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.
———————-
David-
I already posted a link to a discussion of the teraphim, and I’ve explained that historical layers separate Israel’s polytheistic and monolatrous phases. Your confusion is the result of your dating these concepts according to their chronological appearance in the Bible, which is not the right way to do it.
A prohibition against graven images is actually not very early, and we have several finds from Israel that show Israelites were happy to represent Yahweh in a number of ways up until the seventh century BCE. See the following item, for example:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23130914/AN-IRON-AGE-II-PICTORIAL-INSCRIPTION-FROM-JERUSALEM-ILLUSTRATING-YAHWEH-AND-ASHERAH
Regarding אלהים, I’ve pointed to the necessary scholarship. If you’d like to address specific concerns you have with the scholarship then be my guest, but modern Bible translations mean nothing to me. My reference to NIV Jer 7:22 shows how much you can trust Bible translation committees.
Regarding creatio ex nihilo, present all the evidence you have. I’ve seen all of it and much more, and I’ll be happy to respond, but naked assertions don’t advance this discussion at all.
Regarding אלילים, I didn’t cop out at all. I very clearly showed that several texts show reverence for the gods of the nations. No one has responded to those comments.
You seem to be set on demanding evidence and then ignoring it when it’s presented. I don’t appreciate that. If you have no intention of engaging my concerns then let me know and I’ll save myself the time.
setfree-
I am here to show that the thesis of your blog post is incorrect. I am indeed suggesting that the Hebrew Bible presents God as having a council of lesser deities operating under him which were, according to Israelite theology, assigned stewardships over the nations. The texts are crystal clear, and none of you have actually responded directly to them yet.
Regarding God’s approbation of the other deities, I’ve already pointed to several texts that show this, but I’m happy to do it again. According to Deut 4:19 and 32:8-9, God established the other gods as deities over their respective nations. Obviously the last thing an all-powerful being does to demons/non-entities that he hates is delegate to them responsibility and authority over his creations. This is confirmed in Exod 22:27, where Israel is commanded not to speak ill of the gods. I’ve posted them before, but see the following to confirm that my ideas are standard:
Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW 35.1 (1964): 25; Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” HUCA 14 (1939): 30; Rosenberg, “Yahweh Becomes King,” JBL 85.3 (1966): 306; Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” JTS 45 (1944): 155; Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 2000), 1-3; Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God – Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” RevB 102.4 (1995): 532-59; Tsevat, God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82,” HUCA 40/41 (1969-1970): 126; Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BibSac 158 (2001): 10-13; Kee, “The Heavenly Council and its Type=scene,” JSOT 31 (2007): 259-73; Joosten, “A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8,” VT 57 (2007): 548-55; and Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” JSS 1.1 (1956): 29-30.
Daniel,
How much credit would you give to God manifest in the flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ? He comes late in the Bible, but seeing as He rose from the dead, His views on God should seem to count more as the messiah – having arrived from heaven to earth. Did Jesus contradict Isaiah and proclaim there were errors that needed to be corrected? Did He proclaim a great council of regional gods which should be reverenced and did He oversee the other nations in the region – that people should go out and lend support to these gods helping others to trust more in their own gods? Or did He call them to repent and turn to the one true God. Which did Jesus affirm?
Daniel,
What do you do with:
Deut 3:24
Deut 4:15-19, 28, 32-35
Deut 12:30,31
Deut 20:18
Deut 28:36,64
Deut 29:16-18
If these other “gods” are gods like God is God, then why is He adamant that Israel only worship Him and none of them?
And who is Him? Heavenly Father (Elohim) or Jehovah?
Why do the other nations’ gods require burnt-children sacrifices?
etc etc
setfree-
Those texts contain rhetoric of incomparability. Yahweh is better than all the other gods. I’ve been over this already. Incomparability doesn’t mean the other gods don’t exist or that they’re ontologically distinct. These are also from a later historical layer than Deut 32:8-9.
I’ve responded to all your concerns, but you’ve yet to respond to a single one of mine. All you’ve done is tossed additional questions at me. I’ll not waste any more of my time until you actually engage my concerns. You can start with my comment above where I quote all the scholarship. Please respond to the evidence I present or this discussion is over.
Daniel,
I hope this does’nt vear off topic. A question
I have is, where does the Book of Mormon relate
to this position of yours concerning the God
of Israel?
In the introduction to my edition of the Book of
Mormon (BM) it states that the record(BM) gives
an account of two great civilizations that came
from the middle east.The earlier one, known as the
Jaredites, came from the time of the tower of
Babel(Gen.11).Their record,the book of Ether,in
2:8 mentions that the Lord is the True God,(see
also Jer.10:10). If the Lord here is the True God
then that pretty much puts all other “gods” in a
different category. The True God is unique. It
seems to me that the BM agrees with the Bible’s
description of our (and Israel’s) God, He alone
is the one Almighty Creator.
Any thoughts?
Daniel,
I am fully aware that the biblical order of books, be it hebrew or greek arrangement, does not necessarily mean the “phase” or time Israel was in. With that, I was playing along with your (far) left approach to the Bible. So, no confusion just disagreement. Also, just because something was done in Israel, even with regards to worship, does not mean it was acceptable to God. The Bible is full of instances where Hebrews either worshiped the wrong god or the right god in the wrong way.
