Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_Who Knows]

Now Will's joining in on the Kevin gang-bang, with his holier-than-thou, dire declarations of Kevin's descent into the depths of hell.

It's just too bad that he has to focus on ways of making himself feel more comfortable in his faith (attack others that don't agree with you), than to actually critically look at the arguments with an open mind. Maybe someday he'll realize that people come to different conclusions, depending on the method they use to arrive at those conclusions - logic vs. faith. Will chooses to rely on his faith, and then search for any and every way to validate and secure his faith (at the expense of logic and rationality). While people like kevin are just facing the facts head on, and letting that take them where it may (perhaps at the expense of faith?).

I'd hardly call that a 'demise', but hey, Will, whatever makes YOU feel comfortable with yourself, your choices, and your faith, go for it!

[_dartagnan]

I'd rather be one to fall into "demise" than run around acting like the clown of Book of Abraham apologetics.

You're not going to believe the stupid argument Will forwarded recently on MAD. I addressed it here just a few minutes ago:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewto ... =3407#3407

[_Who Knows]

FYI, for anyone that's been following all of this Book of Abraham debate at all, I'd highly recommend Kevin's post at the link he just gave.

[_StructureCop]

Well since Kevin has his cheerleaders here I figured I'd throw out a little encouragement for David. Interestingly in spite of Fortigurn's repeated fingers-in-the ears-la la la posts, my Anchor Bible Dictionary has an entry on "Divine Assembly" where it states repeatedly that Psalms 82 and other verses were referring to gods in the heavenly context and that apparently this was something the Israelites actually believed. And in case you were wondering, the ABD is the authoritative reference for biblical studies published to date.

[Anonymous]

This part of Smith's speech was worth the price of admission alone:

I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination, The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together."

How many exegetical, logical, and linguistic fallacies can he commit in a single argument?

* The root word fallacy (three times)

* The logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion

* At least two severe grammatical fallacies

The first problem with this is that he splits 'sheit' into 'rosh' and 'sheit', which commits a grammatical fallacy.

The second problem is that he then translates 'rosh' as 'head', which commits the root word fallacy.

The third problem is that after having mangled to destruction the word for 'beginning' (instead rendering it simply 'the head'), he then wants to translate the verse as if the word for beginning existed in the text along with the word 'rosh'.

So he takes the text 're’shiyth [beginning] ‘elohiym [God]', says it really reads 'rosh [head] ‘elohiym [God]', and then translates it 're’shiyth [beginning] rosh [head] ‘elohiym [God]'. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He can't throw out 're’shiyth' and then translate the passage as if 're’shiyth' was still in the text.

The fourth problem is that he reads ‘elohiym' as 'gods' in Genesis 1-2, which is a patent grammatical fallacy, as I have shown.

The fifth problem is that he just makes things up as he goes along, throwing in words which aren't even there.

The text reads 're’shiyth [beginning] ‘elohiym [God] bara’ [created]'. Smith claims it should read '{In the} re’shiyth [beginning] {the} rosh [head] {of the} ‘elohiym [gods] {called the gods together}', which has no textual support whatever. These are the wild ravings of a man who not only sounds like he has next to no knowledge of Hebrew whatever, but whose exegetical and logical skills are profoundly flawed, to say the least.

[_Fortigurn]

Well since Kevin has his cheerleaders here I figured I'd throw out a little encouragement for David. Interestingly in spite of Fortigurn's repeated fingers-in-the ears-la la la posts, my Anchor Bible Dictionary has an entry on "Divine Assembly" where it states repeatedly that Psalms 82 and other verses were referring to gods in the heavenly context and that apparently this was something the Israelites actually believed.

So what? Why should I accept yet another assertion without evidence? When are you actually going to deal with the fact that the text of the Old Testament doesn't contain a single 'council of the gods' passage? Enuma Elish couldn't, so he started to talk about Isaiah's lips instead.

And in case you were wondering, the ABD is the authoritative reference for biblical studies published to date.

No I wasn't wondering, because I know that the ABD most certainly is not 'the authoritative reference for biblical studies to date'. The last edition was published when, in 1992 or 1997? Ten years ago at the least, 15 at the most. It suffers from the same problem from which all reference works of its kind suffer - it contains a large number of articles of mixed provenance, quality, and date. You'll find almost up to date articles (though nothing published earlier than 2000 can really be considered up to date), and you'll find very out of date articles.

