Many Gods In Bible

[Freedom]

An evangelical sent me the following list that shows there is only one God:

1. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one [echad] flesh. " Genesis 2:24

2. "there is no one like Yahweh our God." Exodus 8:10

3. "Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35

4. "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39

5. "See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39

6. "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4

7. "You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22

8. "For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?" 2 Samuel 22:32

9. "Yahweh is God; there is no one else." 1 Kings 8:60

10. "You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth." 2 Kings 19:15

11. "O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You" 1 Chronicles 17:20

12. "You alone [bad] are Yahweh." Nehemiah 9:6

13. "For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God" Psalm 18:31

14. "You alone [bad], Lord, are God." Isaiah 37:20

15. "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10

16. "'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6

17. "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any

other

Rock? I know of none." Isaiah 44:8

18. "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5

19. "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14

20. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

21. "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21

22. "I am God, and there is no other;

I am

God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9

23. "And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be

the only

one [echad], and His name

the only

one[echad]." Zechariah 14:9

24. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one [hen] and love the other, or he will be devoted to one [hen] and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Matthew 6:24

25. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one [hen] flesh"? " Matthew 19:5

26. "But do not be called Rabbi; for One [hen] is your Teacher, and you are all brothers." Matthew 23:8

27. "Do not be called leaders; for One [hen] is your Leader, that is, Christ." Matthew 23:10

28. ""The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one [hen] Lord; " Mark 12:29

29. "you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only [monos] God?" John 5:44

30. "I and the Father are one [hen]." John 10:30

31. "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only [monos] true God" John 17:3

32. "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one [hen], just as We are one [hen]" John 17:22

33. "since indeed God is one [hen]" Romans 3:30

34. "to the only [monos] wise God, Amen." Romans 16:27

35. "there is no God but one [hen]" 1 Corinthians 8:4

36. "yet for us there is

but

one [hen] God, the Father, from whom are all things and we

exist

for Him; and one [hen] Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we

exist

through Him." 1 Corinthians 8:6

37. "Now a mediator is not for one

party only;

whereas God is

only

one [hen]." Galatians 3:20

38. "There is one [hen] body and one [hen] Spirit, one [hen] hope, one [hen] Lord, one [hen] faith, one [hen] baptism, one [hen] God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6

39. "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only [monos] God" 1 Timothy 1:17

40. "which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only [monos] Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone [monos] possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him

be

honor and eternal dominion! Amen." 1 Timothy 6:16

41. "For there is one [hen] God,

and

one mediator also between God and men,

the

man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5

42. "You believe that God is one [hen]. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19

43. "For certain persons deny our only [monos] Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude 4

In the same thread, an atheist sent the following list of scriptures saying there are many gods:

Adrammelech

II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.

Anammelech

II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.

Ashima

II Kings 17:30 Samaritan Moon Goddess.

Ashtoreth

I Kings 11:05 Canaanite Goddess.

Baal

I Kings 18:19 Canaanite God ("Lord") of fertility, vegitation, and storms.

Baal-berith

Judges 8:33 A regional variation/aspect of Baal.

Baal-peor

Numbers 25:03 Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.

Baal-zebub

Luke 11:19 Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.

Baalim

I Kings 18:18 Canaanite Gods ("Lords"), a collective of the different aspects of Baa.

Bel

Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian God ("Lord").

Chemosh

I Kings 11:07 Moabite war God.

Dagon

I Samuel 05:02 Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian God of agriculture.

Diana of the Ephesians

Acts 19:35 Ephesian moon and nature Goddess ("Divine/Brilliant").

Jehovah

Exodus 6:03 Hebrew God

Jupiter

Acts 14:12 Roman God (possibly derived from 'Zeus-pater', Father Zeus).

Lucifer

Isiah 14:12 ("Light-Bearer")

Mercurius

Acts 14:12 Otherwise known as the Roman God Mercury, God of communication and travel, and messenger of the Gods...which is probably why Paul was called this at Lystra.

Milcom

I Kings 11:05 Ammonite God

Molech

I Kings 11:07 Ammonite God, also called Moloch, most probably Baal-Hammon of Carthage.

Nebo

Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean God of wisdom and writing, also called Nabu.

Nergal

II Kings 17:30 Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld God, also called Meshlamthea.

Nibhaz

II Kings 17:31 Avites God

Nisroch

II Kings 19:37 Assyrian God

Rimmon

II Kings 05:18 Babylonian/Syrian storm God involved (as Ramman) with the Deluge, according to Hebrew texts; also known as Ramman/Rammon.

Succoth-benoth

II Kings 17:30 Babylonian fertility Goddess ("She Who Produces Seed"), also known as Zarpanitu/Zerpanitum.

Tammuz

Ezekial 8:14 Assyrian/Babylonian God

Tartak

II Kings 17:31 Avites God

That list was not quite the response I would have provided, but unfortunately the evangelical is behaving so poorly, I suspect the atheist was just trying to provoke him/her further.

I was looking for a comprehensive list of scriptures from the bible that mentions more than one god according to LDS doctrine, such as Gods many, Lords many, Let us go down, ect. People keep telling me there are tuns of references but perhaps I am looking in the wrong places. Thanks for the help.

[Rivers]

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2010-David-Bokovoy.pdf

[EllenMaksoud]

The way the evangelical is behaving is the reason that I can not stand the song, "Onward Christian Soldiers". Mormons have never felt like soldiers to me, but rather rescuers.

[volgadon]

17. "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Isaiah 44:8

Kind of hard to miss the the large quantity of rocks in biblical lands...

[volgadon]

1. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one [echad] flesh. " Genesis 2:24

Frank Moore Cross has conclusively shown that flesh in this case meant kin, family. Thus, using this verse severely undermines your friend's case.

[maklelan]

I've discussed this in numerous places. See here, for instance. I published a rather lengthy discussion on CARM, but they've managed to find a way to permanently ban me without banning me. They made it so my posts and threads only show up if one is logged into my own account. I'm the only one who can read them, so if I link to my thread, you won't see it even though I'm not listed as banned. Instead, I'll just post it here:

Other Gods in the Hebrew Bible

This topic has come up a number of times in the past, but it is enlightening every time it comes up. The question is whether the authors of the Bible, in general, acknowledged or denied the existence of other gods. By gods I mean ontological deities. I do not mean humans metaphorically called gods, I mean real divine beings. I also am not concerned with whether or not there are other gods that are as powerful or more powerful than God, or that “are gods in the same sense that God is God.” I’m only concerned with whether or not the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods. I contend that it does, and I give my argument in following. I will first point to many places where the gods are explicitly acknowledged. I will then address the scriptures that are always brought forth in an effort to establish a rubric that precludes the possibility of reading the former texts to indicate the other gods were thought to exist. I will show that a sound and thorough analysis of their grammatical and literary contexts actually shows the texts are not at all intended to deny the existence of the other gods. I will also explain the fallacious presupposition that inevitably forms the basis of all efforts to contradict these readings.