“modern Bible translations mean nothing to me”
This is just sheer hubris. By your silence I am assuming that you do not have a command of the original languages (for the record I do not either). As such to flatly reject the interpretations of men much more learned and distinguished then you or I is willful ignorance.
So you admit that there is evidence for creation out of nothing in 1st century Judaism? When and how did this idea make its way into modern Judaism? Even if there were no scriptures that (rightly) spoke of creation ex nihilo, you would still need to contend with ancient witnesses to the idea. If I and others are getting it wrong, then so did many others prior to the advent of Christ.
I did not allege that your assertions regarding the word “el” and its derivatives were a cop-out. I saved that word/phrase for your lack of handling the biblical passages that speak with a disdain towards other gods – “eliyl”. The Isaiah passages are the foremost in this regard. The phrase “beside me there is no God” (and others like it) only make sense if the God of Israel is of a different kind than the gods of the nations. That, or the God of Israel is lying.
Are you serious that no one here has interacted with what you have presented? Given that the best you have given towards the passages that spawned this thread is “Isaiah never denies the existence of other deities”, you are not in a position to make that claim.
Daniel,
If you require that anceint Hebrews actually use the word “ontological” to distinguish their god from the gods of the goyim, then yeah your requirement will not be meant. But if your rack up the superaltives used towards El-Elyon, the passages that speak ill of other gods, and the instances where non-finite adjectives (like “eternal”) are used to describe the God of Israel then you get a god like none other. He is the God of gods, the Creator.
If you allow the ancient Hebrews to speak to you according to their cultural dialectic, to let the Bible speak in its way on its terms, then you get a god that is “different”. If other “gods” worship the one true God then what does that say about their godhood and His (Deut 10:17, I Sam 5:3&4, Ex 3:14, Isa 43:13, I Ks 8:60 )?
We have two contradictory views of how God presented Himself and how God and other gods are revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jesus, being God come in the flesh, would be someone we could look to in answer to these questions.
If one does not believe in Jesus and His divine authority, then the question goes back to who is Jesus and what do we do with Him? – and the argument over who has the proper view of OT theology becomes an irrelevant parsing of verses and liberal constructs. If Jesus is God – then I suggest we look at His view of the nature of God and interpret Scripture in light of Scripture. God come to earth would surely set the matter straight, and if there were many true gods He would have been advocating worship of these many gods for those nations to whom they belong. And surely He would have clarified that Isaiah had it all wrong.
Clearly from Setfree’s listing of Scriptures a few posts back, the one true God did not ask His people to esteem the lesser gods as Daniel suggested. As a matter of fact they are to be utterly disregarded and their images torn down and destroyed. The gods who don’t see or hear aren’t really gods – how could they be, they literally can’t do anything according to Scripture. And when God appeared here on earth, He did not ask us to esteem the false gods.
Daniel – I sense from you an intellectual theological sneer that will be unconvinced by any argument given here. If Biblical scholars/translations can be dismissed out of hand, what could anyone here offer? More arguments to sneer at I suppose. This was your most telling sneer to me: “You may share your little list of scriptures if you wish.” I will take your little list of scholarly credits with the same level of honest inquiry you bring to the table.
Daniel, are you “maklelan” from the Walter Martin Boards? If so, aren’t you the same guy who told me the GodNeverSinned.com video project was “all an appeal to emotion, which is another fallacy, and betrays absolutely abject ignorance of the religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments was developed and transmitted.”?
This same “maklelan” went on to say “a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner.”
I’m starting to connect the dots here and it does indeed seem like Daniel is the same as maklelan, not only in name but in manner of speech. Last time Daniel tried to engage me to show that the Old Testasment indeed is compatible with the idea that God was once a sinner, I responded:
Like I mentioned above, these kind of Mormon apologists are trying to use the idea of local henotheism to promote a Mormon cosmic henotheism. It’s a fallacious slippery slope and a fancy smokescreen.
David-
I do have a command of the original languages. I wouldn’t be posting here if I didn’t. I studied Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and Greek for my bachelors and am at Oxford for my masters, which focuses most of my attention on Hebrew. I will begin a PhD program this fall, where I will continue my Hebrew and again take up Greek, Ugaritic, and Aramaic, as well as Akkadian and probably Syriac. I try not to mention my qualifications because people tend to jump on the opportunity to accuse me of appealing to authority to the neglect of my actual argument.
I don’t recall admitting that there was any possibility of creatio ex nihilo in the first century CE. I don’t know where you got that idea, but it’s not in the Bible or in any other text from any time period prior to the second century CE.
Regarding “there is no other God beside me,” no that’s not an assertion of ontological distinction, it’s an assertion of incomparability. For Israel, Yahweh is the only God that matters. Deutero-Isaiah puts the exact same statement into the mouth of the personified Babylon in Isa 47:8, 10 (I am, and there is no one beside me). See also Zeph 2:15 in reference to Nineveh. Obviously these statements aren’t meant to say Babylon and Nineveh are the only cities that exist, or that they’re taxonomically distinct, but only that they’re the only cities that matter to their citizens.
And the claim still stands that no one is interacting with my concerns.
