Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_Blixa]

Oh I have a passing familiarity with Bokovsky's oeuvre. The complaint about quotation marks, though, that's just utterly vacant and void.

[_Blixa]

oh, hell BOKOVOY. I guess that misspelling/typo/gross and flagrant violation of all known rules of discouse reveals how passing my familiarity is.

[_Dr. Shades]

If anyone really wants me to, and if I get around to it, I might read through David's last post and respond here.

How about this: Would you mind posting for us the first message you made in response to Bokovoy?

[_Who Knows]

I just finally read through the entire thread at MAD. I'm not usually one for 'cheerleading', but wow! You guys (CK and Dart) just thoroughly ripped DB.

Anyhow, just wanted to say 'thanks' and 'good job'. Hopefully it has at least some effect on the TBM's who would have otherwise just eaten this crap up as 'bullseyes'.

[_dartagnan]

Well, the point to posting was to shed a little reality on the fantasy drug David has been pushing.

These so-called "bulls-eyes" are superficial parallels originated from the minds of creative apologists.

It looks like Nibley's legacy lives on after all... what a shame.

Shades, I am at work now but will share my post later tonight when I get home.

[_Who Knows]

I thought the best part was just pointing out that just because something cannot be fully 100% explained by natural means, does not mean that 'god did it'.

It's just one of my pet peeves now. My wife calls me a 'cynic' for it. But it just drives me crazy when someone says 'god did it', simply because they don't have a perfect explanation for it otherwise:

How'd that underdog team win that game? God did it.
How'd you find your keys? I don't know, god must helped me find them.
How'd that person live after that accident? God did it.

And these are then used as evidences. Boggles my mind...

It's the same with these 'bullseyes'. For some reason, the apologists believe that if there's not an airtight natural explanation for it, then it's a 'bullseye' for the church and/or god.

Oh, and back on track - yes Dart, I'd like to see your reply to DB's final post.

[_dartagnan]

My first post was actually in response to helix

Helix,

The misses seem to outnumber the hits, but the game appears to have been rigged from the start because if Joseph Smith missed on certain theological points, the general response is that this is because those teachings were lost through an apostasy, which is why there is no explicit biblical mention of them. If he “hits” then it is because God inspired him to “restore” them. But I think the point CK is making is that there is no gripping rationale to suppose Smith scored on these “hits,” because of divine revelation. They could have just as easily, and more probably, been the results of his correspondences with Rabbis, such as his Hebrew professor. Smith had at least some familiarity with Kabbalism, so it is wrong to maintain that nobody in the 19th century would have ever considered the possibility in a divine council.

It is misleading to insist the notion was completely foreign to all religions and Biblical scholars in Joseph Smith’s day. This assertion seems to be made for the purpose of adding more “fascination” to the teaching.

I'd say his theology was interesting at best, but hardly fascinating or of divine origin. Harold Bloom found Smith's insights interesting as well, but he never considered this proof of his prophetic claims.

You said, “It just seems that you have the ability to reason away anything that puts Joseph Smith in favor.”

You can be rest assured that for those of us who do not argue to save testimonies, it seems that apologists like David Bokovoy are doing the same thing, only in the opposite direction. In other words, it seems they are trying to reason away anything that puts Joseph Smith out of favor. Though I do not think the intention is to put him out of favor. I think the intentions we all share is the search for truth. It is just that sometimes putting Smith out of favor is a result of that search, just as putting him in favor is sometimes the result.

The question here is what is more probable?

Is it more probable that Joseph Smith taught these things because God decided to call him as a prophet to reveal truths already accepted by Kabbalists?

Or is it more probable that Smith taught these things because he drew from the culture of his time?

Since we are playing around with similarities and probabilities, let me ask you a couple of questions.

Did you know that by 1842 there are only two books in the history of publication that suggest God’s throne is at the center of the Universe?

Did you know that by 1842 there are only two books in the history of publication that suggest spiritual beings are “intelligences”?

