New Revelations and the Future

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, MormonMason said:

I doubt it was a later insertion.  There is zero manuscript evidence of that and also all Gospels agree on the kernel of the betrayal.  All three of the Synoptics agree it was for money.  Only Matthew deliberately tried to match events with scriptures with as much detail as was attempted.

Ok.  I have to step away.  I may or may not be back shortly.

I don't know if there are early manuscripts that don't mention judas. It seems like the judas story was made to fit zechariah. There are other examples of Matthew doing this. As for the other 3 gospels, the story seems superfluous as the jewish leaders knew who jesus was and could recognize him easily. Calm brings up possibilities but what is probable seems to point to addition. Of course this is judged in the context of all the places where the gospels have added to the story, like the last part of Mark, etc.

[MormonMason]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I'll reword it. Who was the last prophet to give a public prophecy?

John the Baptist didn't leave any prophecies that he wrote, but we definitely have a public written account of his prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah.

A public written account of a prophecy that was not heard by those who recorded it.  It's second or third hand at best.  And who cares whether a prophecy is publicly given or not? And what does that really matter? What is the underlying premise of your question?

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

A public written account of a prophecy that was not heard by those who recorded it.  It's second or third hand at best.  And who cares whether a prophecy is publicly given or not? And what does that really matter? What is the underlying premise of your question?

The thread is about revelation from your prophet. I have made the point, if you have read the thread, that recent LDS presidents don’t really operate any differently than the Catholic pope. So, I am wondering, when was the last time a prophet gave a prophecy?  Didn’t the early LDS leaders give public prophecies?

Edited April 13, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[MormonMason]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't know if there are early manuscripts that don't mention judas. It seems like the judas story was made to fit zechariah. There are other examples of Matthew doing this. As for the other 3 gospels, the story seems superfluous as the jewish leaders knew who jesus was and could recognize him easily. Calm brings up possibilities but what is probable seems to point to addition. Of course this is judged in the context of all the places where the gospels have added to the story, like the last part of Mark, etc.

I do know of the evidence, and that evidence, at this point, is exactly zero.  I know of no early manuscripts that show that this is an interpolation.  And I've seen them all.  I've also seen all the oldest of the manuscripts of Mark with the exception of one.  However, even that one will be of no help once it finally is published because it only is a fragment of the first chapter of Mark.

Matthew was trying to make a point that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and the fulfillment of the Law of Moses.  Of course Matthew would quote a lot of prophecies from the Old Testament.  Matthew also has a five-fold structure, like the Pentateuchal text.  Most translations kind of hide that sort of thing.

The long ending of Mark was added to the text from what was once a separate Gospel because it ended abruptly on a bad note.  Another later expanded even that.  Another added a shorter, ecclesiastical ending to complete they story (kind of like Firefly was completed by Serenity or Farscape was completed by The Peacekeeper Wars).  The oldest have the shortest ending of all.  Whether it was because Mark purposefully left it that way, the last leaf of his manuscript was lost before copying, or what have you, now is unknown.  There are at least four differing endings among the manuscripts of Mark.  A few have two endings, one after the other.

But someone adding text to the end of Mark is not the same thing as adding interpolations throughout the text.  Internal evidence of the manuscripts shows that this was no interpolation.  That both Matthew and Luke thought Mark credible on this point also has weight.  When they didn't think he was accurate they turned to another source or sources.

John was independent from the Synoptics, filling in details left out by them and concentrating on the spiritual aspects of Christ's ministry.  John also added the detail that Judas was a thief and was embezzling apostolic funds, making him a vessel for Satan.  That is the kind of person who just might be tempted and pushed over the edge by a little money to betray Christ even if he was thinking of doing so anyway.

You seem to be under the impression that it would be easy to identify Christ on a dark night in a grove of old olive trees outside of walled Jerusalem, especially when the authorities wouldn't have known of all his nightly quiet places.  They didn't use street lights or tactical flashlights in Palestine at that time.  They didn't have computer technology or surveillance camera systems.  And the landscape would've been almost pitch black in places in spite of the presence of the full moon.  It would've been much easier to get one of his own to betray him.

