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.
———————-
mobaby-
I think you espouse a rather myopic and dogmatic view of the JST. See here for the most recent research on it: http://jst.byu.edu/pubJosephSmithNewTranslation.php. Like I said, we don’t have a statement of purpose from the Chronicler, but he certainly didn’t claim to the Jews to be composing new scripture. That would have been ridiculous. The result of each, however, from an academic point of view, is new scripture.
gundeck-
You’re splitting methodological hairs. It doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith provided references. The simple fact is in both instances people took old scripture and revised it in accordance with contemporary dogmas, changing things, omitting things, and adding things according to whatever expediencies they maintained. Of course not all the details are identical. I never said they were. My point, which you’ve refused to engage directly, is that the manipulation of previously recognized scripture in the interest of contemporary propaganda is not unique to Joseph Smith. It’s found in the Bible as well.
David-
I’ve been over this already, and you’re equivocating. I said that revelation, when written down, becomes influenced by humanity. Deism teaches that God cannot communicate information to humans. Two vastly disparate ideas.
I’m absolutely not trying to harmonize texts, and you obviously aren’t paying any attention at all. I’ve said numerous, numerous times that these differences represent different ideologies from different historical layers. Providing historico-critical explanations for why conflicting ideologies are found in the Bible is not harmonizing the text. You’re the only one trying to harmonize texts. I’m harmonizing the history.
David-
Deuteronomy 32:8-9, 43 absolutely do demand a monolatrous reading, and here are other texts that reference the divine council of gods:
Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Job 15:7–8; 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Isa 40:3, 6; 41:21–23; Jer 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7, 13; Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:2; 38:7; Ps 29:1; Ps 82:6; Exod 15:11; Ps 58:2; Deut 33:2, 3; Isa 13:3; Zech 14:5; Prov 9:10; 30:3; Ps 89:6, 7, 8; Ps 95:3; 96:4; 1 Chr 16:25; Deut 4:19; 17:3; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:5; 23:4, 5; Isa 34:4; Jer 8:2; 19:13; Jer 33:22; Zeph 1:5; Dan 8:10; Neh 9:6; 2 Chr 18:18; 33:3, 5.
Regarding Isaiah, are you saying that Isaiah preaches monotheism even though the rest of the Bible does not, or are you still trying to assert that the rest of the Bible teaches monotheism?
Regarding 2 Macc 7:28, that’s flagrant circular reasoning. You’re basing a conclusion on the premise that the conclusion is correct.
Mormons don’t assert that Platonism leads to creatio ex nihilo. It was polemic against Platonism that led to it. I very clearly explained this. Please pay better attention.
Regarding Prof. Martinez, I do know his religious affiliation, and I do know that the context does not support his reading. I’ve explained why. You can address my argument or drop it, but these ridiculously fallacious appeals to authority are meaningless. If you can’t defend your choice of translation then you can’t defend your argument. By the way, my translation is about the same as that of the Discovery in the Judaean Desert series (the official publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls). The editors of that volume responsible for the translations are Magen Broshi, Esther Eshel, and Joseph Fitzmyer. If you wish to take your fallacious appeal to authority any further then please address the authority of these scholars.
Regarding physics, it is also widely recognized that matter was not created ex nihilo in the Big Bang. It existed in an infinitely dense and hot singularity.
gundeck wrote
gundeck,
That was the thought I was trying to articulate earlier in my “before” and “after” argument, but you put it much more succinctly. So, thankyou.
Daniel replied to me
Perhaps, but it touches your position in two related ways.
Firstly, there are the realities of “translation”, as Leon Morris puts itAny word has a range of meaning; its meaning is like the area in a circle rather like than a point. It is rarely the case that the circle of meaning of a word in one language exactly overlaps the meaning of a word in another language. The translator will select one word for the overlapping area and other words for the areas where they do not overlap…
(The Atonement, Its meaning and significance, Leon Morris, 1983). Morris then goes on to discuss the Hebrew to Greek to English translations for the concept of propitiation (slh (heb), or hilaskomai (gk)).
The point Morris makes is about meaning, rather than the mechanical transliteration that Joseph Smith (for example) seemed to rely upon.
So, if we are concerned about what the speaker meant when he spoke, we should be concerned about meaning, just as much as the atomic “translation” of a word in one language to another in order to discern a text’s original intention.
I trust you are aware of these realities, but they are worth repeating in this forum.
The “Christian revelation” (as I have called it) has a bearing on this. The first Christians were closer to the original texts temporally, linguistically and culturally. What they saw in these texts was a compelling case for Jesus, the Christ of the One God. Why else did they mine the OT for evidence to substantiate their claim (as witnessed in the NT writings)?
My point is that, impartially, we need not attempt to demonstrate that the NT writers were right. Rather, in the context of a serious interpretation of OT texts, failing to engage the witness of the NT writers to the OT appears to be negligent.
…ctd…
…ctd…
So, my question is “what was it that was so compelling to the NT writers, when they appealed to the OT texts”? And it is worth noting that the NT writers were not solely dependent upon the Greek (LXX) texts, and we have to credit them with some knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, so it is unfair to claim that they were misled by the (alledged) errors of the LXX in their understanding of the OT texts.
But, you are concerned about “phases” in the development of Biblical religion, which brings me to the second, related issue.
The general picture that emerges from a redactionist perspective is that the redacters took disparate stories and texts and edited and merged them into the coherent whole that we see today in our Bibles. My question, then, is why?
Again, at an atomic level there are particular circumstances for each “phase” of redaction (say, Josiah’s centralist reforms, or the threat of exile). However, these redacters (as you assert) took the opportunity to edit the texts in such a way as to bring them to a point of convergence, or at least a consensus (say, the “One God” agenda). If the ancient Hebrew texts represent disparate positions in a broad circle, and the Greek (LXX) texts represent closer positions within the same circle, where is the centre?
So, what is this “point of convergence”?
