One God

ONE GOD

Introduction: In the following, the notation “(DSS)” means that the quoted passage has been taken from a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Similarly, “(KJV)” will precede a quote from the King James Version of the Bible, and “(LXX)” a quote from the Septuagint.

All of the following excerpts have been taken from the Book of Isaiah because, of all the books of the Old Testament found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Isaiah was the most intact. I find it relevant that God would take such care to preserve this particular book.

I have composed this paper for two reasons. The first – to put on display just a few of the many instances in the Bible where God says that He is the ONLY (real/non-idol) god. The second reason – under the heading “Bible: Preservation of the Text of the O.T” in the Bible Dictionary of the LDS Standard Works, the claim is made that the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls prove how corrupt current Bible translations (like the KJV) of the Old Testament are.

The following side-by-side comparison will reveal the correctness of these particular, crucial, pieces of scripture.

Remember: in the KJV, the all-capital-letters word “LORD” is used in place of the Hebrew word from which we get the English “Jehovah.” The Tetragrammaton, “YHWH,” represents the same Hebrew word.

Comparison of the Isaiah Verses

Isaiah 42:5-8
(DSS): Thus says The God (ha-el) and God (elohiym), the creator of the heavens, (and stretched them out in the firmament) and the earth, and that which comes out of it; the Giver of breath (neshamah) to the people upon it, and spirit to those walking in it: I have called you in righteousness, and I will hold your hand, and will keep you, and I will give you for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out from prison the prisoners, and from the house of confinement those who sit in darkness. I am YHWH that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to idols.

(KJV): Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein; I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. I am the LORD; that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

(LXX): Thus saith the Lord God, who made the heaven, and established it; who settled the earth, and the things in it, and gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to them that tread on it; I the Lord God have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will strengthen thee: and I have given thee for the covenant of a race, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring the bound and them that sit in darkness out of the bonds and the prison house. I am the Lord God: that is my name: I will not give my glory to another, nor my praises to graven images.

Isaiah 43:10-11
(DSS): You are my witnesses, says YHWH, and my servant whom I have chosen: so that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, nor after me will there be. I, even I, am YHWH; and beside me there is no savior.

(KJV): Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.

(LXX): Be ye my witnesses, and I too am a witness, saith the Lord God, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I am he: before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none. I am God; and beside me there is no Savior.

Isaiah 44:6
(DSS): Thus says YHWH the King of Israel, and his Redeemer YHWH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

(KJV): Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts, I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

(LXX): Thus saith God the King of Israel, and the God of Hosts that delivered him (Israel); I am the first, and I am hereafter: beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:24
(DSS): Thus says YHWH, your redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb, I am YHWH maker of all things; stretching out the heavens alone; spreading abroad the earth by myself

(KJV): Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself

(LXX): Thus saith the Lord that redeems thee, and who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that performs all things: I stretched out the heaven alone, and established the earth.

Isaiah 45:5-7
(DSS): I am YHWH, and there is no one else, and beside me there is no God I girded you, and you did not know me: So that they will know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am YHWH, and there is no one else. I am the former of the light, and creator of darkness: making good, and creating evil: I YHWH am doing all these things.

(KJV): I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me, I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.

(LXX): For I am the Lord God, and there is no other God beside me; I strengthened thee, and thou hast not known me. That they that come from the east and they that come from the west may know that there is no God but me. I am the Lord God, and there is none beside. I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

Isaiah 45:18-22
(DSS): For thus says YHWH creator of the heavens; He is the God and He formed the earth and made it; and he prepared it, He did not create it void, he formed it to be inhabited: I am YHWH; and there is no one else. I did not speak in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I did not say to the seed of Jacob in vain, Seek me; I YHWH speak righteousness, telling things that are straight. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near, and with him who is escaped from the Gentiles: Neither do the ones setting up the wood of their idols know, that they pray to a god that cannot save. Let them tell, and bring them near; yes, let them take counsel together: who has announced this from antiquity? who has told it from then? Is it not I YHWH? and there is no other God beside me; a righteous God and a Savior; there is none beside me. Turn to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth: because I am God, and there is no other.

(KJV): For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Assemble yourselves and come, draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? Who hath told it from that time? Have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

(LXX): Thus saith the Lord that made the heaven, this God that created the earth, and made it; he marked it out, he made it not in vain, but formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is none beside. I have not spoken in secret, nor in a dark place of the earth: I said not to the seed of Jacob, Seek vanity: I, even I, am the Lord, speaking righteousness, and proclaiming truth. Assemble yourselves and come: take counsel together, ye that escape of the nations: they that set up wood, even their graven image, have no knowledge, nor they who pray to gods that do not save. If they will declare, let them draw nigh, that they may know together, who has caused these things to be heard from the beginning: then was it told you. I am God, and there is not another beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none but me. Turn ye to me, and ye shall be saved, ye that come from the end of the earth: I am God, and there is none other.

Conclusion

The alternate wording of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint translations help clarify and give depth to the wording of the KJV. The overall testimony God has given of Himself remains unchanged. YHWH says He is the only God, the only Savior, the One who created the heavens and earth (by Himself), and the One who gives life and spirit. This is God’s testimony of Himself.

The 8th Article of Faith states: “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.”  We can say now that these particular verses have been translated correctly.

Will you now believe them?  More importantly, will you believe Him?

———————-

Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.

———————-

About setfree

God trusting, Bible believing, Jesus lover.
This entry was posted in Nature of God and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

255 Responses to One God

  1. David-

    See the definition of “translate” from the 1828 Webster’s here, taking note of the :

    http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,translate

    I’ve already explained exactly why we have to be careful how we understand Smith’s use of the word translate. Please pay better attention.

    I already explained what would need to take place for ontological distinction between אלהים to be asserted in first millennium BCE Syria-Palestine.

    On 2 Macc 7:28, what precludes it is the fact that the language used meant the opposite, as well as the fact that the doctrine is nowhere found until the second century CE (and its development is clearly traceable).

    If you say no then you can’t logically insist the rest should be read as creatio ex nihilo. If you say yes then you’re espousing the opposite of what the Bible says.

    Macc does not accept all of Platonic ontology, just the things that were common to the intellectual matrix of hellenized Egypt.