One of the first indications that multiple gods are acknowledged in the Bible is the cohortative “let us make man in our image” from Gen 1:26. God is clearly talking to someone else. Some have come up with different creative ways to explain this away, such as suggesting he is referring to another member of the Trinity, but this usage is far too rare and the context is far from supportive of such a reading. There’s also no actual reference to another member of the Trinity anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Every one of the few instances where another member of the Trinity is suggested as the object are instances where we are simply not given any indication whatsoever of whom is being addressed. When the serpent later tempts Eve (Gen 3:5), he states that if they eat the fruit they will be “as gods, knowing good and evil.” This phrase is a merism, meaning it is intended to indicate everything between the two poles represented by “good” and “evil.” In other words, they will have all knowledge. Gods are those who know all. People often insist that Satan here is lying, but Gen 3:22 makes it clear his assertion was, according to the narrative, true. In that verse, God states that “the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.” In Satan’s phrasing the participle “knowing” is in the plural, so it means “gods” and manifestly not “God.”

In the beginning of Genesis 6 a story is told of the “sons of God” (בני*אלהים) taking wives of the “daughters of Adam/man” and siring children which would become the “mighty men of old.” There are two possible understandings of “sons of God.” It may mean a member of the divine taxonomy, in the same way the “sons of Israel” refer to Israelites (Deut 10:6) and the “sons of the prophets” refers to the prophets (1 Kgs 20:35). According to that reading, we should translate just “gods.” On the other hand, it may refer to a specific category of second tier deities that were thought of as the actual offspring of El and his consort (Asherah). In the Ugaritic and other Syro-Palestinian literature the phrase is bn ilm, which is directly cognate to בני*אלים in Ps 29:1 and 89:7. בני*אלהים is a secondary formulation of that construction, derived from the overwhelming preference for אלהים over אלי in the Hebrew Bible. Since the “sons of God” are represented throughout the Hebrew Bible in roles and functions analogous to those of the bn elim of the Ugaritic literature (see Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8–9; Job 1:6; 2:1), the latter interpretation (the offspring of El) is preferred, and the translation should be “sons of God.”

Although Israel and others are occasionally referred to metaphorically as God’s son (Exod 4:24; Deut 32:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 1:10), the associated vernacular is markedly distinct from the consistent usage of bny elohim/elim, and the latter is never found in the same context of the former. The “sons of God” are not humans. They were not around to shout for joy at the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), and Gen 6:2 paints a clear contrast between the sons of God and the daughters of man. In Deut 32:8–9 we read that when the Most High divided up the sons of man, he divided the nations according to the number of the sons of God. The version with which most people are familiar today says “sons of Israel,” but this is a late change (that manuscript dates to around 1000 CE). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint (both around 200–100 BCE) show that the text originally read “sons of God.” Genesis’ table of nations held that the nations of the earth numbered 70. Traditions from the Hellenistic period and after also pointed to 70 nations of the earth. This would mean the sons of God numbered 70. This fits perfectly with our understanding of “sons of God” as cognate with the Syro-Palestinian concept of the “sons of God,” since in that literature they also number 70. In this instance, the gods of the nations are said to have been set up over their respective nations by God himself. In other words, they were given responsibilities as gods by the God of Israel. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, Israel’s sin regarding the other gods is described as their worship of gods that were not allotted to them (Deut 29:25). The notion that those other gods do not actually exist is not a part of that rhetoric (cf. Deut 4:19; 17:3, were the gods are astralized under Assyrian influence).

Psalm 82 is another place where a variation on this “sons of God” theme occurs (they are found in Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). There they are called “sons of Elyon,” or “the Most High.” In v. 1 Yahweh is said to judge among the gods, who are neglecting their stewardships over the nations. In v. 6 God says to the gods, “I have said, you are gods, and every one of you sons of Elyon; however, you shall die as do men, and fall as any prince.” The beginnings of vv. 6 and 7 contain a construction (the combination of amarti and aken) that points to an unexpected contrast. In this case the contrast is between the divine nature of the gods and their loss of immortality. Their deaths are entirely unexpected, but God decrees it as a result of their negligence. The gods of v. 6 cannot be humans, as that would completely undo the tension of the contrast. Some people have pointed to Exodus 21 and 22 to insist that the word elohim can refer to human beings, like judges. This reading first arose in the rabbinic period, however, and has nothing to do with the original context of the verses. As numerous authors have shown since the beginning of the twentieth century, elohim does not mean judges, and Exod 21 and 22 refer either to the practice of bringing the accused before domestic images of the deities (or teraphim) to swear an oath, or the practice of bringing the accused before the main deity in the temple to do the same. The verses should be translated with “gods” or “God.” Judges is simply not supported by anything. I discuss this issue further here.

Elsewhere the gods are referred to in a manner which presupposes their existence with the simple plural elohim or the more rare elim (for instance, Exod 15:11; 18:11; Deut 10:17; 32:43 [DSS, LXX]; 33:2; Josh 22:22; Ps 86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 136:2; Job 41:17 [English v. 25]; 1 Chr 16:25; 2 Chr 2:5; Dan 11:36). In these cases, the rhetoric would be meaningless if the other gods were considered non-existent. It’s really not impressive to say your God is better than all those non-existent entities. It’s much more impressive to say your God is the ruler over all the gods of the other nations, and that’s unquestionably the sense in the texts above.

In earlier literature, however, Yahweh was only seen as the ruler of Israel. He was not operative outside of Israel. This is made clear in texts like 1 Sam 26:19, where David is being driven out of Israel and interprets this to mean he will not be able to worship Yahweh, since he will be outside of Yahweh’s inheritance. He must worship other gods. The same is true of 2 Kgs 5:15–18 where Naaman explains that there is no god in all the earth but in Israel and then asks for cartloads of dirt to take back to his hometown so he can worship Israel’s God. The rhetoric is meant to insist that Israel’s god is the only important god, not that no other gods exist. After all, to say that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel is to say that Yahweh does not exist outside of Israel. The only place where a god exists is within the nation of Israel. This is why he must take Israelite soil home with him. In his mind, he must be on Israelite soil in order to worship Israel’s god. This doesn’t mean the gods of the nations don’t exist, but just that they’re not worthy of worship like Yahweh is. Besides, why would he reach the conclusion just from his successful healing that no other gods exist? No such notion is attested anywhere in antiquity, and it certainly isn't a requirement anywhere of conversion or anything like that in the first millennium BCE. Naaman's comments are very clearly rhetoric meant to extol Yahweh's prowess over that of the puny gods of the nations, and not to deny the existence of the other gods.

Now on to the texts which appear to argue that no other gods exist. The most common are those that say “I am/he is God and there is no other” (Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Sam 2:2; 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:60; Isa 45:5, 6, 14, 21, 22; 46:9; 1 Chr 17:20). The question is whether these texts legitimately deny the existence of other gods, or just rhetorically deny their efficacy or relevance. I find a few other text that use the same rhetoric in other contexts, and they definitely support the latter interpretation. For instance, Isa 47:8, 10 has the personified Babylon imagine in her heart, “I am and there is no other.” This hardly can be understood to mean Babylon believes herself to be the only city that exists, but that she believes herself to be the most important city, puffing herself up as a deity. She is all that matters for her constituents. Similarly, in Judg 7:14 the Midianite soldier tells his companion, “there is no other than the sword of Gideon.” Again, it doesn’t mean Gideon is the only person with a sword in all the universe, but only that he is the only one that matters. His sword is the only one they need to worry about.