The NT writers are rather unanimous and insistent on this issue. The centre of the whole is Christ Himself. Scripture, they say, points us towards the person of God in the person of Jesus. And when we see God, we worship Him.
This is not simply a by-product of Biblical religion; it is its central focus. This idea is addressed magisterially in Rev 5:9-11. In this scenario, the living creatures and 24 elders (whoever they are) engage in absolute theology in the context of absolute worship. The message is that our theology should lead us to worship God, specifically Christ.
…ctd…
…ctd…
So, the point of convergence for these “phases” of religion is the worship of Christ, which is, I believe, the core of the Christian revelation. More generally, the worship of the One God is also the point of convergence of the Hebrew revelation.
If this is the central point of convergence that these “phases” of religion come to, then the only direction you can move in is to move away from it. In other words, you say that the Hebrews moved from polytheism to monotheism, and yet the Mormon agenda seeks to move religion back to polytheism. God calls His son out of Egypt (Matt 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1), yet Mormonism attempts to drag him back again.
I know that the question of who you worship is avoided in academic circles. I don’t wish to address the merits of such a viewpoint at this point, except that failing to engage this issue seems to me to miss the point of why the scripture was written. Again, what is the direction that these “phases” of religion take?
When you wrote
my immediate reaction is “why are you doing this theology, then”? I know you want to get a PhD out of it, and I don’t wish to deny you. But where does this theology lead you?
It lead the NT writers to fear and worship Jesus as God the Son. Engaging with what it was that compelled them to this position seems to be valid dimension to any evaluation of the meaning of the OT texts.
Finally
What? Are you telling me that you will only engage with me when it fits your agenda? Much as academia wishes to separate academic evaluation from worship, I don’t think it’s entirely possible. I don’t see any evidence in the OT (either the earlier or later texts) that supports the notion that a person’s intellectual inclinations can be disconnected from the God that he or she worships.
I happen to agree with them
In answer to some ‘scholars’ on ex-nihilo, here is a link that answers and refutes such as Gerhard May:
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html#30
And I would say to all our Lurkers not to take some who wave off ex-nihilo too seriously, (for they are obviously full of themselves).
Martin-
Translation equivalency hardly makes a difference here (and it’s “atomistic,” not “atomic”). They were in no more privileged a position than we are, and dogmatic traditions guided exegesis far more than any objective criteria. In addition, the Christians were actually further from the OT than we are today. They relied upon the Septuagint translation, which is vastly different from MT (partly because of dynamic equivalency in the translation, partly because of a different Vorlage, and partly because of different exegetical traditions). With the help of modern textual criticism we can reconstruct the shape of the OT with much more precision that they could in the second century CE and after.
You state that “we have to credit them with some knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic,” but that’s only true of the first generation of Christians. By the end of the first century CE Christians were primarily gentile, and they had no understanding of Hebrew and Aramaic. However, the writings that we have from before that don’t evince any salient perspective on the scriptures to which we’re unaware. The early Christians also did everything they could to manipulate the scriptures to agree with them. The Alexandrian school relied heavily on allegory to manipulate texts to portray a sense of continuity between the OT and NT.
Regarding redaction, there is no coherent whole. As I said long ago, there are vastly disparate ideologies sitting right next to each other within most of the books of the Hebrew Bible. The Bible is not unified or consistent. We can only speculate on most redaction that has taken place in the Bible because of this, but in some places, like Chronicles, the motivation is relatively clear.
There is no center for all the texts of the OT. As I said, it’s simply not a consistent book. YHWH’s superiority is a general focus of the text, although not in a monotheistic sense. That he’s just better than the other gods is the general sense of the OT.
For those reading grindael’s article-
Grindael is obviously in no position to gauge the strength or weakness of any of these positions on his own. He’s simply uncritically and naively accepting whatever position agrees with his dogmas. Copan’s article is the minority view in scholarship, which is evinced in the fact that he had to find a denominational journal to publish it in. Here are some critical problems in the article:
He cites Psalm 104 as a sign that God was “King of the Universe” for the ancient Israelites. However, the phrase “King of the Universe” is a Common Era novelty. In the Hebrew Bible מלך העולם simply means “King of Eternity.” עולם didn’t come to refer to the earth or the universe until the Common Era. Translations of Hebrew into Aramaic and Greek from BCE and CE show this semantic evolution. For the writer of Psalm 104, God wa not “King of the Universe,” he was “King of Eternity.”
He then moves on to the same mistranslation of the 1QS text that was used here, and then on to Rabbi Gamaliel, which you all would know is no longer considered from the relevant time period if you had read the 2006 article by Maren Niehoff I cited. That evidence is outdated and illegitimate.
His next piece of evidence is Hermas, which appeals to the exact same vernacular as 2 Macc 7:28, and so is circular reason in this context. Joseph and Asenath does the same.
He next moves on to 2 Enoch, which only talks about invisible things, not non-existent things (see God’s invisibility), and then to the Odes of Solomon, which he dates to 100 CE. This is on the low end and is right in that milieu when the doctrine was being developed. The Odes don’t really help his argument. 2 Baruch is in the same boat.
Copan’s discussion of Gen 1:1 is far outdated. The vast, vast majority of scholars reject anything close to creatio ex nihilo in Genesis, and the Hebrew of verse 1 is better understood as a chapter heading, of sorts (When God began to create the heavens and the earth).
Since all Copan does in that section is quote scholars who find creatio ex nihilo in Genesis 1, the change in consensus makes his appeal to popularity irrelevant.
This could go on for pages and pages, but, in simple terms, Copan hasn’t really convinced anyone in the academic community that he’s right, nor has his more recent book with Lane Craig. I cited numerous articles subsequent to this article, and no one has responded to them, so my argument remains unassailed. Try again.
Daniel,
I don’t think that I am splitting methodological hairs or ignoring your argument that the Chronicler changed accepted Scripture in his writing. I think that in our exchange I have presented 3 of the most obvious distinctions between Smith and the Chronicler.
