Ares Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 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..Stop the personal remarks.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 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 never stated that the word elohim had two meanings. I very clearly stated that my capitalizing the G in God when referencing God the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, was to provide clarity on who I was referencing when we say God versus when we say god. I have had other Mormons (believe Altersteve was one of them) in previous forum discussions insist that I provide a clearer understanding by capitalizing God (father, son, holy ghost).. So, as I have explained multiple times now, it was out of choice for CLARITY, not in bringing forth a new definition from elohim.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 You've yet to directly respond to a single one of my challenges to your assertions. You are dodging what I'm saying, only to turn around and accuse me of running in circles. My assertion has been the same since the beginning. Isa 43:10 does not deny the existence of other gods, nor does it at all refer specifically to the existence of another "God" understood as distinct "god." You cannot directly respond to either of these arguments, nor can you satisfy the CFRs I've made. You can only stand back and try to throw vague rhetoric jabs at my methodologies with the hopes of undermining my position from afar.Isaiah does not say that there cannot be any other gods in the sense of material things, as we humans can idolize anything and make it a god, but Isaiah 43 tells us that God (the Father) is alone in his authority over everything. There is no God of his power. Neither before or after.
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 Isaiah does not say that there cannot be any other gods in the sense of material things, as we humans can idolize anything and make it a god, but Isaiah 43 tells us that God (the Father) is alone in his authority over everything. There is no God of his power. Neither before or after.I'm not saying it refers to the human production of gods. It also does not refer specifically to a god of Yahweh's power. You're still appealing to Trinitarian presuppositions about what the word "god" means.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the LORD. He removed them from there, smashed them to pieces and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley. 13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the people of Ammon. 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods[a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I'm not saying it refers to the human production of gods. It also does not refer specifically to a god of Yahweh's power. You're still appealing to Trinitarian presuppositions about what the word "god" means.More clear please... what is the trinitarian presupposition of the meaning to the word "god"?
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 2 Kings 23 said:12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the LORD. He removed them from there, smashed them to pieces and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley. 13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the people of Ammon. 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.Exodus 32:1 said:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods[a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.”Are you trying to suggest that when the Bible refers to gods that actually exist it only refers to idols? Did you not see where I already addressed that claim? If your claim is something else, please specify.
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 More clear please... what is the trinitarian presupposition of the meaning to the word "god"?All the traditional views: that "God" is a special title or a personal name; that it refers specifically to God the Father; that it refers to superlative qualities; that it presupposes omniscience or omnipresence; that it presupposes monism; etc. There are numerous presuppositions traditional Trinitarians hold regarding the meaning of the word. You've already appealed to some. I'm sure you'd appeal to many others if given the time.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Are you trying to suggest that when the Bible refers to gods that actually exist it only refers to idols? Did you not see where I already addressed that claim? If your claim is something else, please specify.No, I pointed those out to agree that there are multiple times when the word elohim or god appears that do take on different meaning. It's the context in which they are applied that changes the meaning in the fashion that yes, it is still the same word, but it is being applied to objects that are clearly not gods in the same sense that God the Father is god..
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 All the traditional views: that "God" is a special title or a personal name; that it refers specifically to God the Father; that it refers to superlative qualities; that it presupposes omniscience or omnipresence; that it presupposes monism; etc. There are numerous presuppositions traditional Trinitarians hold regarding the meaning of the word. You've already appealed to some. I'm sure you'd appeal to many others if given the time.Do you believe that when God the Father is being referenced in Isaiah 43 it can apply to other Gods? I'm still confused on why you are arguing the point of God/elohim having only one meaning..
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) No, I pointed those out to agree that there are multiple times when the word elohim or god appears that do take on different meaning.And that is wrong. The meaning of the word is no different, it's just being used sarcastically. It's the context in which they are applied that changes the meaning in the fashion that yes, it is still the same word, but it is being applied to objects that are clearly not gods in the same sense that God the Father is god..The notion that "God the Father is god" in some special sense is not communicated by any special use of the word in the texts. That's purely a post-biblical innovation. Edited November 16, 2011 by maklelan
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 Do you believe that when God the Father is being referenced in Isaiah 43 it can apply to other Gods? I'm still confused on why you are arguing the point of God/elohim having only one meaning..I'm arguing it because the usage clearly shows it has a specific and clear meaning. What verses, specifically, are you referring to in Isa 43?
