The Sons Of God In Genesis 6

[volgadon]

Urban dictionary? Really?

[hagoth7]

We are not talking apocrypha, unless you have assigned Genesis to that bin.

I haven't.

However, based on latter-day scripture, and other passages, I do consider the Septuagint translation of that Genesis passage gloss.

 

Now, a far more effective approach than what you have outlined is to take the text and read it on its own terms. Once that meaning has been established, it is fine to look at the relationship with other texts.

Again, I believe latter-day scripture takes precedence in such matters. And there is good reason to affirm that latter-day scripture is a more reliable arbiter. 

Edited November 18, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

I'm not arguing on the authority of the canonical works, but that the correct reading generally starts with the original work and moves forward rather than the newest and works back.

In academia, yes. Based on the link I referred to in the previous post however, I believe it works the other way.

There are other passages that suggest the same thing.

 

I'm not contending that the Book of Moses isn't good scripture, but that it's not a good baseline....

Based on what I've offered in the previous post, I would like to understand your basis for suggesting it's not a good baseline.

Edited November 18, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

Urban dictionary? Really?

 

Yep. Really.

 

How about we move on to the substance of the thread?

[Robert F. Smith]

OK. Are you saying the counterpoint between the "sons of El" and the "sons of man" suggest two different classifications? Or that they instead suggest a parallel thought?

 

And, in a similar vein, when Job said "the sons of God" shouted for joy at the creation of the earth, to whom was he referring? Angels? According to LDS teaching, in that passage God was referring to mankind.

Wrong.  Job is referring to the Council in Heaven, so that the Sons of El referred to there were not yet human (mankind) -- who are distinguished by having physical bodies.  That is what Lang is referring to in showing the poetic parallel between Sons of El and Sons of Man.  Of course they are to be distinguished.  Those constituting the heavenly host would fit within several categories, but all are the Sons of El, rather than earthly humans.

 

In my opinion, the core reason that the "angels" paradigm surrounding Genesis 6 became so prevalent is because "angelos" was apparently the term selected by those who translated Genesis 6 from Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint over two thousand years ago....and the Septuagint translation subsequently became the adopted standard text for the Old Testament for many early Christians....So, some writers in the early Christian churches adopted that late-Jewish line of thinking without further thought.

 

That's fine for them. But I'll only accept that premise if it has been translated/rendered/conveyed correctly....which I respectfully don't think that it has.

Perhaps you could offer us a better translation.

[hagoth7]

Hi again Robert,

Wrong...

Or...not...

 

...Job is referring to the Council in Heaven, so that the Sons of El referred to there were not yet human (mankind)...

Yes, I'm aware that Job is referring to a premortal event. Why is there some need to fashion a false dichotomy by saying the event doesn't refer to mankind? That existence was simply mankind's previous state.

 

"We participated in a Grand Council in Heaven where we heard the Father’s plan for our salvation. We chose to follow Jesus Christ, who was chosen to come to earth as our Savior and Redeemer, and we shouted for joy at this wonderful opportunity (see Job 38:7; Abr. 3:24–28)."

 

The Fulness of the Gospel - Life Before Birth

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/02/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-life-before-birth?lang=eng

 

So why, in that context, are you claiming this event doesn't refer to mankind, when it does? Disagree with the word choice if you wish, but frankly, it seems like a quibble. 

 

...Perhaps you could offer us a better translation.

 

To reiterate: I am of the opinion that the baseline provided by Joseph needs no correction.

 

 

That said, I'm still willing to hear anyone out who thinks they can reasonably demonstrate otherwise.

Edited November 22, 2015 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................    

Yes, I'm aware that Job is referring to a premortal event. Why is there some need to fashion a false dichotomy by saying the event doesn't refer to mankind? That existence was simply mankind's previous state.

 

"We participated in a Grand Council in Heaven where we heard the Father’s plan for our salvation. We chose to follow Jesus Christ, who was chosen to come to earth as our Savior and Redeemer, and we shouted for joy at this wonderful opportunity (see Job 38:7; Abr. 3:24–28)."

 

The Fulness of the Gospel - Life Before Birth

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/02/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-life-before-birth?lang=eng

 

So why, in that context, are you claiming this event doesn't refer to mankind, when it does? Disagree with the word choice if you wish, but frankly, it seems like a quibble. 

................................................................................   