First we know Smith’s intent was to “restore” we are in disagreement about the Chroniclers intent but there is as much evidence for my position (compilations and retelling) as yours (supplanting). In either case the intent of the Chronicler was different than Smith’s.
Second I believe that the method is significant to understanding the difference between the work of Smith and the Chronicler. That the Chronicler used Samuel/Kings is beyond debate. That he used other material is also beyond debate. Smith did not use existing Scripture as source material, he used them as a platform for embellishments and deletions.
Third and most critical is that the result of the Chroniclers method was a new book. This book was accepted as scripture alongside Samuel/Kings. Samuel/Kings remained intact and unchanged by the Chronicler because he had no reason to change them. The product of his work, a new book, stands along side of the previously existing Scripture.
The Result of Smiths method was not a new book but simply a list of alterations to existing books of recognized Scripture. Smith wrote other books, but in the case of the Joseph Smith Translation his stated intent was to supplant existing scripture with a list of modifications not add a new book to them.
Basically when you look at intents, methods and results of both the Chronicler and Smith I find so many differences that it is only by being charitable that any comparison you have made could be regarded as even tangential.
I assume that you will disagree with this but I wanted to thank you for a most interesting dialog conducted in a civil manner.
Daniel,
You may see the two as vastly different, but I do not. Are you really asserting that the autographs of the books of the Bible are without error? At least you admit that according to you there are conflicting ideologies in the text. If this is the case what is the big deal if I merely side with one text or school of thought? Taken even farther, what is the big deal if I embrace a religious tradition that accepts creation ex nihilo even if this is not what the ancients believed? I am not saying I do, but your view of scripture allows for this gaping hole. Deists see this hole and go in the opposite direction.
Monotheism and Monoaltry are in agreement that only one God should be worshiped. The relevant verses you provide demonstrate that one God should be worshiped. I have already stated that no one (that I know of) here is challenging the idea that the OT mentions gods and/or angels. Regarding Isaiah, I do believe that it is inline with the whole Bible in terms of advocating monotheism.
“Mormons don’t assert that Platonism leads to creatio ex nihilo”
I never stated that you assert this. I stated that some Mormons do . . . as in others beside yourself – “Mormons who assert”; in the future “Please pay better attention”. Yes, I have seen Mormons make the argument that Greek speaking bishops in the early church adulterated Christianity with the importation of Platonic thought. Could we both shoot down that idea?
I am not using circular reasoning with the II Mac quote. Again, I wonder what kind of language you are looking for in biblical and extra-biblical sources. If you allow the ancients to speak to you in their way, you may here some of them tell you that the God of Israel is of a different kind than the other gods.
I think you are making a false dicotomy between God’s guidance/foreordnation and his creative power – between being and doing. The other quote I gave affirms the first quote in that sense. Foreordination “yes” and existence is part of His plan. I did not challenge the translation you presented, you challenged the one that I gave (and later even called it a “mistranslation”). If using someone else’s translation is a “fallacious appeal to authority” then I am guilty as charged.
Is anyone else noticing that any argument for El-Elyon’s “differentness” is merely dismissed by Daniel as circular reasoning, outdated, or “incomparability”?
gundeck-
I appreciate your civil tone as well, and I hope I haven’t come across as too curt during our exchange. I do disagree. I don’t feel like my argument regarding the intention of the Chronicler or the nature of his work was directly engaged. Rather it seems my points were sidestepped and other ideas were asserted instead. I was not given a reason why we should reject my reading, I was only told that another reading is better. I also don’t think the later reception of either text within a religious community is relevant to the genre of their texts. Genre is something that is decided on internal information, not on reception history.
David, as to your last question: Absolutely!
(as well as any other thing uncomfortable)
Daniel
Isn’t it weird that El-Elyon is not given the “name” Elohim in the Bible?
You know… like all the instances where El-Elyon and every other version of El is given the name YHWH?
Pretty strange.
And… what about that whole “elohim” thing anyway? Is that a proper name for the God that’s above all other (at least, his own kids) gods? To call Him, and them, and all idol/demon gods, all of those, elohim?
Hmmmm
Martin… the above was just beautifully done. Thank you so much for the effort. I could never have said any of that better than you did.
LURKERS,
It seems that just because some make a career out of OT studies makes no one else ‘qualified’ to read and ponder evidence. I refute this and the arrogance of dismissing evidence of ex-nihilo. For instance according to Gerhard May:
Creation ex nihilo “corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation,” even though it does not appear explicitly in its pages. [May.CEN,xi — However, given the way that May’s work is cited by popular LDS apologists, one might never know about this distinction he makes.]
see: http://tektonics.org/af/exnihilo.html
Remember, posters such as Daniel have a bias, towards Mormonism and the defense of Smith – and his attacks on those with a different opinion (and it ultimately IS HIS OPINION)show it.
Peter has words for those who limit God (such as the Mormons who make HIM nothing more than a ‘glorified man’ with LIMITED POWER and who is STILL PROGRESSING in KNOWLEDGE:
“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water…” 2 Peter 3:5
The only naive ones here are the Mormons who try to defend the position that God is just a MAN, who is still Progressing In Knowledge & is NOTHING like the GOD of the BIBLE, & need the interpolations of Smith to prop up their phony teachings.
Hey guys. Just wanted to let you in on a little good news.
JJM, from a few posts back, remember? Has gone to God and asked Him for Salvation, asking for removal of the curse of all temple covenants made. WOOHOO!
That’s the praise… the prayer request is, of course, for the remainder of JJM’s family. Thanks everyone!
Daniel,
I will admit guilt, I did not address your argument about the motivation of the Chronicler. Mainly this is because of laziness and knowing what would happen. First I would express my view with a couple of quotes from interesting books and you would deny the relevance of these conclusions as dogmatic. You would point out each of the 19 times that the Chronicles has a different number and I would come up with a plausible explanation… On and on it would go.