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 And that is wrong. The meaning of the word is no different, it's just being used sarcastically.It also has descriptors in front of or after which tell us who is being referred to when elohim or god is used. The notion "God the Father is god" in some special sense is not communicated by any special use of the word in the texts. That's purely a post-biblical innovation.Of course not by the word alone. As I have pointed out you have to use the context in which it's being stated. Context is important.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) I'm arguing it because the usage clearly shows it has a specific and clear meaning. What verses, specifically, are you referring to in Isa 43?3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.Also, since I am not versed in Hebrew, could you explain why Isaiah 43:12 differentiates capitalization of the word god and God?אָנֹכִי הִגַּדְתִּי וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּי, וְהִשְׁמַעְתִּי--וְאֵין בָּכֶם, זָר; וְאַתֶּם עֵדַי נְאֻם-יְהוָה, וַאֲנִי-אֵל.rendered as I have declared, and I have saved, and I have announced, and there was no strange god among you; therefore ye are My witnesses, saith the LORD, and I am God.in both NIV and KJV Edited November 16, 2011 by Jesterss
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 It also has descriptors in front of or after which tell us who is being referred to when elohim or god is used.But this doesn't change what the word means, it just specifies the referent. It's still just the generic word "deity." Of course not by the word alone. As I have pointed out you have to use the context in which it's being stated. Context is important.I'm more than aware of what context means, but beyond specifying a referent, how do you imagine it changes the meaning of the word?
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 Also, since I am not versed in Hebrew, could you explain why Isaiah 43:12 differentiates capitalization of the word god and God?אָנֹכִי הִגַּדְתִּי וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּי, וְהִשְׁמַעְתִּי--וְאֵין בָּכֶם, זָר; וְאַתֶּם עֵדַי נְאֻם-יְהוָה, וַאֲנִי-אֵל.It does not differentiate. Isa 43:3 says "Yahweh, your god." Other verses refer to other deities as the gods of other peoples. The word "god" means the exact same thing in all these verses.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 It does not differentiate. Isa 43:3 says "Yahweh, your god." Other verses refer to other deities as the gods of other peoples. The word "god" means the exact same thing in all these verses.I know that they mean the same thing in defining god, but the first one is lower-case, the second is upper-case... Why did the translators do this? It appears in both translations. Was just curious.
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 I know that they mean the same thing in defining god, but the first one is lower-case, the second is upper-case... Why did the translators do this? It appears in both translations. Was just curious.It's just one of those traditional conventions.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 It's just one of those traditional conventions.So would you say they are also presupposed in the trinitarian thought? Or they just do it to provide clarity?
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 So would you say they are also presupposed in the trinitarian thought? Or they just do it to provide clarity?It derives from the notion that the Hebrew word means something special when in reference to the god of Israel, or that the term fundamentally refers to some quality held by the god of Israel.
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 With this discussion in mind though, I would still be interested in reading your thoughts on Psalm 82 when you finish your work.. You have a time frame for completion?
maklelan Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 With this discussion in mind though, I would still be interested in reading your thoughts on Psalm 82 when you finish your work.. You have a time frame for completion?Well, I present both papers on Saturday, so I have to finish by then. I'm pretty much done with both of them, but I'm going to be doing small revisions over the next couple days. I'll post both of them on my blog when I'm done.
LeSellers Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I know that they mean the same thing in defining god, but the first one is lower-case, the second is upper-case... Why did the translators do this? It appears in both translations. Was just curious.There are no capitals (or, conversely, no lower case letters) in Hebrew, and in Greek, they're not used at all the same way we do in English. Those who applied them in English used their best guess as to when one word was capitalized and another not.Lehi
Jesterss Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 There are no capitals (or, conversely, no lower case letters) in Hebrew, and in Greek, they're not used at all the same way we do in English. Those who applied them in English used their best guess as to when one word was capitalized and another not.Makes sense. I just found it odd.
maklelan Posted November 17, 2011 Author Posted November 17, 2011 One of my SBL papers, "Psalm 82 in the Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition," is available online now. The paper is in my presentation format, so the footnotes are minimal and the voice is a bit informal. I'm interested in your thoughts. I don't know if Daniel Peterson will be in attendance at SBL, but the paper directly engages his 2000 paper on Psalm 82. I'm interested in your thoughts.
Recommended Posts