  2. mobaby says:

    My view of Scripture can best be summed up as the Reformation view of Sola Scriptura. God has divinely preserved the Scriptures as an accurate and sufficient guide for how we are to relate to and know God. Through Scripture being read and preached we can hear the very voice of Jesus Christ speaking to us. When we pray the psalms we pray along with Jesus just as He did when He was on earth. Through hearing or listening the Word of God rightly preached, we are given faith brought into a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ. All Scripture points to Christ – He is the center of the Bible as ultimately the entirety of Scripture is about Him. Scripture is central to the Christian message and is a means of God’s grace. Jesus accepted Scripture as authoritative and never questioned it’s meaning or validity based on any argument. Likewise I accept Scripture. Scripture does not contain the Word of God – it is the Word of God.

    Here is a summary of the authority and role of Scripture I would agree with:

    http://bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php

    John Calvin when confronted with a seeming contradiction in Scripture confessed he could not see how the same event could have occurred in one record on one date, and a day later in another record. However, he stood with Scripture and said that he believed that somehow it must be true. His confidence was vindicated when they discovered another calendar from that time period – differing by one day.

  3. grindael says:

    The simplest interpretation of the Torah (pshat) teaches us that God created the world in six days and rested on the Shabbat, the seventh day.

    The question can also be addressed using the tools provided by the inner wisdom of the Torah, as expounded by Kabbalah and Chassidic philosophy. If we use that approach we notice that there is no one but two accounts of Creation: Genesis 1:1-31 and 2:3-24.

    There are many differences between the two stories, for example, two different names of G-d are used: Elokim and Havayah-Elokim.

    The two stories also differ sharply in the use of two different verbs for the act of creation: “Vayivra Elokim et ha’adam” (Genesis 1:27)—“And Elokim created [ex nihilo] the man” vs. “Vayitzer Havayah Elokim et ha’adam” (Genesis 2:7)—“And the Lord God formed the man”.

    The Medieval scholar and philosopher of Torah, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Nachmanides) teaches that the verb “barah” (to create) is the only verb in the Hebrew language that embodies the all-important concept of Yesh mi Ain,” or creation ex nihilo.

    “Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity, The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word “bara” (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but He formed and made things with it, and from this hyly. He brought everything into existence…..

  4. grindael says:

    The purport of the verses is thus: In the beginning G-d created the heavens from nought, and He created the earth from nought….

    …it was because it is equal in importance to the commandments, constituting, as it does, a testimony to Creation ex nihilo.

    In Hebrew, chiddush (new), thus implying that G-d created a new world out an absolute void.” (Ramban (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Genesis, pages 23, 27, 332, footnote 162, Shilo Publishing House, Inc, NY, 1971).

    On the other hand, the concept of formation, vayitzer, is clearly not ex nihilo; in fact the text in Genesis continues: “from dust of the ground”—not from nothing. So the first account of creation is a “Barah”, creationist story, whereas the second account hints at development and progress, and it is an evolutionary story”

    The evolutionary nature of the second story is reinforced by the fact that the word “toldot” (generations, or offspring: “Ve’eile toldot ha’shamayim veha’aretz”) appears for the first time at the beginning of the second story (Genesis 2:4).. cf: http://www.torahscience.org/newsletter7.html

  5. grindael says:

    You saying my opinion on the creation is mistaken, doesn’t make it so Daniel. There is an abundance of scholarly opinion to back up those claims. Your own evidence is also very obviously ‘borrowed vernacular & borrowed ideology.’

    The conclusions of Heiser on ‘other gods’ (to support his wacky Nephilim Abduction theories?) does not make it so, and because one does not read a language does not mean one cannot study & learn from those that can, & reject conclusions based on opinions of the language structure.

    The evidence in Maccabees is also just your opinion, as is the statement that there is no proof of ex-nihilo in the Bible. Your protestations of not having an ‘agenda’ just don’t fly and are so very Mormonesque: “I’d rather worship a God that has a personal connection with humanity than a God that just arbitrarily created humans to be his eternal cheerleaders.” Shouldn’t that be gods? Or am I taking a Joseph Smith liberty here?

    So I question your scholarship and motives, especially when you dismiss EVERY translation of the Bible with a sentence.

    Your first comment to me: “Chronicles is no more above proven historical figures than Lord of the Rings.” is incredibly shallow, and your curt dismissal: “the discussion is not about the BOM, “Please pay better attention” and your other ‘curt’ responses show you really do not want to hear another side. You are just too full of yourself. cf: dogmatic refusal, your question is meaningless, utterly irrelevant, salvage a lost argument, mistaken perspective, you were wrong, you’re still wrong – and these are all from one post.

  6. grindael says:

    You have not ‘dis-proven’ anything, you’ve only shown how desperately you want to prove the ‘other gods’ theory of the OT you espouse in support of Mormon polytheism.

    As for Deism, Mormons Prophets nowadays seem to be moving in this direction when one considers the words of Hinckley that no new revelation is really needed anymore, that Mormons have enough. And for those who say Conference speeches are ‘scripture’ is disingenuous because Mormons are schizophrenic about it, rejecting most of the Journal of Discourses & other published writings as mere opinion when that was not at all how those Authorities viewed it.

    Do you also disagree with a lot of your Prophets & Apostles along with those other Mormons? And if Smith was so ‘inspired’, why did he not make all of the changes in the errors of the Bible you allude to? Perhaps he was using his black, not his white peepstone, you know, the one he said that ‘hurt his eyes’? This is as good an excuse as any, given the fact that Smith said he finished his ‘translation’.

  7. Daniel replied to me

    I’m not presenting a theology. I’ve explained this. I’m simply pointing out what the Bible says. That my view is theologically confusing for you is of little import.

    No, its of central importance to me, and others on this forum.

    I know you have done your best to avoid the Mormon agenda, but this forum is all about the Mormon agenda. If you are here to defend Mormonism, then please stop playing hide-and-seek. However, what you have posted so far appears to me to constitute a root and branch demolition of Mormon ideology, for example “correct” translations, all other churches being false because they are confused etc.

    The latter point is of great importance because Mormonism promotes (or promoted?) itself as the One True Church, which did not present a confusing theology. This is not incidental, it is Mormonism’s raison d’etre (reason to be/exist).

    Coming back to the question “What do other gods have to do with the scriptural autographs?”, I’m still struggling to see how your God (gods?) influenced what you consider to be the Word of God. Was the Bible inspired by a committee of divinities?

    Moreover, what about the “phases” of religion? Did the Great Apostasy start much earlier than previously estimated? Say, with the translation of the Hebrew to Greek a couple of centuries before Christ? That would make Jesus and the NT authors the chief apostates, wouldn’t it?