One was published a decade before the other, and the author of the later owned a copy of it. The two books I am speaking of are the Book of Abraham and Philosophy of a Future State, which was written by an eminent 19th century Philosopher named Thomas Diick. Oliver Cowdery in December 1836 quoted some lengthy excerpts from it in the Messenger and Advocate [Dec. 1836: 423-25]. These two “parallels” are not only fascinating, they are overwhelming. These theological teachings are not fond in the Ancient Near East. They are found in a book which Joseph Smith owned, and borrowed from. Was this philosopher also inspired by God to opine on these cosmological points?

For those who choose to believe the “critics” have not adequately addressed “what the text actually says,” (internal evidences) I suggest you take a look through this article: http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/M ... BOA_8.html

At this point Bokovoy jumped in and responded to my post:

Leonidas: They could have just as easily, and more probably, been the results of his correspondences with Rabbis, such as his Hebrew professor.

Apparently, Joseph did discuss the issue of divine council of deities with his Hebrew professor. Here was the result:

“I once asked a learned Jew, ‘If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?’ He replied, ‘That is the rule with few exceptions, but in this case it would ruin the Bible.’” Teachings, 385.

Apparently Joseph’s Hebrew professor was not too keen on the Prophet’s views, so I seriously doubt Joseph simply picked up the notion from “the results of his correspondences with Rabbis, such as his Hebrew professor.”

How many Rabbis do you know today that believe in a council of gods?

Leonidas: Smith had at least some familiarity with Kabbalism, so it is wrong to maintain that nobody in the 19th century would have ever considered the possibility in a divine council.

I certainly did not suggest that nobody in the 19th century would have ever considered the possibility of a divine council of Gods.

I would like you to provide proof, however, that anyone in the 19th century including the Kabbalists whose traditions Joseph Smith was apparently so well steeped in, provided such a correct Old Testament perspective of the divine council as the one depicted in the Book of Abraham.

Thanks in advance.

EnemyAce also threw in a comment:

Harold Bloom's genius notwithstanding how would you establish the prophetic nature of an individual? In Joseph Smith's case there are well-established criteria that has been established for Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and nature.

To which I responded,

Well for starters, you would expect there to be some indisputable evidence that cannot more easily be explained by natural means. Some people choose to believe Smith's "hits" can only be explained by divine intervention, but that is only because they so choose.

He also said,

In Joseph Smith's case there are well-established criteria that has been established for Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and nature.

To which I responded,

So far there has been nothing that cannot be explained by natural means. There is no absolute mystery that compells one to insist he must have been receiving data from on High.

This is why LDS missionaries ask their students to rely on a testimony. They do not try to convince them that Joseph Smith was a prophet because "such and such" evidence cannot be explained any other way.

The "God told me so" testimony has to come first, and then after that all subsequent evidence, whether or pro or con, is filtered and processed through that testimony.

This is why it is virtually impossible to convince some apologists what seems obvious to most. For some, no amount of evidence will dissuade because rationale is looked down upon in the Church. The "reasoning of men" is always mentioned in a negative context at Church, whether it be in scriptures or in conference. Thus, the testimony is a powerful thing.

I then responded to Bokovoy with the following:

In the June 1, 1843 edition of the Times and Seasons, Joseph Smith quotes from the Zohar, which is widely considered the most important work of Kabbalah. This strongly suggests that he had a particular interest in Kabbalism.

David: Apparently, Joseph did discuss the issue of divine council of deities with his Hebrew professor.

No such thing is apparent from this citation. The statement you provided is not a “discussion” about the divine council at all. It is a simple question about Hebrew grammar. The Kabbalistic notion of a divine council is not dependent on Gen 1:1 rendered in the plural.

But thanks for bringing this up, because it gives us the opportunity to find out where Joseph Smith claimed to have received this doctrine. Joseph Smith continues,

“In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.” http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

So from this we have his own testimony to the fact that he got this concept from the Bible, along with his own understanding of the Hebrew grammar. Nowhere did he say “God revealed this to me,” so how could it possibly be proof he was a prophet?

David: How many Rabbis do you know today that believe in a council of gods?

Not all Rabbis are fans of Jewish Mysticism, and not all consider the Zohar authoritative. But Joseph Smith was particularly familiar with the Zohar and Kabbalism, where the concept of the divine council preexisted.

