Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_CaliforniaKid]

Ben, good to see you here.

[Anonymous]

Fortigurn writes:

No it is not 'clearly a problematic translation'. It may be a problematic translation in the opinion of some people, but it is not 'clearly a problematic translation'.

Yes, it is clearly a problematic translation. Some people may opt for a solution to this crux in one way or another, but, the clear reading of the text is not reflected in the traditional translation made by the KJV (and carried forward in other translations). The Hebrew is not ambiguous, and the only way that it can be made to read as the traditional translation reads is to make some unwarranted assumptions about the nature of the text itself. This has been recognized for the last millenia.

That the Hebrew is ambiguous does not mean that different translations of it are 'problematic'. If the text was unambiguous, it could be said that translations other than X were 'clearly problematic'. As I've already pointed out (and you've now acknowledged), different ways to read the text have been long recognised within Christian orthodoxy, and they have not been considered a threat.

I might assume that you simply aren't aware of the translational difficulties surrounding this verse...

No, I'm aware of them. I just don't think it's a serious theological issue, as I've explained.

If something were to have been created prior to light, then that would mark the first act of creation, and thus move "the beginning" backwards.

It moves the beginning back to before the creation of light, which is right where the traditional translation has it. There's no issue here.

However, the notion of creation from pre-existing chaos is quite familiar to us from texts contemporary with ancient Israelite culture. So we really don't need to move the late notions of ex-nihilo creation back onto Genesis.

Can you show me where the text says that the heavens and the earth were created 'from pre-existing chaos'? You would be aware, of course, of the lengthy ex-nihilo tradition in Jewish creation commentary.

Furthermore, the idea of pre-existing "stuff" doesn't conflict with the early Israelite notions of God not being along. It only conflicts with the much later, stricter monotheism, where something that pre-exists apart from God could, presumably, be outside of His domain.

What do you mean 'pre-exists'? You mean exists before he created the heaven and the earth? What's the problem?

Of course, what did you expect? Did he claim that it was revealed to him? He was using this text to support his revelation, not to present it as the source of that revelation.

You are missing the point. The text does not support his 'revelation'. By the way, you need to sort out whether you believe it was revealed to him or not. Which do you believe?

None of this rescues Smiths' 'translation' of Genesis 1:1, which even Mormon apologists have acknowledged is wrong. It is so far wrong that the most incredible attempts have been made to extricate him from it. Thus the attempts on the one hand to claim that all accounts we have of his 'translation' are somehow inaccurate in various ways (misrepresenting the argument he apparently really made, though since no record of that argument exists we are left guessing how it could possibly be known), or on the other hand that he wasn't translating it but interpreting it in Kabbalistic style (a view unconvincing even to other Mormon apologists).[/quote]

But what it does do is lend a fair amount of support to Kevin Barney's arguments on what Joseph Smith was saying in the KFD.

How?

Whether or not we think that what Joseph said was accurate or not (which is hardly the point - we all know that he wasn't an expert in Hebrew - there were others in the LDS community who were (at least eventually) far better than he was.

Of course it's the point. We have a so called prophet teaching absolute nonsense. You don't think that's a problem?

No, they aren't.

Could you explain to me why contemporary texts for the eras under discussion are not the relevant proximate Hebrew texts? I find it incredible that you would say this. Do you believe that secondary sources are superior to primary sources?

Since we can demonstrate editing has occured (particularly late editing between the production of the LXX - and the Hebrew originals found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts), we can in fact eliminate late theologies as being just that - and not reflective of early Israelite beliefs.

We know some editing has taken place between the era of the LXX and the later Greek and Hebrew texts of the DSS and the MS. What happened earlier than that is speculative reconstruction, unless we have primary textual evidence.

And to suggest that the late Biblical texts should be taken as being representative of early Israelite belief seems rather inane doesn't it?

Unless there is clear evidence that they have been so dramatically altered as to be unrepresentative of early Israelite belief, no it doesn't sound inane.

Sure in my opinion. Now, do you want a list of scholars who share that opinion?

Go right ahead.