Regarding superlatives, “eternal” is also used to describe the trees and the Law of Moses. It’s use with Yahweh doesn’t mean anything in relation to the other gods, and according to Deut 32:8-9 and Psalm 82, Yahweh’s a son of Elyon anyway, which completely conflicts with the picture you’re trying to paint. As I’ve stated numerous times, Yahweh is simply more powerful and more benevolent than the other gods. All the rhetoric points only to that, but you are trying to make it say things it simply does not say.
mobaby-
I take every argument seriously until it shows itself to be untenable. The arguments I’ve seen here have never gotten off the ground. You can criticize me all you want for rejecting Bible translations, but they all appeal to modern dogmatism. Absolutely every single one of them. I know the languages well enough for myself to not depend on English translations, and I’m under absolutely no obligation to view them as authoritative in any sense of the word. You’ve also neglected to respond to my concerns regarding setfree’s assertions.
Aaron-
That’s me. Now, you ignored my previous response to you. Until you respond to my comments I have no reason to think you’ll actually engage anything I have to say about other topics. In my other interactions with you you’ve always just ignored what you couldn’t deal with and just continued to pile on unrelated comments to muddy the waters. I don’t see that anything has matured in your debate methodologies, so I’ll save myself the trouble.
Aaron said “My God eats other gods for breakfast.” Amen Brother, and ever so it shall remain.
Daniel,
It is fodder for another thread, but there is ample evidence that creation ex nihilo was around prior to the 2nd century A.C.E. Again, if what you are saying is true then it would fairly easy to demonstrate that the idea crept into Judaism as well.
“For Israel, Yahweh is the only God that matters”
According to you this is only true for certain time period. If you readily admit that disdain for other gods is biblical, then are we not just engaging in a case of “well you have your verses and I have mine”? Honestly, if Israel’s religion has undergone such contradictory changes why have any devotion to any of this other than because its your job?
Furthermore, I would challenge that statement because, as you probably are well aware, Israel did worship other gods. The Bible states this and archeology confirms this. Where there are many gods, more than one gets worshiped.
I think you made my point for me with your citations. For those cities, they do view themselves as distinct hence the statements. Plus, no where in the text do we see this “but only that they’re the only cities that matter to their citizens.” They view themselves as so much better than the rest, that the others basically do not exist. That sounds like taxinomically distinct to me.
Also, they wrongly believe this! The point of those passages is that these statements are made but are untrue; these cities are being “haughty”. There are other cities. If the God of Israel is saying this, it is not true. He is not the only god, there are other gods, and he is wrong to assert such.
Again, El-Elyon receives worship from other gods. You can call that a rhetoric point but I think to most others it is significant. If receiving worship is not a mark of distinction I do not know what is. Maybe the reason you fail to see the distinction between the God of Israel and the gods of the nations is because the god you worship is not taxinomically distinct from yourself?
Daniel
You said:
“I am here to show that the thesis of your blog post is incorrect.”
and later
“…the people who wrote the Bible weren’t strictly monotheistic, despite your attempt to show they were”
and still later
“I’ve responded to all your concerns, but you’ve yet to respond to a single one of mine. All you’ve done is tossed additional questions at me. I’ll not waste any more of my time until you actually engage my concerns”
Let me suggest something. 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! Would you worship a god you didn’t believe existed? I’m guessing the Israelites wouldn’t either. Some thought there were other real gods, just like the surrounding nations did. That’s why He, the ALMIGHTY GOD, had to “kick their butts”.
So what you’ve done here, in other words, is to bring your own argument and start handing out questions, even though YOU have not addressed MY concerns (what God said CLEARLY, and in MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, about Himself).
As far as you addressing my concerns? I disagree that you have. You have not shown how your Deut 32:8 argument applies to Mormonism, or why God hates the worship of other gods, or why the other gods have their people do all sorts of abominable things. And, who is the god of this earth, according to you? Are there many mormon-graduate gods in charge of the other nations? Does this mean Allah is a Mormon-grad?
One more note.. about scholarship. You can find “scholars” on each side of a lot of issues. Richard Dawkins is a “scholar”, by many people’s standards. But did he come to his conclusions without a previous bias? Did he exclude evidence that would have pointed somewhere he didn’t want it to? Scholars…
Daniel, I have already shown how, within Mormonism, it’s foolish to think God was once perhaps a sinner without a model that includes the Father having a spirit-father. Your main options within Mormonism are the traditional notion of a lineage of Gods above Yahweh or the route of Blake Ostler, which denies God has a God, the existence of Heavenly Mother, and the idea of eternal increase via viviparous spirit birth, etc.
With the former, OT henotheism won’t work to support Mormonism (since the Most High doesn’t have an Even Most High), and with the latter, you’re just working with a crippled Mormon theology.
This comes from you, a Mormon who is working towards an OT-related PhD: “a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner.” I’m not going to let you live that one down. It shows how you are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).
Aaron,
I thought that this one was a tad startling.
With regards to Dagon bowing before the ark of the covenant we get:
“Of course this does not corroborate Mormon ideology”
As well as this one given this source was cited as support for El-Elyon being of the same kind as the other gods:
“Heiser’s idea of ‘species uniqueness’ has its own problems”
Also, this one:
“but modern Bible translations mean nothing to me”
given that he could be learning ancient languages from some of the same men that gave us those translations.
David
I think that last sentence you stated really hits
the nail on the head. His eagerness to relay the
theories of liberal scholars’ attempts to cast
aspersions on the Bible, is why Daniel needs to
believe this.After all, by reducing Almighty God
down to just some ordinary god, it reinforces
his desire to become a God himself.
David-
It is very easy to show it crept into Judaism. Gerhard May’s book on the topic is the best for that. You keep telling me there’s all this evidence, and I keep inviting you to share it and you never do. Consider this another invitation to present that evidence.