Judas was portrayed by all Gospels as a money-grubbing malcontent.  The offer of money was just icing on the cake for somebody like that.  Those dark surroundings would've made it difficult to ID Jesus easily without putting a torch near his face and with them not knowing Jesus's private places they never would have been able to find him when they felt the time was right to get him out of their hair.  They had to do it before he left the region and in such a way as to keep the public from being aware of it until it was too late to stop the proceedings because he was turned over to the Romans, from whom there would be no appeal when it came to capital offenses with witness support.

[MormonMason]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The thread is about revelation from your prophet. I have made the point, if you have read the thread, that recent LDS presidents don’t really operate any differently than the Catholic pope. So, I am wondering, when was the last time a prophet gave a prophecy?  Didn’t the early LDS leaders give public prophecies?

Don't operate differently from the Pope? Again, how would you know? Have you seen the private papers of all the Presidents of the Church? They are first and foremost apostles.  All apostles are and were prophets, seers, and revelators.  But not all have prophesied publicly.  How many apostles in the Bible actually gave prophecies?

Yes, early LDS leaders gave a few public prophecies but not all.  In some cases these were not made public until later put into print.  For example, how many public prophecies did President Young give? He himself stated that he kept many of them in a locked drawer, along with some prophecies of Joseph Smith that were published later on in a later edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.   (Or in the Pearl of Great Price and then in the Doctrine and Covenants, such as was the case with Section 87).  Based on what I at the moment can recall off the top of my head, Joseph F. Smith was one of the last to put forth a more or less public prophecy or revelation.  Others had revelations but then only published the announcements rather than the personal revelations themselves, some details of which would later be published.  But that's just off the top of my head.

John Taylor didn't publish his revelations and prophecies.  Someone later tried to add three of John Taylor's revelations to a Danish edition of the Doctrine and Covenants but the Church pulled them and they never were published in the English editions of the Doctrine and Covenants or presented to a General Conference for addition to the canon.

But they still operate differently from the Pope.  The Church does not hold councils of Bishops spending days or weeks debating a point to make a decision because there aren't apostles around.  There's no white and black smoke, or anything else of the kind in choosing them.

But, anything that's to become doctrine of the LDS Church has to have the agreement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, or it's not doctrine of the Church. The process of determining doctrine is a bit different from receiving revelations and prophecies but the process is there for a reason.  It's one way by which we can determine what is and isn't doctrine and it's been there from Joseph Smith to the present.

Edited April 14, 2018 by MormonMason

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

They are first and foremost apostles.

But the LDS president is not referred to as an apostle, he is referred to as a prophet. So while what you say may be true, it is not the impression that is given when talking to Mormons. They focus intently on having living prophet. My point (again, not sure if you've read what I've already said) is that recent LDS prophets don't appear to operate any differently than the Pope. Both make announcements concerning policy, procedure, and binding doctrine/dogma (last in 1950 for the Catholics and 1978? for Mormons). Both Mormons and Catholics claim to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and claim to receive revelation/inspiration, miracles, angelic visitations, visions, etc. For me, the LDS claim to living revelation is not as unique as the wording sounds when one looks into the practicalities of it. The early LDS church differed from this, for sure, with Joseph Smith being the greatest example.

17 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

But they still operate differently from the Pope

How, exactly? I'm not seeing any practical differences, just differences in semantics.

 

17 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

The Church does not hold councils of Bishops spending days or weeks debating a point to make a decision because there aren't apostles around.

The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. The Pope holds the Apostolic keys of St. Peter. We claim an uninterrupted priesthood back to the Apostles and Christ. Also, as I recall from a thread here about it, didn't President Nelson (or another LDS apostle) say that the leaders had spent months pondering the decision to change the high priests?

The LDS first presidency and apostles spending months pondering and praying about a decision involving the LDS church is the same as  Catholic bishops meeting together spending days or weeks debating/pondering/praying about a decision involving the Catholic Church.

21 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

There's no white and black smoke, or anything else of the kind in choosing them.

The smoke is merely an announcement that a new Pope has been chosen. It has nothing to do with the process in choosing the Pope. It is the equivalent of LDS church announcing via press release or whatever that a new president has been chosen.

 

22 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

But, anything that's to become doctrine of the LDS Church has to have the agreement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, or it's not doctrine of the Church

Likewise, Catholic dogma can only come from a Papal announcement or from the decisions of an ecumenical council of the Church, led by the Pope. Again, it's the same.