You are insisting on a totally rationalist view on the motivations and I will admit that I don’t find that interesting. I believe the Bible to be what it claims to be and to step back and cede dogmatic claims to rationalist speculations before a discussion begins puts me into an untenable position. I don’t think that this means that I am incapable of listing to a reasoning a position that runs counter to my own. I’ll let others be the judge.
I think I understand why you consider the reception of Chronicles by Israel irrelevant. In your view if any Scripture quotes Scripture without using the exact same language as the original they are a guilty as Smith. I reject that view as an imposition of your judgment on the text. We find quotes (some more accurate than others), references, paraphrases, and allusions to other Scripture throughout the Bible. What we never find is list of changes. Chronicles is an interpretive history that quotes, references, paraphrases, and alludes to other Scripture. The Joseph Smith Translation is a list of changes.
On the other hand I believe acceptance is the Achilles heel of your argument, primarily because Samuel/Kings remains unaltered. The Chronicles were still accepted by the community. To me every “change” you present or “motivation” you speculate about points to the originality of the Chronicler and his work was accepted. The Chronicler does not propose the abandonment or change of Samuel/Kings.
Amen gundeck.
I read Heisers article from the link provided above and I’m not impressed.
[T]he belief in one God is the central issue in the theology of Deuteronomy. In
later times, the monotheistic statements of Deuteronomy (esp. 4:35, 39; 6:4; 7:9;
32:39) are used by the monotheistic religions of Late Antiquity, Judaism and
Christianity, to support their argument against those who did not believe in one
God. . . . As far as the belief in one God is concerned, Deuteronomy is not
concerned with a theoretical monotheism, but rather gives a confession of faith.
The monotheism of Deuteronomy emerged from the struggle against idolatry.
Moreover, the decline of Israel is attributed to the following of other gods. The
existence of other gods is not denied, however, only their power and significance for Israel. J. T. A. M. van Ruiten, “The Use of Deuteronomy 32:39 in Monotheistic Controversies in Rabbinic Literature,” in Studies in Deuteronomy in Honor of C.J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 223
Heiser is an interesting character, believing in Nephilim abductions & antigravity & that Roswell was an example of human experimentation. What he does though, is argue from the negative (as shown in the quote above) and tries too hard to prove the point that the ‘hosts of heaven’ were a bunch of gods that the Great God consulted about what he should do. [Like He needed any help] What must be stressed here, is that these are OPINIONS, FRINGE OPINIONS that are not compatible with traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs. Mormons are eager to jump on this bandwagon to promulgate Smith’s heretical ‘many god’ teachings, and hey if you want to read both sides, I am all for it, but remember, the Mormon has an agenda here, to distract you from the One and Only God of the Bible, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Read the Bible for what it is, not for what others read into it.
I think one thing both evangelicals and Mormons miss with Heiser is that when he affirms the existence of “gods” in the OT, he is affirming the existence of an inferior class of beings ontologically distinct from Yahweh, i.e. part of what he is doing is simply tapping into the Old Testament’s looser usage of the term.
Rhetoric of Incomparability. The Bible does not forbid homosexuality. When Scripture says gay sex is wrong, it is simply stating that procreation is good and that heterosexuality should be honored and esteemed above other sexual expressions. It is not declaring 1) that other sexuality does not exist and 2) that such expressions are in any way actually forbidden, improper, or illegitimate for those disposed to such expressions. The Hebrew culture’s desire to procreate was expressed in a rhetorical style similar to the way it addresses other regional gods – in absolutes that are meant to show incomparability through exaggeration such as “abomination” and “thou shalt not.” New Testament writers and Christians have misinterpreted this to be a forbidding or exclusion of this activity, when in reality it is saying that a society should not be exclusively homosexual due to the need to procreate. Other sexual expressions are not actually forbidden, rather we are to esteem heterosexuality above other legitimate expressions due to the benefit of procreation. To claim otherwise shows a lack of understanding. Similarly, a proper understanding of temple prostitution can provide insight that can actually help the Church grow by attracting young males (I think Joseph Smith keyed into this one a long time ago and it has the potential benefit of lots of children to grow the Church):
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/12/temple-prostitution-a-modest-proposal/
Daniel wrote
I’m finding it incredibly difficult to reconcile this with Daniel’s earlier statement
I mean, if there is a divine “mind” behind the collection of text that we call the Bible, there must be a center. If there are disparities in the stories, idioms, language, scenarios presented in the text, then what is that center?
I can’t remember the quote exactly, but one theologian suggested that the Parables of Jesus were not so much a presentation of abstract absolute truth (dogma) but rather a house in which we are invited to live. If I can extend this metaphor, we can study the construction of the house, but if we don’t live in it, we’ve missed the point.
So, what’s it like to live in this house? The most prominent feature is that life in the house is permeated by the worship of the One God. (By “worship”, I have the scenario of Rev 5:9-11 in mind).
Maybe I’m a little too thin-skinned, but when I see the likes of Daniel trying to deconstruct the basis of Christian worship, I worry about their motives.
David-
You misunderstand. I’ve said nothing that implies any belief that the autographs were correct. People are capable of receiving revelation and understanding it (which is manifestly not deism). Writing it down or communicating it to others requires recoding concepts into written or spoken languages and then actually writing it down or saying it. Within those two steps any number of errors is possible, and God is no longer at the helm, so to speak. This is not deism and never was, and I’d appreciate it if you’d not misrepresent my beliefs.
I agree that the Bible clearly wants only one God to be worshipped. I believe the same, but this blog post explicitly denies that other gods exist at all:
“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.”
As I’ve shown, the Bible is replete with real and non-idol gods.
Regarding Platonism, no, we can’t shoot down that idea. It’s an uncontested fact. I don’t know any actual scholar on this planet that would argue that Christianity was not heavily influenced by Platonism. Even the Copan article you cited states that the early Christians were “greatly indebted to many aspects of Platonism.” What I’m responding to is the idea that creatio ex nihilo is a direct outgrowth of Platonism. It’s not. It’s the product of direct opposition to Platonism.