I am devoted to the Bible religiously because I believe it is the word of God. The difference is that my belief doesn’t require the “word of God” to be inerrant. All revelation and inspiration passes through imperfect human conduits, and is therefore susceptible to error and manipulation. It’s the Holy Spirit that defines my relationship to God, not the Bible.
I know that many gods were worshipped, but monolatry was the normative belief from around the time of the monarchy to the Hellenistic period.
Regarding the rhetoric of the other cities, asserting incomparability is not a taxonomic distinction by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest you learn a little more about what constitutes ontology and taxonomy. Whether the assertion is true or not is utterly and completely irrelevant. The rhetoric and its meaning is the same. It’s very clear your responses are simply ad hoc rationalizations that you’re quickly coming up with rather than well thought out and rational rebuttals. Please take more time in the future and save your posturing.
setfree-
You conflate monolatry and polytheism, and you’ve completely misrepresented both our arguments. Lastly, simply waving your hand and saying “scholars, meh” doesn’t address anything. It’s just incredibly flippant and ignorant.
Aaron-
There’s no need to live anything down. That you refuse to respond to my earlier concern makes it clear that trying to engage you in any kind of serious or respectable discussion is meaningless. You flat ignore everything that you can’t deal with and just continue to harp on childish little slights of hand. Your dilettantish misrepresentations of my religion will never create waves of any consequence.
Daniel,
It’s ironic how you accuse me of failing to provide “evidence” yet on this topic, Judaic assertion of creation out of nothing, you are just getting around to addressing it. While you have attempted to provide some genuine evidence here, most of what I think that you think is evidence are links to your website and names of books; I would not call that evidence.
If you want evidence I already gave you the Qumran quote and their are others from that cache. I would also cite II Maccabees 7:28: “I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also”.
This:
“All revelation and inspiration passes through imperfect human conduits, and is therefore susceptible to error and manipulation.”
is an argument very much akin to one for deism. Which parts of the Bible to you believe were always in error (not just the transmission)? It really does seem like a cop out; when a passage bolsters your view its sound, if it contradicts it then it is in error – a bit like the disdain for idols being a “late” development but still biblical.
Why embrace monoaltry instead of polyaltry if those gods are on par with Israel’s God and were indeed worshiped at various instances in Israel’s history?
It really does seem like any and all evidence for El-Elyon’s difference or separation from the god’s of the nations is chocked up to “incomparability” with you. I am familiar with ontology and taxonomy and I also know that those terms, and that way of thinking, is to some degree a philosophical development. I adjure you let the Hebrews speak to you on their terms.
“Whether the assertion is true or not is utterly and completely irrelevant”
Oh contrair. If there are gods beside the God of Israel then either El-Elyon is lying or that is one of those biblical errors. There are other cities and other gods, and the passages only make sense when placed together if the God of Israel is fundamentally different. I will let the readers decide if those passages in Isaiah count towards El-Elyon’s “differentness”.
I am glad to see that you can read my mind 🙂 Just because I do not have a website with a fairly narrow subject range, that includes this issue, does not mean I have not spent anytime wrestling with these issues.
* As evidence towards there being only one God I would also cite Alma 11:26-29:
And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
And he answered, No.
Not an OT passage, but I could not resist.
Daivd-
It’s au contraire, first. Second, this is a false dilemma. Elyon is not lying, he’s using rhetoric, kinda like in Isa 40:17, where Isaiah says the other nations are as nothing, and less than nothing to God. That’s not really true, but it’s also not a lie. It’s just hyperbolic rhetoric, like saying I got killed on the basketball court last night, or I saw a guy that weighed a million pounds. This is an incredibly common biblical literary convention. Saying there are no other gods or cities is just rhetoric.
Regarding 2 Macc 7:28, the phrase there, ουκ εχ οντων, simply means “not out of things that are,” and it’s closest literary parallels are found in Platonic ontology, which says the exact same thing about the creation of the universe. However, in Platonic ontology the universe was made of formless pre-existent matter which was thought by the Greeks to be “non-being” since it had no form. This is picked up by Xenophon, who states that parents create their children εκ ουκ οντων (“out of that which is not”). Children aren’t created ex nihilo. The fact is, 2 Macc 7:28 has no creatio ex nihilo. It’s an appeal to creatio ex materia as manifested in numerous contemporary and older Greek literary texts. If you had read the texts I cited by May, Hubler, O’Neill, Goldstein, and Winston you’d have come across this discussion already. I have also presented research myself at SBL regarding creatio ex nihilo in 2 Maccabees.
Regarding 1QSXI.11, you’re using a rather dogmatic translation. The text would be more accurately rendered “All that will be, he foreknows / and all that is, his plans establish.” The context confirms this, speaking about humanity’s inability to tell the future or dictate its outcome (1QSXI.10: “Surely a man’s way is not his own / neither can he confirm his own step”). It’s about divine guidance. Creation has nothing to do with it.
Your accusation of deism isn’t a response to my concerns, by the way, it just a deflection.
The Root of this tree: SMITH, has been proven to be a false prophet, and his IDEAS on MANY GODS gleaned from his made-up Book of Abraham & erroneous ramblings on the hebrew word elohim prove this out. I notice no substantial defense of Smith’s lies that the breathing permit of Hor was actually 3500 years old as proclaimed by Smith or that the translation of it by Mormons or non-Mormons is anything but what it is: a late Egyptian document from the Book of the Dead.