 

23 minutes ago, MormonMason said:

The process of determining doctrine is a bit different from receiving revelations and prophecies but the process is there for a reason.  It's one way by which we can determine what is and isn't doctrine and it's been there from Joseph Smith to the present.

I'm curious as to what the process is. My understanding is that the leaders come to a decision, announce it, and then canonize it. Is that correct?

Also, there are Mormons here, in good standing with the LDS church, who claim there really isn't doctrine, or at least that it's not important, and that the LDS church is more interested in orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. What are your thoughts on that?

I'm enjoying chatting with you. I think we can learn from each other about each other's faith

 

[Gray]

On 4/10/2018 at 2:39 PM, RevTestament said:

Well, that's not much to support your claim that "mormonism" is derived from Greek Orthodoxy. As Mark points out according to LDS scripture the soul of man is not "separate" but is a combination of the spirit with the body.  As I tried to show in the LDS concept of soul, the soul is not necessarily immortal like in the platonic concept, but can be destroyed with the body by Satan - presumably leaving only the spirit. That is how the spirits who follow satan can possess bodies. They have no soul. In the strict sense of the term they are not immortal, because they have no mortality or corporeal form. Just because we use Greek words doesn't mean the idea incorporated by that word is Greek. We use Christ for Christos which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Messiach. We use many words from the Greek including name forms simply because the NT we have come to accept is Greek. Soul happens to be one of those words. That doesn't mean that everything "soul" is platonic. 

This is an issue of semantics. Soul is often (but not always) called spirit in LDS doctrine. The spirit concept is platonic.

 

On 4/10/2018 at 2:39 PM, RevTestament said:

Well, I don't agree. The Godhead theology has its basis in the OT contrary to your assertions. It is true that the Jews became very monotheistic oriented, which is why they had trouble conceptualizing Yeshua being God. Yeshua was hidden in the OT, but is there as YHWH with the Father. The word Godhead may not be as clearly derived from the NT words like theiotēs as we would like to think, but the concept of Yeshua as Elohim and YHWH are in the scriptures. Hebrews 1:8 quotes the OT verse and therefore equates Yeshua with the Elohim of that OT verse. The OT makes it clear that there are at least two YHWH beginning in Genesis. Sometimes YHWH says that the LORD God and His spirit have sent Him. I have no problem calling them the Godhead, and Yeshua made it clear that the Holy Spirit also manifested from God to lead man, making Him a part of this Godhead. My issues with the DOT are several. These include the fact that God never said there is not or will not be another member of the Godhead. While the Father remains the sole El Elyon, the Most High of the Godhead, there are clearly other actors who assist Him in this role, and Yeshua is foremost - having all the other titles of the Father, and being the revelator of the Father to man. Clearly, there is a Godhead.

 

 

The Holy Ghost was understood to be the power of god, not an actual being. Early Mormonism was actually more in line with early Christian thought on this matter, but then we moved closer to Christian orthodoxy with our Godhead theology. If we wanted to be even more in line with early Christian theology, we would understand Jesus as "God" in the same way that faithful saints can eventually become Gods, not in the same sense as the Creator.

 

On 4/10/2018 at 2:39 PM, RevTestament said:

As for your comments about YHWH coming from trading partners, you will have to do much better than a simple assertion. It seems the earliest records of the name come from Egypt commenting on the God of people in the Levant. Not all of the peoples in the Levant were Canaanites. There were Ammonites or the descendants of Lot, as well as Edomites, who may have used that name. However, I tend to think of that name as distinctly chosen for the Hebrew language. It hasn't shown up in Ugaritic nor Canaanite languages, so I think your claim is a little specious. As I have discussed, they do share the generic El title which seemed to mean "power." But I haven't found YHWH in any of the early Canaanite. Have you?

Yahweh was not a Canaanite God - like I said, he was imported. Check out this book. I found it pretty dense, but I'm a lay person:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_History_of_God

Quote

Yahweh, he argues, originated in Edom/Midian/Teman as a warrior-god and was subsequently assimilated into the highland pantheon headed by El and his consort, Asherah and populated by Baal and other deities.[2]

 

On 4/10/2018 at 2:39 PM, RevTestament said:

Nor do I accept the characterization of Hebrews as Canaanite. Their language was more a derivation of Syriac Akkadian. Abraham was probably a descendant of northern Semitic Syrians who had moved into Sumeria in its last death throe when people invaded from the NE and the NW (Semites). Canaanite languages were considerably different but related since they too were Semitic peoples from the same area, who had probably moved into Canaan after the fall of the first empire of Sargon. 

