't just take the words out of context and say that it's the exact same thing every time. Especially in Hebrew. If the words were just that, then there wouldn't be so many different renditions of the word God in the Bible at all...

How many different "renditions" of the word elohim do you find in the Hebrew Bible?

It has to do with your assertion that the israelites believed in many Gods. and if there were other gods as you suppose, why then isn't Asherah mentioned in the BOM as the wife of God if your revelation is so accurate?

I'm not here to argue that the Book of Mormon is accurate. I'm here to point out that your exegesis is wrong.

What? Are you seriously confused here or what?

Here was your statement:

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...

Of course, I was referring to negation of the existence of a time before or after Yahweh ("before me" vs. "not before me") not the negation of the existence of gods during that time. There are no "nos" or "not exists" in reference to the existence of a time before or after Yahweh in the sentence. You're equivocating.

[maklelan]

Oh I was just recalling from earlier didn't actually memorize your name... My mistake.

My full name appears at the bottom of every single one of my posts. See below.

[maklelan]

Nope, but you refuse to see that the same word Elohim, was translated as God, and as god....

Which is incorrect.

I only claimed there was a difference when discussing it with some people around here. I've been corrected before so I wanted to use capitalization when referring to God the Father and lowercase when referring to material or ruling authorities as gods.. That was the clarity I was making. Because there is a difference in that...

So your argument is that Isa 43:10 really only says that there's no God the Father before God the Father, and no God the Father after God the Father? What leads you to believe that Isa 43:10 specifically refers to God the Father and not generically to any deity?

[Jesterss]

This doesn't mean your perspective is not informed primarily by traditional Trinitarian ideologies.

Don't make any assumptions about what I believe. It'll save both of us a bunch of time.

So you can assume that I have a trinitarian ideology yet I can't assume that your backing of many gods is not an LDS view? Interesting. I'm still going to assume you're LDS and your argument is to provide a justification for the plurality of gods. Which is what you have said..

I'm not here to argue that the Book of Mormon is accurate. I'm here to point out that your exegesis is wrong.

Nothing has been proven wrong. You just prove that my exegesis differs from yours. That is all.

Of course, I was referring to negation of the existence of a time before or after Yahweh ("before me" vs. "not before me") not the negation of the existence of gods during that time. There are no "nos" or "not exists" in reference to the existence of a time before or after Yahweh in the sentence. You're equivocating.

So you are referencing "time" not the notion of "gods". Ok. So the verse does not tell us that there is no time before God. How exactly does this relate to anything I've said? We are talking about Gods. And if time existed before God, then you take a scientific approach in assuming that God arose from some material that exists in our known realm of "time". I'm not saying I know how he became to be what he became to be. But I do know that no God created our God.

[Jesterss]

Which is incorrect.

So why don't you create a translation of the bible then if you know exactly how it should all be translated and others have continuously got it wrong?

So your argument is that Isa 43:10 really only says that there's no God the Father before God the Father, and no God the Father after God the Father? What leads you to believe that Isa 43:10 specifically refers to God the Father and not generically to any deity?

Because God the Father is the one who says it. Therefore, when he says "me" he means that there was no God before him... If he had a Father, then clearly a God would have existed before him.. He eliminates the notion for any existence of a God prior to him...

[altersteve]

Because God the Father is the one who says it. Therefore, when he says "me" he means that there was no God before him... If he had a Father, then clearly a God would have existed before him.. He eliminates the notion for any existence of a God prior to him...

No, Jehovah is the one who says it, the premortal Jesus Christ.

And once again, when Isaiah 43:10 says "gods," it is talking about false gods, as you will see when you read the verse in context, and is meant to reaffirm the superiority of Jehovah over all else. That's all this verse is saying. However, we do believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost have been members of the Godhead from all eternity to all eternity, though our understanding of what that means differs from yours. We see no contradiction between our beliefs and any verse in the Bible, since we interpret the Bible in light of what God's prophets have revealed in these latter days. The fact that you see a contradiction shows that you don't understand our beliefs very well, especially our beliefs about revelation, and it also shows that you still don't understand the perspective that we look at the Bible from, even after we've explained it to you several times. With revelation comes an increased understanding -- a clarification and expansion of biblical doctrine -- and since you don't seem to believe in modern revelation, then we'll continue to talk past each other. So try looking at the Bible from our point of view for once -- maybe you'll learn something about how our beliefs really do make a lot of sense.

Edited November 16, 2011 by altersteve

[maklelan]

So you can assume that I have a trinitarian ideology yet I can't assume that your backing of many gods is not an LDS view? Interesting.