This is likely the proper reading of the texts I cited above. For instance, it fits perfectly with the Shema (Deut 6:4). The statement that “Yahweh is one” doesn’t have anything to do with the existence of other gods. It simply asserts that he is all that matters for those making the proclamation. The closest analogous verse in the Hebrew Bible is Song of Songs 6:9, wherein the author claims that his dove, his undefiled, “is one; and the only one of her mother.” This does not mean that the author’s beloved is the only beloved that exists, but the only one that matters for the author. She is also the only daughter that matters for her mother. In every use of the phrase, it refers to the exclusivity of the relationship between the subject and the object, not any ontological exclusivity.

Other rhetoric is aimed at marginalizing the gods of the nations. For instance, 1 Chr 16:26 and Ps 96:5 state that the gods of the nations are elilim. This is usually translated “idols,” but it fundamentally means “worthless things” (cf. the adjective in Job 13:4; Zech 11:17). These two texts are not saying that the gods are actually just pieces of wood and stone, they’re saying that the gods are insignificant and worthless. This is comparable to numerous other texts that say that the nations and people who fight against Israel are “nothing,” “less than nothing,” and “vanity” (Isa 40:17, 23; 41:11, 12; 44:9). Compare these to Isa 41:21, which is addressed to the gods: “you are nothing, and your works less than nothing.” The rhetoric is identical. It’s not meant to deny their existence, but their relevance and potency.

Another statements from Deutero-Isaiah also merits mention, namely Isa 43:10. There the author has Yahweh say, “before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Readers almost always read too quickly over this verse and don’t realize that if we understand it literally then it only speaks of the situation before and after Yahweh’s reign. It makes no statement about the creation or existence of gods during Yahweh’s reign. This fits easily into rhetoric elsewhere that insists Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods (Neh 9:6, for instance, says Yahweh created the hosts of the heavens, another epithet of the gods).

As has been shown, a thorough and objective analysis of the literary contexts of the rhetoric aimed at the gods of the nations shows their existence is never denied. Rather, their relevance and potency is marginalized in exilic and post-exilic literature using hyperbolic rhetoric. That rhetoric is also used in reference to other entities, like the nations or people who craft idols. The sense is not at all that they don’t actually exist, but only that they’re irrelevant and impotent. The numerous places where the gods are acknowledged further support this reading. There is nothing in the Bible that substantiates the notion that no other gods exist. Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods. The notion that they’re not “gods” in the same sense that God is God actually supports my point. That would mean there are other gods, they’re just not on the same level as God, and that completely and totally contradicts the notion of monotheism (it’s more akin to monarchism or monolatry). It is equivocation to insist that there are gods and there is God, and never the twain shall meet. These are just two different ways to spell in English the exact same Hebrew word (and that word means absolutely the exact same thing, whether the god of Israel is the referent or any other god).

Finally, these are all the verses that use the word "god" and mention deities other than Yhwh:

Gen 3:5; 22; 6:2, 4; 31:3, 32; 35:2, 4; Exod 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 20:3, 23; 22:20; 23:13, 24, 32, 33; 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31; 34:14, 15, 16, 17; Lev 19:4; Num 25:2; 33:4; Deut 3:24; 4:7, 28; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4, 16, 25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16, 28; 12:2, 3, 30, 31; 13:2, 6, 7, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 20:18; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:18, 26; 31:16, 18, 20; 32:12, 17, 21, 37, 39; Josh 23:7, 16; 24:2, 14, 15, 16, 2, 23; Judg 2:3, 12, 17, 19; 3:6; 5:8; 6:10, 31; 9:27; 10:6, 13, 14, 16; 11:24; 16:23, 24; 17:5; 18:24; 1 Sam 4:8; 5:7; 6:5; 7:3; 8:8; 17:43; 26:19; 28:13; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 10:24; 11:2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 33; 12:28; 14:19; 18:24, 25, 27; 19:2; 20:10, 23, 28; 2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16; 17:7, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38; 18:33, 34, 35; 19:12, 18, 19, 37; Isa 9:6; 14:13; 21:9; 31:3; 36:18, 19, 20; 37:12, 19, 38; 41:23; 42:17; 43:10, 12; 44:10, 15, 17; 45:20; 46:6; Jer 2:11, 28; 5:7, 19; 7:6, 9; 10:11; 11:10, 12, 13; 13:10; 16:11, 13, 20; 22:9; 25:6; 35:15; 43:12, 13; 46:25; 48:35; Ezek 28:2, 9; Hos 3:1; 13:4; 14:3; Amos 5:26; 8:14; Jonah 1:5; Mic 4:5; 7:18; Zeph 2:11; Nah 1:14; Hab 1:11; Mal 2:11, 15; Ps 29:1; 44:20; 77:13; 81:9; 82:1, 6; 86:8; 89:6, 7; 95:3; 96:4, 5; 97:7, 9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; Ruth 1:15; Dan 1:2; 2:11, 47; 3:12, 14, 15, 18, 25, 28, 29; 4:8, 9, 18; 5:4, 11, 14, 23; 6:7, 12; 11:8, 36, 37, 38, 39; Ezra 1:7; 1 Chr 5:25; 10:10; 14:12; 16:25, 26; 2 Chr 2:5; 7:19, 22; 25:14, 15, 20; 28:23, 25; 32:13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21; 33:15

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've discussed this in numerous places. See here, for instance. I published a rather lengthy discussion on CARM, but they've managed to find a way to permanently ban me without banning me. They made it so my posts and threads only show up if one is logged into my own account. I'm the only one who can read them, so if I link to my thread, you won't see it even though I'm not listed as banned. Instead, I'll just post it here:

Finally, these are all the verses that use the word "god" and mention deities other than Yhwh:

This is very well written. I value your input on these subjects.

[altersteve]

I've discussed this in numerous places. See here, for instance. I published a rather lengthy discussion on CARM, but they've managed to find a way to permanently ban me without banning me. They made it so my posts and threads only show up if one is logged into my own account. I'm the only one who can read them, so if I link to my thread, you won't see it even though I'm not listed as banned. Instead, I'll just post it here:

Finally, these are all the verses that use the word "god" and mention deities other than Yhwh:

Amazing post. Many very persuasive arguments I never before considered. I'd give you two rep points if I could.

[BCSpace]

People keep telling me there are tons of references but perhaps I am looking in the wrong places. Thanks for the help.

Gen 1:26 "And God said, let us make man in our image..." The Creator (Jesus Christ, not the Father as per Hebrews 1:3) is speaking to another God(s).

Gen 3:22 "Behold the man is become as one of us..."