The earliest Hebrew settlements are in Canaan, and look culturally identical to Canaanite dwellings. The only difference is lack of pork remains in their garbage.

 

On 4/10/2018 at 2:39 PM, RevTestament said:

Your site link does discuss the assembly of God from Psalms 82, but fails to mention that those Elohim are then referred to as the children of the Most High, and that the Psalm is referring to the people of Israel - This is made doubly clear by Yeshua's application of it to the Jews of His day telling them "Isn't it written in your law, ye are elohim/gods?" The author of that wiki page is just plain sloppy or just intentionally misrepresenting things. Psalm 82 is one of the clearest revelations that the house of Elohim includes the followers of Elohim as Elohim themselves or in the modern English parlance as gods. I break that down to say they are of the family of immovable force/stone, but the KJV had already applied the word gods to elohim. There is nothing particularly mysterious about it.

There are many ways to reinterpret the text, but divine assembly first refers to pantheons of God. It has been reinterpreted to mean various other things over the years.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I'll reword it. Who was the last prophet to give a public prophecy?

John the Baptist didn't leave any prophecies that he wrote, but we definitely have a public written account of his prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah.

...If you take the bible as literal history.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a common misconception about the closed canon. The Catholic Church rests on three legs: the Bible, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium. There will be nothing added to the Bible; it is closed. However, there are truths that are not contained in the Bible. This is Sacred Tradition and is passed down from the Apostles. Some of these truths are formalized into dogmas while others are not. The Magesterium is the authority to interpret and protect the Bible and Tradition and is centered in the Pope and the Bishops in union with him.

 

Yes. In fact, most prophecies, apparitions, etc., come through people other than the Pope. These prophecies and visitations are not dogma and salvation does not depend on believing them. However, the Church will investigate them and declare which ones are "worthy of belief." A good example is Our Lady of Fatima. The Blessed Virgin appeared multiple times to three children in Portugal and gave them three secrets, or prophecies, which they in time gave the world. Here's the wikipedia article on the visitations and on the secrets.

These alleged Prophecies of course are highly symbolic and non falsifiable. I'm not saying that's a fault because like the Book of Revelation they serve a purpose in allowing us to find our own meanings. Again like the Book of Revelation their use an actual daily living is questionable unless you are Catholic because they largely encourage certain Catholic devotions like praying the Rosary in order to avoid worldwide calamities. And of course as your reference shows the Third Secret of Fatima is highly controversial as to its authenticity and whether or not it has actually been revealed.

Edited April 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

These alleged Prophecies of course are highly symbolic and non falsifiable. I'm not saying that's a fault because like the Book of Revelation they serve a purpose in allowing us to find our own meanings. Again like the Book of Revelation their use an actual daily living is questionable unless you are Catholic because they largely encourage certain Catholic devotions like praying the Rosary in order to avoid worldwide calamities. And of course as your reference shows the Third Secret of Fatima is highly controversial as to its authenticity and whether or not it has actually been revealed.

As mormons, are members to interpret the Book of Revelation in study for their own meanings?  I studied the New Testament more than the Old and found the Book of Revelations confusing but more terrifying than not.  What are you saying??

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

This is an issue of semantics. Soul is often (but not always) called spirit in LDS doctrine. The spirit concept is platonic.

Well, I disagree that it is just an issue of semantics. I see the present LDS idea as less platonic than my own because I view the spirit as eternal in time. I believe Abraham supports my belief, whereas the typical LDS apparently thinks of the spirit as being literally begotten in heaven as a spirit with a beginning of some sort, which is definitely not a platonic idea.