Can I respond to you in the same way? Simply dismiss everything you have said so far as being merely your opinion?

Of course you can. You basically do already.

One of the difficulties you will run into in a forum like this, is that despite my not being a regular poster here, a great many of the participants are familiar with who I am, and recognize that my opinion is based on a wide ranging awareness of the subject matter.

I recognise that also. So what?

Do you realize how incoherent this is? Perhaps you don't. Orthodoxy has absolute nothing to do with being "True".

It seems you didn't read what I wrote. Please read what I wrote. I did not confuse 'orthodox' with 'true'.

By any of these definitions, what Jesus taught could NOT be considered orthodox.

I didn't argue that what Jesus taught was orthodox.

Whether or not the Pharisees or Sadducees were right has no bearing ont he question of whether or not they were orthodox.

I agree. So what?

The community determines what is orthodox, and so you want to dictate orthodoxy - but you don't even want to do so in a way that reflects a communities established values - rather you want to establish orthodoxy based on your own flawed model of Truth.

This is bizarre. I've said no such thing.

Can you show me the earliest example of Jewish orthodoxy teaching that the gods of the Jewish orthodoxy die? Please use the Biblical texts. [/quote]

Would you define what you mean first by "jewish orthodoxy"?

You can define it as you pleas, just let me know how you're defining it.

Then please do so - because I don't think you are equipped to do this.

Sure I can. I just have to take the text as it reads. Problem solved. It's only when you decide that the text has become so corrupted that it is no longer an accurate representation of Jewish history that you have to resort to speculative reconstructions (which, surprise, surprise, always favour the LDS reading of the Bible).

Hmmm. Does an Israelite/non-Israelite distinction apply to Abraham?

Yes. He was a Chaldean.

And then there is Deuteronomy 32. Where YHWH finds Israel wandering in the desert and becomes their God.

So what?

Tigay suggest that the implication here is that God "ordained that it [mankind] should worship idols and the heavenly bodies." (See his commentary, Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Jewish Publication Society, 1996], 49-50).

Since the texts says no such thing, why should I take that as authoritative, any more than the idea that the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 and walking on the water was a rehash of the Baal cycle? I mean honestly, anyone coming up with that kind of stuff can hardly be accepted to be taken universally seriously.

Who should I see as more reliable? You? Or Jeffrey Tigay (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/)

You don't have to see either of us as 'more reliable'. You just have to read the text for yourself.

The text says that they are gods.

No, the text says that they are elohim. You are exegeting the English (a common exegetical error, but not one I would expect of someone who isn't - or shouldn't be - a novice).

So what you are trying to suggest is that the first instance of elohim means God, the next instance of El means ... we aren't quite sure what, and the second instance of elohim means something other than gods?

No I am not.

...who are going to die like men (indicating that they cannot be men)...

Good grief, how can you get around 'I have said you are gods, but you will die as men'?

You on the other hand are trying to create a series of unlikely readings based not even on assumption within the text, but on theological presuppositions which dictate how you read the text and are entirely modern in origin.

As modern as the LXX and the New Testament.

The LXX doesn't read 'angels of God'.

I didn't say that the LXX read that way. I mentioned the LXX reading 'angels of God' (ok, AGGELOWN THEOU), as a reading of the LXX, and that is how Brenton's LXX reads in Deuteronomy 32.

What we have in the Ugaritic texts are the texts which provide us with Canaanite theology (their scriptures so to speak). Israelites were almost certainly familiar with these traditions (after all Isaiah uses them regularly to illustrate his points). But, those Israelites who worshipped Canaanite divinities would have been familiar with these traditions. And so they almost certainly had an impact on the beliefs and practices of ancient Israelites.

Your problem (as I have pointed out more than once), lies in proving that this form of Canaanite worship was the worship taught by the priests and authorised by the prophets. We keep coming up against this.

Further, despite the fact that the Bible reaches its final form in a post exilic setting, parts of it are much earlier (as in Deuteronomy 32), and so the Ugaritic texts are much closer in terms of date to these older strands of the Bible than your suggestion makes them out to be.