Lastly, yes, your argument was incredibly circular. It was the very deinifiton of circular argumentation. You said you thought man was created ex nihilo “if God created the matter from which He formed man.” If man was not created ex nihilo then 2 Macc 7:28 does not preach ex nihilo creation, since it says man was created in the same way as the universe. Thus, we have to presuppose the universe was created ex nihilo in order for man to be considered created ex nihilo. That’s textbook circular reasoning.
setfree-
Elyon is a name (and a noun), just like El is a name (and a noun), and YHWH is a name (and a noun). Just like David, Daniel, Michael, and every other name in the Hebrew Bible is a name as well as a noun of some kind.
The word elohim was originally a plural of abstraction that was concretized over time through repeated use with reference to Israel’s God. It originally simply meant “divinity,” but by the time of the composition of the Hebrew Bible it was used as a proper noun (God), a generic noun, both singular and plural (god/gods), an abstraction (divinity), and an adjective (divine). A good book on the topic is Joel Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim.
grindael-
Actually, you have to read the book instead of just rely on quotes ripped out of context. What May actually says is, “it corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation, but as a theory it is not yet present in the Old Testament. According to a widespread view, its formulation is the achievement of hellenistic-Jewish theology, and 2 Maccabees 7:28 is adduced as the oldest classical evidence for this. One would be able to presuppose it for the New Testament, and the emergence among second-century Christian theologians of the Platonising doctrines of the eternity of matter and its mere shaping into the cosmos would be a more or less conscious reinterpretation of the authentic Christian doctrine of creation. The question of the origin of creatio ex nihilo would simply not be posed by historians of early Christian theology. The view thus summarised of the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo can today no longer be sustained. Earlier research has already cast doubt on the idea that hellenistic-Jewish theology had taught creatio ex nihilo in the strict sense, and more recent work has, it seems to me, finally demonstrated that this was not the case.”
It is not I that needs to actually read these texts.
Creatio Ex Nihilo: When we split the atom and all that energy comes out – the atomic bomb – I think about what an awesome God that all that energy is contained in atoms. God put that energy in there. If He did not, and matter existed before God, then matter is God because matter would then ultimately be the creator from which we spring. All devotion would be due matter, not some regional god who organized this sector from the “flesh” or “matter” of the true god.
In truth, God created matter and is neither dependent upon it for His existence, nor does He spring from it. God holds the universe together by His right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ who is both our creator and redeemer.
If matter were eternal and God not, the true religion would be materialism – then bow down and worship Gaia. The supposed eternal law and principles by which god of Mormonism became god, are those principles by which we may become gods – these principles must be from the god of matter. Matter is the ultimate god of Mormonism.
gundeck-
I think you know as well as I that my position is not based on insignificant little numbers. I think you also know that I’m well aware of your position and that I am capable of responding to decent argumentation. Regarding scripture quoting scripture, that’s not my position at all. 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. Mormons, for instance, don’t believe that Asherah was Elohim’s wife, that Baal and Marduk were his sons, that YHWH was simply a storm god, or that Satan was a Second Temple Period invention. Those are the conclusions the data leads one to, though, which is why most scholars, Christian, Jewish, atheist, or other, come to the same general conclusions. I’m not the slave to dogmatism here.
mobaby-
That’s a horribly false analogy. The reason we must conclude that Deutero-Isaiah is just appealing to rhetoric is because he uses the exact same rhetoric in reference to things he also says explicitly exist, and because the entire Bible is replete with references to other gods. If the Bible said that homosexuality was ok more times than it said it wasn’t, and used the same rhetoric in relation to things that were ok, then you might have a point, but since the Bible univocally condemns it and never once uses the same rhetoric vis-a-vis something explicitly acceptable, you’re just way off base.
Martin-
I disagree with your assumption that a divine “mind” behind the Bible demands a center. The Bible is meant to inform more than just a single facet of life.
And my motives are simply to look at the Bible honestly and not be a slave to dogmatism.
Daniel,
I think you are overlooking David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi. You best take a closer look at the OT. No where are David and Jonathan condemned for their love which surpasses the love for a woman. And there is a lot of subtext between Ruth and Naomi, which is perhaps neglected and not brought out for the reasons I gave in my post above. Sure there are a few verses that seem not to condone homosexual behavior (due to the need to promote procreation and reinforcing the incomparability of the Hebrew God), but nowhere does the OT deny that this type of sexuality exists. Those verses that are used to imply strict condemnation of this behavior are simply rhetorical tools to encourage the growth of the Hebrew community and their God’s standing among the other gods. Neighboring cultures such as the Greeks and Romans were known to participate in homosexual sex and orgies in worship of their gods – the Hebrews did not, again reinforcing the Hebrew God incomparability.
Daniel,
Really – I don’t deny there are other gods. My heart has many gods it worships, they are called idols and they have no power and cannot help in time of need nor do they supply our daily bread. They are not all-powerful, nor are they our Father in heaven, and they cannot forgive nor do they lead our heart to forgive other’s trespasses. They neither see nor hear. They cannot deliver us from evil, but rather deliver evil to our doorstep. And yet they are idols/gods in my heart and are very very real as they cause me hurt, pain, frustration, and never supply what they promise. They have hurt me and others I know and love. Are they real? Yes. Are they true? No.
mobaby-
Now you’re moving even further away from a legitimate analogy. Here are some other nations that praised a single god of their pantheon as incomparable:
An Assyrian hymn to Shamash:
“You alone are manifest. No one among the gods can rival you.”
A neo-Babylonian prayer to Ishtar:
“O Mistress, splendid is your greatness, exalted over all the gods.”
A Sumerian hymn:
“Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.”
Now let’s look at the Bible:
Exod 18:11: Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.