    I’ll grant that none of these questions are relevant if you are solely concerned with taking (reconstructing?) a “snapshot” of the autographs at a point in time. However, if you are attempting to defend the Mormon agenda, then you’re doing a superlative job of demolishing it.

    Then again, maybe you are displaying the most extreme case of mental separation between a person’s public life and his private religion that I have ever witnessed.

    Then again, you may not have fully comprehended the Mormon agenda.

    I don’t know, which is why I keep asking

  8. mobaby-

    I believe your position to be untenable. As an example of the fact that error can and does creep into the text all the time, see 1 Sam 13:1, where the Hebrew says Saul was one year old when he began to rule as king over Israel (בן שנה שאול במלכו). The Hebrew is unambiguous. Obviously, this is incorrect. According to your position, we must accept that it’s true. Please explain how it can be true.

    grindael-

    The Torah Science Foundation is not a scholarly source. ברא does not mean to create ex nihilo. See any Biblical Hebrew lexicon, like Botterweck, Klein, BDB, or HALOT. Ramban is also hardly a decent lexicographical source to quote. He wrote centuries after Hebrew ceased being a living language and used some of the most ridiculous etymologies imaginable.

    You can question what I do all you want, but at the end of the day I’ll still be the only one who knows what he’s talking about.

    Martin-

    Again, I’m not here about to prove anything about Mormonism. I’m here to show that this blog post is wrong. I’ve done so and no one is capable of engaging my argument. Unless someone has something relevant to say I’m happy to stop wasting my time trying to talk sense into everyone’s belligerent and naive dogmatism.

  9. setfree says:

    “I’m here to show that this blog post is wrong” – meaning “I’m here to show that there are many gods”

    Isaiah 2

  10. setfree-

    And I’ve shown that, according to the Hebrew Bible, there are many gods. Others here have conceded that point, retreating to argue that they may exist, but they’re not as powerful as YHWH. You’ve actually never responded directly to my argument, you’ve only brought up tangential concerns.

  11. grindael says:

    And those that support him TODAY, they know nothing right? I hear echos of Smith (Im right and you all are wrong) Young, (I’m right about Adam god, you all are wrong) etc. etc.

    I’m happy to stop wasting my time …

    That’s exactly what happened with Young and Adam god and eventually your church declared he taught false dotrine. Perhaps there is a lesson here for you.

  12. mobaby says:

    Daniel,

    I am not familiar with the Scriptural issue regarding Saul. I will need to find out more.

    I find your critical view towards every source presented here as quite frankly a little humorous. Reconciling your critical view towards all things Christian with your acceptance of Joseph Smith/BOM/Book of Abraham (if you accept Joseph Smith in any traditional Mormon sense)- is something I find untenable. I will stand by Scripture and it’s veracity over and above Joseph Smith. If you were honest, I think you are just as prone to “belligerent and naive dogmatism” when it suits your purposes, if Scripture contradicts your beliefs then it’s attack time. A pick and chose mentality towards Scripture. As I have said, others pick and choose different things and ultimately create the religion and god of their own making – the Bible becomes a choose your own adventure story, keeping what agrees with your beliefs, and discarding those things which do not. This is precisely what you endorse, and of course you have reasons, people always have reasons to not believe what Scripture plainly says.

    Scripture is a sufficient guide for our faith. Sufficient means we need nothing else. It is inerrant in that Scripture will never lead one astray – it is the very voice of God to us. Does the inerrancy of Scripture hinge on whether the rooster crowed once or twice, or the precise age of Saul when he became king, or whether Judas fell or hung himself? I say no – but if those reasons are enough for you to doubt the sufficiency of Scripture and claim that Joseph Smith’s pronunciation that many plain and precious things were removed from Scripture (such as Jesus Christ in Genesis) then you have selected the rule by which you must judge all writings and beliefs. I suggest you find a new religion.

  13. setfree says:

    You forgot? Much earlier I said this:
    “First of all, the paper is not about whether or not all the Israelites always believed there was only One God. It’s about how GOD SAID HE WAS THE ONLY ONE.

    I never once tried to imply that the Israelites always believed this. To imply that would be nonsense, as many, many times in the OT, God chastises them for worshiping other gods!”

    The reason I bring up “tangential concerns”, Daniel, is that I fear, in trying to prove to yourself and others that these “other gods” are real, you have gotten tunnel-vision. In other words, you neglect the main message going on between God and His people, Israel.

    Perhaps some confusion comes in because you try to interchange “sons of God” and “gods” as though they are the same.

    I will address “sons of God” in a moment, but first, lets just talk about the other “gods” of the Bible.

    Here are some of my “tangential concerns” again.

    1- If these “other gods” are real, why does God hate them/forbid worship of them.

    2- If these “other gods” are real, and they are for the “other nations”, then why do they have their people do things like throw their children into the fire (for example, Deut 12:31)

    3- If these “other gods” are real, what about Deut 13:1,2,3,4,5?

    Do you not think, perhaps, that since the God in this passage is YHWH/Jehovah, that your worship of Elohim (and Joseph Smiths’ teaching you to worship Elohim) constitutes as what this passage is talking about?

    4- If there are other real gods, what about verses like Gen 31:30,32 (and many, many, many others like this) where these gods are shown to be something that is worshiped but worthless? Do you think the Egyptian gods of Exodus 12:12 are real gods?

    5- If there are real other gods of the non-Israel nations, what are their names? Is Allah one? How come Jesus gets to judge them all?

    6- If there are other gods, and in your temple Lucifer says he is the god of this world, then where do the rest fit in?

    tbc

  14. setfree says:

    As far as the “sons of God” being real, I agree. But gods, no. I believe that they are angels. And no, I don’t believe that angels are the spirits of humankind, but that they are a special creation of God’s, made for a different reason than we were.

    Some questions to think on, regarding “sons of God”

    1- If you, Daniel, are one of these “sons of God”, then were you in Gen 6:2,4? Job 1:6, 2:1? If not, then which of us spirit kids was? If not, then how can you consider yourself as one of the ones of Job 38:7?

    2- If we are spirit kids of HF/Elohim, then why is believing on Jesus required to become a “son of God”?

    Now, you never did answer my other questions, one of which is:

    are you really trying to suggest that there are daniels and davids in the Bible, that are groups of or kinds of people/things? Why is this question relevant? Because you are insisting that Elohim is a name and a noun, but it is not, is it? It’s not the name of someone. David may have been called King, but his name was not King, it was David.