Hey, it's not my suggestion, I believe that the entire Pentateuch predates 1,100 BC and I don't hold to the JDEP hypothesis. But it's a hypothesis which is frequently appealed to (in various forms), by LDS apologists, and happens to be the reigning hypothesis among secular source critics, so if you're really taking them as authoritative then you have to explain how post-exilic Jews were so familiar with the religious practices of a society which ended 500 years previously.

I, on the other hand, believe that these books of the Old Testament which demonstrate familiarity with the Ugarit religion do so precisely because they were written by contemporaries of the Ugarit society, and contemporaries who adopted the same religious beliefs.

Syntactically it isn't allowed by the text. Haven't I made that clear?

No.

John 10:34-35 makes no impact on this question. I refer you to my position paper which was linked earlier discussing the connection between those two texts: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Reconsider ... _82_6.html

I'm sorry, but neither your paper nor the Krispy King's makes any explanation of how 'John 10:34-35 makes no impact on this question' (both of you are aiming at the Evangelical view which attempts to retain a claim to Jesus' divinity in John 10).

What is really funny about your claim here is the damage that it does to Jesus's comments. If Psalm 82 only refers to men, then it doesn't help Jesus's claim to be divine.

No, what's really funny is that you don't understand that I do not believe that Jesus was claiming to be divine, and clearly bases his argument that he is not divine on the understanding that this passage is referring to men, not to gods.

[_Fortigurn]

At the time of Jeremiah (contemporary with the alleged time of departure of Lehi), we have, according to the Bible, Jews who were complaining that it was the dismantling of the worship of Asherah (YHWH's consort) that was leading to the destruction of Jerusalem.

So what? In Genesis 4 we have Cain complaining about the fact that his sacrifice wasn't accepted. Does this mean he was in the right? What you need is someone like Jeremiah complaining (under inspiration), that 'it was the dismantling of the worship of Asherah (YHWH's consort) that was leading to the destruction of Jerusalem'.

YHWH is seen as having a consort in the archaeological record (kuntillit'Ajrud comes to mind)...

But not in the Biblical teaching.

The rest of what you post proves that LDS theology fits in very well with the Canaanite mythology of the Ugarit texts. I would suggest you re-interpret the origins of the Book of Mormon accordingly. Get it out of the Americas, and into the ANE, and you'll have a lot more success finding evidence to support its historical claims.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Kevin,

These recent posts from both you and your cohort have provided further evidence that neither of you possesses the necessary background to understand the arguments, let alone offer a valid critique. Unfortunately, I simply just don’t have the time to correct all your mistakes. The following exchange, however, illustrates the types of issues I have with your logic:

In addition to the fact that I have many years of formal training in Hebrew, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Northwest Semitics, and Comparative Semitics, I too read French, Spanish, and Portuguese. This is why I disagree. It's not a compelling point.

Yours is a disagreement based on a lack of knowledge. I don't know how much Portuguese and French you think you can "read", but you clearly don't know it well enough to make an informed assertion.

Fortigorn’s analogy with Romances languages is in fact completely off.

No it isn't.

I can’t think of anything comparable in the Romance languages for the mere fact that the use of son to denote a member of a class or guild in Semitic languages is not a mere idiomatic expression.

So you're telling me there are no idiomatic expressions in Portuguese that, when translated literally to English, speak of something entirely different? Then clearly you're operating with an elementary level of knowledge here.

For example, please tell us what "mão de vaca" means in Portuguese; then kindly tell us what it refers to in English.

Further, tell us how to say "I don't want anything" in Portuguese; then kindly tell us what that means when literally translated, word for word, to English.

Clearly once again, you did not understand my argument. I'm going to try to explain what you didn't grasp.

In claiming that "son of" is not a mere idiomatic expression but rather a fundamental grammatical construct used to denote the members of a class or guild in all Semitic languages, I claimed (correctly) that the term represents a primary Proto-Semitic paradigm. Therefore, my claim is that the grammatical meaning of "son" in the Semitic languages is not an idiom which refers to an expression whose meaning cannot be deduced from the literal definitions.