Ps 95:3: For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Ps 96:4: For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Ps 97:9: For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.
Ps 135:5: For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
If these gods are really just idolized abstractions then this rhetoric is simply meaningless. I can say the same thing about myself if “greater than all gods” really just means “greater than nothings.”
You’re still missing the point. The Bible says these other gods exist, are deities, and are the rulers of the different nations of the earth. Trying to compare that to money or fame or whatever is ridiculous.
Daniel, those verses aren’t what comes to mind when I hear you say, “a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner.” Try singing this song while singing between each chorus, “My God was perhaps once a filthy wretched sinner.”
Contrast that analogously to Paul’s thoughts on the true gospel vs false gospels:
Since these other gospels are really no gospels at all, then isn’t Paul’s rhetoric simply meaningless, Daniel? If you’re going to be consistent, you have to throw Galatians 1:6-9 under the bus.
Daniel, you quoted Psalm 96:4 but probably should have quoted the next verse after it:
That certainly doesn’t give the impression that these “gods” the other nations are worshiping are actual gods of the same species as Yahweh. They’re either non-existent or they are demons.
But I guess Mormonism doesn’t have any problem with that, since in Mormon theology God and the demons are (literally, actually) of the same fundamental species.
Daniel,
I am not talking abstraction – I am talking real honest idolatry. You have no idea what a sinner I am. I affirm every verse you listed and believe that God is above every god I have ever given my heart to, gods that neither see nor hear. God is exalted far above all gods! There is none like Him!
I still think your arguments work just as well for the pro-gay theology movement prevalent today. I was writing humor, but I am almost certain those arguments must have been made by some members of the ELCA or PCUSA or Anglicans. I have read the argument that Jonathan/David & Ruth/Naomi were homosexual relationships – the other arguments I would bet are out there although I was just adapting your arguments to another topic. That’s the trouble with satire today – it’s impossible to be more ridiculous than things people are actually saying – such as the idea that the Bible affirms a multiplicity of honest true regional gods. Well then how did the Jewish people and Jesus get it so wrong? Jesus read from Isaiah in the temple and I don’t recall Him explaining it in quite the way you did – although we don’t have everything He said recorded in Scripture. Seems like something He would have wanted to clear up though.
What about the oh holy matter, thou art exalted far above the earth – where can we go to hide from thy gaze oh everlasting and eternal matter? Thou hast established the rules whereby god became god and we may also! Mormons really should write this up in their hymnal, perhaps adapting and changing “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.” Perhaps it’s already been done.
Daniel wrote
…with what? To what purpose? To say that there are other gods out there to whom the God we know owes His being? Maybe these other gods live far, far away, but then they should not have been able to influence the scriptural autographs, as you seem to imply. Do they influence our world? If they do, then the God of Deutero-Isaiah is at war with them, which does not sit comfortably with the Mormon vision of heaven.
Also
Fair enough, but when I hear you saying “There is no center for all the texts of the OT.”, I hear a “credo”. Perhaps you are right, but then you don’t appear interested in the direction that the later translators and redacters pulled these texts in. Do you think they pulled the texts in the wrong direction (towards monotheism)?
I admit that I do operate under a dogma in my understanding of the Word of God. It starts somewhere around Jeremiah 1:11a ‘The Word of the Lord came to me, “What do you see, Jeremiah”‘ (emphasis mine), and ends somewhere around Rev 22:20b ‘Amen. Come, Lord Jesus’.
Its a strange mix of human laissez-faire and divine direction, not unlike human-divine nature of the Son (Query, in debating the fully human and fully divine nature of the incarnate Word, did the NT authors have the same tension of the OT texts in mind?). Its partly led by the presented evidence and partly led by internal conviction, which is why I like the term “Christian revelation”. I have decided to be a Christian, therefore a Christian I will be, and it is important to me to understand what my Christian forefathers understood when they wrote about the Christian revelation.
I acknowledge my dogma. Can you acknowledge yours?
Aaron-
The word you translate “idols” actually means “nothings,” and Isa 40:17 says the exact same thing about the nations: “All the nations are as nothing to him, and less than nothing.” You’re still not paying attention to the rhetoric.
And regarding the gospel, Paul didn’t try to boast about how cool the gospel was by saying “it’s the best gospel out there,” and “it’s better than all the gospels.” There’s an enormous difference there, Aaron.
And regarding God being a sinner, 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.
mobaby-
I don’t care what a sinner you are. And no, my argument has nothing to do with anything at all related to pro-gay biblical exegesis.
Martin-
What do other gods have to do with the scriptural autographs? And regarding a “credo,” my biblical scholarship isn’t interested in value judgments. All I do is find out what happened. I don’t try to judge it.
I have dogmas. I know God lives. I know Jesus is his son and the savior of the world. I’m not beholden to any inerrant view of scripture, though, and none of the above affects my historical criticism.
Modern scientific cosmology buttresses the doctrine of CEN more pointedly and potently than does any other discipline. According to prevailing scientific theory, the universe had a singular beginning nearly 14 billion years ago. All matter, energy, time, and space exploded (in a carefully crafted event) into existence from nothing (or as some believe, a small molecule easily created and orchestrated by God. This basic big bang cosmological model, which is embraced by the vast majority of research scientists because it has withstood extensive scientific testing, uniquely corresponds to the biblical teaching concerning CEN. It is nothing less than strikingly probative that a book written so long ago nonetheless contains a view of cosmology that matches so closely the latest and best scientific findings.
The Bible’s description of God as sovereign over His creation serves to remind humans of their place in creation. And for Christians eager to engage skeptics with evidence for CEN, Scripture provides a basis for humility:
“This is what the LORD says-your redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself” (Isa. 44:24).
http://www.reasons.org/theology/creation-passages/creation-ex-nihilo-0
Smith asserts that matter is eternal, but according to most scientists, Black Holes suck in all matter (even light) & destroy it. If matter can be destroyed, then it is NOT eternal, and Smith’s premise falls apart. Although this is still only theories, it supports the Biblical stance that God is the Ultimate Creator of ALL THINGS.