Exodus 20:3-4 The first two of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment says not to have any other real and divine Gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "gods" in verse 3) The second commandment says not to have any idol gods (check your Hebrew Lexicon on "graven image" in verse 4). If the Plurality of Gods doctrine were false, then there is no need for the first commandment making only nine commandments in all.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 NEB The Hebrews distinguished between the Gods EL (The Most High God) and Jehovah (The Lord, who is Jesus Christ)

"When the Most High [EL] parceled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the LORD's [Yahweh's] share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion. Deuteronomy 32:8-9

Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is called God and Father BUT John 20:17 Jesus is NOT God THE Father

John 1:1 Jesus is God. BUT John 20:17 Jesus has a God

John 7:16 Jesus said the doctrine was not his but the Father's. If the trinity hypothesis is true, then the doctrine would also be Jesus'.

Matthew 6:9 Jesus said (present tense) to pray to the Father in heaven. Not to himself (he was on the earth at the time).

Matthew 24:36 Only the Father knows when Jesus will come again.

John 17:11, 20-22 Describes how the Three are "one" and "in each other. One in purpose only.

1 Cor 15:27-28

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 1:3 Jesus' Godhood is an exact copy or replica of the Father's Godhood (check your Greek Lexicon for "express image" in that verse).

Hence, while the trinity hypothesis DOES state that the Three are separate individual Persons, the Bible contradicts the trinity hypothesis saying that their "Godhood's" (Being, Nature or Essence of Gods) are separate and not the same.

Hebrews 1:8 God the Father (a God) refers to Jesus Christ as a God (another God)

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 While there are idols AND real divine Gods, to us there is God the Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. See Exodus 20:3-4 above...

Rev 1:5-6 KJV (and other versions as well) Jesus has made us kings and priests unto God AND his Father.

See also Ephesians 1:17

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

Here was the specific request that Freedom made (emphasis added):

I was looking for a comprehensive list of scriptures from the bible that mentions more than one god according to LDS doctrine....

Now let's review what you claimed to show from the Old Testament and compare your statements to LDS doctrine:

1. According to LDS doctrine, human beings after their transgression became mortals with the potential--after their deaths, future resurrection, and exaltation--to become gods. According to your description of OT teaching, human beings after their transgression became gods, meaning they became all-knowing beings:

Gods are those who know all. People often insist that Satan here is lying, but Gen 3:22 makes it clear his assertion was, according to the narrative, true. In that verse, God states that “the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.” In Satan’s phrasing the participle “knowing” is in the plural, so it means “gods” and manifestly not “God.”

2. According to LDS doctrine, God's heavenly sons and daughters came down to the earth to take physical bodies and get married, a good thing that was essential to their spiritual progress. According to your description of OT teaching, the heavenly beings known as the "sons of God" did come down to earth in order to get married, but their doing so according to Genesis was a great evil:

In the beginning of Genesis 6 a story is told of the “sons of God” (בני*אלהים) taking wives of the “daughters of Adam/man” and siring children which would become the “mighty men of old.” There are two possible understandings of “sons of God.” ...On the other hand, it may refer to a specific category of second tier deities that were thought of as the actual offspring of El and his consort (Asherah).... Since the “sons of God” are represented throughout the Hebrew Bible in roles and functions analogous to those of the bn elim of the Ugaritic literature (see Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8–9; Job 1:6; 2:1), the latter interpretation (the offspring of El) is preferred, and the translation should be “sons of God.”

3. According to LDS doctrine, human beings are the sons and daughters of God, the offspring of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. According to your description of OT teaching, the "sons of God" who are the offspring of a heavenly father and mother are not human beings; humans did not exist at the time of creation, and God has no daughters:

The “sons of God” are not humans. They were not around to shout for joy at the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), and Gen 6:2 paints a clear contrast between the sons of God and the daughters of man.

4. According to LDS doctrine, Jehovah is and always has been the God of the whole earth as well as the God of Israel. According to your description of the OT teaching, the earlier belief attested in the OT was that Yahweh (Jehovah) was not the god of the whole earth, but only the god of Israel, unable to do anything outside Israel:

In earlier literature, however, Yahweh was only seen as the ruler of Israel. He was not operative outside of Israel.

5. According to LDS doctrine, gods other than the members of the Godhead are exalted beings who have become like Heavenly Father and Mother and like Jesus Christ (Jehovah/Yahweh); such gods are powerful, glorious beings. According to your description of OT teaching, gods other than Yahweh are worthless, puny, insignificant, irrelevant, and impotent:

Naaman's comments are very clearly rhetoric meant to extol Yahweh's prowess over that of the puny gods of the nations, and not to deny the existence of the other gods.... These two texts are not saying that the gods are actually just pieces of wood and stone, they’re saying that the gods are insignificant and worthless.... The rhetoric is identical. It’s not meant to deny their existence, but their relevance and potency.... The sense is not at all that they don’t actually exist, but only that they’re irrelevant and impotent.

6. According to LDS doctrine, Yahweh is the elder brother of those beings that become gods. According to your description of OT teachings, the later parts of the OT teach that Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods:

This fits easily into rhetoric elsewhere that insists Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods (Neh 9:6, for instance, says Yahweh created the hosts of the heavens, another epithet of the gods).

Clearly, your description of the "gods" in the OT in no way fits LDS doctrine. Thus, your essay does not address the question as Freedom had posed it in the opening post.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[altersteve]

1. According to LDS doctrine, human beings after their transgression became mortals with the potential--after their deaths, future resurrection, and exaltation--to become gods. According to your description of OT teaching, human beings after their transgression became gods, meaning they became all-knowing beings:

Actually, according to his description of OT teaching, human beings after their transgression became as gods, which is consistent with LDS doctrine. I disagree with what maklelan said (if I'm understanding him correctly) about how knowing good and evil "is intended to indicate everything between the two poles represented by 'good' and 'evil'"—I think it just means knowing the difference between the two—but his point still stands.

2. According to LDS doctrine, God's heavenly sons and daughters came down to the earth to take physical bodies and get married, a good thing that was essential to their spiritual progress. According to your description of OT teaching, the heavenly beings known as the "sons of God" did come down to earth in order to get married, but their doing so according to Genesis was a great evil:

Genesis 6 does not say the sons of God getting married "was a great evil," and in fact does not mention anything about these marriages being good or evil at all. The "great evil" referenced in this chapter is the wickedness of the later generations, the people God wiped out with the flood.

3. According to LDS doctrine, human beings are the sons and daughters of God, the offspring of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. According to your description of OT teaching, the "sons of God" who are the offspring of a heavenly father and mother are not human beings; humans did not exist at the time of creation, and God has no daughters:

There's nothing that says "God has no daughters." All he says is that there's a difference between the sons of God and the daughters of man. There's also a difference between the sons of Jim and the daughters of Bob. Does that mean Jim doesn't have daughters?

4. According to LDS doctrine, Jehovah is and always has been the God of the whole earth as well as the God of Israel. According to your description of the OT teaching, the earlier belief attested in the OT was that Yahweh (Jehovah) was not the god of the whole earth, but only the god of Israel, unable to do anything outside Israel:

He says this was the case "in earlier literature," i.e., not the entire Old Testament. That's how I understood it, anyway.