When you read an article from a reference source such as this, you have to check it against current scholarship. That means checking it against a reputable journal such as Bib Sac or JBL. Here's my list of electronic journals, only one of which os completely up to date, but most of which are within a year and a half of being current:

* Journal of Biblical Literature, 1890-2007
* Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934-2005
* Grace Journal, 1960-1972
* Grace Theological Journal, 1980-1991
* Trinity Journal, 1980-2004
* Master's Seminary Journal, 1990-2003
* Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhoood, 1995-2005
* Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1966-2005
* Westminster Theological Journal, 1950-2005
* Emmaus Journal, 1991-2004
* Michigan Theological Journal, 1990-1994
* Journal of Christian Apologetics, 1997-1998
* Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 1998-2005
* Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 1995-2003
* Conservative Theological Journal, 2000-2004
* Reformation and Revival, 1992-2003
* Journal of Ministry and Theology, 1997-2005
* Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 1996-2005
* Bible and Spade, 1972-2000
* Christian Apologetics Journal, 1998-2000, 2005
* Reformed Baptist Theological Review, 2003, 2005
* Review and Expositor, 1982-2005
* Global Journal, 1998-1999
* Ashland Theological Journal, 1991-2005
* Faith and Mission, 1984-2005
* Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 1997-2005

[_Runtu]

I've always heard that every eyewitness claims the "rock in the hat" method with no manuscript. Steve Benson posted this on RfM, and it made me think that maybe Joseph was doing the dog-and-pony show while Oliver was doing the real work of writing. I'm just throwing this out there, as I really don't know what the method of production was and don't really care.

Lorenzo Saunders on the Supposed Discovery and Actual Writing of the Book of Mormon

In an affidavit, dated 21 July 1887, sworn and sealed before Justice of the Peace Linus S. Parmalee of Reading, Michigan, Saunders testified as follows:

"I lived in . . . [the] town of Palmyra until I was 43 years of age. . . .

"I lived within one mile of Joseph Smith at the time said Joseph Smith claimed that he found the 'tablets' on which the 'Book of Mormon' was revealed. . . .

"I went to the 'Hill Cumorah' on the Sunday following the date that Joseph Smith claimed he found the plates, it being three miles from my home, and I tried to find the place where the earth had been broken by being dug up, but was unable to find any place where the ground had been broken."

" . . .[I]n March of 1827, on or about the 15th of said month, I went to the house of Joseph Smith for the purpose of getting some maple sugar to eat . . .

"[W]hen I arrived at the house of said Joseph Smith, I was met at the door by Harrison Smith, Joe's brother. . . .

"[A]t a distance of 10 or 12 rods from the house there were five men that were engaged in talking, four of whom I knew, the fifth one was better dressed than the rest of those whom I was acquainted with.

"I inquired of Harrison Smith, who the stranger was. He informed me his name was Sidney Rigdon with whom I afterwards became acquainted and found to be Sidney Rigdon. . . .

"I was frequently at the house of Joseph Smith from 1827 to 1830. . . .

"I saw Oliver Cowdery writing, I suppose the 'Book of Mormon' with books and mansucripts laying on the table before him . . .

"[I]n the summer of 1830, I heard Sidney Rigdon preach a sermon on Mormonism. This was after the 'Book of Mormon' had been published, which took about three years from the time that Joseph Smith claimed to have had his revelation."
_____


(Sources: Rodger I. Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-Examined" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1990]; and Wayne L. Cowdery, Howard A. Davis and Arthur Vanick, "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?: The Spalding Enigma" [St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 2005])

[_Enuma Elish]

No, when some scholars refer to the Divine council, they're discussing a council of gods. Please read the relevant literature.

How can I possibly read the “relevant literature” which supports your claim that some scholars do not refer to a council of gods by the term “Divine Council” when you can’t even provide a single reference for me to read?

You're going to have to do better than that!

I’m not exaggerating when I state that I honestly thought that I had read everything ever written on the issue, so I really would appreciate it if you could specify an example of the “relevant literature” (I do know of a specific, very problematic essay that would support your case, but I’m not going to do your homework for you).

No you didn't illustrate this, you simply assumed it.

Only because you do not understand what the Divine Council is. If you understood the significance of phrases such as “sons of God,” you would have understood the argument.

