Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_ludwigm]

I like this thread - now - because here are informations worth to think about, comments are worth to read.

There are two disclaimers:
- the title does no more fit to the content
- it was Mittens who started it...

[_maklelan]

mak:

The same YHWH of Isaiah was "considered one of the sons of El/God"??

Not by the time of Isaiah. The two deities were conflated around the rise of the Israelite monarchy.

Candidly, I'm not up on this (obviously!), but this sounds controversial. It obviously supports LDS doctrine (you are LDS, correct?) so I would expect you to have no problem with it, but are you saying that non-LDS Biblical scholars agree with you on this?

There are some scholars who disagree, but it's pretty much the consensus among critical scholars.

Not at all. It's my problem if scripture doesn't support my preconceived ideas. It may well be that my conservative protestant upbringing has colored what the Bible actually states. I just found it surprising that what I understand to be a Catholic Bible would use the phrase "the sons of the gods" in reference to what the author is claiming to have been real entities (as opposed to false gods) who then pro-created with humans to produce giants. In the other Bibles I've seen, the phrase has always been "the sons of God" which is then interpreted to be angels. If "the sons of the gods" is a more accurate rendition it throws a monkey wrench in what I've always believed about that verse which I'm not quite sure how to rectify. So I was surprised to find it in the NEB. Hence, I perceive it as troublesome. Not your fault.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Which sheds new meaning on the phrase "Most High."

Very much so.

But that would be the point, wouldn't it? If you want to argue that angels are closer to deities than to humanity you would probably not get much argument out of orthodox Christians, but it doesn't necessarily follow that angels are Gods. Certainly not comparable to the "Most High."

My recent master's thesis was precisely on the conceptualization of deity in the Hebrew Bible. Angels were servant deities, but deities nonetheless. The Sons of God were second-tier deities, above angels, but below their parent deities. This divine hierarchy is discussed by Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism and by Lowell Handy in Among the Host of Heaven, among others.

What evidence is there that angels are not created and contingent beings?

That they were created begins to be asserted around the exile, but the notion that they are ontologically contingent is a philosophical category from much later.

With all due respect, I really think that is a stretch. Yes, it's obvious that Babylon is not the only city in the world and yet boasts "I am, and who but I?" but the author is clearly condemning the boast as false while asserting that the claims of YHWH are true. I see no evidence that Isaiah's YHWH has "as far as you're concerned" in the back of his mind when he makes his unequivocal claims to exclusivity and then fails to qualify them.

Understandable. There's much more to it, but a full case would take much more time than you or I have.

Oh yes! A glorious moment indeed! I still have it on VHS somewhere! : ) Niwot, huh?! I graduated from Erie in 82. What year did you graduate?

'98. My brother just got an MA from Denver University and we went and played golf up in Longmont. Nothing's changed.

Again, with all due respect, I may just have to disagree with you on this. I see no textual evidence that supports your assertion. The text seems to pretty well state that YHWH believes he's the only game in town. I do concede, however, that the Genesis verses are troubling in that regard and I'm not sure what that implies.

Another good place to go for more on this notion of divine plurality would be Michael Heiser's doctoral dissertation, which is freely available. Heiser is an evangelical scholar from up in Washington.

It seems to me that references to other gods is not at all problematic. What is problematic is a reference to other legitimate gods which seems to be what we have in Genesis unless "the gods" there are angels.

In early Judaism, the notion that they were angels was considered pretty heretical, since it would mean angels could have sex with human women. Angels were thought to be asexual at the time, so that was out of the question. Because of that, the notion that they were the line of Seth developed, but that's also silly. This divine council is in view when God says "Let us make man . . ." and "let us go down and confound their language," and "the man has become like one of us." Later authors were combatting the divine council and directly challenged the notion that God had a council or help, but it's what the texts say.

[_Bret Ripley]

Candidly, I'm not up on this (obviously!), but this sounds controversial. It obviously supports LDS doctrine (you are LDS, correct?) so I would expect you to have no problem with it, but are you saying that non-LDS Biblical scholars agree with you on this?

There are some scholars who disagree, but it's pretty much the consensus among critical scholars.

Roger: I am not a scholar (or LDS for that matter), but I have been following (on-and-off) the sort of scholarship maklelan has been referencing since I was introduced to Frank Moore Cross' Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic some 20 years ago. Now, maklelan certainly doesn't need me to back him up, but I'm going to anyway. :)

What maklelan has written above is indeed consistent with the scholarly consensus on the subject. There is a cultural richness to these texts that tends to get muted when preparing a translation that is accessible to modern readers. Speaking personally and as a non-scholar, developing some appreciation for the relevant cultural contexts has helped me approach the texts with at least some of the preconceptions and expectations of the authors and original audiences. Ancient Judaism was not a modern Western religion, and we lose something when we try to read these texts as if it were.