By that measure, God Himself, the angels, and even Satan are all also "mankind," but that is just silly.  Mankind is distinguished by being born of woman and having a physical body, before being resurrected to a glorious state.  The Sons of El shout for joy at the approval of the Plan, while a third of the Host of Heaven and their leader Satan apostatize and are destined for Outer Darkness.

 

You are confused and your position is incoherent.

[hagoth7]

By that measure, God Himself, the angels, and even Satan are all also "mankind," but that is just silly.

Strawman. That's not at all what I said. Exaggerate anyone's statement, and you can make it seem silly, if that's your intent.

Instead, take a closer look at what I actually said, and you might see that what I did say wasn't silly at all.

Mankind is distinguished by being born of woman and having a physical body, before being resurrected

to a glorious state.  The Sons of El shout for joy at the approval of the Plan, while a third of the Host of Heaven and their leader Satan apostatize and are destined for Outer Darkness.

? I haven't said a thing contrary to that.

You are confused and your position is incoherent.

But nothing about my parents, hamsters, and elderberries?

 

If I suggest something that seems unclear to you, please simply request clarification, rather than toss out jabs like "silly", "confused", and "incoherent"? A little consideration would go a long way.

 

If I have done something to offend, please let me know, and I'll attempt to make amends.

Edited November 22, 2015 by hagoth7

[Que]

My question is perhaps tangential, but why are we referring to the Hebrew Genesis as the source document? Wouldn't that be a translation of maybe Moses' Egyptian tra station of something earlier... Back to a hypothesized pre-Flood document saved on the Ark or something? In other words, who knows what original term was used, or even what the original language may have been, and how many translations it endured before it landed in the Hebrew scriptures?

Hence a need for Joseph's Moses "translation"...

[hagoth7]

My question is perhaps tangential, but why are we referring to the Hebrew Genesis as the source document? Wouldn't that be a translation of maybe Moses' Egyptian tra station of something earlier... Back to a hypothesized pre-Flood document saved on the Ark or something? In other words, who knows what original term was used, or even what the original language may have been, and how many translations it endured before it landed in the Hebrew scriptures?

Hence a need for Joseph's Moses "translation"...

 

Your question isn't tangential in the least. It is quite pertinent instead. Great contribution.

[volgadon]

I haven't.

However, based on latter-day scripture, and other passages, I do consider the Septuagint translation of that Genesis passage gloss.

 

Again, I believe latter-day scripture takes precedence in such matters. And there is good reason to affirm that latter-day scripture is a more reliable arbiter.

I'm not talking about the Septuagint, I'm talking about the Hebrew text of zgenesis.

[hagoth7]

I'm not talking about the Septuagint, I'm talking about the Hebrew text of zgenesis.

Understood. And I'm talking about both.

 

Yet once again, you noticeably declined to reply to my assertion that the passage through the prophet Joseph (Moses 8 ) trumps any secular, modern attempt to translate an ancient Hebrew text. When selecting a baseline text, latter-day scripture is, in my opinion, a much more reliable arbiter of the intended meaning.

 

From the perspective of a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when someone has expertise in a specific area, one sometimes assumes that one's own forte is the answer to anything that it only touches upon tangentially.  With no intent to offend, while I appreciate those who have diligently studied Semitic languages, and while I appreciate the insight they have to offer, I object to the apparent suggestion that such secular knowledge somehow trumps latter-day revelation from a prophet.

 

I'll gladly listen to what you have to say in this thread, but since you have repeatedly declined to answer both direct questions and specific points, I'll most likely disengage from you in this thread, and let others engage with you here if they wish. Best wishes.

Edited November 23, 2015 by hagoth7

[volgadon]

I'll gladly listen to what you have to say in this thread, but since you have repeatedly declined to answer both direct questions and specific points, I'll most likely disengage from you in this thread, and let others engage with you here if they wish. Best wishes.

 

First of all, don't pretend that because you haven't cared for the answers, or paid attention to them, that people are repeatedly declining to answer, or that you will gladly listen to ideas contrary to your opinions. Enjoy your blatant cop-out, I guess.

 

Yet once again, you noticeably declined to reply to my assertion that the passage through the prophet Joseph (Moses 8 ) trumps any secular, modern attempt to translate an ancient Hebrew text. When selecting a baseline text, latter-day scripture is, in my opinion, a much more reliable arbiter of the intended meaning.

