Oh, you’re referring to your proof text that was supposed to prove Smith made the council of gods an official doctrine “fifteen years” before his 1844 sermon, even though, as I demonstrated, the revelation was revealed only five years prior (1839), and even more devastating to your argument, wasn’t published 37 years later.
Yes, it certainly was fun for us. Was this supposed to represent one of your finer moments? Of so, then I’m sorry it had to come at an embarrassing price.
It didn’t come with any price. I didn’t use D&C 121 as a proof text that Joseph had made the council of gods an official doctrine fifteen years before his 1844 sermon. I used D&C 121 simply to illustrate the importance of the word “council” within Joseph’s theology. So correcting you came without any price whatsoever.
It was simply fun.
We already know for a fact that it did change. Ben acknowledges this as well. The disagreement concerns, when its meaning was changed.
Oh my Hell! (see you made me swear!)
SON OF X DENOTING A MEMBER OF A GROUP, CLASS, OR GUILD HAS NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER CHANGED. As I illustrated, even in late Aramaic, the fundamental grammatical construct remained the same! In all Semitic languages from the first to the last, it can refer to A MEMBER OF A GROUP, CLASS, OR GUILD. Even Forti now acknowledges that the biblical phrase “sons of God” can grammatically mean the members of the category “gods.”
You sound just like Richard Abanes… always trying to avoid refutation by claiming to be eternally misunderstood. But you add an arrogant twist, pretending your arguments are too sophisticated for us to comprehend.
You do perpetually misunderstand my arguments! At first I thought it was simply because you lacked the proper background. I’ve given enough information now to change my perspective. No matter what I say. You are going to argue against it. You do this with anyone who has advanced training which is why you've made comments such as "degrees in biblical studies don't matter. All anyone needs is a bit of self dedication and a good library!"
You are telling me that “son of God” always refers to a divine being in “all Semitic languages.” But the problem here is that this is not true. King Krt, a distinctly human ruler in the Ugaritic texts, is also described as bn il, “son of God.” But you’re the Ugarit expert so of course you already knew this, right? Well, apparently not.
You may now start picking up what’s left of your toes.
Oh my Heavens!! I never said that “son of God”
always refers to a divine being in
all Semitic languages. I said that context suggests that it always refers to gods in the Hebrew Bible (as I've illustrated, this is the mainstream view). I've also said that the expression always
can refer to a divine being in
every Semitic language (and it can grammatically)!! Of course sometimes it’s used quite literally, meaning the literal son of God, or even the literal sons of the gods.
Context will determine the meaning.
But the problem here is that this is not true. King Krt, a distinctly human ruler in the Ugaritic texts, is also described as bn il, “son of God.” But you’re the Ugarit expert so of course you already knew this, right? Well, apparently not.
You may now start picking up what’s left of your toes.
Oh my (fill in the blank).
Why in the word do you believe that Ugaritic kings were “distinctly human”!
I happen to very much accept the well argued views of renowned Ugaritologist Nicholas Wyatt who has written exhaustively on the point that Ugaritic kings were deified! See especially Nicholas Wyatt, “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship,”
Ugarit-Forschungen 31:1999 and Nicolas Wyatt, “Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2-3,” Zeitschrift Fur Dei Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (1981).
So were Mesopotamian kings, particularly those of the UR III time period. And like Wyatt, I believe that Israelite kings were also seen as gods. So my toes are very much in tack. How are yours!
Not a historical vacuum, but perhaps a theological one.
This is a bunch of (fill in the blank)! There’s no such thing as a theological vacuum. Every facet of human culture is influenced by its surrounding, including religion. Just look at how Mormonism itself, including its theology, has been influenced by its surrounding culture. After all, you’re the one who’s been arguing that Joseph Smith’s views concerning the plurality of gods derived from
his cultural surroundings. At least try to be consistent! I've always professed that this has played a part in Joseph's views.
This is why one’s presuppositions make all the difference. If we assume the biblical references were merely repeats of what was expressed in Ugarit, without any regard for possible theological implications, then naturally the “What is meant at Ugarit was meant in the Old Testament” seems like the only logical conclusion. Liberal scholars tend to approach it this way.
No. No one assumes that Israelite theology precisely reflected the views attested in ancient Ugarit. But by all means! Please right up an article presenting all of your “compelling” arguments expressed throughout this thread to the
Journal of Biblical Literature so that you can sway the position of main stream scholars.
Again, you’re mind reading an ancient society without considering the possibility that they understood these phrases within the context of a strict monotheistic paradigm.
Of course
we (mainstream Biblicists) are mind reading! But our efforts are based upon grammatical and contextual (both internal and external) evidences. What evidence do you have to suggest that these phrases should be interpreted through the lenses of a late radical monotheist?
Or in other words, that they were adapting known phrases within a corrective motif, and not a pandering one. I’m not arguing either way. I am simply asserting its plausibility, and the fact that not all scholars argue your point.
You’re right. But all mainstream scholars do! And as you know, I have little respect for evangelical Biblicists who ignore the grammatical and contextual evidence amassed in recent decades in an effort to read their “post biblical” theology into the text.
Most do, but not all. And yes, we already know the absurd manner in which you hold all conservative scholarship in contempt.
Guilty as charged!
MAYDAY MAYDAY, Bokovoy just said he disagrees with mainstream scholarship. Funny how the scholarly consensus is the absolute law when it agrees with him, yet it represents error when it doesn’t.
Hardly. Until a person understands the arguments raised by mainstream scholarship, he or she is not qualified to raise a proper objection (as illustrated for instance in Forti’s dismissal of David Wright’s forthcoming book as nonsense). Having devoted serious study to the issue, I’m qualified to disagree. I may or may not be right. But I am qualified to aruge the point. Neither you nor Forti fit this category because neither of you has a clue what you’re talking about!
Does Brandeis make a habit of passing out Ph.D’s to those who refuse to comprehend what they’ve already decided to argue against?
Yes. Brandeis is well known for passing out Ph.D’s in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near to anyone who can walk through the door which is why the school’s put out a virtual who’s who in the field of biblical studies. You know, this was a real lame thing to say!
I’m not the one professing expertise in a Romance language based on elementary missionary (laugh) knowledge.
I never claimed to be an expert in the Romance languages. I claimed that I had reading abilities in three of them (which I do). So feel free to mock my missionary knowledge all you want!
Yet, you cannot translate two simple sentences. Amazing how that works.
Oh, Kevin, I’m not going to play your silly little competitive games that are totally irrelevant to this thread. Yes. You live in Brazil. Yes, you have a Brazilian wife. Yes, I have no doubt that your Portuguese is better than mine. Congratulations!
Since no Biblical scholarship has come out of Brazil, it really hasn’t proven very useful in my field. But I am grateful for the experiences and knowledge I gained as a missionary, so laugh all you want.