All we see are Apologists & quotes of Apologists claiming all kinds of bogus theories that do not bear out IN ANY WAY that the Book Of Abraham is genuine. Hence, these theological discussions don’t prove anything let alone that Smith was a Real Prophet of God.
Daniel,
I would interested to hear how your study of ancient Hebrew relates to Joseph Smith’s additions to the Bible in the other thread here on Mormon Coffee. In your studies, have you found a lot of ancient document support for your prophets restored Bible “Scripture?” “Scholar” and buying Smith’s preposterous ‘chose your own story’ bible in the Joseph Smith “Translation” must be a hard contradiction to hold in tension within one’s mind. On the one hand you must dismiss clear statements God has made about Himself and His unique nature as the only true God while, on the other hand, affirm ridiculous additions to the Scripture (lacking any historical support) made by Joseph Smith. Tight rope walk doesn’t accurately describe the predicament such an apologetic stretch must cause one to make. Chinese contortionists would stand back in utter awe to see this accomplished. Alas, they will have to wait, it can’t be done.
mobaby-
My study of ancient Hebrew does not relate to Joseph Smith’s revision, which was executed by inspiration. Joseph Smith never used the word “translate” in the way that we use it today. He said he “translated” the book of Moses, but he had no Vorlage for it. He said he “translated” the gold plates, but he didn’t look at the plates. He said we believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly, but his biggest issue was with copyist errors, not translation problems. His “translation” of the Bible isn’t a translation in the modern sense, and there’s no tension at all between what I do and what he did.
Now, tell me, if you don’t buy Joseph Smith’s revision of the Bible, why do you accept the books of Chronicles as inspired scripture? All the Chronicler did was take Samuel and Kings and some other sources and rewrite everything, taking stuff out, adding completely new stuff, throwing in other scriptures here and there, and changing the story in several place to fit his contemporary ideologies and prejudices. How is this more inspired than what Joseph Smith did? (And no begging the question, please.)
Chronicles was about real proven historical figures. Smith’s Book of Mormon is FICTION.
Referring to the redaction of Chronicles from Kings and Samuel, Daniel McLellan asked
I’d agree that the question is imponderable, from a neutral point of view…
…except that the Chronicler did his (their?) work before the birth of Christianity, and Smith did his afterwards.
In other words, a redacted Chronicles forms part of the DNA from which the Christian revelation was formed (and orthodox Judaism, BTW). The same cannot be said of Smith’s later ‘revelations’, which revise the Christian revelation at a fundamental level to such an extent that they overturn it utterly.
So, if by ‘inspired’, you mean ‘in line with the Jewish tradition of God at the time of Jesus (who, by the way, spearheaded the Christian revelation, in case you missed it)’, then yes, Redacted Chronicles is “inspired”, and Smith’s “revelations” are not.
The son cannot be greater than the father (with one notable exception, Matt 22:41-46).
If you want to prove that your henotheistic agenda is “inspired”, then you will have to prove that this is how the first Christians read scripture, including Jesus himself.
Even if, for sake of argument, the OT includes idioms, stories and scenarios that appear uncomfortable for “modern” monotheists, a serious engagement with John 1:1, Rev 1:9, etc etc demonstrates that the Christian revelation explicitly excludes the possibility that the One God is anything other than the absolute God (for want of a better way to describe it).
Whatever these other ‘gods’ may be, they are nothing (of no consequence/not to be feared/not to be worshipped), because God the Son has subjugated them all.
I wonder Daniel, do you fear and worship Jesus in the same way that the first Christians did (Matt 28:17 etc)? I can’t help wondering if you think that some other ‘god’ is going to pull Him into line?
Martin-
A text’s participation within a religious tradition really has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. All that comes down to is whether or not the respondent is a member of a given tradition. I will ask it again, based on objectivity and not dogma, why should anyone believe that what the Chronicler did was ok but what Joseph Smith did was not ok?
The “Christian revelation” is just another stage of religious development. Again, your assertion rests on dogmatism.
My personal relationship with Jesus is my own business. This is an academic discussion, and if you can’t keep it that way then it’s over.
grindael-
Chronicles is no more above proven historical figures than Lord of the Rings. There is evidence for their existence that is strong, but to say they have been proven to have existed is simple naivety. Irrespective, the discussion is about the JST, not the Book of Mormon. Please pay better attention.
So according to you King David is NOT a proven historical figure? I’m sorry maybe I’m not paying attention, but did you not mention the ‘gold plates’? And what came from the ‘gold plates’? The BOOK OF MORMON. A WORK OF FICTION. Maybe you ought to pay better attention to yourself, (if that is possible, since you brought up the ‘gold plates’ to begin with.) I don’t think Smith got the JST off of gold plates, but no telling where that ‘seer stone’ was tuned into.
The Chronicler was not telling the world that the then known works of the Torah & the Prophets were corrupted by some grand Satanic Conspiracy like Smith said of the Modern Bible. The Chronicler was not using the above as an excuse to promulgate a false religion like Smith was doing with the Christian Bible. The Chronicler was not undermining the Jewish faith and changing the scriptures to suit himself & write himself into the scriptures like Smith did. Smith was a FRAUD, the Chronicler was not. And the Lord of the Rings has got the BOM beat hands down.