Denial of ex-nihilo is STILL OPINION, and no one has proved that God is NOT the Creator of ALL things, even space/time. Christians choose to believe in an ALL-POWERFUL GOD, not a god subject to the laws of the universe as Mormons proclaim.
Daniel,
For the record, I never stated that you, or Mormons in general, are Deists. I did state that your stance towards scripture is similar to the one Deists take and “if taken to its logically conclusion” does lead to the position that God does not speak. I also stated that God has spoken and a “corollary to that is God can safeguard his word”. The hang-up that Deists have is imperfect language, and this is similar to THOUGH NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS, the hang-up you have. If God can communicate concepts to some of us, but then walks away entirely from the transmission process (allowing for a undoubted corruption of His word) then it leaves one wondering “what is the point” and it strongly suggests that God is not at the helm at all (or at least does not care). On a practical level, one is left wondering if the words one is looking at on screen, or on paper, are the words of mere men or the words of God; indeed – “hath God said”.
Furthermore, your stance at the least implies, if not directly holds, a position that contradicts the 8th article of faith. You are stating that God’s word has not (or possibly not) been transmitted correctly. You are not a Deist, Mormons are not deists, stop stating that I am misrepresenting your beliefs.
“As I’ve shown, the Bible is replete with real and non-idol gods”
Your first reply to setfree’s article was to go to other texts: ‘This little exercise is not difficult when you get to pick what text you’re using. If we move over to much older literature the story is different.” I will state again that if Isaiah is placed next to the scriptures you gave that only way for them to make sense is if God is of a different kind than the gods of the nations. That, or these various texts are at odds with each other and cannot be reconciled (what you might call historical layers?).
I think your case here hinges on these texts employing hyperbole. Given the amount/frequency of such language, as well as its specificity, I think calling these passages hyperbolic is unwarranted.
I cannot speak for setfree but I do not think that he (she?) believes that the Bible does not make mention of creatures that are at times referred to as “angels” or “gods”. If he is stating that then he is wrong.
Regarding Platonism, what I am trying to point out is that if you are correct many other Mormons are not. You hold that polemics directed towards Platonism gave rise to creation out of nothing. But I have had more than one Mormon make the argument that Platonism itself gave rise to that doctrine in Christianity.
Its not circular reasoning look at what I wrote. I believe that God did create the world out of nothing; if He used an intermediary step and created formless matter, then fashioned that matter . . . I do not see this as a problem for my view.
With regard to II Mac, I do not see any where in the text that precludes an intermediary step from taking place. Also, and I stated this before, I do not hold II Mac to be scripture. It is not necessary for me to agree with all that is in Mac for me to cite this passage; it is not even necessary for II Mac to be consistent internally, or externally. I was merely giving pre-Christian evidence that the idea was somewhere.
Furthermore, your conclusion leads to an inconsistency (supposedly the same one you were trying to put on me?). Man was not made from formless pre-existing matter (or directly by fiat). According to the Genesis account he was made from dust/clay/dirt. Even if you interpret this passage metaphorically then Adam was made from the earth that was already formed. That is not creation from “pre-existent formless matter”.
Daniel said: “Elyon is a name (and a noun), just like El is a name (and a noun), and YHWH is a name (and a noun). Just like David, Daniel, Michael, and every other name in the Hebrew Bible is a name as well as a noun of some kind”
So what you’re trying to tell me, then, is that the Bible speaks of davids, and daniels, and michaels (etc) as if they are some kind (or group) of things?
Paul went as far as to say there was no other real gospel. Just like God said, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6)
And
“Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)
And
“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:22)
So God needs to have once been a sinner to have a personal connection with humanity? Where does that leave the Mormon Jesus? Do you think he was once a sinner too, lest he not have a personal connection with humanity?
grindael-
I’ve already addressed your mistaken perspective on scientific theories of creation.
David-
And you were wrong in saying that what I said was in any way similar to deism. It’s not at all similar and it never will be. Stop trying to salvage a lost argument.
My position does not conflict with the 8th article of faith, which presupposes that the Bible has not been transmitted correctly (and is identical to my point).
Regarding Isaiah, you’re still wrong. I cited texts from other cultures that used identical rhetoric to that of the Hebrew Bible but maintains the gods are ontologically identical. The simple fact is the Hebrew Bible makes absolutely no statement about any ontological distinction between any beings that belong to the אלהים taxonomy.
Next, what other Mormons have said to you about creatio ex nihilo is utterly irrelevant. I disagree with many Mormons about a lot of things. This hardly means that creatio ex nihilo is found in 2 Maccabees 7:28. After all, between those Mormons and me, only one has formal graduate training in Hellenistic Judaism (I assume, of course. You’re welcome to correct me).
2 Macc 7:28 does not allow for an intermediate step, since the putative ex nihilo creation is supposed to parallel the actual creation of man, not the creation of the universe that would later provide material for the creation of man. That’s a ridiculous assumption that relies on absolutely nothing but a dogmatic refusal to accept what the text actually says.
My interpretation does not lead to inconsistency, either. You’re mistaking borrowed vernacular for borrowed ideology. I never said 2 Macc 7:28 accepted every aspect of Platonic cosmogony. None of the Platonic ideologies that found their way into Judaism and Christianity were adopted wholesale.
setfree-
I’m saying your question is meaningless, that’s all.