Of course there’s a lot of pieces to this academic puzzle that you are clearly lacking. The problem is that every time I try to help you gain a little bit of background, so that you can begin to understand the issue, you accuse me of changing the subject.

This is why I don’t know how long I can continue. You’re not very teachable.

There are no 'gods' in Genesis 6, and certainly no Divine council. Have you read it?

Now, I’m going to correct your mistake, but it’s going to take a little bit of background, so try to stay with me.

In Semitic languages, including Hebrew, the word “son” often denotes the member of a class or guild.

As a result of the tablets from ancient Ugarit, we know that with respect to the constitutes of the Divine Council, the gods are referred to as ‘ilim, bn ‘il (“sons of El”), and bn ‘ilm (“sons of the gods”). There’s a lot of literature on this topic, but an important recent source includes Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994).

The true connotation of "sons of god" explains why, for example, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, Mitchell Dahood (who was a Ugaritologist and therefore a specialist in this imagery) translates Psalm 89:7 which mentions the “sons of God” as

“Who resembles Yahweh among the gods?” see Psalms 51-100, 307.

It also explains why the translators of the NRSV opted for the scholarly consensus concerning the original version of Deuteronomy 32:8 as a passage mentioning the “sons of God,” yet translated the verse “according to the number of the gods.”

The Sons of God in Genesis 6 are the gods of the divine council.

To gain some background on the issue you should read Samuel Shaviv’s recent article, “The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative,” in Vetus Testamentum, 54 (2004): 527-548.

Shaviv provides evidence that the original source for Genesis 6 seems to have been a Canaanite flood story where Baal, the god of rain, and benevolent El, his father, quarreled because of the human marriages of the Sons of El that Baal perceived as a dangerous threat.

Again, you're begging the question.

I’m not beginning any question. You demonstrably have had very little exposure to these issues. I'm sincerely willing to help, but again, you’re going to have to accept a bit of background in order to understand.

In the throne room visions of the Old Testament, angels are explicitly the only beings mentioned other than God Himself. No gods are ever mentioned.

Ok, consider the throne room vision in 1 Kings 22:

“But Micaiah said, “I call upon you to hear the word of the LORD! I saw the LORD seated upon His throne, with all the host of heaven standing in attendance to the right and to the left of Him” (1 Kings 22:19).

Note that in the throne room vision, the Prophet sees the “host of heaven.” For a variety of compelling reasons, we now know that “though the Bible calls the assembled beings the ‘host of heaven,’ it is widely understood that these were the gods who made up the heavenly court in Judah and Israel” Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994),120.

I'm sorry, but I don't have time for regurgitated version of debunked 19th century scholarship.

How could you possibly know that Wright’s article and forthcoming book simply presents a “regurgitated version of debunked 19th century scholarship,” when you haven’t any clue what Wright has to say? Do you honestly believe that Oxford University Press would simply invest in a book that merely regurgitated debunked scholarship from the 19th century?

I can assure you that Wright’s book will be one of the most important works to come forward on the Hebrew Bible to have been published in the past several decades.

The fact that it's not explicit, but that an angelic Divine council is explicit, means that you are arguing from a position of no evidence, against a case with overwhelming evidence.

I can read all that and it still won't change the fact that there's no saviour pattern such as you described, in Isaiah 6. Quoting pages of scholars will not change the text of Isaiah 6.

I’m not going to “regurgitate” the information that has been laid out.

But as I pointed out, there's no saviour (Isaiah as 'messenger and mediator' is not a saviour), there's no crisis, there's no discussion of how to resolve the crisis, and Isaiah is certainly not a 'lower-ranking deity'.

Yes he is; yes there is; yes there is; and Yes he most certainly is! Clearly you need to go back a reread the post more carefully. Try to focus on the information concerning the ritual act.

In other words, in the Bible there are no 'lower-ranking deities'.

Why because you say so?!

Will you please write a letter to Mark Smith who argues that “early on, Yahweh is understood as Israel’s god in distinction to El. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 casts Yahweh in the role of one of the sons of El, here called ?elyôn. . . . This passage presents an order in which each deity received its own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received;” Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 32.

Why don't you send one to Eerdmans while your at it.

If Mormonism polytheism was truly represented in the Bible, then God would send one of the many 'lower-ranking deities', not a prophet.
You claim that God's Divine council is full of these deities, so why doesn't He send them, in accordance with the standard motif, instead of sending a prophet? Your argument is completely counter-intuitive.