I have continually asserted axioms that don't align with LDS ideologies. You have yet to say a word that conflicts with traditional Trinitarianism. Additionally, I have not crafted any arguments that are based on the assumption that you are a classical Trinitarian. I just said that your comment reflects that background. You have continually ignored my comments to respond only to positions you assume I am required to hold as a result of being a Latter-day Saint. There's an enormous difference between what you're doing and what I'm doing.

I'm still going to assume you're LDS and your argument is to provide a justification for the plurality of gods. Which is what you have said..

And I provided you with several links to comprehensive arguments in favor of that conclusion. Feel free to respond to any of those arguments here. I'm not going to reproduce any of them just because you object to having click on a link to reach an argument.

Nothing has been proven wrong. You just prove that my exegesis differs from yours. That is all.

No, I've shown your exegesis is presuppositional and naive. You've just ignored those portions of my argument.

So you are referencing "time" not the notion of "gods". Ok.

I made this abundantly clear in my original comments. Here was your comment:

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.

Here was my response:

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

There is simply no room to misunderstand me here. You are demonstrably not paying adequate attention.

So the verse does not tell us that there is no time before God. How exactly does this relate to anything I've said?

See your option number 2 above. You're insisting the text can and should be interpreted to mean "before me" is a category that "obviously doesn't exist." The rhetoric makes no such thing "obvious."

We are talking about Gods. And if time existed before God, then you take a scientific approach in assuming that God arose from some material that exists in our known realm of "time". I'm not saying I know how he became to be what he became to be. But I do know that no God created our God.

How do you know that no god created Yahweh? That's certainly in view Deut 32:8-9. You're still appealing to traditional Trinitarianism, and you've not actually satisfied my CFR. Do it in your next post or you will be reported.

[maklelan]

So why don't you create a translation of the bible then if you know exactly how it should all be translated and others have continuously got it wrong?

Because that would be an enormous waste of time.

Because God the Father is the one who says it.

Absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who says it, it matters whether or not whoever said it actually indicates that God the Father alone is in view and not just deity generically.

Therefore, when he says "me" he means that there was no God before him...

This is becoming grotesque. This is still absolutely and utterly irrelevant. Your comment was that "no god" refers to God the Father specifically, and not to the generic idea of deity. it means "there's no other God the Father" and not "there's no other god." It simply does not matter who said it. Now, you said it refers specifically to God the Father. There is no other God the Father. Support the notion that it means "no other God the Father" and not just "no other god" generically. You can either defend this assertion or you cannot. Stop slinging these red herrings and strawmen in my direction.

If he had a Father, then clearly a God would have existed before him.. He eliminates the notion for any existence of a God prior to him...

I don't think you even know what you're arguing anymore.

[Jesterss]

You're just throwing everything out because you don't agree with it. Classical arrogance of someone not willing to listen to a view he's already set in stone due to his belief of being above someone. Your educational background is corrupting your logic of having a decent discussion. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 does not make it clear that there was another God or any God before the God. Sad.. You're not even worth discussing this with anymore.. you continually ignore point after point...

[maklelan]

You're just throwing everything out because you don't agree with it. Classical arrogance of someone not willing to listen to a view he's already set in stone due to his belief of being above someone. Your educational background is corrupting your logic of having a decent discussion. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 does not make it clear that there was another God or any God before the God. Sad.. You're not even worth discussing this with anymore.. you continually ignore point after point...

I've not ignored a single point, I've just pointed out when your points are fallacious, off-topic, or wrong, and that's the vast majority of them. Deut 32:8-9 absolutely does point to a deity other than Yahweh, and it's the deity who gives him Israel as sn inheritance. What version of Deuteronomy 32 are you looking at, anyway? Also, you've failed to satisfy my CFR, obviously because you can do nothing but assert ideas you can't defend. I'll be reporting your breach of the rules.

[Jesterss]

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.

I guess my question is more on trying to understand how "a god" and God (other than title and glory alone) are two very different things?

So the difference lies in exactly what you said: in title and in glory. Our Heavenly Father is the God of gods, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of all that exists, and the Father of our spirits. Those titles, and the glory that comes from them, will never be ours.

Clearly it was never my stance that they were different. That was some erroneous conclusion you came too based on my issuance of making God a formal name rather than to just keep equating it to god in order to clarify it in our discussion... you seem to keep making false accusations and requesting me to CFR things that I have not asserted.. lol.. classical straw man eh?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

You're just throwing everything out because you don't agree with it. Classical arrogance of someone not willing to listen to a view he's already set in stone due to his belief of being above someone. Your educational background is corrupting your logic of having a decent discussion. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 does not make it clear that there was another God or any God before the God. Sad.. You're not even worth discussing this with anymore.. you continually ignore point after point...