[_LittleNipper]

Read the verses and forget arrogant superficial displays of superiority. You might learn something about God.

I've read the verses many times before in Hebrew as well as in Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. Putting them together like this isn't going to change their meaning. If you'd like to respond to my case, be my guest. These juvenile attempts to evangelize aren't cutting it.

You listen to "your" prophet and do not hear the straight forward words presented by God in truth through the Bible.

[_LittleNipper]

Read the verses and forget arrogant superficial displays of superiority. You might learn something about God.

I've read the verses many times before in Hebrew as well as in Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. Putting them together like this isn't going to change their meaning. If you'd like to respond to my case, be my guest. These juvenile attempts to evangelize aren't cutting it.

You listen to "your" prophet and do not hear the straight forward words presented by God in truth through the Bible.

[_maklelan]

You listen to "your" prophet and do not hear the straight forward words presented by God in truth through the Bible.

You haven't the foggiest idea what I listen to, so save your impotent posturing.

[_Roger]

There are some scholars who disagree, but it's pretty much the consensus among critical scholars.

Obviously you know this stuff, so I have no reason to doubt you, but if that is true, aren't the implications pretty serious? I mean this pretty much strikes at the heart of orthodoxy, no?

My recent master's thesis was precisely on the conceptualization of deity in the Hebrew Bible. Angels were servant deities, but deities nonetheless. The Sons of God were second-tier deities, above angels, but below their parent deities. This divine hierarchy is discussed by Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism and by Lowell Handy in Among the Host of Heaven, among others.

I may have to check them out when I have time.

In early Judaism, the notion that they were angels was considered pretty heretical, since it would mean angels could have sex with human women. Angels were thought to be asexual at the time, so that was out of the question. Because of that, the notion that they were the line of Seth developed, but that's also silly.

From a layman's point of view, the inclusion of that section in Genesis is mystifying. It is presented as fact. It's not even qualified by saying something like: 'rumor has it that the Nephilim are the children of the gods and humans,' it just states it as though that's what happened. It's very troubling from an orthodox standpoint. Especially when you consider that other legends from the same time frame or earlier have gods mating with humans. Wasn't Egypt's first king supposedly a god? The idea that these were angels seems to be the only acceptable explanation from an orthodox standpoint.

This divine council is in view when God says "Let us make man . . ." and "let us go down and confound their language," and "the man has become like one of us." Later authors were combatting the divine council and directly challenged the notion that God had a council or help, but it's what the texts say.

Well, it's probably no surprise to you that we Evangelicals interpret those verses as the first proof of the Trinity. I've always wondered how Jews explain the plurality. If what you're saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt it at this point) it makes sense.

Thanks for ruining my life. ; )

(I'm kidding, obviously. I'll have to look into it further).

[_maklelan]

Obviously you know this stuff, so I have no reason to doubt you, but if that is true, aren't the implications pretty serious? I mean this pretty much strikes at the heart of orthodoxy, no?

They are, and it does.

I may have to check them out when I have time.

I have a long list of such texts to read.

From a layman's point of view, the inclusion of that section in Genesis is mystifying. It is presented as fact. It's not even qualified by saying something like: 'rumor has it that the Nephilim are the children of the gods and humans,' it just states it as though that's what happened. It's very troubling from an orthodox standpoint. Especially when you consider that other legends from the same time frame or earlier have gods mating with humans. Wasn't Egypt's first king supposedly a god? The idea that these were angels seems to be the only acceptable explanation from an orthodox standpoint.

Yes, the angelic interpretation is probably the most common. The angel is a surprisingly useful instrument in the orthodox tool box. There are many places in the Hebrew Bible where God was thought to have physically and directly interacted with humanity, but over time this became unacceptable, and the answer was to insert the word "angel" before God. I discuss several examples of this in this blog post.

Well, it's probably no surprise to you that we Evangelicals interpret those verses as the first proof of the Trinity. I've always wondered how Jews explain the plurality. If what you're saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt it at this point) it makes sense.

Thanks for ruining my life. ; )

(I'm kidding, obviously. I'll have to look into it further).

Ha, ha! Yeah, sometimes critical scholarship gets a bad rap, but not all hope is lost. A decent book that seeks to harmonize evangelical ideology with critical biblical scholarship is God's Word in Human Words, by Kenton Sparks.

[_Roger]

There are many places in the Hebrew Bible where God was thought to have physically and directly interacted with humanity, but over time this became unacceptable, and the answer was to insert the word "angel" before God. I discuss several examples of this in this blog post.

I haven't read the blog post, but let me take a guess... Genesis 18?

[_maklelan]

I haven't read the blog post, but let me take a guess... Genesis 18?

That's one of them, but there are many.