5. According to LDS doctrine, gods other than the members of the Godhead are exalted beings who have become like Heavenly Father and Mother and like Jesus Christ (Jehovah/Yahweh); such gods are powerful, glorious beings. According to your description of OT teaching, gods other than Yahweh are worthless, puny, insignificant, irrelevant, and impotent:

These "other gods" are worthless, puny, insignificant, irrelevant, and impotent as far as we're concerned (we do not worship them), but they are indeed powerful and glorious beings in their own right.

6. According to LDS doctrine, Yahweh is the elder brother of those beings that become gods. According to your description of OT teachings, the later parts of the OT teach that Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods:

The Old Testament writers did not seem to distinguish between Elohim and Yahweh/Jehovah like we do today (and neither, by the way, did Joseph Smith and other early leaders). Yahweh/Jehovah meant God, period, not necessarily Jesus Christ specifically. Clearly you are looking at LDS doctrine from a very black and white perspective, apparently assuming that, from our point of view, the terminology and symbolism used in the Old Testament must be identical to how we modern Latter-day Saints use the same words and symbols today. But that is not true. We understand that people in the Old Testament may have used various terms differently than we do. That aside, we do believe Christ is our Father (though admittedly in a less literal sense than God the Father is).

Clearly, your description of the "gods" in the OT in no way fits LDS doctrine. Thus, your essay does not address the question as Freedom had posed it in the opening post.

I think what Freedom meant was that, according to LDS doctrine, other gods exist. I don't think he was talking about other doctrines like marriage, exaltation, the pre-existence, or any others that you mentioned—they are irrelevant to what Freedom was asking for. His request was for references to the existence of other gods in the Bible, and it was answered.

[RobertAC]

My understanding is that one has to consider the time frame in which each of the books in the Bible are written. Judaism did not start out as a monotheistic religion. Its followers understood that there was a Jewish God, an Assyrian God, Egyptian Gods, etc. Each had their own home in their respective temple. The notion that the Jewish God could be everywhere, and not just in Jerusalem, really only occurred after the diaspora.

Edited October 9, 2012 by RobertAC

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Hi there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You wrote:

Actually, according to his description of OT teaching, human beings after their transgression became as gods, which is consistent with LDS doctrine. I disagree with what maklelan said (if I'm understanding him correctly) about how knowing good and evil "is intended to indicate everything between the two poles represented by 'good' and 'evil'"—I think it just means knowing the difference between the two—but his point still stands.

But the point with which you disagree shows that maklelan was saying that humans became gods, not just "as gods." He says, "In other words, they will have all knowledge. Gods are those who know all." If they will have all knowledge, and gods are those who have all knowledge, then they will be gods. Perhaps maklelan will revise his statement.

You wrote:

Genesis 6 does not say the sons of God getting married "was a great evil," and in fact does not mention anything about these marriages being good or evil at all. The "great evil" referenced in this chapter is the wickedness of the later generations, the people God wiped out with the flood.

Yahweh's statement that his Spirit would not strive with man forever (v. 3) is prompted in the immediate context by the actions of the sons of God and the daughters of men (vv. 1-2). The wickedness of man that was great on the earth (v. 5) is characterized as the outgrowth of that event, not as something unconnected that happened in later generations.

You wrote:

There's nothing that says "God has no daughters." All he says is that there's a difference between the sons of God and the daughters of man. There's also a difference between the sons of Jim and the daughters of Bob. Does that mean Jim doesn't have daughters?

This rather misses the point. First of all, we have hundreds of pages in the Bible and many uses of the expression "sons of God," and no statement of any kind indicating that God has daughters. So it isn't just about this one statement in Genesis 6. Second, these sons of God are supernatural beings that take human form specifically because they are attracted to the human women. Third, there is an obvious contrast between God and men that is not at all like your comparison of Jim and Bob. And finally, these sons of God take this action after the human race has already begun to multiply on the earth. That's not the same idea at all as the LDS doctrine that God's sons and daughters started coming to earth in physical form beginning with Adam and Eve.

You wrote:

He says this was the case "in earlier literature," i.e., not the entire Old Testament. That's how I understood it, anyway.

You're correct on this. But I said as much. In his view, the later OT takes yet another view, which is also not compatible with LDS doctrine.

You wrote:

These "other gods" are worthless, puny, insignificant, irrelevant, and impotent as far as we're concerned (we do not worship them), but they are indeed powerful and glorious beings in their own right.

That's some spin.

In the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, does Elijah view Baal as (a) a powerful god in his own right but not the god for Israel, or (b) a weak, impotent god that cannot do anything?

You wrote:

The Old Testament writers did not seem to distinguish between Elohim and Yahweh/Jehovah like we do today (and neither, by the way, did Joseph Smith and other early leaders). Yahweh/Jehovah meant God, period, not necessarily Jesus Christ specifically. Clearly you are looking at LDS doctrine from a very black and white perspective, apparently assuming that, from our point of view, the terminology and symbolism used in the Old Testament must be identical to how we modern Latter-day Saints use the same words and symbols today. But that is not true. We understand that people in the Old Testament may have used various terms differently than we do. That aside, we do believe Christ is our Father (though admittedly in a less literal sense than God the Father is).

I'm aware of the complicated semantic explanations that Mormonism developed to reconcile its theological language with that of the Bible. This really isn't germane because I am simply addressing maklelan's argument and showing that it does not in any way support LDS doctrine. Maklelan had written that in later OT texts Yahweh is described as the creator of all other gods. However you slice this statement, it is not compatible with the claim that the gods are one large family of co-eternal divine beings in which three rule over the others. You can make "Yahweh" in maklelan's statement Jesus, or you can make "Yahweh" the Heavenly Father, and you're still looking at a claim that is not compatible with LDS doctrine, which does not affirm that any one God created all the other gods.

You wrote:

I think what Freedom meant was that, according to LDS doctrine, other gods exist. I don't think he was talking about other doctrines like marriage, exaltation, the pre-existence, or any others that you mentioned—they are irrelevant to what Freedom was asking for. His request was for references to the existence of other gods in the Bible, and it was answered.

However you diagram his sentence, clearly Freedom was asking for biblical citations for the end goal or purpose of supporting LDS doctrine. It's useless to cite texts referring to "other gods" in support of LDS doctrine if those texts are incompatible with the LDS doctrine about other gods.

[David T]

I think this post at FPR is somewhat relevant to this whole discussion: Historicising God

[Freedom]

Clearly, your description of the "gods" in the OT in no way fits LDS doctrine. Thus, your essay does not address the question as Freedom had posed it in the opening post.

I would have to agree with your assessment with some of the claims. According to our doctrine, Judaism did not move from polytheism to monotheism but rather, the text of the scriptures may have been modified over time to reflect a more monotheistic belief. Regardless, the Book of Mormon language is far closer to the so-called monotheistic language than to the use of plural gods. The sons of God, according to Joseph Smith, were simply members of the church who married outside the covenant and not demigods having sex with mortals. And I did not mean any offence to evangelicals just because the one I was communicating with was a bit difficult. I am currently being labeled a left wing anti-mormon imposter by some difficult lds posters on another site for having some harsh words for Romney and having the audacity to say that God works with democrats as well as republicans.