 

Time constraints do not equal a refusal to reply to your assertion, however bald it may be. I think that you are imposing a kind of fundamentalist Evangelical prism on how scripture should be approached. For example, just because modern revelation affirms the virgin birth doesn't mean that I should read Isaiah 9 in that light when it clearly refers to a contemporary event. To read it otherwise is to do the text unnecessary violence. We understand a lot better if we first look to what Isaiah 9 says, and then ask why that should also be a symbol of the birth of Christ. Jesus the Christ himself told people to read his mission and identity into the text, but I'm sure that you'll discount the linguistics there, too.

 

From the perspective of a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

Or from the perspective of a mirror.

 

And when someone has expertise in a specific area, one sometimes assumes that one's own forte is the answer to anything that it only touches upon tangentially.

 

 

I fail to see how Hebrew touches only tangentially upon a text written in Hebrew.

 

With no intent to offend, while I appreciate those who have diligently studied Semitic languages, and while I appreciate the insight they have to offer, I object to the apparent suggestion that such secular knowledge somehow trumps latter-day revelation from a prophet.

 

The same prophet who was not satisfied with translating by the gift and power of God, but sought out academic experts in Hebrew who were not members of the church in order to learn Hebrew, and as a result later received one his profoundest revelations? Interesting.

 

 

Understood. And I'm talking about both.

 

I'm not. I asked you about Hebrew, not later Greek translations. So far you have failed to show that this is not the straightforward reading of Genesis. Doctrinal correctness is a different issue.
 

[Calm]

I think it is more he is not following your thought processes, so he doesn't understand why your comments would be an answer.

I say this as someone who is not following everything you say, though I think I am at least pointed in the right direction.

[Robert F. Smith]

See the section titled "When Giants Walked the Earth" in the fun, new book by non-Mormon expert, Michael S. Heiser, I Dare You Not to Bore Me With the Bible (Lexham Press, 2015).  Which you can get in a Kindle edition for only 99 cents, or in paperback for $12.95,  http://www.lexhampress.com/amazon-flash-sale?utm_source=partner_offers&utm_medium=email&utm_content=5260326-welcome_partneroffers&utm_campaign=promo-lexhampress2015q4 .

[halconero]

Here's the crux, I don't believe either Volgadon or I are arguing against the ability of Resoration-era scripture to establish doctrine or provide interpretation. What we are trying to establish is that doctrinal authority doesn't necessarily establish authorial intent. A great example is the Book of Mormon itself. There are numerous times in the sections edited and compiled by Mormon where he butts in and offers a commentary on a piece of Nephite history. There are even parts (the "or rather" moments) where Mormon actually corrects Alma, Mosiah and Helaman's record. You see, Mormon has an agenda. He wants to explain and elaborate on the Gospel Covenants and Atonement as understood by him. It's an agenda I agree with. At the same time it doesn't speak to Alma, Mosiah or Helaman's original recording of the events or history of the Nephites.

I'm not arguing against the notion that the Book of Moses has something important to say about the sons of God, our relationship to Heavenly Father, or that it offers an inspired interpretation of Genesis, but I don't think that it also establishes authorial intent as recorded in Genesis.

[hagoth7]

I think it is more he is not following your thought processes, so he doesn't understand why your comments would be an answer...

 

? I actually understand volgadon's main premise and thought processes just fine. And if Robert is allowed to assert that I'm silly and confused in this thread, I suppose you also have every right to imply that he's right. However I respect all three of you, and wish you all well. So I decline venturing into such territory.

 

I would prefer, however, that my 2-hamsterpower brain be granted the benefit of the doubt here....I actually can follow someone's line of thought.  Disagreeing with someone's premise does *not* in the least mean that one is too much of a dim bulb to comprehend what they're saying. Can we all at least agree on that?

 

Hopefully we can get back to the substance of the thread once again....

Edited November 25, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

First of all, don't pretend...Enjoy your blatant cop-out, I guess.......but I'm sure that you'll discount the linguistics there, too....

? I really don't understand the ongoing need for jabs in this thread.

 

I fail to see how Hebrew touches only tangentially upon a text written in Hebrew.

Considering Que's post might be a helpful starting point to seeing eye to eye.