Daniel,
Excuse me for joining in on your conversation so late but if you are asking in a purely academic fashion what the difference between the work of the Chronicler(s) in compiling a history of Israel and the work of Joseph Smith in the JST then the answer is obvious. The Chronicler(s) was/were writing a history that would be canonized by the people of God while Joseph Smith was taking canonized documents and altering them. I am not aware of anyone who would deny the use of source material in the writing of Scripture (Luke 1:1-4).
Now I believe that the Chronicler(s) was/were inspired in the process of writing the Book and you, I assume, believe that Joseph Smith was inspired to change canonized material but both of these beliefs are as you put it dogmatic. Never the less I would assume that the difference between writing a compilation and changing a document would be obvious.
grindael-
You’re obviously not interested in an intelligent discussion. I’ll save myself the trouble of reading your comments from now on.
gundeck-
I’ve explained that the position of the texts within a religious community is irrelevant, but you misrepresent Chronicles. It is not writing a compilation, and it very clearly is changing a document. I stated as much. There are differences in the vast majority of the verses in Chronicles that are paralleled in Samuel and Kings. Many of the differences are ideologically significant changes, whether omissions, additions, or other kinds of changes. Other scriptures, like the Psalms, are also incorporated into the text in different forms than they appear in the original.
Daniel,
Obviously you are like every other Mormon poster I’ve read, you divert the issue around responses to your own posts. Chronicles is like a Government Record, compiled from different sources and is NOTHING like taking a known book of scripture and changing it to suit your own needs. As far as ‘translating’, Smith’s ego was so big he claimed to be able to translate anything, even bogus plates like the ones from Kinderhook. Of course he did not use the word ‘translate’ like anyone else, because he could not ‘translate’ anything as shown by the breathing permit he turned into the BOA and the Anthon ‘caractors’ of ‘shorthand’ Smith lifted from the Detroit Manuscript. I don’t post for individuals, I post for the honest readers & lurkers who want to know the TRUTH about Mormonism, so I care not whether you read this & I will keep responding to any disingenuous comments such as yours. As for the JST, I’ve answered that on another thread, (and no, it did not come from gold plates). I suppose Solomon from Chronicles was not a proven historical figure either. Yeah, that was a real intelligent comment, I’ll have to cross reference that with the Two Towers when I get a chance.
Daniel,
I could see where you get the idea that my likening your stance to the one deists hold is deflection. However, it is not. Their argument is that because human language and human beings are error filled and error prone then it is “impossible” for God to communicate anything to us without it becoming hopelessly distorted and interpolated with man-made ideas. I see the stance you take towards scripture as being a watered-down version of that; I see it loaded with many grave problems.
If you had just Isaiah 44:6 your take might be an acceptable one but given verse 43:10, as well as others, it does not seem He is using hyperbole. Yes hyperbole is a common biblical literary device, but it is not being employed here.
If the best for the Maccabees quote that you can give is that Platonic ontology holds that things are created but out of already existing matter, I would state that your come back is weak. Your going to other writings to tell you what Mac is saying, which is not a bad practice by itself, but you are overreaching. Just because platonic lit accepts the idea of formless matter and is written in Greek, and Mac is in Greek, does not mean that Mac must accept or parallel all that is platonic lit.
Before I accept your translation of Qumran lit, I would need to know how well you know Hebrew. The quote is from Florentino Garcia Martinez The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Are you taking issue with his work? Unless you know the language as well as Prof. Martinez I am skiddish to adopt your interp. over and against his.
Same goes for the Mac quote (though I have more familiarity with Greek on my own). The translation I gave you was Douy-Rheims; the RNSV says:
I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being.
Honestly, I have a hard time believing that after four years you know Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, and Greek (though admittedly it is possible).
So I guess IQS III. 15 does not mean (again from Martinez):
“From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be”
David-
It’s deflection because Mormonism is not deism and because isolated and superficial parallels, whether real or not (in this case, not), do not necessarily indicate any kind of relationship, much less the unilateral identification of the two. It’s a fallacy on numerous levels.
Isa 43:10 is a polemic against making idols and thinking they are gods. It has nothing to do with the ontological existence of other gods. You still seem to be missing the point that you can’t simply trump dozens of texts with another text. When one text says X and another says not X you have to be able to show why both appear, not just say, “Well, my text says X, so X it is.” My explanation accounts for both. Yours does not.
Regarding 2 Maccabees, you can’t base your argument on the presumption that the statement evinces creatio ex nihilo if I’ve shown that the phrase is never used to mean that, but the exact opposite. I’ve done exactly that, and you can’t possibly point to any usage that explicitly associates the vernacular with creatio ex nihilo. You’ve even ignored that the next sentence says the human race was created in the same manner. Do you mean to insist humanity was created ex nihilo?
You’re relying on a subjective reading of the English. You don’t know the Greek and you obviously don’t know the semantic context of the phrase. You can just assert that you’re right all you want, but no objective reader is ever going to buy it. You lost this argument long ago and now you’re just trying to assert nakedly that you didn’t. I bet you’ve never read any of the publications I cited as well. You can hardly claim to be better informed.
Regarding my Hebrew, I study it at Oxford. I know it quite well and I’m happy to respond to any diagnostic test you can come up with. Regarding Martinez, I didn’t say the translation was ignorant, I said it was dogmatic. Dogmatism can influence even the best linguists.