[Rob Bowman]

Freedom,

You wrote:

I would have to agree with your assessment with some of the claims. According to our doctrine, Judaism did not move from polytheism to monotheism but rather, the text of the scriptures may have been modified over time to reflect a more monotheistic belief. Regardless, the Book of Mormon language is far closer to the so-called monotheistic language than to the use of plural gods.

Quite so. Plural gods language is entirely missing from the Book of Mormon.

You wrote:

The sons of God, according to Joseph Smith, were simply members of the church who married outside the covenant and not demigods having sex with mortals.

One can find similar interpretations elsewhere. On one view they were kings; on another view they were men from Seth's line who married people of the wrong race (don't shoot me, I'm just reporting!); on another view they were pre-Adamites intermarrying with Adamic humans (think "I wish they all could be Adamic girls"). One thing on which maklelan and I agree is that these kinds of views don't take seriously enough the biblical usage of the expression "sons of God."

You wrote:

And I did not mean any offence to evangelicals just because the one I was communicating with was a bit difficult.

None taken. Evangelicals are not without their difficult individuals.

You wrote:

I am currently being labeled a left wing anti-mormon imposter by some difficult lds posters on another site for having some harsh words for Romney and having the audacity to say that God works with democrats as well as republicans.

God works with all sorts of sinners. Some of them just take more dramatic work on God's part than others.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am currently being labeled a left wing anti-mormon imposter by some difficult lds posters on another site for having some harsh words for Romney and having the audacity to say that God works with democrats as well as republicans.

He does? Die heretic.

Lol.

PS. This is a joke so I hope no one takes it seriously.

[urroner]

The use of the following verses as a defense for demonstrating there are no other "gods" is not a good defense according to Michael S. Heiser, especially when compared to the language used in Isaiah 47:8, 10.

• "there is no one like Yahweh our God." Exodus 8:10
  
• "Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35
  
• "Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:39
  
• "See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39
  
• "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4
  
• "You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22
  
• "For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?" 2 Samuel 22:32
  
• "Yahweh is God; there is no one else." 1 Kings 8:60
  
• "You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth." 2 Kings 19:15
  
• "O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You" 1 Chronicles 17:20
  
• "You alone [bad] are Yahweh." Nehemiah 9:6
  
• "For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God" Psalm 18:31
  
• "You alone [bad], Lord, are God." Isaiah 37:20
  
• "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Isaiah 43:10
  
• "'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 44:6
  

Isaiah 47:8, 10

8 Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and

none else beside me

; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

10 For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and

none else beside me

.

Heiser believes that there is only one God, please note the big "G," but he in is series of papers on the Divine Council, insists that there are many "gods."

In the first paper, "Introduction to the Divine Council," he states that it not that there aren't another other "elohim," rather it's a matter of comparison. What these scriptures are saying is that there is no other being comparable to Elohim/God. Please be aware that in ancient Hebrew, there is no upper or lower case, so when the writer, back then, wanted to write "God," as in Heavenly Father, he would have written "elohim" and if he wanted to talk about "gods," he, again, would have used "elohim." The way to tell the difference between the two was context and the use of verbs which indicated whether the verb was of either plural or singular. He goes into great detail discussing Psalms 82, Jesus, John 10, and Psalm 82, into describing why it was a matter of Elohim judging the elohim and he also explains why "elohim" doesn't refer to "human judges."

2.3 “No Other Gods Beside Me”?

How is one to reconcile Israel’s divine council with statements in the Hebrew Bible that “there is none beside” Yahweh? Such statements are taken by critical scholars as evidence that Israel had shed its polytheism, and by others as necessitating the strained interpretations noted above. Neither view can be sustained in light of the references to plural elohim and elim in Second Temple period Jewish texts (roughly 185 in the Qumran material alone; Heiser, “Divine Council,” 189-210) and the Jewish belief in “Two Powers” in heaven during that same period (Segal). Analysis of the Hebrew text demonstrates that several of the most common phrases in the Hebrew Bible allegedly used for denying the existence of other gods (e.g., Deut 4:35, 39; 32:12, 39) appear in passages that affirm the existence of other gods (Deut 4, 32). The result is that these phrases express the incomparability of Yahweh among the other elohim, not that the biblical writer contradicts himself, or that he is in the process of discovering monotheism. The situation is the same in Isaiah 40-66. Isaiah 40:1-8 is familiar to scholars (via the plural imperatives in 40:1-2) as a divine council text (Cross, Seitz). Isaiah 40:22-26 affirms the ancient Israelite worldview that described heavenly beings with heavenly host terminology (Heiser, “Divine Council,” 114-118). That Isaiah’s “denial statements” should be understood as statements of incomparability, not as rejections of the existence of other gods, is made clear in Isaiah 47:8, 10, where Babylon boldly claims, “I am, and there is none else beside me.” The claim is not that Babylon is the only city in the world, but that she has no rival.

Some would argue that the descriptions of a divine council are merely metaphoric. Metaphoric language, however, is not based on what a writer’s view of reality excludes. Rather, the metaphor is a means of framing and categorizing something that is part of a writer’s worldview. When the biblical writer asserts, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (elohim elim; Deut 10:17; Ex 15:11)?” these statements reflect a sincere belief and are neither dishonest nor hollow. Comparing Yahweh to the ancient equivalent of an imaginary or fictional character cheapens the praise. The Psalms contain many exclamations of the incomparability of Yahweh to the other gods (Ps 86:8, 95:3; 96:4; 135:5; 136:2). David (Ps 138:1) proclaims that he will sing the praise of the God of Israel “before the gods” (neged elohim), a declaration that makes little sense if lesser elohim did not exist.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Here was the specific request that Freedom made (emphasis added):

Now let's review what you claimed to show from the Old Testament and compare your statements to LDS doctrine:

I don't understand Freedom's comment to mean "more than one god exactly as LDS understand the concept." The statement is syntactically clumsy to begin with, but I understand it simply to mean "more than one god, as LDS doctrine acknowledges." Thus the broad references to simple statements about more than one god. It seems to me he's only addressing the broad concept of more than one god. If I am wrong Freedom is free to correct me. Irrespective, the broad challenge to the Evangelical concept of biblical monotheism stands and is certainly on-topic for a thread like this. Feel free to address it as such. If you refuse, I'll be happy to start my own thread. Certainly if it's worth talking about from a purely LDS point of view, it's worth talking about from an Evangelical point of view. I got quite sick of people at CARM barking at me about the Bible and then running and hiding behind the notion that I wasn't allowed to talk about the Bible.

1. According to LDS doctrine, human beings after their transgression became mortals with the potential--after their deaths, future resurrection, and exaltation--to become gods. According to your description of OT teaching, human beings after their transgression became gods, meaning they became all-knowing beings:

No, that is not my description of OT teaching. That is just one way to understand Genesis 3. Whatever one's particular reading, the point was that the narrating voice acknowledges plural deities.