    Likewise, people called God “God”, but that’s not his name. He never said “My name is ‘God'” did He? No. What did He (God=Elohim) say His name was?

  15. setfree says:

    I turned the channel to KBYU not too long ago, and saw 4 grown men (I’d say 40’s to 70’s) sitting around a table, doing a “study” or whatever they called it, of some of the verses in Isaiah. One of them pipes up and says that he thinks that Isaiah 54:16 (I believe, though it may have been Isaiah 44:12) is about Joseph Smith.

    Why? the word “smith”.

    Now, Daniel, do you believe that either of these verses is talking about Joseph Smith? Why or why not? What kind of other information must you take into account?

    Personally, if you want to worship or even BE one of the other gods that the Bible is talking about, go ahead. But I don’t see a happy ending coming for you.

    Here’s another great passage:

    2 Kings 19:17,18,19
    “Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, and have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them. Now therefore, O LORD our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD God, even thou only.”

  16. mobaby-

    I look forward to your response concerning Saul.

    setfree-

    You misrepresent me. I’m not trying to prove these gods are real. I’m proving that, according to the Hebrew Bible, they’re real. Please don’t misrepresent me again.

    To answer your questions:

    1. The Bible doesn’t say he hates them, just that they’re insignificant to Israel (keep in mind Exod 22:28 forbids reviling the other gods). He forbids their worship because he’s a jealous God.

    2. Child sacrifice was a part of early biblical Israel as well (see Exod 22:29 – “give me” here means to sacrifice. Later a law was instituted that allowed for them to be redeemed, but in this original version no such law was in place. Israel was commanded to sacrifice their children to YHWH in the same way they sacrificed their oxen). That the other gods do that is not unusual.

    3. Irrelevant. Recognizing they exist does not mean they must be worshipped.

    4. There is a later aniconic ideology behind those texts. In earlier texts, like Exod 22:8, those deity statuettes are a part of the juridical process in the Covenant Code. I discussed this much earlier. Again, there are distinct historical layers with distinct ideologies behind them in the Bible. I’ve said this countless times now and you continue to ignore it.

    5. Baal, Chemosh, Marduk, Ea, Sin, etc. Jesus gets to judge them because he took over rule of the entire earth per Psalm 82.

    6. Why do you believe Lucifer?

    1. I’m not one of those sons of God.

    2. The NT concept is distinct. It refer to becoming spiritual children of Christ.

    Regarding your other question, I did answer it. I pointed out that nouns and proper names are utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

    Next, actually God does say his name is God (see Isa 40:18; 43:12; 45:22; 46:9, for instance). El (God) is used as God’s proper name in numerous places. See, for instance, Gen 33:20. אל אלהי ישראל cannot mean “God, God of Israel.” It means “El, God of Israel.” Num 16:22 uses the same construction.

  17. setfree-

    Regarding KBYU, I don’t buy your story for a second. All the transcripts from all those shows are freely available online. You find me that transcript and I’ll believe you, but until then this sounds like simple anti-Mormon folklore. Other than that, you’re still avoiding the issues to harp about something I’m not interested in. It’s like you guys read from a script.

  18. grindael says:

    This is the most redundant statement I have ever heard and unmasks Daniel’s true intentions:

    I’m not trying to prove these gods are real. I’m proving that, according to the Hebrew Bible, they’re real.

    Mormon double speak if I ever heard it. Wow, you could be a General Authority some day.

    And setfree was not LYING, … It’s amazing how Mormons will apply the most obscure verses to justify smith & his ‘restoration’ go here:

    http://www.byub.org/isaiah/episode.asp?id=124
    about 12 minutes into the discussion.

  19. mobaby says:

    Interestingly, Muslims employ the same tactics used by Mormons to attack the authenticity and reliability of Scripture. Below is a link to a testimony of a young former Muslim who believed the lies he had been taught that Scripture is in error and many plain and precious things had been removed from the Bible. Upon examination of this false belief, he became convinced that his former doubting of Scripture was not founded on truth:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-YAW05S5U

    So – Joseph Smith and Daniel have borrowed a strategy employed by Muslims for centuries to cast doubt on Holy Scripture. It is not a new understanding that Joseph Smith brought, just old lies packaged with a new veneer. These methods are used by religious folks of all stripes who have a problem with the central message of the Bible and want to undermine what the Scriptures teach.

    Daniel – I looked up the passage regarding Saul in my study Bible (which is the ESV version). It leaves his age blank and has a notation that the texts are not clear on Saul’s age or that perhaps some numbers are missing (where it says how long Saul reigned). I am not a Bible scholar by trade and have little else at my fingertips. Does the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture hinge on having Saul’s age correct in this passage? Will the doctrines of Christianity come crashing down if this is not sorted out?

    Daniel – one last note, Jesus grace and mercy is sufficient for salvation – even for theologians and Bible scholars. His forgiveness and unmerited grace can cover even their sins. No sin is too great.

  20. mobaby says:

    Daniel,

    On children consecrated to the Lord: There is no “later” in God’s redemption through the blood of the lamb. God claimed the firstborn of all during the passover – any household that was not covered with the blood of the lamb, their first born children died. God’s people did not lose their children because their door posts were covered with the lamb’s blood, they were redeemed. Likewise, those today who are covered by the blood of God’s lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, are redeemed by God. Believing, trusting in Christ’s finished work accomplishes the final redemption to which the sacrifice of the passover pointed. God has always redeemed His people according to Scripture – there is no time indicated where Hebrew people were sacrificing their children to the true God. Read Exodus 13:13,14

  21. grindael-

    I listened to the episode and at no point did anyone ever point to the word “smith” as a sign of anything at all. It was Paul Hoskisson and Jeff Chadwick talking about those verses, by the way. Both are friends of mine, and neither would ever say anything so stupid. Hoskisson says that God created the smith and so there’s no stopping God’s work using man-made means. Then Chadwick talks about the reference to John. It simply never says a word about “smith” having anything at all to do with Joseph Smith. Setfree is mistaken.

    mobaby-

    You earlier said that insignificant dates should all be considered accurate, irrespective of what we currently think. Are you emending this standard now only to hold that we know only important doctrines are inerrant?

    On your other point, you’re again using modern theology to try to support a historico-critical argument. By the way, you may want to read Judg 11:20-40 (and reconsider the scripture I already shared). Israel most certainly did sacrifice their children to “the true God.”