If Isaiah 43:10 has nothing to do with ontology, then why does it deny that these idols have ever been “formed”? In the passage God isn’t specifically saying that formed idols shouldn’t be worshiped or that inferior existing gods shouldn’t be worshiped. He is saying that gods like Himself haven’t even ever been formed, nor will they ever be.
If a Mormon essentially responds with, “well he’s just saying gods like Yahweh can’t be formed with human hands, but they can be formed through the sexual union of gods and goddesses”, then it just sounds like the kind of ANE paganism that Yahweh is distinguishing himself from.
Daniel,
The flaw that I see is that you insist on comparing a retelling of the history of Israel by the Chroniclers in additional books, to Joseph Smiths additions to and replacement of already existing books and verses in his “translation.”
The Chroniclers do not claim that 1&2 Samuel and Kings are incorrect nor did they set out to “…restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written.” I am also unaware of a single quotation from sacred Scripture where the writer claimed that the original text required restoration or was missing.
I would be interested in any reference you can provide showing that the Chronicler or any writer of Scripture understood their writings as “…restored some of the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible.”
I am also positive, because of your education, that you are perfectly aware that what Smith did was in effect create a “variant reading” of these books and verses and that if Smith’s translations was classified by textual critics it would be called a deliberate scribal emendation. In this case Smith is not all that different than the scribe who inserted the Comma Johanneum, except that we know who Smith is and can prove without doubt that he did it deliberately.
gundeck-
The Chronicler did the exact same thing. He took already existing books (Samuel and Kings and others) and added to them, took away from them, and moved them around in order to create a new history that would take primacy over the previous books.
We don’t have a statement of purpose from the Chronicler like we do from Joseph Smith, but he absolutely did think Kings was incorrect, which is why he had to change a bunch of it. I’ve already given examples, but a good one is where the Chronicler adds Levites to the story of the bringing up of the ark to the city of David. In Samuel no Levites are mentioned (2 Sam 6), but since later ideologies would hold that only the Levites were allowed to deal with the ark (1 Chr 15:2), the Chronicler had to make changes (explicitly mentioning David making this new rule, for example, then inserting Levites all over the place). He also changed the references to David’s throne being established forever (2 Sam 7:16, 26). Since the Davidic line was lost during the exile, the Chronicler removed those promises and attributed them to Solomon (1 Chr 17:12, 14).
Again, there’s no difference between what Smith did and what the Chronicler did, from an academic point of view. The addition of the Comma Johanneum is distinct, since it was just a gloss that was later added to the text.
Daniel,
I am well aware of the differences in the Chronicles, but it is only your assumption that the Chronicler beleived Samuel and Kings to be incorrect. Following your logic all we would ever require is a single book on any given topic. A reevaluation of history in a new context and a compilation of available material into a new book does imply that the writer beleived earlier accounts are incorrect. The Chronicler was writing to a different people than the writers of Samuel and Kings, the emphasis and purpose of the retelling were by necessity different.
Had the Chronicler taken Samuel and Kings and added and subtracted from them and claimed the result was the the restored books of Samuel and Kings then you would be correct. But this is not what happened is it? The Chronicler wrote a new book, exactly what Smith did not do. The only academic view than is defensible is that thing that Smith created a variant reading that has been rejected.
I would enjoy watching you defend this thesis in an academic setting.
gundeck-
I don’t think you are aware of the differences. The Chronicler did not write a new book. He cobbled together old books and made changes here and there to provide a revised history of Israel. It’s not a reevaluation, it’s a revision. He consciously changed the history. It’s not a question of a different perspective; the putative historical facts are simply different, and in many places in direct conflict with those of Samuel and Kings. This is the standard academic view of Chronicles, as well.
In addition, Joseph Smith did in fact write a new book. He translated the Book of Moses from Genesis. He composed more distinctly new literature than did the Chronicler.
If you want to continue with this discussion I suggest you go read up a great deal more on it.
Daniel,
Have you seen Joseph Smith’s translation?? Jesus Christ, the messiah appears by name in Genesis. Astounding. Joseph claimed he was “restoring” Scripture not creating new Scripture. His restoration has absolutely no basis in reality. Comparing this with taking accounts and creating an accurate representation of what happened based on different chronicles is not even a close parallel. Restoring lost references to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to Genesis does not constitute a legitimate restoration in any way whatsoever. It’s preposterous.
Daniel,
I believe you when you refer to your scholarly credentials, please believe me when I say that I am aware of the differences in Samuel/Kings and the Chronicles. When we consider that only about half of the Chronicles are sourced from Samuel and Kings, and the vast amount of writing that Joseph Smith did, I agree that Smith “composed more distinctly new literature than did the Chronicler.” Although I don’t think translating had anything to do with his works.
I am afraid that you continue to provide evidence that does not support your position. In your argument any differences are moot the motivation becomes the key. The Chronicler does not claim that Samuel and Kings are restored in his writing, as Joseph Smith did, despite your ability to channel his intent. If we cannot come to an agreement that Chronicles is a new history, revision, compilation, retelling or just a cut and paste job, it still does not change the fact that this material is presented in a new book that had to stand and fall on its own merits. The Chronicler did not, as the Joseph Smith Translation, provide a list of “restored” corrections and additions amended to the original writings of another author calling it a recovery.