It’s not my personal argument. It’s the view held by many prominent Biblicists whose work you have never considered, but no doubt should if you hope to intelligently argue against our view.

Now, in your assessment of the council story featured in 1 Kings 22 you claim:

Alas no:

* No crisis

See: Israel’s apostasy.

* No discussion of how to resolve the crisis (God simply says what to do)

See: “The LORD asked, ‘Who will entice Ahab so that he will march and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ Then one said thus and another said thus (v. 20).” Contrary to your assertion, God even asks the “spirit” who volunteers to address the crisis “how” he proposes to accomplish the task (v. 21).

* No debate

I didn’t say “debate.” Biblical scholar Simon Parker uses the phrase “various proposals” which is what I suggested; see Ibid.

* No savoiur

The spirit who volunteers will serve as a “savior” by addressing the crisis at hand.

• No mention of any gods at all

The “host of heaven;” see the comment provided by Handy.

Show me the gods. Go on, let's see them

The heavenly host.

Well of course you would, but that puts you in the uncomfortable position of having to defend a writing which no non-LDS professional Egyptologist recognizes as a legitimate translation. That is the rock on which every apologist argument based on the Book of Abraham continues to founder.

Apparently you did not read the thread we’re discussing. I do not believe that Joseph provided a literal translation of the papyri in his possession.

Just one knockout blow among many.

Yes, yes. Between your cheerleading and Kevin’s “three-point” shots, you guys might actually convince yourselves that you’re winning some sort of discussion.

Kevin,

I'll correct your essay a little bit later.

Joy to all,

--DB

[The Stig]

It has now been a little over a year since I first encountered "Kevin Graham" on the old FAIR board. While conscious of the fact that others have known and interacted with him much longer than I ever did, I am still quite amazed at the precipitous nature of his downfall in the past year. Of course, he doesn't see it at all. He simply thinks he's become wiser as time has passed. We are the blind; he the sighted.

And now he's found a home here, where he is flattered at every turn by a crowd more than willing to welcome him with open arms. You would think that there would be some spiritual warning light flickering on the dashboard of his soul when he looks around himself and sees nothing but ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons in the ranks of his acolytes – but I guess he has adopted the philosophy that “to rule is worth ambition, though in hell.” From his perch beside the scummy little pond of the mormondiscussions.com message board, one can almost picture him looking back to his former apologist comrades, and in particular to Dan Peterson, and shouting with his fists clenched and raised to the sky:

”Is this the region, this the soil, the clime,
this the seat that we must change for heaven,
this mournful gloom for that celestial light?
Be it so, since he who now is sovereign
can dispose and bid what shall be right:
farthest from Him is best:
Whom reason hath equaled,
force hath made supreme above his equals.
Farewell happy fields where joy forever dwells:
Hail horrors, hail infernal world,
and thou profoundest hell – receive thy new possessor!
One who brings a mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than He
Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least we shall be free;
The Almighty hath not built here for His envy,
Will not drive us hence: here we may reign secure,
and in my choice to reign is worth ambition, though in hell:
Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

In the long run, his tragic demise will mean little except to him and his family. He doesn’t have the calm deliberateness of a Brent Metcalfe or a Dan Vogel in order to make of himself an effective critic of the church. His propensity for brittle intellectual rigidity and shockingly condescending rants will eventually marginalize him in the ex-Mormon community as effectively as it did in the community of apologists.

But I’m sure he’ll always have a home here in Shadyville.

[_Enuma Elish]

Thanks Who Knows, for providing an interesting link. Please, know however, that as of late, Kevin's readings appear to be always clouded with error.

Note Kevin:

God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 121:26-29)

Notice that this revelation doesn’t answer the question of a plurality of gods, but rather raises the question and speaks to a future occasion when an answer will be revealed by the “Holy Spirit.” This revelation was given many years after the Book of Abraham was purportedly completed in the fall of 1835. This presents a huge hurdle for apologists like John Gee.

What silliness!

Yes, vs. 28 states that "whether there be one God or may gods, they shall be manifest." Apparently, though, if Kevin's reading is correct, then the revelation came pretty quickly for four verses later D&C 121 refers to the time "according to which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was."

Huge hurdle, indeed!