Quote

The Holy Ghost was understood to be the power of god, not an actual being. Early Mormonism was actually more in line with early Christian thought on this matter, but then we moved closer to Christian orthodoxy with our Godhead theology. If we wanted to be even more in line with early Christian theology, we would understand Jesus as "God" in the same way that faithful saints can eventually become Gods, not in the same sense as the Creator.

tba

Quote

Yahweh was not a Canaanite God - like I said, he was imported. Check out this book. I found it pretty dense, but I'm a lay person:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_History_of_God

I may take a look at that book, but my review of the recent archaeological evidence does not support the existence of a God named YHWH before the time of the exodus. I would not be surprised at later evidence although I'm sure than may be contested by Jews. Nevertheless, Jethro was apparently a high priest in Midian in the day of Moses. Also, I believe the Israelites were running around northern Midian for a number of decades, and later traded there, etc, so one might expect the name to pop-up then in the archaeological record. Attempts to connect the name to other peoples before the time of Moses are just the typical speculation. I agree with the archaeological evidence that the El titles were around before Moses, and this fact is supported by the Bible. Yeshua appeared to Abraham as El Shaddai. The Father was called El Elyon - the Most High Power. But to allege that the Israelites originally worshiped Ba'El or other Canaanite gods is just more speculation. All the smashed god idols in the destroyed Canaanite cities of the Late Bronze Age don't support the hypothesis imho. Nevertheless, I do agree that many Israelites adopted some of the Canaanite gods - including Ba'el and Asherah. They started out on the right foot, but the archaeological evidence agrees with the Bible that many of the Israelites adopted other gods. Their idols are found in Israelite dwellings. Their worship is a common theme in the OT.

Quote

The earliest Hebrew settlements are in Canaan, and look culturally identical to Canaanite dwellings. The only difference is lack of pork remains in their garbage.

Agreed. Deut 19:1 When the Lord thy God hath cut off the nations, whose land the Lord thy God giveth thee, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their cities, and in their houses;

Quote

There are many ways to reinterpret the text, but divine assembly first refers to pantheons of God. It has been reinterpreted to mean various other things over the years.

I'm just pointing out the plain reading, and the way Yeshua interpreted it as well. If you want to interpret it some other way, I can't stop you. Most Christians do because the plain reading is hostile to their theology. I am just merely pointing out that your Wikipedia author seems to ignore the plain reading, which is sloppy in the least or perhaps purposefully misleading.

Edited April 14, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As mormons, are members to interpret the Book of Revelation in study for their own meanings?  I studied the New Testament more than the Old and found the Book of Revelations confusing but more terrifying than not.  What are you saying??

No reason to be terrified if you follow God. Those who follow our Lord shall dwell safely, like those of Goshen of old. If you are called to die for our Lord, then so much more glory you will be crowned with.  There is no reason to be fearful of such death - death comes to virtually all, although you have the ability to be translated.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

As mormons, are members to interpret the Book of Revelation in study for their own meanings?  I studied the New Testament more than the Old and found the Book of Revelations confusing but more terrifying than not.  What are you saying??

In my opinion we are to construct our own meanings for all scripture. That includes the Book of Revelation. There are of course many teachings and guidelines of interpretation but I think we are here to construct our own worlds as best as we can from matter unorganized by personal revelation as well as teachings of others. Scripture gives us plenty of matter unorganized to use in constructing our own view of God and what he wants from us.

So I take the idea of constructing our worlds from matter unorganized both literally as well as figuratively.

I essentially did that in my personal life and then suddenly found our church which fit perfectly with what I had already found. That's why I'm here.

Anyway that worked for me

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

This is an issue of semantics. Soul is often (but not always) called spirit in LDS doctrine. The spirit concept is platonic.

 

 

The Holy Ghost was understood to be the power of god, not an actual being. Early Mormonism was actually more in line with early Christian thought on this matter, but then we moved closer to Christian orthodoxy with our Godhead theology. If we wanted to be even more in line with early Christian theology, we would understand Jesus as "God" in the same way that faithful saints can eventually become Gods, not in the same sense as the Creator.

 

Yahweh was not a Canaanite God - like I said, he was imported. Check out this book. I found it pretty dense, but I'm a lay person:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_History_of_God

 

The earliest Hebrew settlements are in Canaan, and look culturally identical to Canaanite dwellings. The only difference is lack of pork remains in their garbage.

 

There are many ways to reinterpret the text, but divine assembly first refers to pantheons of God. It has been reinterpreted to mean various other things over the years.

Oh my gosh. Once again I must point out that the idea of spirit is far earlier then platonic.

The idea that the spirit survives death is as old as mankind itself.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

As mormons, are members to interpret the Book of Revelation in study for their own meanings?  I studied the New Testament more than the Old and found the Book of Revelations confusing but more terrifying than not.  What are you saying??