No, it's saying that there was never another "our Heavenly Father, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the universe" before our Heavenly Father, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the universe, again with the intention of asserting the superiority of Yahweh over all else. That's the point of this verse that you seem to miss. It's meant to teach us that God is the Most High, that nothing is above Him; not that there are no other divine beings ("gods") out there.

[altersteve]

Clearly it was never my stance that they were different. That was some erroneous conclusion you came too based on my issuance of making God a formal name rather than to just keep equating it to god in order to clarify it in our discussion... you seem to keep making false accusations and requesting me to CFR things that I have not asserted.. lol.. classical straw man eh?

I never said it was your stance that they were different, and I never set up a straw man. I was explaining my beliefs in answer to your question: "I guess my question is more on trying to understand how "a god" and God (other than title and glory alone) are two very different things?"

[Jesterss]

I never said it was your stance that they were different, and I never set up a straw man. I was explaining my beliefs in answer to your question: "I guess my question is more on trying to understand how "a god" and God (other than title and glory alone) are two very different things?"

I never said you did... what I posted was in response to maklelan... nothing here was to offend you, it actually was to support that you understood my question and maklelan didn't..

[Jesterss]

No, it's saying that there was never another "our Heavenly Father, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the universe" before our Heavenly Father, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the universe, again with the intention of asserting the superiority of Yahweh over all else. That's the point of this verse that you seem to miss. It's meant to teach us that God is the Most High, that nothing is above Him; not that there are no other divine beings ("gods") out there.

I haven't missed a thing. Do you believe this verse is telling us that there are Gods before the one and only true God?

[altersteve]

I haven't missed a thing. Do you believe this verse is telling us that there are Gods before the one and only true God?

No. I don't believe there was ever a time "before" our Heavenly Father.

[Jesterss]

No. I don't believe there was ever a time "before" our Heavenly Father.

I didn't ask if there was a time. I asked if you believed this verse is telling us if there are or were a God before the true God?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Jesterss

[maklelan]

Clearly it was never my stance that they were different.

Clearly you're lying again:

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

This is the assertion of a difference. Again:

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...

And here:

But you can't just take the words out of context and say that it's the exact same thing every time. Especially in Hebrew. If the words were just that, then there wouldn't be so many different renditions of the word God in the Bible at all...

And here:

I've been corrected before so I wanted to use capitalization when referring to God the Father and lowercase when referring to material or ruling authorities as gods.. That was the clarity I was making. Because there is a difference in that...

By the way, you later added this comment to one of the earlier posts:

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...

Just what do you think my relationship to the field of biblical scholarship is?

That was some erroneous conclusion you came too based on my issuance of making God a formal name rather than to just keep equating it to god in order to clarify it in our discussion...

And making it a formal name is asserting a difference that does not exist. It is not a formal name, it is a generic noun. There are simply no grounds for insisting there is some kind of semantic difference when the word references Israel's god instead of any other generic deity.

you seem to keep making false accusations and requesting me to CFR things that I have not asserted.. lol.. classical straw man eh?

Again, you are lying and you are not paying attention. You've also apparently refuse to defend your assertion regarding Deut 32:8-9. I will issue another CFR. Show me that Deut 32:8-9 does not indicate Yahweh is distinct from Elyon.

[Jesterss]

Again, you are lying and you are not paying attention. You've also apparently refuse to defend your assertion regarding Deut 32:8-9. I will issue another CFR. Show me that Deut 32:8-9 does not indicate Yahweh is distinct from Elyon.

You are trying to imply meaning behind what I have clearly defined as to what my meaning was... I feel sorry for your children when they go to school, come home, tell you what they did, and you imply what they did was actually something else..

[maklelan]

You are trying to imply meaning behind what I have clearly defined as to what my meaning was...

No, I'm trying to get you to stop pretending you didn't say what you very obviously said. You insisted multiple times that there is a difference between el/elohim as a reference to God the Father and el/elohim as a reference to deity/ies in general. There simply is no difference, though. It is the exact same word with the exact same semantic and lexical values. For this reason, the notion that Isa 43:10 really means "before me no God [as distinguished from "god"] was created, and there will be none after me" is simply wrong. That is not what the text says at all. You have repeatedly insisted on this reading, going so far as to correct an earlier comment by insisting specifically that the word "God" was meant and not "god," and that my criticism would have been accurate had you meant the latter. You are doing nothing but equivocating, and if you are honestly unaware of that then you need to take the blinders off, because you are the only one being fooled.

I feel sorry for your children when they go to school, come home, tell you what they did, and you imply what they did was actually something else..

An incredibly silly attempt at emotive rhetoric.

Edited November 16, 2011 by maklelan