David: I certainly did not suggest that nobody in the 19th century would have ever considered the possibility of a divine council of Gods.

But you seemed to be suggesting, or strongly insinuating, that the possibility that Smith could have deciphered this from the Bible is so remote that divine revelation is the best explanation. Your theory doesn’t address the numerous problems found in the same work that has clearly borrowed from other works, like Josephus and the Philosophical work by Thomas Diick.

David: I would like you to provide proof, however, that anyone in the 19th century including the Kabbalists whose traditions Joseph Smith was apparently so well steeped in, provided such a correct Old Testament perspective of the divine council as the one depicted in the Book of Abraham.

You’re the one making the insinuations that it was probably the result of divine revelation, so I think you need to be the one to provide proof; proof that Smith couldn’t have received this concept from elsewhere.

At this point DCP decides to jump to David’s defense:

It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that, unless one is able to demonstrate conclusively that concept X could not possibly have been derived from a non-revelatory source, it is intellectually indefensible to believe that concept X was received by revelation. Such negative proof is rarely if ever available for any significant question of provenance in any field of intellectual history.

The claim that Joseph Smith knew Kabbalah and the Zohar is, at best, highly questionable. See, for example, William Hamblin, "Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection," The FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996)

I responded to DCP thusly,

DCP: It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that, unless one is able to demonstrate conclusively that concept X could not possibly have been derived from a non-revelatory source, it is intellectually indefensible to believe that concept X was received by revelation.

I said nothing of intellectual defense. I simply asked that we employ a little inductive logic and ask a simple question:

What is more likely?

That God told him this or that he somehow absorbed these things through natural means? Well, luckily, we can allow Joseph Smith to answer that question for us. By his own words, he clearly derived this teaching from natural means. He read a book (the Bible) and he employed grammar skills he had acquired from another human being (Hebrew teacher).

To ignore the natural factors while leaping to the fantastical conclusion of divine revelation seems a bit odd for a scholar of any discipline.

Extraordinary claims require expraordinary evidence. I would not assume my daughter learned to sing "Row, Row Row your boat" from God himself, just because nobody she knows seems to know it. I would investigate further to determine whether or not someone who speaks her language, taught her the song. Saying "God must have taught her" is not an intellectually defensible conclusion, just because nobody else has provided the natural means from which she learned it.

On the other hand, if I had a testimony that she was Eliphalet Oram Lyte reincarnated, I suppose no amount of evidence to the contrary would matter anyway.

DCP: The claim that Joseph Smith knew Kabbalah and the Zohar is, at best, highly questionable

True. But it is not nearly as questionable as the claim that Joseph Smith received this doctrine via divine revelation, despite his own claims to the contrary.

DCP's next post was:

Leonidas: What is more likely? That God told him this or that he somehow absorbed these things through natural means?

That depends on one's sense of the prior probabilities. I doubt that we agree on those -- I note your revealing reference to "the fantastical conclusion of divine revelation" -- so the question is not as open and shut (nor as inevitably congenial to your position) as you seem to hope.

Leonidas: Well, luckily, we can allow Joseph Smith to answer that question for us. By hiw own words, he clearly derived this teaching from natural means. He read a book (the Bible) and he employed grammar skills he had acquired from another human being (Hebrew teacher).
I don't see how that settles any important question related to the Book of Abraham.

To which I responded,

Again, a little exercise in inductive logic never hurt anyone; well, maybe to some with already made up minds. I simply proposed that everyone take the Pepsi challenge and drop the paranoia of it being poisonous testimony-threatening Kool-Aid.

DCP: I don't see how that settles any important question related to the Book of Abraham.

It settles the question that is central to this discussion. Does this teaching demonstrate divine revelation? Clearly not, thus the entire point of this thread is moot. According to Joseph Smith’s own explication, he was simply reading what was clearly stated in the Bible while using the grammar tools provided him by his Hebrew teacher. He saw no angel, he didn’t pray for guidance, and he alluded to no scriptural “unfolding.”

It becomes a huge game of circular reasoning to insist Smith’s teachings prove divine simply because they are in the Bible, given the fact that Joseph Smith was an ardent student of the Bible. This is why focus is removed from the Bible and placed onto the “Ancient World.”