The Revelation (The Apocalypse) is by far the most obscure of all biblical material, but has a lot in common with Daniel.  The Seventh Day Adventists have some very colorful and insightful interpretations, and you might find it worth your time:  A 21-part course on it begins at about 12:00 minutes in -- 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

........... my review of the recent archaeological evidence does not support the existence of a God named YHWH before the time of the exodus. I would not be surprised at later evidence although I'm sure than may be contested by Jews. Nevertheless, Jethro was apparently a high priest in Midian in the day of Moses. Also, I believe the Israelites were running around northern Midian for a number of decades, and later traded there, etc, so one might expect the name to pop-up then in the archaeological record. Attempts to connect the name to other peoples before the time of Moses are just the typical speculation.

Some Hebrew grammarians say that the KJV of Ex 6:3 is in error:  That it is a question, "By my name YHWH was I not known unto them?"  Interestingly, that also accords with Joseph's Inspired Revision of the Bible, "And was my name no known unto them?"  Indeed, in Abraham 2:8, and Gen 12:8, 13:4, 14:22, 15:1 17:1, 18:1,17, Abraham certainly finds himself directly addressing YHWH (Jehovah).

Though it first occurs in Amorite names as yahwī,[1] YHWH was apparently descriptive early on of "’El as patron deity of the Midianite League in the south" (Judges 5, Deuteronomy 33:2), and even appears in the Medinet Habu (ca. 1400 B.C., Rameses III) lists of Syrian toponyms in Egyptian as yhw3, to be read as ya-h-wi, or the like.[2]  However, , it is precisely as Yah that we first encounter the God of Israel, in an Egyptian Book of the Dead from the 18^th or 19^th Dynasty.[3]

---

[1] H.O. Thompson, “Yahweh,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI:1011, citing TDOT, 5:512.

[2] Thompson, “Yahweh,” in Freedman, ed., ABD, VI:1012, citing IDB Sup 971; however, F. M.  Cross, CMHE, 60-75, erroneously connected the toponyms in a list of Amenhotep III with Edom; cf. D. N. Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses,” JBL, 79/3 (1960):156; Holzapfel, Pike, and Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, 16-18.

[3] Thomas Schneider, “The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton ‘Roll 5’),” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, 7/2 (2007):113-120.

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 I agree with the archaeological evidence that the El titles were around before Moses, and this fact is supported by the Bible. Yeshua appeared to Abraham as El Shaddai. The Father was called El Elyon - the Most High Power. But to allege that the Israelites originally worshiped Ba'El or other Canaanite gods is just more speculation. All the smashed god idols in the destroyed Canaanite cities of the Late Bronze Age don't support the hypothesis imho. Nevertheless, I do agree that many Israelites adopted some of the Canaanite gods - including Ba'el and Asherah. They started out on the right foot, but the archaeological evidence agrees with the Bible that many of the Israelites adopted other gods. Their idols are found in Israelite dwellings. Their worship is a common theme in the OT.......................................

Yes, those god-names are all titles. Ba'al means "Lord," and El "God" was head of pantheon for most Western Semites.  Despite demythologizing, the Bible still contains deep levels of ancient Canaanite myth (especially in prophecy and poetry).  Israelites spoke the same language as the Canaanites, and shared strong cultural connections.  So much so that the prophets had to constantly inveigh against Israelite apostasy.

[Stargazer]

On 13/04/2018 at 7:03 AM, mfbukowski said:

That's okay I'll just post in German next time

Sorry if you don't understand German.

Ich warte darauf mit Laecheln!  Natuerlich verstehe ich Deutsch.  Hast Du in Deutschland oder einem anderen deutsch-sprachigen Land missioniert?

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Ich warte darauf mit Laecheln!  Natuerlich verstehe ich Deutsch.  Hast Du in Deutschland oder einem anderen deutsch-sprachigen Land missioniert?

Nope. It is required for advanced degrees in philosophy. But I really think this is an English-speaking forum and perhaps other languages should only be posted in the case of making a clear point about translations.

I still have no idea what your other point was.