Rather, like estar/etre which means "to be" in Spanish, Portuguese, and French, son as a word that specifically denotes the member of a class or guild is not an idiom.

True enough, as an idiom "mão de vaca" would not carry the same meaning in all of the Romance languages, however, once you understand my claim then you will recognize that this point, like most of what you've posted throughout this thread, is entirely irrelevant.

What both you and Forti do not understand is that the use of “son” to denote a member of a class or guild is not an idiom, equivalent to the idiomatic Portuguese expression provided in your post.

As a rule, the Semitic languages use “son of” to make up for a lack of adjectives. Hence, the use of “son of X” to denote the member of a group of class of beings is a fundamental Semitic construct, central to Semitic grammar.

Thus, in Hebrew “[son] is… used to indicate that an individual belongs to a class of beings: Ez 2.1 ‘son of man’ an individual of the human species, a human, a man (homo) as belonging to the species; Ps 29:1 ‘sons of God’ individuals belonging to the ’lim divine beings (cp. Gn 6.2 ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’” Paul Jouon and S.J.T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew; vol. 2 (Roma: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2000), 469.

** Note that the California Kid was correct to challenge Forti’s claim that “son of a man” does not mean a man.

In fact, as illustrated via the Jouon and Muraoka grammar it does.

The same expression appears in Arabic where ibn or “son” appears in the compound phrase “son of man” meaning in Arabic, “man, human being” Hans Weher, The Hans Wehr Dictionary of the Modern Written Arabic (New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976), 76.

In Phoenician (an important example of a Northwest Semitic language), son denotes “one of a class” Zellig S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1936), 87. Therefore, as Harris explains in his dictionary, in Phoenician “son of a man’ means “a human being” (Ibid).

In Aramaic, the term bar or “son” “in compounds is generally the same as of ben [son in Hebrew] ‘bar ’ulpan’ [son of learning] a scholar” Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 189.

In Akkadian (which derives from the East Semitic branch), the word maru(m) or “son” refers to “membership of [a] class or profession” Jeremy Black, et. al, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000), 199.

And as we have discussed, in Ugaritic the word bun or “son” denotes a member of a class of beings, hence, “bn il [means]‘gods’” Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Roma: Pontifical biblical Institute, 1965), 373.

Hope that helps.

Still, had a great day yesterday at the Society for Biblical Literature convention. My paper on the invocation of the gods as witnesses in Amos 3 was very well received.

Warm wishes,

--DB

[_Fortigurn]

** Note that the California Kid was correct to challenge Forti’s claim that “son of a man” does not mean a man.

In fact, as illustrated via the Jouon and Muraoka grammar it does.

The same expression appears in Arabic where ibn or “son” appears in the compound phrase “son of man” meaning in Arabic, “man, human being” Hans Weher, The Hans Wehr Dictionary of the Modern Written Arabic (New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976), 76.

In Phoenician (an important example of a Northwest Semitic language), son denotes “one of a class” Zellig S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1936), 87. Therefore, as Harris explains in his dictionary, in Phoenician “son of a man’ means “a human being” (Ibid).

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I said it didn't mean 'man' in the sense of 'male human being'. It means 'human being', as your quotes here helpfully prove.

I find it ironic that you claim we're the ones without the knowledge necessary to discuss this issue, though you've changed your own argument several times, misread my statements more than once, and made a couple of statements which were plainly wrong.

[_Enuma Elish]

** Note that the California Kid was correct to challenge Forti’s claim that “son of a man” does not mean a man.

In fact, as illustrated via the Jouon and Muraoka grammar it does.

The same expression appears in Arabic where ibn or “son” appears in the compound phrase “son of man” meaning in Arabic, “man, human being” Hans Weher, The Hans Wehr Dictionary of the Modern Written Arabic (New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976), 76.

In Phoenician (an important example of a Northwest Semitic language), son denotes “one of a class” Zellig S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1936), 87. Therefore, as Harris explains in his dictionary, in Phoenician “son of a man’ means “a human being” (Ibid).