The title of this thread is “What the critics fail to tell you.”

I think that at this point, most people are wondering what this is supposed to mean. The critics are supposed to tell people that Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham mentions teachings found in the KJV, which he also studied profusely?

What a bunch of disingenuous hacks they must be!

Bokovoy’s response came next:

Leonidas: No such thing is apparent from this citation. The statement you provided is not a “discussion” about the divine council at all. It is a simple question about Hebrew grammar.

My heavens! The citation derives from Joseph’s famous sermon concerning the plurality of Gods (see Teachings 369-376). It provides Joseph’s report of a "discussion" that he had with “a learned Jew” (presumably his Hebrew professor Joshua Sexias). Contrary to your suggestion, the issue of whether elohim can refer to God or Gods in the plural is certainly not a mere question concerning Hebrew grammar.

Leonidas: The Kabbalistic notion of a divine council is not dependent on Gen 1:1 rendered in the plural.

And Joseph’s view of the divine council is not dependent upon Kabbalah. Remember you were going to prove that it was.

Leonidas: So from this we have his own testimony to the fact that he got this concept from the Bible, along with his own understanding of the Hebrew grammar. Nowhere did he say “God revealed this to me,” so how could it possibly be proof he was a prophet?

I’m sorry. But you need to think this through. On the one hand you state that Joseph Smith simply took the concept of a divine council of Gods from the Zohar and on the other you suggest that Joseph received this knowledge from the Bible itself. Once again, I have no problem suggesting that Joseph learned a great deal concerning the divine council through his study of the Bible.

Again, I’m sorry. But this site does not prove that Joseph’s view of the divine council derives from Jewish mysticism. The author simply discusses his theological views and provides links to several sites (including Michael Heiser's) that discuss the knowledge biblical scholars now have concerning the role of the Divine Council as a fundamental symbol within Israelite cosmology.

If you wish to interact on this board, you’ll need to back up your claims. Show us where the Zohar presents a comparable view to the depiction of the divine council of deities featured in the Book of Abraham or cease from making such assertions.

DCP’s response came next:

Leonidas: Again, a little exercise in inductive logic never hurt anyone; well, maybe to some with already made up minds. I simply proposed that everyone take the Pepsi challenge and drop the paranoia of it being poisonous testimony-threatening Kool-Aid.

I hope you don't think you're responding to me with the rather weird comment above.

Leonidas: Does this teaching demonstrate divine revelation?

If anybody around here thinks that he or she is capable of definitively proving a case of divine revelation, I'll be interested in reading what that person has to say. I've encountered no such claim, and have never made such a claim. I'm not sure who it is with whom you're sparring on that issue.

I then responded to David’s post:

David: My heavens! The citation derives from Joseph’s famous sermon concerning the plurality of Gods (see Teachings 369-376). It provides Joseph’s report of a "discussion" that he had with “a learned Jew” (presumably his Hebrew professor Joshua Sexias).

Yes, Joseph’s sermon concerned this, but was the prior discussion he had with the Jew about the divine council? Was he his theology teacher or Hebrew teacher? The small excerpt you provided doesn’t provide enough to determine conclusively that this was a “discussion” specifically about the divine council. I would expect there to be more to it than this, if that were the case.

In any event, as I have already stated, the Kabbalism question is rather moot point given the fact that your main thesis has been already shattered by Joseph Smith himself. Again, the question is whether or not this feature of the Book of Abraham is evidence that Joseph Smith received divine revelation as a prophet. He clearly indicated that he received it through natural means. He read a book written by humans and used grammar tools provided him by his teacher who was also a human. There is no indication of any divine intervention. He never claimed it, so why are the apologists?

David: And Joseph’s view of the divine council is not dependent upon Kabbalah.

It is dependent on his reading of the Bible in conjunction with his learning with a Jew. The Kabbalah is just a possibility I threw out there to make a point: divine revelation is not the only possibility.

David: Remember you were going to prove that it was.

I remember no such thing. I merely pointed out an alternative, natural means by which he could have; a means that is far more credible than the scenario you proposed.

