Bokovoy on the warpath again

[_dartagnan]

Oh my Heavens!! I never said that “son of God” always refers to a divine being in all Semitic languages.

Here we go with the typical Bokovoy two-step. You pursue a line of reasoning with rage until shown how fallacious it is, then you withdraw with the usual emotional denial that this was never your argument.

If it were truly your argument that the context of the Bible proves “sons of God” always refers to divine beings, then the evidence from Ugarit would have changed nothing in the minds of scholars, and your entire presentation of ANE evidence would be superfluous. But you have made it perfectly clear that you think this evidence does serve a purpose in changing the way scholars read the biblical text.

“The discovery of these Near Eastern accounts have effected the way the Bible is now translated by contemporary scholars.”

“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”).”

“…the expression ‘son of X’ does mean ‘X.’”

“The only time I declared that ‘son of X’ always means something is in the specific case of ‘sons of God,’”

“’sons of God’ refers to those who are of the species of the gods.”

Trying to get you to commit to something is like stapling jello to a glass window, but I think it can be reasonably demonstrated from your last comment above, that you did assert that sons of God always refers to gods. I mean how else would one interpret your statement: “…the expression ‘son of X’ does mean ‘X.’”

In reality, I was the one who said “context” should make this determination in the Torah. You have persistently relied on a blind acceptance of ANE extra-biblical material as interpreted and applied by various Liberal scholars. Your arguments eventually amount to nothing more than window dressing for your audience, using a wide variety of citations from the category of scholarship you haven't arbitrarily thrown to the dustbin.

I said that context suggests that it always refers to gods in the Hebrew Bible (as I've illustrated, this is the mainstream view). I've also said that the expression always can refer to a divine being in every Semitic language (and it can grammatically)!! Of course sometimes it’s used quite literally, meaning the literal son of God, or even the literal sons of the gods.

But you have never said the phrase could mean anything other than divine beings in Semitic languages. I just proved that it can and now you want to pretend you have been agreeing with this all along. Amazing.

Why in the word do you believe that Ugaritic kings were “distinctly human”!

Because they were born human. Do you really believe they were gods? In Egypt the kings were called the sons of Re. So on the basis of Semitic usage, “the ‘sons of god’ or the ‘sons of gods,’ very likely refers to dynastic rulers in Genesis 6.” “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-4,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, XIII, winter 1970, pp. 47-48. See also Meredith G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,” Westminster Theological Journal, XXIV, Nov. 1961-May 1962. Also, that humanity was punished as a result of the lust of these “sons of God,” strongly suggests that the culprits were also members of humanity. Why would God punish all of humanity for something divine beings decided to do?

Anyway, the idea that the kings must have been truly deified simply because they were called sons of God, presupposes that the phrase could only have referred to divinities. It is a circular argument that begs the question, but there is no doubt these kings were actually human who were at best, only presumed to be divine by the naïve. They were born human and ruled as humans and made divine claims of themselves as most arrogant ANE rulers did. But King Kret was “distinctly human” because he was diseased and died; hardly the attribute of a God. That people treated kings like gods is no surprise, but the fact remains that were called sons of Gods, which means sons of Gods in the ANE didn’t always have to refer to divine beings from heaven. They could refer also to human rulers. You have never once even mentioned this possibility. In the several long-winded diatribes, you beat about the bush on this fact and never admit it. Now when I present the ANE evidence you assumed I didn’t already know, you want to play along as if you never disagreed with it.

Typical, but expected. You’re the guy who thinks he is here to “teach”, not to listen or learn. You represent the epitome of arrogance that exists on debate forums like these. Everyone who disagrees with you is “wrong” they are "not very teachable” and need your constant “correction.” But I have made you look foolish enough to know the difference between true scholarship and an immature aspiration for greatness by a giddy kid, a scholar wannabe, who is simply riding on the coat tails of reputable Liberal scholars.

Of course we (mainstream Biblicists) are mind reading! But our efforts are based upon grammatical and contextual (both internal and external) evidences. What evidence do you have to suggest that these phrases should be interpreted through the lenses of a late radical monotheist?

You presuppose the Bible was rewritten by a “late radical monotheist” when in fact that is a hotly disputed notion in scholarship. You’re so blinded by your own presuppositions, (which you merely accept blindly from the “good scholars” who aren’t Evangelical) that you cannot even bring yourself to admit they are just assumptions, and not definitive.

I have little respect for evangelical Biblicists who ignore the grammatical and contextual evidence amassed in recent decades in an effort to read their “post biblical” theology into the text.

And they probably have even less respect for Mormons who try to uses scholarship to forward crappy and hopeless apologetics. I wonder how many in your field know of your true agenda. Your slams against Evangelical scholarship will eventually come back to bite you in the butt, I promise you. You don’t sound like a well-reasoned scholar in these rants. You sound like a bitter and arrogant fool who thinks that just because he rubs elbows with the leftist of liberals in academia, that he has the license to speak authoritatively as a corrector of an entire field of scholarship that has been arbitrarily held in contempt. You’re still just a kid, and a pompous one at that.

Brandeis is well known for passing out Ph.D’s in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near to anyone who can walk through the door which is why the school’s put out a virtual who’s who in the field of biblical studies. You know, this was a real lame thing to say!

Brandeis has a reputation that’s for sure. And it has become a joke in more ways than one. One of its experts on Islamic studies has just come out and declared to the world that there is no evidence Osama bin Ladin was guilty of 9-11. This is the kind of reasoning skills it is becoming known for promoting. Liberalism and radicalism is being striven for with blind and reckless abandon.