  22. grindael says:

    Here’s actual transcript, I’ll let the readers decide:

    And along with that to the end of Ch. 54 he says behold I have created the smith, that bloweth the coals in the fire that bringeth forth an instrument for his work & I have created the waster to destroy … Isaiah 54:16

    He’s really saying I am in charge Zion is going go be gathered, it’s going to be beautiful & glorious, and to sum it all up there is nothing that can stop the work in these latter days. i created the smith I know what’s going on and therefore no weapon that is formed against thee in vs 17 shall prosper & every tongue that shall rise up against thee thou shalt condemn, there is no stopping this work in the latter days…

    Mentions D&C 71:9

    So we have the Lord here not only bringing forth the smith, the BUILDER, the SERVANTS the MISSIONARIES from the tops of the mountains blessed be the feet of them & so forth, but he’s even allowed for those who would destroy the wicked & so forth so it’s all part of his plan…

    They are saying that verse has EVERYTHING to do with the restoration they even say there is no stopping the work in these latter days, etc. etc. They linked the verse to the Restoration, and called him ‘the smith’. They did not liken it to an allegory, which they knew it was. A BLACKSMITH. How cheesy can you be? “I created the smith & I know what’s going on…Bringing forth the smith the BUILDER,…” What does this verse have to do with missionaries?

    Setfree was not mistaken, & again we see your ‘agenda’ is to defend Mormonism. There is nothing wrong with that, but don’t hide behind the facade of being some kind of detached scholar, it don’t fly jack.

  23. gindael-

    Setfree did not say they interpreted the passage as relevant to the restoration. Setfree said they claimed that the passage made a direct reference to Joseph Smith because the text uses the word “smith.” They did no such thing. Setfree is absolutely mistaken (again).

  24. grindael says:

    They said the Lord brought forth the smith… not created the blacksmith… & then they said the builder, the servants & the missionaries.

    It is about Smith & the Restoration & you are wrong (again).

    You’re the big OT scholar, why don’t YOU tell us what this really means or is that too hard for you?

  25. grindael-

    I cannot believe how obtuse you’re being. This is utterly asinine argumentation.

  26. grindael says:

    About as Philistine, asinine, blundering, boorish, bovine, churlish, dense, doltish, gross, indelicate, inelegant, loutish, lowbrow, lumpish, oafish, obtuse, raw, rough, rude, stupid, uncouth, unrefined, vulgar, witless as linking Isaiah 54 to Joseph Smith, Yeah, I think so too.

    Did I cover all my bases there? I did not want to be too “obtuse” for you.

  27. grindael says:

    (Read Isaiah 54:11-17)

    Let the people of God, when afflicted and tossed, think they hear God speaking comfortably to them by these words, taking notice of their griefs and fears. The church is all glorious when full of the knowledge of God; for none teaches like him. It is a promise of the teaching and gifts of the Holy Spirit. All that are taught of God are taught to love one another. This seems to relate especially to the glorious times to succeed the tribulations of the church. Holiness, more than any thing, is the beauty of the church. God promises protection. There shall be no fears within; there shall be no fightings without. Military men value themselves on their splendid titles, but God calls them, “Wasters made to destroy,” for they make wasting and destruction their business. He created them, therefore he will serve his own designs by them. The day is coming when God will reckon with wicked men for their hard speeches, Jude 1:15. Security and final victory are the heritage of each faithful servant of the Lord. The righteousness by which they are justified, and the grace by which they are sanctified, are the gift of God, and the effect of his special love. Let us beseech him to sanctify our souls, and to employ us in his service. (Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary)

    Nope. Nothing about the Restoration or Joseph Smith here.

  28. gundeck says:

    Daniel,

    I know that your position is not based on numbers but my position is agnostic to any interpretations for the motivations of the Chronicler. Because of the nature of the media we are using, and my laziness, I decided to make my point without addressing either of our interpretations for the motivations of the Chronicler. I would also say that I don’t find any dogma motivating secular scholarship that surprisingly finds idolatry present in Israel. Who would have thunk of that?

  29. Daniel,

    Again, Smith could have used another word besides “translated”. Also, unless I am mistaken – you do not believe that the autographs (at least not all of them) are inerrant. As such, the error(s) in those instances would not be due to transmission or translation. You can assert all you want that your view of the word “translate”, and the translation process in general, but I can assure you that few (if any) of the Mormons in the decades before and after the articles of faith came into being saw it your way.

    As far as ontological distinction goes, I think it is fairly clear that you are dogmatically setting the bar too high for what counts. I never conceded that the OT makes references to gods/angels/demons/false-gods/idols/etc. I did not retreat to the position that God is the creator of everything – including the “gods”. I have always held that there are non-human entities out there and that God is indeed “God” over them; from my vantage point the phrase the “god of gods” only makes sense in this light.

    One does not get creation out of material from II Mac. Daniel, and all, follow with me here. I can affirm that the last part of the Mac quote holds that mankind was created out of nothing, but not agree with it. If that is what II Mac 7:28 is saying – that the universe and mankind were created directly by fiat (no intermediary step anywhere) – then it is not a problem for me. Mac can hold to a type of creation out of nothing that does not jive with my beliefs (or the Bible or itself) and still be a “proof” that the doctrine existed before Christ.

    Check your circular reasoning. You hold that II Mac cannot hold to creation out of nothing because the doctrine was invented in the 2nd century A.C.E. But that is the very point in question.

  30. “Macc does not accept all of Platonic ontology, just the things that were common to the intellectual matrix of hellenized Egypt.”

    Then just the point(s) that are pertinent to our discussion. Again, if II Mac holds that mankind was created out of formless matter then it contradicts Genesis on that point.

  31. David-

    You’re conflating “word of God” with “inerrant,” though. As I said, all scripture has to pass through an imperfect conduit. We believe the Book of Mormon is the unqualified word of God, but even the title page, written ostensibly by Moroni, states that mistakes in the book are the fault of men.

    Regarding 2 Macc, that’s fine if you want to believe 2 Macc is saying humans were created ex nihilo, but this is still precluded by the fact that the terms used do not mean creatio ex nihilo. You’re basically arguing that you don’t care what the phrases meant in the time period in which they were written, since in English it sounds like creatio ex nihilo, and so creatio ex nihilo it must be. I’ve shown that that is not the case in the Greek, and I’ve received exactly zero direct responses to my concerns. It seems no one here can engage this discussion on my level, but still seems to think they know better than the experts.