David: On the one hand you state that Joseph Smith simply took the concept of a divine council of Gods from the Zohar and on the other you suggest that Joseph received this knowledge from the Bible itself

I have always maintained that this teaching is biblical. The fact is we have Joseph Smith confirming what I said. I never spoke definitively about the Kabbalah connection. Please, take better care is reading what I write.

David: I have no problem suggesting that Joseph learned a great deal concerning the divine council through his study of the Bible.

Then you concede the point that he did not receive this via divine revelation?

David: Again, I’m sorry. But this site does not prove that Joseph’s view of the divine council derives from Jewish mysticism.

I never said it did. You seem to be moving away from your original claim and are now focusing on a negligible point that I have already moved away from. I am perfectly content with the fact that Joseph Smith learned of the divine council from himself, and not from divine inspiration.

Are you?

Next up was my response to DCP:

DCP: If anybody around here thinks that he or she is capable of definitively proving a case of divine revelation, I'll be interested in reading what that person has to say.

I didn’t say anyone felt they had definitively proved it. If I did I misspoke, but I don’t believe I did. But the purpose of this thread, it seems, is to strongly suggest this works as some kind of evidence in its favor.

But the simple fact that Joseph Smith admits having obtained this belief through the Bible, precludes any subsequent apologetic hope that its insertion into the Book of Abraham somehow indicates divine authorship.

David said, “This is the type of evidence that I'm afraid critics both big and small unfortunately fail to consider.” CI started gloating and said critics, “don't want to go anywhere near the content of the text itself.”

Why does he think they “fail to consider” it unless he thinks it somehow works against their premise that Joseph Smith created the Book of Abraham through natural means? Perhaps I misread these comments and they can elucidate further.

David continues to beat the Kabbalah straw man:

Leonidas: In any event, as I have already stated, the Kabbalism question is rather moot point

It certainly is!

Leonidas: Given the fact that your main thesis has been already shattered by Joseph Smith himself. Again, the question is whether or not this feature of the Book of Abraham is evidence that Joseph Smith received divine revelation as a prophet. He clearly indicated that he received it through natural means. He read a book written by humans and used grammar tools provided him by his teacher who was also a human. There is no indication of any divine intervention. He never claimed it, so why are the apologists?

You can’t be serious! If you do not know enough about Mormonism to recognize that Joseph Smith claimed to have learned the truth about a plurality of God through revelation then you really need to do some basic reading.

From the same sermon:

“I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage and a spirit: and these three constitute there distinct personages and three Gods!” (Teachings, 370).

Leonidas: It is dependant on his reading of the Bible in conjunction with his learning with a Jew. The Kabbalah is just a possibility I threw out there to make a point: divine revelation is not the only possibility.

Please go back and read my post to CK on this thread concerning my views regarding the revelatory process. According to LDS thought, true revelation cannot be extracted from serious study. Joseph, for example, obtained revelation through his work in the Bible, his study of Hebrew, and his study of the Egyptian papyri (just to name a few sources).

Leonidas: I remember no such thing. I merely pointed out an alternative, natural means by which he could have; a means that is far more credible than the scenario you proposed.

Your scenario is not all credible until you provide: 1. At least a single example of the Zohar describing a view of the divine council of Gods comparable to the one featured in the Book of Abraham, and 2. Evidence that Joseph Smith studied the passage.

Leonidas: I am perfectly content with the fact that Joseph Smith learned of the divine council from himself, and not from divine inspiration. Are you?

No. I’m not at all content with the fact that you do not understand that Joseph received revelation through his studies. I would really like to help you.

Please go back and read through the thread.

And now here is my last post which was a response to David before I was debarred:

David: You can’t be serious! If you do not know enough about Mormonism to recognize that Joseph Smith claimed to have learned the truth about a plurality of God through revelation then you really need to do some basic reading.

Are we talking about divine revelation in the sense that would set a man apart as a genuine prophet of God, or are we talking about basic inspiration that any common Joe can and does receive on a daily basis? People read the Bible all the time with the spirit and are enlightened to numerous truths they otherwise would not have known. But they are not prophets.