Edited April 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some Hebrew grammarians say that the KJV of Ex 6:3 is in error:  That it is a question, "By my name YHWH was I not known unto them?"  Interestingly, that also accords with Joseph's Inspired Revision of the Bible, "And was my name no known unto them?"  Indeed, in Abraham 2:8, and Gen 12:8, 13:4, 14:22, 15:1 17:1, 18:1,17, Abraham certainly finds himself directly addressing YHWH (Jehovah).

Though it first occurs in Amorite names as yahwī,[1] YHWH was apparently descriptive early on of "’El as patron deity of the Midianite League in the south" (Judges 5, Deuteronomy 33:2), and even appears in the Medinet Habu (ca. 1400 B.C., Rameses III) lists of Syrian toponyms in Egyptian as yhw3, to be read as ya-h-wi, or the like.[2]  However, , it is precisely as Yah that we first encounter the God of Israel, in an Egyptian Book of the Dead from the 18^th or 19^th Dynasty.[3]

---

[1] H.O. Thompson, “Yahweh,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI:1011, citing TDOT, 5:512.

[2] Thompson, “Yahweh,” in Freedman, ed., ABD, VI:1012, citing IDB Sup 971; however, F. M.  Cross, CMHE, 60-75, erroneously connected the toponyms in a list of Amenhotep III with Edom; cf. D. N. Freedman, “The Name of the God of Moses,” JBL, 79/3 (1960):156; Holzapfel, Pike, and Seely, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, 16-18.

[3] Thomas Schneider, “The First Documented Occurrence of the God Yahweh? (Book of the Dead Princeton ‘Roll 5’),” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions, 7/2 (2007):113-120.

Yes, I am aware the name appears in Egyptian records, but I believe this is after the time of Moses. As a name for God, I haven't seen YHWH in any archaeological evidence before Moses or lets say 1500 BC. I believe the prefix Yah, is older, and may account for the Amorite usage, but I acknowledge my non-expertise in this matter. I also acknowledge that the name shows up in the OT from the beginning of the narrative in Genesis. So it was either retroactively applied by God, redacted in, or you are right that it was posed to Moses as a question. However, my point remains that from an archaeological perspective there is no evidence for the name being used for God pre-1500 BC. However, I am interested in the issue of the Amorite reference, and the names in which this usage occurred. Can you say these predated 1500 BC?

Quote

Yes, those god-names are all titles. Ba'al means "Lord," and El "God" was head of pantheon for most Western Semites.  Despite demythologizing, the Bible still contains deep levels of ancient Canaanite myth (especially in prophecy and poetry).  Israelites spoke the same language as the Canaanites, and shared strong cultural connections.  So much so that the prophets had to constantly inveigh against Israelite apostasy.

Well, yes, I have acknowledged that they were all Semitic peoples, and that implies common cultural heritages, and language elements. They lived together, and probably intermarried(despite the Mosaic proscription against it) for all of the 2nd millennium BC except for when Israel was in Egypt. I believe Hebrew became a dialect of its own while Israel was in Egypt. It was definitely a different dialect than Phoenician. My overall point, however, is that one does not seem to find the name YHWH in the archaeological record before Moses. I don't believe the archaeological record supports the contention that the Israelites imported the name. On the other hand El was a common Semitic usage.

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Revelation (The Apocalypse) is by far the most obscure of all biblical material, but has a lot in common with Daniel.  The Seventh Day Adventists have some very colorful and insightful interpretations, and you might find it worth your time: 

Interestingly, some accuse Ellen White of plagiarizing from Joseph Smith. I wonder how common is the view that the feet and toes of the image of Daniel 2 are representative of the modern nations of Europe? 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope. It is required for advanced degrees in philosophy. But I really think this is an English-speaking forum and perhaps other languages should only be posted in the case of making a clear point about translations.

I still have no idea what your other point was.

Awwww... no computer languages, then?

I wasn't trying to make a point, actually. Just saying that I didn't have time to work it out.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ich warte darauf mit Laecheln!  Natuerlich verstehe ich Deutsch.  Hast Du in Deutschland oder einem anderen deutsch-sprachigen Land missioniert?

Let's see.  German was oh-so-long ago, in my last year of junior high and my first year of high school.  Not sure about the first sentence, but the second is, "Naturally, I understand German," and the third is something akin to, "Were you a missionary in Germany or in another German-speaking country?"  