    Also, I am appealing to no circular reasoning. I reject creatio ex nihilo in 2 Macc because the language does not mean creatio ex nihilo, but creatio ex materia. I’ve explained this very clearly and the only responses I’ve received are along the lines of “I don’t care.”

    2 Macc does not contradict Genesis. Genesis does not contain creatio ex nihilo. We’ve been over this already.

  32. Daniel,

    Then either God made a mistake(s) or the word of God/words of God are not the parts that are in error. If there is a part in any scripture that is in error then it is not scripture, or God made a mistake. You state that, “We believe the Book of Mormon is the unqualified word of God” then you qualify it.

    I do care what the language in the time period means, but if we took your logic to its natural conclusion then no piece of literature can impart any new information as all information must agree with the given view(s) of a certain time period. Even you have argued here that the adoption of platonic ideas was not wholesale but in part.

    Are you listening (reading) to a word I said? I can go either way on whether II Mac holds to creation out of nothing for mankind. My whole point is that even if it does, that does not take away from the first sentence of the quote. You dogmatically will not allow for the ambiguity in the Greek text concerning the chronology of the events in the quote.

    Again, where in the text do you see the word “materia”. I can point to “ουκ εξ οντων”. Daniel if you hear “I don’t care” then that means you are not hearing what other side has to say. Just because someone does not roll over and adopt your view, does mean that I ,or others, “don’t care”.

    What do you mean “we”? You and I have not been over Genesis. If by “we” you mean you and someone(s) else then fine; however, I was not apart of that. What I do see in Genesis is that man is made from earth and that is not formless matter.

  33. setfree says:

    ALL

    I asked Daniel: (edited for brevity)
    “1- If these “other gods” are real, why does God hate them/forbid worship of them.

    2- If these “other gods” are real, and they are for the “other nations”, then why do they have their people do things like throw their children into the fire (for example, Deut 12:31)

    3- If these “other gods” are real, what about Deut 13:1,2,3,4,5?

    Do you not think, perhaps, that since the God in this passage is YHWH/Jehovah, that your worship of Elohim (and Joseph Smiths’ teaching you to worship Elohim) constitutes as what this passage is talking about?

    4- If there are other real gods, what about verses like Gen 31:30,32… where these gods are shown to be something that is worshiped but worthless? Do you think the Egyptian gods of Exodus 12:12 are real gods?

    5- If there are real other gods of the non-Israel nations, what are their names? Is Allah one? How come Jesus gets to judge them all?

    6- If there are other gods, and in your temple Lucifer says he is the god of this world, then where do the rest fit in?”

    and he answered:

    “1. The Bible doesn’t say he hates them, just that they’re insignificant to Israel (keep in mind Exod 22:28 forbids reviling the other gods). He forbids their worship because he’s a jealous God.

    2. Child sacrifice was a part of early biblical Israel as well (see Exod 22:29 – “give me” here means to sacrifice. Later a law was instituted that allowed for them to be redeemed, but in this original version no such law was in place. Israel was commanded to sacrifice their children to YHWH in the same way they sacrificed their oxen). That the other gods do that is not unusual.

    3. Irrelevant. Recognizing they exist does not mean they must be worshipped.

    4. (removed for brevity)

    5. Baal, Chemosh, Marduk, Ea, Sin, etc. Jesus gets to judge them because he took over rule of the entire earth per Psalm 82.”

    Did anyone else catch Daniel’s view of God? This is so sad…

  34. setfree says:

    Daniel,

    God (YHWH) is not jealous of other gods. He is not jealous of you. He is jealous FOR you.

    You say you have a command of Hebrew. The word jealous, when used with God. Is it the same word as is used with people? Why not? From what I’ve read, it means more along the lines of “zealous”, and has nothing to do with “apprehension of superiority”

    God is not afraid. He wants what is best for us. And what is TRULY best for us is TO WORSHIP HIM! Why? Because it is only when we realize who He is, and who we are not (as a starting place) that we can stop following ourselves like idiots, and listen to HIM. What follows is true wisdom, joy, and peace.

    God deserves all worship. He could certainly just dispense with us because we decide to put our trust in other things– things that cannot help us and do not love us the way He does.

    But He’s also merciful. And He has a host of other wondrous traits. And so… He lets us in on the key factors of absolute joy and peace. First one? “Love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength”

    He doesn’t want us walking around with a to-do list, going “God said I have to do this, so I’m going to work hard to do it”. He wants us to see who He really is, and fall in love with Him.

    Anybody worshiping any other “god” will be miserable, sooner or later, because there is no other real god. The only God-worship that we were ever meant for is worship of the ONE TRUE GOD. Everything else will bring us despair and destruction.

    It’s not only honoring to Him that we only worship Him, and it’s not just what He rightly deserves. It’s the most joyful place we could ever hope to be.

    I’m so sorry that you do not know of God’s goodness. I didn’t either, as a Mormon. It has taken me years to understand as much as I do about how wonderful He really is.

    My disdain for your arrogance has been replaced with sincere compassion. I am praying for you.

  35. setfree says:

    I guess I have more to say.

    First – grindael, thanks for your efforts. Though that sounds similar to what I was talking about, I don’t think it’s the right episode. I hope to find the one I heard.

    Second- Daniel, I doubt you care if I have compassion or disdain. I was only saying it because it’s true about my change of attitude toward you, because what you have revealed to be your belief about God Almighty. I should have felt compassion earlier, but did not, and for that, I apologize.

    ALL, Daniel suggested earlier that the LORD wanted his people to sacrifice their children to the fire, or “in the same way they sacrificed their oxen”. I just wanted to bring in a couple of pertinent verses:

    Jeremiah 19:5 “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind

    and

    Jeremiah 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”

    Not only did we see the LORD rebuking his people for worshiping other gods, in Deuteronomy, because all manner of abomination was involved (a clear contrast to what Daniel believes God expected), but here we have the LORD saying that such a thing as asking for this kind of sacrifice “never came into [His] mind”

    When Abraham took Isaac up the hill, he knew that he and Isaac BOTH would be coming back. (Gen 22:5,8)

    It appears as though you believe in an evil and cruel god, and not just one.

    I believe the Bible. I believe that there is ONLY ONE REAL GOD, and that all the others are… as Aaron put it, breakfast. I invite you to look again. This time, consider YHWH, and ask Him to lead you to the truth?