Joseph Smith’s sermon on the plurality of Gods was given on June 16, 1844, many years after his Jewish teacher taught him about the plural of Eloheim and two years after the Book of Abraham was published. Joseph Smith was responding to criticism about his teaching the plurality of Gods, and he justified it with the Bible: “My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Joseph Smith claimed to know his interpretation was true because the “Holy Spirit” testified to this, but this phenomenon is something all too common among LDS for it to be considered an indication of prophet status.

David: According to LDS thought, true revelation cannot be extracted from serious study. Joseph, for example, obtained revelation through his work in the Bible, his study of Hebrew, and his study of the Egyptian papyri (just to name a few sources).

I thought all was needed was faith unwavering. Now I am to understand that study is a precondition to divine revelation? I thought he was just an ignorant 14 year old when God decided to drop a revelatory bomb on him in the grove.

David: No. I’m not at all content with the fact that you do not understand that Joseph received revelation through his studies. I would really like to help you.

Thank you, but that isn’t what I asked. Again, I am perfectly content with the fact that Joseph Smith learned of the divine council through his own studies. If you want to now say that it is a mixture of both study and prayer, then OK. But that isn’t what you were leading us to believe from the start. The fact that he gained a basic knowledge of the divine council through his own readings gravely undermines any attempt to use his knowledge about this as evidence that he was a genuine prophet. Again, the level of inspiration Joseph speaks of in this instance is the kind of granted to the millions of non-prophets who read the Bible spiritually.

[_Mercury]

Bokovoys comments are borderline delusional and showing just how desparate the "appies" are for oxygen. To put the cart before the horse in such a fashion is beyond words of reason. As a semi-trained Geology geek, I am assuming Bokovoy Would not understand the concept of Superposition.

[_Fortigurn]

“In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.” http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

It is utter nonsense to say 'The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods' in Genesis 1-2. It's actually the subject/verb agreement which identifies whether 'elohim' is singular or plural, as in English. Other nouns of this class include the following (places where the usage is singular are in parentheses):

* zequn_im: old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20)

* ne`ur_im: youth (1 Samuel 17:33)

* 'adon_im: lord (Isaiah 19:4)

In English we have words which are the same, such as 'fish' and 'sheep'. If I say 'The fish is blue', you know I'm talking about one fish, not because 'fish' is the singular form of 'fish', but because 'is' is the singular verb. If I say 'the sheep are outside', you know I am talking about more than one sheep, not because 'sheep' is the plural form of 'sheep', but because 'are' is the plural verb. The same applies to the Hebrew word 'elohim'. Whenever the verb is singular, the noun refers to only one person.

When 'elohim' takes the plural verb, it refers to more than one person, such as the gods of the heathen, men, or angels. But the singular verb is used when 'elohim' is used of God Himself. This reinforces repeatedly that God is one person.

In Genesis 1:26, God ('elohim'), said 'Let us make', addressing persons other than Himself (the angels in His presence to whom He speaks, as in 1 Kings 22:19-22, and Isaiah 6:1-8). The form of the word 'said' here is singular (the morphology is actually third person masculine singular, 'He said'), showing that the 'elohim' of Genesis 1:26 who is speaking is one person, not more than one.

When the actual creation takes place in verse 27, the word 'elohim' is used with the singular form of the verb 'make', proving that the creation was carried out by only one person. If the creation had been carried out by more than one person, it would necessarily have been described with the plural form of the verb.

When 'elohim' is used with a singular pronoun, and/or a singular verb, it refers to one person.

[_dartagnan]

Here is my response to David's last post:

Here Kevin, is where you’re clearly wrong. The King James Bible does not provide “numerous” references to the divine council of deities. The word “council,” for example appears only one time in the entire Old Testament

David is playing us for fools here. He wants us to believe that Joseph Smith couldn’t have learned of this concept from the Bible because the Bible never used that precise word? Here we see David’s duplicity, because in his opening post he wanted to establish that the divine council is “a fundamental symbol for the Old Testament understanding of how the government of human society by the divine world is carried out.” He also cites another scholar who says, “a narrative of events in the heavenly council on an occasion when the council is gathered to make some fateful decision concerning the affairs of men. In fact, wherever in the Old Testament the activities of the council are described, or the deliberations of the council may by thought to be alluded to, some decision of great moment is always involved.”