 

The same prophet who was not satisfied with translating by the gift and power of God, but sought out academic experts in Hebrew who were not members of the church in order to learn Hebrew, and as a result later received one his profoundest revelations? Interesting.

Volgadon, I enjoy history, and am well aware that Joseph and others in the School of the Prophets studied Hebrew. I'm also aware that D&C 9 provided insight into translating by the power of God, and specifically said that studying things out was an important prerequisite for such an accomplishment. So rather than Joseph being unsatisfied "with translating by the gift and power of God", I am of the opinion that Joseph instead saw studying Hebrew as a helpful element in doing just that.

 

I'm also well aware that the D&C elsewhere encourages the study of languages. So if you think I'm belittling linguistics, you fully and completely misunderstand me, and are taking umbrage for no good reason. To provide a better glimpse, I've studied French, German, and Danish, plus some Hebrew, Swedish, Norwegian, and a bit of Old Norse, Old English, Greek, and Frisian. Decades ago, I even served in two linguistics units of the National Guard, with the intent of serving as a linguist. Finally, I started studying Latin in earnest a few months ago, and am knee-deep into a book on historical linguistics. So if you think I would belittle the study of language, you completely don't get me or my meaning. 

 

That said, my core suggestion that Joseph deserves precedence doesn't slight you, your expertise, or linguistics in the least...even if you have previously thought that it does. So neighbor, please, seriously, I have neither kicked your cat nor spat in your soup. Please lower your sword.

I'm not. I asked you about Hebrew, not later Greek translations. So far you have failed to show that this is not the straightforward reading of Genesis. Doctrinal correctness is a different issue.

Again, consider Que's post. I believe he/she hit the bullseye.

 

I'm probably done in this thread. Contention doesn't interest me.

 

You're all entitled to your own opinions. I wish you all well. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

Here's the crux...What we are trying to establish is that doctrinal authority doesn't necessarily establish authorial intent...I don't think that [the Book of Moses] also establishes authorial intent as recorded in Genesis.

 

OK. I get your meaning. I can see that it's a sensible explanation..

 

I believe that God, not man, is actually the author of all scripture, and man is instead a conduit...a prism of sorts.

 

In that context, I think that most passages of scripture are not meant to be understood in a vacuum. Daniel isn't meant to be properly understood without comparing Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and a number of other passages. The book of Revelation likewise draws from and is illuminated by other passages. The Book of Mormon helps explain the Bible. etc. etc. And, back to the OP, I happen to believe that the intent of Genesis 6 is best illuminated by Moses 8, since God is the author of both.

Edited November 25, 2015 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

I linked to this passage earlier in this thread, but didn't quote it. However, it deserves a separate post, since it explains my core thought on the role of latter-day scripture in the context of the OP:

 

"Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord."

 

Consider also passages such as Ezekiel 37, John 10, and 1 Nephi 13. 

 

That's basically my perspective on aligning recently-revealed scripture with ancient scripture. I don't think either is meant to be understood in a vacuum.

 

Best wishes.

 

(This may also be one of my last few posts in this forum for awhile, as I have a few things demanding more focus.)

Edited November 25, 2015 by hagoth7

[volgadon]

What I am getting at is that if "sons of God" essentially means gods, then the reading he disparages as a late Jewish/gnostic gloss is both early and straightforward. It is a bit like arguing that the straightforward reading of a text which says that sculptors married artist's models actually means that other artist's models, but with cameras, married them. Who knows, it may actually be correct, but it is not the straightforward reading.

[halconero]

OK. I get your meaning. I can see that it's a sensible explanation..

 

I, on the other hand, think that God, not man, is actually the author of all scripture, and man is instead a conduit...a prism of sorts.

 

In that context, I think that most passages of scripture are not meant to be understood in a vacuum. Daniel isn't meant to be properly understood without comparing Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and a number of other passages. The book of Revelation likewise draws from and is illuminated by other passages. The Book of Mormon helps explain the Bible. etc. etc. And, back to the OP, I happen to believe that the intent of Genesis 6 is best illuminated by Moses 8, since God is the author of both.

 

As to your first point, I fundamentally disagree, as I believe it sets up a very pseudo-Calvinist scriptural inerrancy which is directly contradicted by the authors of scripture. Moroni accounts for flaws in his father's compilation, Nephi acknowledges that scripture is culturally-specific, and as much as man is a prism for God's inspiration that prism is still a "glass darkly" to paraphrase Paul. You've created something of a false dichotomy claiming putting mortal authorial intent at odds with the inspiration of God.