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. I said it didn't mean 'man' in the sense of 'male human being'. It means 'human being', as your quotes here helpfully prove.

I find it ironic that you claim we're the ones without the knowledge necessary to discuss this issue, though you've changed your own argument several
times, misread my statements more than once, and made a couple of statements which were plainly wrong.

Contray to both yours' and Kevin's assertions. I have not changed my argument. It's all in the thread, together with your repeated mistakes of which this most recent post provides yet another example. Here is what you said that California Kid rightfully corrected:

'son of man' does not mean 'man'

There's your quote trying to argue against the fact that in Hebrew "son of" can refer to a member of a class, group, or guild.

Now read the dictionary quote slowly:

Thus, in Hebrew “[son] is… used to indicate that an individual belongs to a class of beings: Ez 2.1 ‘son of man’ an individual of the human species, a human, a man (homo) as belonging to the species; Ps 29:1 ‘sons of God’ individuals belonging to the ’lim divine beings (cp. Gn 6.2 ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’” Paul Jouon and S.J.T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew; vol. 2 (Roma: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2000), 469.

Son of man means man. In the same way that "sons of God" refers to those who are of the species of the gods. This is why the quote claims that sons of God refers to those who belong to the group of gods, i.e. divine beings. Now, don't try and play games here. Notice the last portion of the quote which refers to the "daugters of men." If the author wants to say a female belonging to the species, he will not use son of man. He will use daugher of man/men which is precisely the form that appears in Genesis 6.

In Semitic languages son of man means "man, i.e. "homo," which is simply the Latin word for "man."

Once again, the same expression appears in Arabic where ibn or “son” appears in the compound phrase “son of man” meaning in Arabic, “man, human being” Hans Weher, The Hans Wehr Dictionary of the Modern Written Arabic (New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976), 76.

[_Fortigurn]

There's your quote trying to argue against the fact that in Hebrew "son of" can refer to a member of a class, group, or guild.

No, there's my quote arguing that 'son of man' does not mean 'man' (and you can see from my next post to CK that I meant 'man' as in 'male humanbeing').

Now read the dictionary quote slowly:

Thus, in Hebrew “[son] is… used to indicate that an individual belongs to a class of beings: Ez 2.1 ‘son of man’ an individual of the human species, a human, a man (homo) as belonging to the species; Ps 29:1 ‘sons of God’ individuals belonging to the ’lim divine beings (cp. Gn 6.2 ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’” Paul Jouon and S.J.T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew; vol. 2 (Roma: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2000), 469.

I've highlighted the relevant part (it says 'man' as 'belonging to the species', not 'man' as in 'male human being'). You're still not reading what I wrote.

Son of man means man.

No, 'son of man' means 'human being', 'an individual of the human species', 'a human', as the dictionary helpfully says.

Notice the last portion of the quote which refers to the "daugters of men." If the author wants to say a female belonging to the species, he will not use son of man. He will use daugher of man/men which is precisely the form that appears in Genesis 6.

Are you now saying that the phrase 'son/s of man' cannot include female human beings? Could you translate Psalm 8:4 for me please?

[_Fortigurn]

Contray to both yours' and Kevin's assertions. I have not changed my argument.

Of course you have, more than once. Do you think we're involved in some kind of conspiracy to misrepresent you? Do you want me to start quoting you directly?

[_Enuma Elish]

Of course you have, more than once. Do you think we're involved in some kind of conspiracy to misrepresent you? Do you want me to start quoting you directly?

If you’re claiming that I’ve changed my arguments or "shifted the ground" then by all means you should.

I've highlighted the relevant part (it says 'man' as 'belonging to the species', not 'man' as in 'male human being'). You're still not reading what I wrote.

Of course the point that you are still not capturing is that the Hebrew phrase “son of man” can refer to “a man,” (a male human being) just as it does in Arabic, etc. and also, “a man,” meaning one belonging to the human species.

For discussion purposes, however, the fact is really rather trivial since you now recognize how problematic your posts on this subject have been.