For that matter you seem to be fixated only on Samuel and Kings ignoring the other references the Chronicler makes (1 Cron 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Cron 9:29; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 26:22; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18; 35:27; 36:8 etc.) So if the Chronicler is so insistent on recovering and restoring history as Joseph Smith was why does he refer to these other sources? Does Smith refer to sources for any of his “translations”?
Daniel,
The stance you take regarding the nature of God’s word, if taken to its logically conclusion, does in fact lead one to deism. It is one of the many reasons why I do not hold to that position. I believe God can communicate information to us humans. A corollary to that is God can safeguard his word.
Is disdain for other gods, to the point of calling them worthless and non-gods (eliyl), a later development or does it exist at all? Most left leaning scholars don’t try to do what you and I appear to be doing – harmonize texts. Many (most) believe that various portions of the Tenach contradict each other. If all this development has gone on within the Judeo-Christian tradition, from polyaltry to monoaltry to more extreme monoaltry to monotheism then why not say “my text says X, so X it is”. I do not believe this is what I have done, but even if I have so what?
What dozens of texts? Other than those in Isaiah, you and I have gone round on your choice text in Deuteronomy. Honestly, if your case is so strong you would not need to make such a big deal out of a text variant. And even if your variant reading is the right one, it still does not demand a henotheistic interpretation.
Isaiah is not the only place I see this. I gave a list of other passages as well. To them I would add Psalm 96:4&5. The passages I have given jive well with the whole of Isaiah. I don’t have to let “X” trump a dozen texts.
As far as II Mac is concerned, if God created the matter from which He formed man then yeah I would say He created man out of nothing. Also, I brought up II Mac as extra biblical evidence. I do not count any of the books of Maccabees as scripture. I gave the quote to demonstrate the idea of creation out of nothing was around before the advent of Christ.
Would you not agree that Mormons who assert that platonism, and its theory of forms, lead to creation out of nothing (adopted by Greek speaking bishops) are wrong as you are asserting platonic ontology holds that what the world was “created” out of pre-existing matter?
Proclaiming yourself the winner and the other guy the loser is not that hard to do is it? I will let the readers decide for themselves.
If you are going to assert that the translation I gave was “dogmatic” then I assume you know the religious affiliation of Prof Martinez? And you know that this affiliation (negatively) influenced his translation? I think it would be fair to say that you are dogmaticly opposed to creation ex nihilo. Did that influence your translation?
As a side note.
One of the reasons I believe in creation out of nothing, is for a reason that is more metaphysical than textual/historical. The universe had a beginning. There was a “time” when the universe was not and then came into being; this has been confirmed by astrophysics. An expanding universe has a point of origin.
I would dare say that this view enjoys near universal acceptance among scientists – and it was not always so. There were those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion that were against the scientific grain, that were later vindicated by the shift in worldview.
Most of the ancients held to a view that matter, in some form, is/was eternal (like many present day Mormons). that view shifted towards mine, shifted back towards eternal matter, then back again towards my view. Interesting to note, a somewhat of a middle view (Newtonian physics) made its way into the Book of Abraham.
As For Isaiah 42:10
Isaiah here is revealing the contempt that God has even for the very thought that there could be any other gods, & the ridiculousness of that concept. It has everything to do with the existence of other gods – how absurd the notion is that there were any gods ALIVE [FORMED] before HIM and how preposterous that any could come after HIM. It narrows it down to there being only ONE God, and all the rest are idols, because HE is the ONE and ONLY TRUE LIVING GOD: all the rest are but dead idols. The concept is about the absurdity of their being ANY Living Gods except the one true God, all else are idols & the living God has nothing but contempt for them.
As for Chronicles, it doesn’t take a PHD or ‘more research’ to see the Mormon will grasp at any straw to make a senseless point & It always involves in some way, denigrating the Bible to make that point. Instead of focusing on the JST & the originator of it, Mormons divert the issue by making fantastical claims about the Bible and the Biblical Prophets, trying to compare them in incomparable ways to the egomaniac Smith. [For a real treat on Mormon ‘straw grasping’, read the Apocalypse of Abraham.] There is just no comparison with what the Chronicler did and what Smith did. Smith took already canonized scripture and bastardized it to suit his own purposes. The Chronicler was compiling a history of known and unknown materials that was later canonized as scripture [What would be the reaction if the Chronicler had inserted a bogus prophecy of David or himself in the work?] This is what Smith did with Christ & HIMSELF in his ‘translation’. Smith was not a ‘translator’ by any stretch of the imagination, he was a FICTION WRITER and a plagiarist. None of his changes in Smith’s Bible are supported by any new finds, in fact they show Smith for what he was, a fraud and a charlatan, who would do anything, even desecrate God’s Holy Word, to suit his own purposes.
David,
I’ve enjoyed your point of view on the topics at hand. I once made the same point about the expanding universe on another thread, and a Mormon told me that science & religion don’t mix, & believing in science is to go down the road of losing one’s faith. I take the opposite view and find it strengthens my faith.
One theory out there is that the matter sucked into black holes creates big bangs & multiple universes. Hawking though, has postulated that black holes eventually dissipate. There is also string theory (TOE) & the ‘branes’ theory of multiple (11) dimensions. All of it is interesting and does not take away from the faith of those who are grounded in the revelation of Jesus the Messiah.
Many questions are unanswered but Mormons have painted themselves into a corner with the limited vision of nineteenth century ‘prophets’ that believed in men in the moon and a limited God who has to work within a framework dreamed up by the small scope of minds unable to grasp the true nature of God.