 

For example, it is incredibly obvious that Matthew and Luke both used the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Q to create their own Gospel narrative and focus, and both did somewhat imperfectly in some instances, but with tremendous focus on their audience and intended message in others. Both show bias and prejudice in their delivery of Jesus' life and teachings, and I don't use either of those terms in a pejorative sense.

 

In a manner, I agree with you. With regards to our personal lives, the governing of the church, and our path to exaltation I believe that the scriptures can and should be used in conjunction with one another. I do believe however that there can be a distinction between "what did the author mean in writing this," and "what am I/are we meant to understand from this." An author, inspired by God, but influenced by the myths, legends, beliefs and practices of his people can write something down while under the influence of the Spirit to communicate the message God intends for that time in place. At the same time, the Holy Spirit can inspire readers generations later to draw a different and more pertinent message from the same piece of text. It's the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, neither of which I believe is a problem and both of which are necessary in deepening our knowledge of the scriptures.

 

For example, in the Hebrew Old Testament there the sign given for the salvation of Israel in the time of Isaiah was a young women who would conceive and bear a son, most likely the consort of the King of Judah. Yet in the Greek Old Testament such was written as a virgin. It is this text that the New Testament writers used to point to Jesus as the promised Messiah and salvation of Israel in Matthew. That doesn't somehow render the Hebrew text less valid, it just means that that the author of Matthew used an alternative understanding of Greco-Judaism to demonstrate the divinity of Christ.

 

There has to be a place for both Latter-day commentary on scripture, even commentary that is itself scriptural (not without precedent in either the New or Old Testament) while also allowing for difference in the original author's intent.

[Calm]

Hagoth, My apologies for any inappropriate suggestions based on my own lack of understanding of some of the material discussed here.

I was only thinking of Volgadon's posts and no other, did not mean to link up with Robert's "silly" claim. Didn't even remember it at the time I wrote that response, just my own uncertainty over a couple of volga's very brief comments.

[hagoth7]

Hagoth, My apologies....

Apology accepted, and very much appreciated. :0)

[hagoth7]

(First, thank you for a polite discussion.)

As to your first point, I fundamentally disagree, as I believe it sets up a very pseudo-Calvinist scriptural inerrancy which is directly contradicted by the authors of scripture. Moroni accounts for flaws in his father's compilation, Nephi acknowledges that scripture is culturally-specific, and as much as man is a prism for God's inspiration that prism is still a "glass darkly" to paraphrase Paul. You've created something of a false dichotomy claiming putting mortal authorial intent at odds with the inspiration of God.

Although it might appear that way at first glance, I'm actually not suggesting inerrancy. When I used the word prism, I implied that some refract the light differently...based on differences and imperfections in each prism. It brings to mind something that I believe Truman Madsen said about Joseph...basically that if God could work through flawed Joseph, it gave Truman hope that God might also be able to work through him. So I don't see it as a dichotomy, false or otherwise. I see scripture instead as a partnership between God's impressions, and prophetic attempts at expressing those impressions as accurately as possible, human flaws and all.

 

...In a manner, I agree with you. With regards to our personal lives, the governing of the church, and our path to exaltation I believe that the scriptures can and should be used in conjunction with one another. I do believe however that there can be a distinction between "what did the author mean in writing this," and "what am I/are we meant to understand from this."

OK. No disagreement there.

 

...An author, inspired by God, but influenced by the myths, legends, beliefs and practices of his people can write something down while under the influence of the Spirit to communicate the message God intends for that time in place. At the same time, the Holy Spirit can inspire readers generations later to draw a different and more pertinent message from the same piece of text. It's the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, neither of which I believe is a problem and both of which are necessary in deepening our knowledge of the scriptures....There has to be a place for both Latter-day commentary on scripture, even commentary that is itself scriptural (not without precedent in either the New or Old Testament) while also allowing for difference in the original author's intent.

When you put it that way, I think we're essentially on the same page.

 

Our only real difference may be to what degree a modern reading of Genesis 6 reflects Moses' intent, God's intent, or the lens/gloss of subsequent extrapolations.

And I'm fine if we differ on the outcome of that query.

Edited November 25, 2015 by hagoth7