2. According to LDS doctrine, God's heavenly sons and daughters came down to the earth to take physical bodies and get married, a good thing that was essential to their spiritual progress. According to your description of OT teaching, the heavenly beings known as the "sons of God" did come down to earth in order to get married, but their doing so according to Genesis was a great evil:

Actually the placement of Gen 6:2-4 at the beginning of the deluge pericope is quite striking, as the event has no discernible connection with the deluge itself. Originally, it may or may not have had condemnatory undertones. It appears to be placed where it is in order to give some reason for God's displeasure, but it's quite clear that it was not originally composed with Gen 6:5ff in mind.

3. According to LDS doctrine, human beings are the sons and daughters of God, the offspring of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. According to your description of OT teaching, the "sons of God" who are the offspring of a heavenly father and mother are not human beings; humans did not exist at the time of creation, and God has no daughters:

While the gods described in most of the texts I've discussed are obviously not human, there's no indication that God has no daughters (just as there's no indication he does). As is clear from my discussion, however, there's quite a bit of overlap between the divine and human categories in the Old Testament.

4. According to LDS doctrine, Jehovah is and always has been the God of the whole earth as well as the God of Israel. According to your description of the OT teaching, the earlier belief attested in the OT was that Yahweh (Jehovah) was not the god of the whole earth, but only the god of Israel, unable to do anything outside Israel:

Not unable to do anything outside of Israel, but just not sovereign outside of Israel.

5. According to LDS doctrine, gods other than the members of the Godhead are exalted beings who have become like Heavenly Father and Mother and like Jesus Christ (Jehovah/Yahweh); such gods are powerful, glorious beings. According to your description of OT teaching, gods other than Yahweh are worthless, puny, insignificant, irrelevant, and impotent:

That's how they're often characterized in comparison to Yhwh, but they're also characterized as glorious and powerful armies of heavenly beings.

6. According to LDS doctrine, Yahweh is the elder brother of those beings that become gods. According to your description of OT teachings, the later parts of the OT teach that Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods:

Yeah, and he's not their creator in the earlier parts.

Clearly, your description of the "gods" in the OT in no way fits LDS doctrine. Thus, your essay does not address the question as Freedom had posed it in the opening post.

I think you're misreading Freedom's rather unclear statement, but whether or not it's the case, I'd appreciate a response to my essay on its own terms. So far no one at CARM has been able to muster enough gumption to even try to address it. Are you willing, or does your commitment to the topic only go so far as your dodging of its case?

[Freedom]

I think you're misreading Freedom's rather unclear statement, but whether or not it's the case, I'd appreciate a response to my essay on its own terms.

Perhaps I should word it as more than one god in regards to how the LDS believe in this concept. We do not believe, for example, that there used to be many gods that were conquered by the God of Israel, or that there were ever other gods that Israel was even aware of. The notion that there were other gods who were neglecting their responsibility is clearly not consistent with the restored gospel and is therefore a false interpretation. The verses would have to be consistent with LDS doctrine of a council of Gods working together.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We do not believe, for example, that there used to be many gods that were conquered by the God of Israel, or that there were ever other gods that Israel was even aware of. The notion that there were other gods who were neglecting their responsibility is clearly not consistent with the restored gospel and is therefore a false interpretation.

Not necessarily. I think the entire argument about this stuff dissolves away if, rather than focusing on the supposed ontological divide between the Gods and us humans as the defining characteristic of deity, we instead read "God" as an honorific title bestowed on a particular person by their followers.

That is, good (real) Gods and bad (real) Gods can both physically exist, just like good (real) governors and bad (real) governors can both exist. There can be (real) mortal Gods (like Christ), and (real) immortal Gods (like the Father and those who've already passed beyond the veil to exaltation). There can be Gods in immortal bodies who are then placed in mortal bodies; the Uncreated Intelligence of God and Man exists on the same principle. Gods are humans (who can marry the daughters of men), and yet not all humans are regarded and named as Gods by others. Gods like the Adversary can "cease to be" Gods (though without a change in ontology) if they attempt to destroy the works of justice. Gods can take on the title of Messenger ("Angel") when they're running errands between spheres. Gods can take on the title of Accuser when they, um, accuse.

I think the fundamental point is that it's ultimately impossible for an Uncreated Intelligence -- whether tabernacled in an immortal or mortal body, whether on this sphere or another -- to dodge responsibility for their Agency (regardless of their office, including the office of God, which is only legitimate and ratified by the Common Consent of the Council insofar as that God uses His or Her wisdom to maintain power and influence by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, and not by the authoritarian title alone).

Insofar as the Deuteronomists created nationalistic propaganda about a God telling His followers to destroy everything that breathes including innocent children, either they or their God were guilty of deep injustice. Insofar as Christ's Apostles were accurate in saying that their anthropomorphic mortal God came to save men and not destroy them (also naming Him as a God of Love and Grace and Forgiveness), they are all to be honored for upholding the laws of justice and mercy.

As Joseph Smith once told the Saints, "God [...] will make me be god to you in His stead." (See Matt Brown's great little paper on Brother Brigham's Adam-God teachings for more context.) It's about organization and responsibility, not ontology and semantic quibbling. I think one of the most glorious things about the Restoration is the emphasis that we place on the idea that all people, men and women, can share in Christ's throne of righteousness and become as good a people as the kind of Good Gods that we give worth to. That's not a denigration of God's power, that's an exaltation of human potential, since there is no ontological divide between the Uncreated Intelligence of humans and Gods in the first place. Men and women, young and old, all people have the potential to be good people if they start learning to climb the ladder of eternal progression. In the plural.

Edited October 10, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan:

You wrote:

I don't understand Freedom's comment to mean "more than one god exactly as LDS understand the concept." The statement is syntactically clumsy to begin with, but I understand it simply to mean "more than one god, as LDS doctrine acknowledges." Thus the broad references to simple statements about more than one god. It seems to me he's only addressing the broad concept of more than one god.

However, Freedom commented:

Perhaps I should word it as more than one god in regards to how the LDS believe in this concept. We do not believe, for example, that there used to be many gods that were conquered by the God of Israel, or that there were ever other gods that Israel was even aware of. The notion that there were other gods who were neglecting their responsibility is clearly not consistent with the restored gospel and is therefore a false interpretation. The verses would have to be consistent with LDS doctrine of a council of Gods working together.

It would appear that I understood his question correctly.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Irrespective, the broad challenge to the Evangelical concept of biblical monotheism stands and is certainly on-topic for a thread like this. Feel free to address it as such. If you refuse, I'll be happy to start my own thread. Certainly if it's worth talking about from a purely LDS point of view, it's worth talking about from an Evangelical point of view.... Are you willing, or does your commitment to the topic only go so far as your dodging of its case?