  36. Daniel wrote

    Unless someone has something relevant to say I’m happy to stop wasting my time trying to talk sense into everyone’s belligerent and naive dogmatism.

    OK, let’s try to put dogma aside and put it in terms of an inquiry.

    Your thesis seems to consider the “One God” texts to be a literary construct (hyperbolic rhetoric), but the “Many gods” texts represented the actual theological position of the early Hebrew texts.

    In other words, the rhetoric of Isaiah 43:10-13 etc. should be fitted into the theology of Psalm 82 etc.

    I, and others here, have raised the antithesis that the rhetoric of Psalm 82 should be fitted to the theology of Isaiah 43. The main reason I can think of is that this is how later generations interpreted these passages, particularly those who translated the OT from Hebrew to Greek.

    Can you explain why you interpret the “One God” Isaiah 43 etc as hyperbolic rhetoric, but you interpret the “many gods” of the earlier Hebrew texts (if that is what they are saying) as having more theological weight?

    What is the basis for your judgement, if it is not dogma?

  37. Daniel wrote

    We believe the Book of Mormon is the unqualified word of God, but even the title page, written ostensibly by Moroni, states that mistakes in the book are the fault of men.

    I’ve just had the opportunity to check back through the posts. Up to this point, Daniel had been avoiding the Mormon agenda, but here he confirms it.

    What has surprised me through these exchanges is that I would expect Daniel’s statements from a humanist secular atheist scholar, but not a believer (I’m not value judging either position at this point). The phrase “cutting off his nose to spite his face” comes to mind because, as I see it, Daniel’s arguments do a superlative job of demolishing Joseph Smith’s agenda.

    Take, for example the 8AoF “We believe in the Bible as far as it has been translated correctly”. This creates a presumption that the Bible is believable, and that it is possible to come to a “correct translation”. The Mormon agenda goes on to say that the errors in the “apostate” Christian churches can be attributed to the errors that they introduced to the Bible, and Joseph Smith was given divine power to magically produce a “correct” translation.

    We don’t need to dwell on whether Smith had the capacity to translate here, though his statements on how he did it indicate that he had absolutely no experience in translation processes.

    What Daniel’s thesis states is that the early Hebrew texts were misinterpreted by the Greek translators, and all this in the centuries before Christ. So, if someone says they have a “correct” translation, we should really ask “correct translation of what, the Hebrew or Greek?”. Smith obviously had no concept of the difference and I doubt that it even entered his consciousness that there could be a difference.

    The Mormon agenda is all about “correct” translations because that is what Smith’s credentials as a prophet rest upon

    …ctd…

  38. …ctd…

    This is how Smith presented himself, and how the LDS Church continues to present him; as the Prophet of the Restoration.

    Restoration of what? The pre-Christian polytheism that Daniel sees in the early Hebrew writings? How does this fit with the LDS claim to be the restoration of True Christianity? (It doesn’t, BTW).

    Then again, LDS are always looking for a reason to jettison the Bible wholesale. Of course, they’d like the world to believe that they follow it, but I think they resent its intrusion into their religion. I don’t even think its a theological conflict, its simply that they cant abide the idea that someone else is telling them what to believe.

    So, according to Daniel, there can be no “correct” translation of the Bible because the Hebrew and Greek are in conflict with each other. He may be right, but I’d like to see what reaction he gets from his church, particularly when one considers the implications on Joseph Smith’s claims.

    On the one hand, LDS may cheer him for giving them the “out” they’ve been looking for with respect to the authority of the Bible. On the other, they may boo him because they’d have to recall and reprogram their entire missionary effort.

  39. Mike R says:

    Daniel,

    I could be missing something here, but a question
    I have is: Does not your faith tradition hold to
    a very old scriptural frame of reference for the
    belief in One True God, namely Ether 2:8, 13:2 ?

    This as you know is from the Tower of Babel time
    frame. Is not this the same Lord (Ether 2:8) that
    speaks in Deut., Isaiah, and Jer.10:10 ? If so,
    can we ascertain from this that since Israel
    believed in One-True-God, then all other gods
    (whether evil or good beings) are thus un-true
    ( Gal.4:8)?

  40. setfree says:

    Grindael went back in and located the exact episode I was talking about. He even provided the transcript. Here it is:

    “http://www.byub.org/oldtestament/episode.asp?id=149

    About 8:56 into the Recording we hear:

    “To overcome the opposition the lord says in verse 16 behold I have created the smith that bloweth the coals, the obvious analogy of a blacksmith BUT IT HIT ME ONE DAY THAT THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE FULFILLMENT HERE, THAT IS WE HAVE A ‘SMITH’,

    JOSEPH SMITH, who does bring forth an instrument, indeed the

    Book of Mormon… which is designed to stand against all of this

    opposition & indeed the promise no weapon formed against thee

    shall prosper and that’s been the promise of the Lord through

    his prophets reaffirmed in section 71 of the D&C, and so here

    we have this instrument, the book of mormon brought forth to

    stand against all the opposition of this kingdom that is

    spreading & the gathering of Israel throughout the earth…”

    I believe it was Clyde Williams that made the comment”

    Thanks again grindael!

  41. mobaby says:

    Daniel – I have read Judges 11:20-40 before. Is it your argument that Scripture is endorsing what happened in Judges 11? If Scripture reports it, does that mean its okay? Judges also reports many things that Samson did – is this an endorsement of his actions? He is a Bible hero! In Judges 11, I suppose you could say he sacrificed his children to God and I should have been clearer – there is no instance of “holy righteous God-ordained” sacrifice of children. The Hebrew people also sacrificed their children to other gods. Is this a good thing, since according to your theory these are actual regional gods? My thinking is that not everything that is reported in Scripture is something we should go out and do, nor was it correct for them to do. Your approach would seem to lead to many problems.

    Inerrancy and reliability of Scripture: On the example of John Calvin there were conflicting dates – which later after his death became clear (being due to differing calendars). In the passage you site, apparently the dates are unclear. I would maintain that yes, this Scripture is true and future discoveries will bring to light how it is true and clarify these verses just as happened with John Calvin years after his death. I also maintain that the discrepancies we know of in Scripture do not amount to much at all and affect no Christian doctrine. There are so many source documents testifying to the accuracy of Scripture that those who study Shakespeare and other ancient literature would absolutely freak out to have the volume of supporting documentation available that backs up Scripture. Its that good.