Indeed, as you’ve now correctly stated, “son of x” refers to one belonging to the category X (you agree that “son of man” can refer to one belonging to the species of man). Therefore, from a purely grammatical perspective, you must now also accept the fact that “sons of god” can refer grammatically to those beings belonging to the category god.

No, 'son of man' means 'human being', 'an individual of the human species', 'a human', as the dictionary helpfully says.

Yes it can. Just as “sons of God” can refer to “an individual of the god species.” This is wonderful!!

Are you now saying that the phrase 'son/s of man' cannot include female human beings? Could you translate Psalm 8:4 for me please?

Of course not. In Hebrew male is the grammatical prior gender. The quote simply illustrates what an author can do if he wishes to refer to women.

Through synonomous parallelism, Psalm 8:4 establishes the Hebrew word ‘enosh meaning “man” or “human being,” as a cognate for “son of man” meaning “man” or “human being.”

Now that you understand the grammar. You're ready to understand the value of Ugaritic and Akkadian sources. You see, since "the sons of god" in the Bible can grammatically mean those belonging to the group of divine beings, i.e. "gods," what evidence do you have to suggest that an ancient audience who encountered this expression would not have thought of the members of the divine council?

You need to ask yourself the question, if the biblical authors did not want their audience to think of deities from the divine council when they used common divine council imagery such as "sons of gods," "host of heaven," and even "heaven and earth," why then would they have used these potent terms? Given the Near Eastern evidence, if they did not want their audience to think of council deities, they sure picked a confusing way to show it.

Surely if they did not want their ancient audience to think of the gods of the divine council when reading these texts, the authors would have avoided these terms.

Moreover, in every description of the beings such as the "sons of god" presented in the Bible, we witness these figures acting in the same way the deities acted in other Near Eastern texts. Talk about confusing an ancient audience!

Finally, if you read the text through the lenses of an ancient Israelite rather than a contemporary Evangelical Christian, what evidence do you have that would negate the grammatical meaning of "sons of god," etc from a purely conceptual perspective?

[_Fortigurn]

Are you now saying that the phrase 'son/s of man' cannot include female human beings? Could you translate Psalm 8:4 for me please?

Of course not. In Hebrew male is the grammatical prior gender. The quote simply illustrates what an author can do if he wishes to refer to women.

Ah, now it's 'can do'? You've changed your argument again. Here's what you said before:

If the author wants to say a female belonging to the species, he will not use son of man. He will use daugher of man/men which is precisely the form that appears in Genesis 6.

So which is it to be? He 'can' use 'son of man', or he 'will not' use 'son of man'?

Now that you understand the grammar. You're ready to understand the value of Ugaritic and Akkadian sources. You see, since "the sons of god" in the Bible can grammatically mean those belonging to the group of divine beings, I.e. "gods," what evidence do you have to suggest that an ancient audience who encountered this expression would not have thought of the members of the divine council?

If you had read my previous posts on this (especially my comments on Reiser), you would have read the answers to these questions. The very fact that you seem to think that an ancient Hebrew audience would not have thought of the divine council when they read these words, shows you've simply been skimming my posts.

You need to ask yourself the question, if the biblical authors did not want their audience to think of deities from the divine council when they used common divine council imagery such as "sons of gods," "host of heaven," and even "heaven and earth," why then would they have used these potent terms? Given the Near Eastern evidence, if they did not want their audience to think of council deities, they sure picked a confusing way to show it.

No they didn't, since the Hebrew theology was very different.

Surely if they did not want their ancient audience to think of the gods of the divine council when reading these texts, the authors would have avoided these terms.

Why? Their theology was different.

Moreover, in every description of the beings such as the "sons of god" presented in the Bible, we witness these figures acting in the same way the deities acted in other Near Eastern texts.

No they don't act in the same way the deities acted in other ANE texts, and that's the point. Not only that, but despite the availability of the word elohim to describe gods, the divine council scenes in passages such as 1 Kings 22 and Isaiah 6 never refer to the members of the divine council as gods, nor elohim.

Finally, if you read the text through the lenses of an ancient Israelite rather than a contemporary Evangelical Christian...

I am not an Evangelical Christian.