Yet, here is trying to mitigate the references to the divine council by saying the lack of the specific word requires divine revelation to discern. Apparently he is trying to say that the divine council is important in the Bible, but on the other hand it is not clear enough for anyone except a prophet to discern. This is the ole apologetic two-step, folks.

“The council of God in the Hebrew Bible is no novelty, the occurrences are well known;” Martti Nissinen, “Prophets and the Divine Council,” Kein Land fur sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palastina und Ebirnari fur Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (Vandenhoeck: Universitatsverlag Freiburg Schweiz, 2002): 4.

I never said it was a novelty, so why is David throwing out citations from scholars that do nothing to establish his point? He is doing precisely what I said he does. He is trying to eclipse his inability to deal with arguments, by throwing out all sorts of weird, irrelevant citations from scholars; again, apparently to woo his audience.

Hence, those who dare venture out into the pages of the New Revised Standard Version of Psalm 82 will learn: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment” (Psalm 82:1; NRSV).

But those with access only to the King James Version are stuck with a much more difficult reading: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods” (Psalm 82:1; KJV).

Gee, sounds very much like Abraham 3:22 “Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones”

Psam 82 is only one passage that points to a divine council. Isaiah 14:13 also says, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation.” There are more, but you get the point. David wants you to believe that it takes a prophet to assume “council” is an appropriate term to describe a group or congregation.

Does David really want to hang his argument on the assumption that it takes a Prophet to use the word “council” to appropriately describe the biblical passages that refer to a congregation in heaven? “Council” is the word modern scholars chose also, but they are not prophets. The word was chosen because it is appropriate, not because it is necessarily the only literal translation of the word. Who would object to this? The word is translated “congregation” 124 times in the KJV. It is also translated, company, assembly, multitude, people and swarm.

If the council is the literal translation and that is the only thing it could mean, then maybe that would serve as some kind of notch for Joseph Smith’s claims of divine revelation. But the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible speaks of many instances where a council is manifestly appropriate, and Joseph Smith mentions Gen 1:1 where the gods make a decision to do something. He bases his argument on his understanding of Eloheim in the plural. He does not base it on divine revelation.

I suppose that one could argue as you do that Joseph simply picked up on the fact that in the beginning “the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” simply from the King James statement concerning God standing in the “congregation of the mighty,” but your theory presents quite a stretch.

This is absolutely astonishing. It is a stretch to think that a group of beings who are gathered and are deciding to do something is fittingly called a “council”? And of course Joseph Smith is on my side explaining his own case using precisely the argument David calls a “stretch.” This is the point David is desperately trying to run away from. Here we go again with this brain-dead logic. I have established definitive evidence from Joseph Smith’s own mouth, yet David absolutely refuses to address it. Instead he is focusing on irrelevancies and trying to keep the Zohar alive and well for further kicking, even after I have made it perfectly clear it was a minor point and I am no longer discussing it. After I was banned he wrote up yet another response, but he addresses nothing in my last post. Instead he keeps kicking the Zohar issue because he is anxious to appear as though he is refuting something of consequence.

Really, we can’t fault the King James translators for their failure to accurately portray the divine council imagery in the Hebrew Bible.

There is nothing “faulty” in their translation. Congregation works just the same as council. David would have us believe that council makes a huge difference and that all scholars insist on its rendering, but other modern translations like NIV and the Amplified Bible chose “assembly,” the NASB sticks with “congregation,” and Young’s Literal Translation chooses “company.”

So what makes an assembly/congregation/company/group a “council”? A council serves a particular function. They become a “council” they are gathered to serve as some kind of advisory board or to partake in some kind of decision process. Ps 82 does not establish this function unambiguously, which is probably why not all translators chose that term. Gen 1 communicates this exact activity, if we operate on the assumption that eloheim is plural in this case – something Smith already accepted as true. So it is hardly a “stretch” to see how Smith could have chosen this word because that is precisely what he saw in the Bible. He saw a plurality of Gods making a decision to do something.