  42. grindael says:

    Here is the link (it did not come out on Setfree’s post):

    http://www.byub.org/oldtestament/episode.asp?id=149

    As to an agenda, this might help to clarify, & it came from a Mormon Apologetics Board in which Daniel (Maklalen) was speaking about me (after quoting from my earlier post on Isaiah 54 & the BYU Program & pretty much right after I posted it:

    “This guy really, really wants the original claim to be accurate, but it’s clear that no amount of obfuscation and wordplay can make it accurate. Another example of the caliber of argument that is being hurled in our direction.” emphasis mine.

    It really didn’t take him long to go running to the Mormon Boards with this. But like I said above, there is nothing wrong with having an agenda, just be open and honest about it and don’t try to say that you don’t have any when you really do:

    “I analyze the data and see what it suggests. I don’t force my own reading on anything. I understand that you want to believe that it’s dogma driving my scholarship, but that’s flat wrong.”

    And if you listen to the first program all the way through, they do link the entire chapter 54 with the restoration. Sorry Daniel, but you were wrong (again).

  43. grindael-

    That’s still not what setfree said. Her exact words were:

    “One of them pipes up and says that he thinks that Isaiah 54:16 (I believe, though it may have been Isaiah 44:12) is about Joseph Smith.

    Why? the word “smith””

    He doesn’t say the word “smith” tipped him off, or even that it’s relevant. He says the events are what point to Smith in his mind. He’s very clearly just using “smith” as a pun. You’re still desperately misrepresenting the statement, and it’s an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

  44. setfree-

    Regarding your citations from Jeremiah, see Jer 7:22, where Jeremiah states that God did not command Israel concerning any sacrifices after bringing them out of Egypt. Now, if you believe Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy at all you know that he very clearly did command them concerning sacrifices. Is Jeremiah using rhetoric here that you might not understand, or are Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all wrong (or is Jeremiah wrong)? They can’t all be right if we accept your straightforward reading.

  45. Mike R-

    We believe there is one relevant God. Use the word “true” if you want. We do not deny that other divine beings exist. Use the word “gods” if you want (we certainly do). We’re only concerned with the worship of our Godhead.

  46. I don’t actually see any attempts in any of the other responses to actually engage any evidence I’ve presented. It’s all naive attempts to paint me into some fundamentalist scriptural corner. I’m not interested in playing those silly apologetic games, so I’ll take my leave.

  47. grindael says:

    Lurkers,

    Listen to the tape and you’ll see there was no ‘pun’ intended. That’s all in Daniel’s mind, just like his many god theories in the OT.

    As soon as you confront these apologists with real evidence, they go bye bye.

  48. Mike R says:

    Daniel,

    I do use the word “True” because that’s the word
    your ancient scripture uses to describe our
    Creator. There are indeed all kinds of things,
    and beings( both evil and good) that are called
    “gods”. There is only one God that possesses an
    intrinsic quality that all the others don’t.
    These qualities/attributes are stated in the
    LDS Lectures on Faith,lecture 2. Though some of
    Israel’s neighbors gave to their gods the same
    name and titles as that of Israel’s God doesn’t
    mean their gods were ultimately equal to the
    True God. Mormon Gen.authority Bruce McConkie
    states that principle: “….the mere worship of
    a god who has the proper scriptural names does
    not assure one that he is worshiping the True
    and living God….” [Mormon Doctrine,p.270 ].

    Ancient believers and modern believers confess
    the truth that there is One True God, and then
    there are gods.The two should’nt be equated.

    Good luck in your studies. I pray it will bring
    you to see the uniqueness of our Great God and
    Savior, and not succumb to the popular theories
    of our day.
    c

  49. setfree says:

    Daniel says he’s gone, but I’d like to reply to this:

    …see Jer 7:22, where Jeremiah states that God did not command Israel concerning any sacrifices after bringing them out of Egypt. Now, if you believe Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy at all you know that he very clearly did command them concerning sacrifices. Is Jeremiah using rhetoric here that you might not understand, or are Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all wrong (or is Jeremiah wrong)? They can’t all be right if we accept your straightforward reading.”

    Not having the Bible memorized, I went back and read Jeremiah 7:22 IN CONTEXT, which always helps. I then went back to Exodus, to the part where the LORD brings the children of Israel out of Egypt. Now why did I do that?

    “For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices…”

    and guess what? The LORD did not lie. Imagine that!

    When the LORD brought the children out of Egypt, He was ready to provide everything for them. He got them loaded up with provisions from Egypt, personally provided the light and security and path across the sea, got them to the other side and started providing their daily bread and water…

    and what did they do?

    Gripe. Complain. “Is the LORD really among us or not?” on and on like a bunch of brats.

    He didn’t bring them out of Egypt and immediately give them the 10 commandments or the sacrifices. They came out, and like we are prone to do after God first saves us, they tried to go back to what they were used to.

    God doesn’t lie, Daniel, nor does He change His mind about how many gods there are.

    It is the experienced opinion of this writer that UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO DROP YOUR MORMON THINKING, ASK GOD (YHWH) TO LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH AND BE READY TO HEAR IT, EVEN IF IT DISAGREES WITH WHAT YOU NOW BELIEVE…

    you will NEVER hear the message of the Bible.

  50. mobaby says:

    I see Daniel never responded to my query about 2 subjects:

    1) If matter is eternal and “god” is not, then doesn’t that make matter the actual true god and source of the rules whereby one becomes god? Worship of the Mormon god would be worshiping of the created, whereby one’s mind becomes darkened (Romans 1:25)

    2) Daniel’s example of child sacrifice from Scripture – this is clearly not something Scripture commends as good and wise. Is it Daniel’s contention that God did ordain child sacrifice in Judges 11:20 – 40? Does Daniel likewise accept all reporting of occurrences throughout Scripture as condoning what they report? No, I don’t really think Daniel would agree with that. Then why does he site Judges 11:20-40 as an example when there is no indication that God thought this was an awesome thing (child sacrifice) that happened? Is it merely Daniels contention that the Hebrew people sinned through child sacrifice? Then I agree – they were as wicked and in need of forgiveness as people today.

    When Jesus was tempted what did Satan use to tempt him? Matthew 5:6 indicates that one thing Satan used was Scripture – he took it and twisted the meaning to try and undermine Jesus. Likewise, we must always be on guard against those who would twist Scripture and say things like it speaks of Joseph Smith in Isaiah, or there are many real true regional gods in the Old Testament or has God really said…?

Leave a Reply