[Stargazer]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

Let's see.  German was oh-so-long ago, in my last year of junior high and my first year of high school.  Not sure about the first sentence, but the second is, "Naturally, I understand German," and the third is something akin to, "Were you a missionary in Germany or in another German-speaking country?"  

Yes on the second and third. Very good!

First is: "I'm waiting for it with smiles!"  That's probably not very good colloquial German, but ...

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, I am aware the name appears in Egyptian records, but I believe this is after the time of Moses. As a name for God, I haven't seen YHWH in any archaeological evidence before Moses or lets say 1500 BC. I believe the prefix Yah, is older, and may account for the Amorite usage, but I acknowledge my non-expertise in this matter. I also acknowledge that the name shows up in the OT from the beginning of the narrative in Genesis. So it was either retroactively applied by God, redacted in, or you are right that it was posed to Moses as a question. However, my point remains that from an archaeological perspective there is no evidence for the name being used for God pre-1500 BC. However, I am interested in the issue of the Amorite reference, and the names in which this usage occurred. Can you say these predated 1500 BC?

The Tetragram YHWH was originally pronounced Yāhwē, “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-He-Who-Creates,” which the late William F. Albright derived from the Hebrew-Aramaic root hwy “fall; become, come into existence,” reasoning through to its late 3^rd masculine singular qal-causative-indicative form Yāhwē (jussive Yāhû),[1] which is very similar to use of the ancient Egyptian verb ḫpr “become, come into existence; occur, happen, come to pass,” in its 3^rd masculine singular causative form sḫpr.f, “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence," which is commonly used in personal names.  Both these Hebrew & Egyptian verbs also appear in the consecutive narrative use “it came to pass, it happened.” 

Since no form of Hebrew existed before the compilation of the Bible in Classical Hebrew (which was merely a dialect of Canaanite), Moses did not speak it -- he presumably could speak both Egyptian and early Canaanite (of the sort spoken at Ugarit and at Avaris, among the Hyksos).  In fact, the OT never speaks of Hebrew language, but rather of Canaanite and of Judahite (the late dialect of the Southern Kingdom of Judah).  The Amarna Letters are written in Akkadian instead of Canaanite, even though the native Palestinian princes spoke early Canaanite.  Since the Patriarchs and their cogeners did not speak written languages (Amorite, Proto-Aramaean, Proto-Canaanite?), it is difficult to find any record of their early names or titles for God(s). 

G. del Olmo Lete characterizes ilhm in Ugaritic texts as "the ʼIlāhūma, divine beings," and relates them to Hebrew ʼĕlōhîm.[2]  Tess Dawson agrees, saying that "the Ugaritic word ʼilahuma is related to one of the names of the Hebrew deity, Elohim, which means 'gods'."[3]  The generic ancient Egyptian term is ntr, ntr,  plural ntrw "gods" [4]  The Sumerian term is DINGER, TIMER (as in Coriantumr?) = Akkadian ilu “god.”  These are all generic terms for “god, God."

---

[1] W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London, 1968), 147-149, nn. 44-52; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 15-16.

[2] Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2^nd ed., 82,85,87,180.

[3] Dawson, The Horned Altar: Rediscovering & Rekindling Canaanite Magic (MN: Llewellyn Worldwide, 2013), 48, ʼAthiratu = Asherah, who is elsewhere the consort of YHWH.

 [4] Černý, Coptic Etymological Dictionary, 111; Westendorf, Koptisches Handworterbuch, 127.

 

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, yes, I have acknowledged that they were all Semitic peoples, and that implies common cultural heritages, and language elements. They lived together, and probably intermarried(despite the Mosaic proscription against it) for all of the 2nd millennium BC except for when Israel was in Egypt. I believe Hebrew became a dialect of its own while Israel was in Egypt. It was definitely a different dialect than Phoenician. My overall point, however, is that one does not seem to find the name YHWH in the archaeological record before Moses. I don't believe the archaeological record supports the contention that the Israelites imported the name. On the other hand El was a common Semitic usage.

Bear in mind that Moses himself married a Midianite woman, and that Joseph had married an Egyptian,  while Ruth was a Moabite.  The Midianites and Moabites were speakers of Canaanite, and Israelites were part of a much larger Semitic population in Egypt.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Awwww... no computer languages, then?

I wasn't trying to make a point, actually. Just saying that I didn't have time to work it out.

I was just frustrated because I wanted to know what you were saying.