Daniel,
My point is that the same approach to Scripture can be used to dismiss, discount, disallow any text one wants to. If Scripture is not inerrant, then dogmatically interpreting prohibitions against homosexual sex as being applicable in today’s enlightened world can be chalked up to nothing more than hating gays. I believe Scripture is inerrant and affirm even the difficult teachings. If your theology allows for errors, inserting new text, reinterpreting, and basically saying that Scripture is just an accumulation of thought over time that changed and evolved and does not necessarily mean what it says, then applying this interpretation to the hot button issue of homosexual behavior is a completely natural result. Higher criticism and liberal Scripture interpretations are indeed used by those who would alter the plain meaning of Scripture on this issue. I demonstrate that the tools you use to destroy the one true God can be easily turned against other ideas that Mormons might be more inclined to support – as a matter of fact, LDS individuals are excommunicated for homosexuality. Consistency would be appreciated – if one can dismiss clear teaching that God is unique and there are no other true gods, then why not any issue you feel like?
Similarities Include:
1) A view of Scripture as man-made, reflecting the values of the culture. They got it right?
2) Belief that Scripture is not inerrant – why insist on a particular moral teaching?
3) Explaining away those Scriptures which conflict with your way of life or beliefs (rhetoric, outdated law, lack of understanding, appeal to other non-Biblical cultures, appeal to Hebrews failing to keep Biblical law, appeal to present-day understanding)
4) Reinterpreting Scripture to mean something other than what it says (Isaiah is not saying there is only one God, it is just saying God is real powerful and ranks up there; Jonathan and David LOVED each other if you know what I mean & we don’t follow dietary restrictions)
Those denominations that affirm homosexual unions, marriage, clergy, etc. always begin with a low view of Scripture before they ever get to a new understanding of homosexuality. The very same techniques that you bring to tear down Scripture and prop up the Mormon god lead to a distrust of the Bible so that really no theological or moral teaching can stand. One bright spot on the horizon: if the LDS Church and individuals go down this path of Scriptural interpretation then they will have a liberated non-dogmatic religion with empty pews and buildings. As a friend of mine said, if you don’t believe Scripture, why bother? Just stay home and watch reruns of Roseanne on Sunday morning. And that, and other things, are just what people that used to go to those Churches are doing.
mobaby-
Now you’re equivocating. Many Christians and Jews from many different denominations reject the inerrancy of scripture. Among those groups that hold to inerrancy as an article of faith, that inerrancy has to be nuanced to account for mistakes and incompatabilities within the text. I’ll try to illustrate this for you. First, please fully define your view of inerrancy for me.
Daneil asked
I thought I asked you the question. I’m having great difficulty fitting your posts into a coherent theology.
As David Whitsell noted above, you assign the “One God” texts (Isaiah 43:10-13 etc) to hyperbole. The reason you do this appears to make allowance for the “other gods” mentioned elsewhere.
The historical/theist view (for which I have most sympathy) would say that there is One God, and over a period of time he drew these earlier texts to a point of focus in what we now recognize as the Bible. The problem here is that I cannot imagine how to reconcile this viewpoint with the rhetoric of Joseph Smith and his followers.
The historical/humanist secular view says that there is no divine direction in the Bible, so there’s no point trying to find a central focus. I would expect this from the likes of Prof Robert Alter, but not from believers who say things like “We believe the Bible to be the word of God…” (8AoF).
The henotheist view says that YHWH is the only God we should concern ourselves with. This might have some merit if the “other gods” stayed off YHWN’s patch. Again, this might work if we take the view that YHWH has the ascendency on His peers (which appears to be your position), but what about the “other gods” who are greater than YHWH, like YHWH’s heavenly father? What’s to stop them delivering us out of God’s hand (Deut 32:39)?
You’ve taken me by surprise, Daniel. Your posts have been informative and challenging, and I do try to take serious Biblical scholarship seriously, whatever the scholar’s personal convictions. After all, God’s Word requires serious engagement.
The thing I have been unable to comprehend (can I say “my discombobulation” without sounding pompous?) is how you might fit your views into a Mormon agenda. I just can’t see it, and this issue is dominating my responses to your posts.
Martin-
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.
Daniel,
So, you are admitting that I did not call you a Deist?, I will let the readers decide if a low view of scripture based on man’s fallibility is similar (or not) to the Deist view that this fallibility is why God cannot (or will not) communicate with man.
“which presupposes that the Bible has not been transmitted correctly”
Where are you getting this from? When the 8th article of faith was written, both words – “transmitted” and “translated” – existed. The drafters of the articles of faith chose the latter not the former. Do you really believe that all but a few Mormons (if that) of the 1830’s and 1840’s shared your view of scripture?
I would love to know what kind of wording would satisfy you for what you believe constitutes ontological distinction. It seems like any evidence is chocked up to “incomparability”. Again, for this discussion your argument hinges on Isaiah (and a few other texts as well) using hyperbole.
Your packing a whole lot into one verse in II Mac that lies in a chapter about persecution. The passage simply says, “God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being.” It states that heaven and earth were not made out of stuff and man was not made out of stuff. Admittedly, the text says nothing of God creating preexistent matter (again, I can go either way on creating formless matter) but I do not see anything in there that precludes this.
I am not saying that an intermediary step is being paralleled anywhere. I am stating that possibly before God “created” the universe He “created” the formless matter. As far as the chronology goes, there exists an ambiguity in the text, reflected in various translations (which means nothing to you I am sure); I even see this in my own reading of the text – and yes I took Greek.
I do not have to agree with everything in Mac to see what others have already seen. Given, everything that I have already stated to you about this, even if Mac holds that mankind was created out of nothing (contra the Genesis narrative?) this is not a problem for me. You asked me, “Do you mean to insist humanity was created ex nihilo?” If I say, “no” does that take away from the quote? If I say “yes”?
Daniel, you did in fact state that “It’s an appeal to creatio ex materia as manifested in numerous contemporary and older Greek literary texts.” So, II Mac does not accept every aspect of Platonic cosmogony just the part that is most pertinent to our discussion?!
The earth is not just material. There is alot of form to it, even in a handful of dirt. Indeed there is no “material” mentioned in the passage. If the passage embraces mankind’s immediate creation out of formless material then it does contradict the Genesis narrative.
“setfree-
I’m saying your question is meaningless, that’s all.”
judging by your replies, most of my questions were 😉