After all, it is only the more recent discoveries connected with Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Phoenician that allow scholars like Martti Nissinen to now profess that the biblical attestations of the divine council of Gods are “well known.”

One does not need extra biblical texts to know that a group who gathers to make decisions is fittingly called a council. This is what Joseph Smith offers as his reasoning, yet David is hell bent on painting this picture differently as though he was revealing from God what the Akkadians, Canaanites and Phoenicians already knew. Joseph Smith’s own words mean nothing and I am making a “stretch” for accepting what Smith said. Absolutely astonishing.

Though I would assume that you intended to describe the Book of Abraham as a “lemon.” If you will actually read through my posts on this thread with an open mind, I suspect that you won't employ such a harsh assessment of the book.

No I was referring to the ridiculous parallels. Parallels which you have a tendency to describe with hyperbolic jargon as though they represent “amazing” evidence.

As one who believes in the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, I certainly do not see it as my job to demonstrate how these parallels could have come from a non-revelatory means. I would see that as your job.

If you want anyone to buy what you’re selling, they you need to demonstrate just how “amazing” this evidence is. You’re the one who decided to step up to the microphone and broadcast your amazing discovery. You’re the one challenging the critics to “deal” with what you maintain they have been “hiding.” It is humorous that you would think it is my duty to disprove wild assertions, and that if I didn’t, then this somehow means your assertions are valid.

It is not enough to say the Book of Abraham says X, the Bible says X, therefore Joseph Smith was a true prophet. This alone does not constitute “amazing” evidence. You need to demonstrate how it is amazing by establishing that Smith could not have acquired this knowledge through natural means. Reading the Bible is a natural means. You’re especially taken to task when Smith speaks on the matter in unusual detail, explaining how he obtained his knowledge through natural means. He learned Hebrew, he learned the plural nature of eloheim, and he employed deductive logic with Gen 1:1. That was his rationale. That was his means. There is nothing here that would compel any reasonable person to believe this is evidence or proof that he was receiving divine revelation.

Surely you’re not suggesting that Joseph didn’t shock 19th century Christians with his views concerning the divine council of Gods!? Good grief, Joseph's views still shock Christians in today’s world, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of contemporary Biblicists have now unwittingly followed the Mormon prophet’s lead

Christianity was for many centuries a monolith with respect to its uncompromising monotheism. But yes, his paradigm of an eternal regression of gods (where God has a Father who has a Father who has a Father, etc) shocked the Christians world. But that is the far extreme of Smith’s henotheism (for lack of a better word). On the other end of the spectrum – which is more applicable to what we are discussing - he would not have shocked any biblical scholar by simply referring to these “congregation” passages as “divine council.” Nor would he shock them by arguing that eloheim should be in the plural. He obviously didn’t shock his teacher when he raised the issue.

And yet you were unable to actually produce any examples of the concept of the divine council within Kabbalism that parallels the picture presented in the Book of Abraham.

Is this why you decided to ignore my last post and divert to a post on another message forum? So you could continue to justify your abuse of this straw man? I never said it was definitive. I agreed with Dan that it was highly questionable. I was simply throwing it out on the table as a natural means worth looking into before leaping to the fantastical conclusion of divine revelation.

If you were at all interested in finding the truth through reason, then you would welcome this instead of responding to it scornfully in knee-jerk fashion.

Not all of us believers, Kevin, are nearly as dim-witted as you seem to believe.

No of course not. Not all.

I don’t believe that he actually raised any arguments against the Book of Abraham.

Ritner raised numerous points that countered John Gee’s apologetics. By doing so he revalidated arguments against the Book of Abraham which had since been considered moot. You addressed none of them and decided to focus your attention on Ritner as a biased scholar and offered backhanded criticism of the JNES for not agreeing with you.

How many purely objective human beings do you know?

None. Thank you for helping me prove my point. Since there is no such thing as pure objectivity, it is absurd for you to expect scholars to refrain from bias in their scholarship. Whining about bias in Ritner is absurd because you represent the other end of that spectrum. Nothing emanates bias more so than an apologist in academia.