Hey, the accusation that I am "dodging" your "case" is completely unwarranted. Let's try to keep this friendly. In fact, I have no problem talking about the argument of your essay from an evangelical point of view. Having established that the OT references to other gods are not compatible with LDS theology, I am happy to show that those references are compatible with evangelical theology. We can get right down to it very quickly with this statement from your essay:

Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods. The notion that they’re not “gods” in the same sense that God is God actually supports my point.

By this definition of gods, evangelical theology "accepts the existence of numerous gods." That is, we accept the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc. Furthermore, we maintain that these beings are not "gods" in the same sense that God is God. So if this is what you are claiming in your essay to show from the Old Testament, then what you have shown is perfectly consistent with evangelical theology. The only difference between what you say and what evangelicals say in this regard is a semantic difference: we generally don't call angels or demons "gods." Likewise, what evangelicals mean by monotheism is not that Almighty God is the only supernatural being or spiritual entity, which would entail a denial of the existence of angels and demons, but that Almighty God is and always will be the sole creator, sustainer, and ruler over all other things. Now, if you don't like that definition of monotheism that's fine, but again the issue would be merely semantic.

So, as a critique of evangelical theology, your essay is a paper tiger. It amounts to a semantic criticism of evangelical terminology, not to a substantive critique of evangelical doctrine.

[maklelan]

maklelan:

You wrote:

However, Freedom commented:

It would appear that I understood his question correctly.

It would appear so.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Hey, the accusation that I am "dodging" your "case" is completely unwarranted. Let's try to keep this friendly.

Rob, you don't have to take offense every time I rib you about something. It certainly seems a dodge to me, whether it's because you don't want the tangent, you don't have the time, or you're not comfortable with the topic. You didn't directly address it, which to me qualifies as a dodge. There's no need to be overly sensitive.

In fact, I have no problem talking about the argument of your essay from an evangelical point of view. Having established that the OT references to other gods are not compatible with LDS theology, I am happy to show that those references are compatible with evangelical theology. We can get right down to it very quickly with this statement from your essay:

By this definition of gods,

I did not give you a definition of gods, I merely listed some gods that Evangelicals are generally reluctant to acknowledge as such. The definition of "gods" goes well beyond that. Chemosh, for instance, is a Moabite deity whose power is unquestionably acknowledged by the author of 2 Kings, but who is not an angel, demon, or anything else on my list. Asherah and Baal are not angels, demons, etc., either, but they were unquestionably acknowledged by authoritative Israelite religious voices as gods.

evangelical theology "accepts the existence of numerous gods." That is, we accept the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc. Furthermore, we maintain that these beings are not "gods" in the same sense that God is God.

And here you rest your case on a bit of semantic smoke and mirrors. You capitalize the predication "God"in your final clause as well as the subject, which is a rather sneaky way to use "God" as a proper noun in both places rather than a generic one in the predication. You're not speaking about being a deity in the same sense that God is a deity, you're speaking about being "gods" in the same sense that God is the very Israelite deity named God, which is meaningless. That's like saying all other dads are not "dads" in the same sense that my Dad is my Dad. These are two different predications. The sense in which my Dad is my Dad has nothing whatsoever to do with qualification as a "dad," and there is nothing categorically significant at all in the statement that all other "dads" fail to qualify as my particular Dad. This can be said of anyone's particular dad. It only has to do with his particular relationship to me, and that relationship has no bearing whatsoever on the generic qualification as a "dad." We could also say that all other baals ("lord," and Yhwh is called a baal) are not "baals" in the same sense that Baal is Baal. This is just as meaningless a statement that only seems to be relevant because the deity's proper name happens to be the generic noun for his salient category of being.

If you accept that the word "god" is a designation not exclusive to Yhwh (which you explicitly do), and you are just capitalizing the predication out of respect, then the sense in which Yhwh is a deity can be no different from the sense in which any other deity is a deity. There is no special sense in which God is a "god." There is a special sense in which the Israelite deity God is the Israelite deity God, but that sense is no different from the sense in which I am me, or are you. Yhwh can be stronger than other deities, or smarter, or older, but that does not bear on the sense in which he qualifies as a deity. It only has to do with his unique attributes within the category that have nothing to do with qualification for membership. A deity is a deity is a deity, unless you can point to some special semantic sense of the Hebrew word אלהים in reference to Yhwh alone (you cannot).

So if this is what you are claiming in your essay to show from the Old Testament, then what you have shown is perfectly consistent with evangelical theology. The only difference between what you say and what evangelicals say in this regard is a semantic difference: we generally don't call angels or demons "gods."

Because to do so is to undermine the common Evangelical understanding of monotheism. There are some who try to manipulate the definition to allow for other deities (such as Paul Owen's attempt in The New Mormon Challenge), but that flagrantly contradicts the concept as understood within Judeo-Christianity from the very invention of the word down to today. What Owen and others are describing is actually just a brand of henotheism. If you really want to see a semantic circus, watch someone try to insist that it's not monolatry, but is actually monotheism as it was always understood.

Likewise, what evangelicals mean by monotheism is not that Almighty God is the only supernatural being or spiritual entity,

Actually that's what the word has always been used by evangelicals to mean. For instance, the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines monotheism the following way:

The belief that there is only one God. Related terms are polytheism (the belief that there are many gods), henotheism (belief in one supreme god, though not necessarily to the exclusion of belief in other lesser gods), monolatry (worship of only one god, though not necessarily denying that other gods exist), and atheism (denying or disbelieving in the existence of any gods at all).

Nothing about sole sovereignty or creation. By this definition, you're promoting henotheism. I would say the author here uses "God" in the proper noun sense, but his distinction from henotheism obviously precludes that. It appears to me he's capitalizing the predication out of some kind of sense of honor or respect. I don't think I could find an Evangelical theological dictionary or publication of any kind that actually promotes the notion that many gods exist, and that monotheism only refers to Yhwh's creation of and sovereignty over all things. That idea is generally only found in publications by individual apologists who are Evangelical and are trying to align their devotional terminology with critical scholarship.

Your view also certainly doesn't square with the common Evangelical interpretation of Deutero-Isaiah, unless, of course, you are siding with me and Michael Heiser in arguing that none of Isaiah actually denies the existence of other gods, but is just rhetoric aimed at marginalizing them. Is this the case? If so, it would unquestionably put you in the clear minority when it comes to Evangelical readings.

which would entail a denial of the existence of angels and demons, but that Almighty God is and always will be the sole creator, sustainer, and ruler over all other things.

Now you're channeling Owen, but monotheism has never been about God's relationship to creation. It's always been about his unique existence independent of creation.

Now, if you don't like that definition of monotheism that's fine, but again the issue would be merely semantic.

If it were merely semantic then there wouldn't be so many people out there shrieking and howling about Isa 43:10. If we're just using different words to describe the same concept, then the vast, vast majority of Evangelicals quite fundamentally and seriously misunderstand and misrepresent that concept.

So, as a critique of evangelical theology, your essay is a paper tiger. It amounts to a semantic criticism of evangelical terminology, not to a substantive critique of evangelical doctrine.

I disagree quite emphatically. It seems to me that you're the one trying to use semantics as a smoke screen while Evangelicalism makes its escape.