I never claimed to be an expert in the Romance languages. I claimed that I had reading abilities in three of them (which I do). So feel free to mock my missionary knowledge all you want!

You asked for it, and yes, you tried to present yourself as an authority; as one who was qualified to dismiss the argument. You clearly are not, and the fact that you cannot translate two basic sentences gives us some idea how you are willing to fudge and exaggerate your knowledge level just for the sake of appearing knowledgeable. You’re a pompous youth who is blind to the fact that you will be held accountable for your words.

Oh, Kevin, I’m not going to play your silly little competitive games that are totally irrelevant to this thread. Yes. You live in Brazil. Yes, you have a Brazilian wife. Yes, I have no doubt that your Portuguese is better than mine. Congratulations!

I also teach English at what is perhaps the finest University in South America. You knew of my Portuguese background, so you knew what you were getting into when you decided to make such a ridiculous claim. That’s why I didn’t have much pity for you. You deserved it.

[_Fortigurn]

Oh my Heavens!! I never said that “son of God” always refers to a divine being in all Semitic languages.

Here we go with the typical Bokovoy two-step. You pursue a line of reasoning with rage until shown how fallacious it is, then you withdraw with the usual emotional denial that this was never your argument.

If it were truly your argument that the context of the Bible proves “sons of God” always refers to divine beings, then the evidence from Ugarit would have changed nothing in the minds of scholars, and your entire presentation of ANE evidence would be superfluous. But you have made it perfectly clear that you think this evidence does serve a purpose in changing the way scholars read the biblical text.

“The discovery of these Near Eastern accounts have effected the way the Bible is now translated by contemporary scholars.”

“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”).”

“…the expression ‘son of X’ does mean ‘X.’”

“The only time I declared that ‘son of X’ always means something is in the specific case of ‘sons of God,’”

“’sons of God’ refers to those who are of the species of the gods.”

Trying to get you to commit to something is like stapling jello to a glass window, but I think it can be reasonably demonstrated from your last comment above, that you did assert that sons of God always refers to gods. I mean how else would one interpret your statement: “…the expression ‘son of X’ does mean ‘X.’”

And note that in his last post the story changed yet again:

In all Semitic languages from the first to the last, it can refer to A MEMBER OF A GROUP, CLASS, OR GUILD. Even Forti now acknowledges that the biblical phrase “sons of God” can grammatically mean the members of the category “gods.”

Now it's not 'always means' (the first story), it's not 'does mean' (another story), it's not 'often means' (yet another different story), it has been diluted down to 'can refer to'. I've been glad to see this gradual backing down from the original dogmatic generalizations to a more realistic position (indeed, the position I've been holding all along).

In reality, I was the one who said “context” should make this determination in the Torah.

Yes, and I said that context should determine whether it's being used idiomatically or not, and Benjamin McGuire strangely objected to that idea.

But you have never said the phrase could mean anything other than divine beings in Semitic languages. I just proved that it can and now you want to pretend you have been agreeing with this all along. Amazing.

Mirabile visu! Mirabile dictu! Don't worry, you're not the only one who noticed this.

Why in the word do you believe that Ugaritic kings were “distinctly human”!

Because they were born human. Do you really believe they were gods? In Egypt the kings were called the sons of Re. So on the basis of Semitic usage, “the ‘sons of god’ or the ‘sons of gods,’ very likely refers to dynastic rulers in Genesis 6.” “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-4,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, XIII, winter 1970, pp. 47-48. See also Meredith G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,” Westminster Theological Journal, XXIV, Nov. 1961-May 1962. Also, that humanity was punished as a result of the lust of these “sons of God,” strongly suggests that the culprits were also members of humanity. Why would God punish all of humanity for something divine beings decided to do?[/quote]

Good points. That a ruler was deified did not always mean that he was viewed by the people as a god. He could take on a divine role as the respresentative of a god, without being himself viewed as a divine being (many modern scholars seem to think that ANE people were silly grunting savages just down from the trees, who couldn't tell between a mortal and a god, or who really thought that a guy they decided one day to refer to as divine actually was a divine being).

Anyway, the idea that the kings must have been truly deified simply because they were called sons of God, presupposes that the phrase could only have referred to divinities. It is a circular argument that begs the question, but there is no doubt these kings were actually human who were at best, only presumed to be divine by the naïve. They were born human and ruled as humans and made divine claims of themselves as most arrogant ANE rulers did. But King Kret was “distinctly human” because he was diseased and died; hardly the attribute of a God. That people treated kings like gods is no surprise, but the fact remains that were called sons of Gods, which means sons of Gods in the ANE didn’t always have to refer to divine beings from heaven. They could refer also to human rulers. You have never once even mentioned this possibility. In the several long-winded diatribes, you beat about the bush on this fact and never admit it. Now when I present the ANE evidence you assumed I didn’t already know, you want to play along as if you never disagreed with it.

Excellent points. Did you note the other circular argument, regarding Psalm 82? Apparently the phrase 'you will die like men' means that they aren't men, because if they were men they would be able to die anyway, so this would not be a real threat. But when pressed with the difficulty of explaining how they can die if they are gods, the response comes back 'Gods can die!'.

Well that's an unfortunate problem, because the previous argument was based on the idea that the phrase 'you will die like men' means that they do not die like men. And yet the very next argument is that they already die like men. Confusion abounds when ad hoc apologetics are the order of the day.

You presuppose the Bible was rewritten by a “late radical monotheist” when in fact that is a hotly disputed notion in scholarship. You’re so blinded by your own presuppositions, (which you merely accept blindly from the “good scholars” who aren’t Evangelical) that you cannot even bring yourself to admit they are just assumptions, and not definitive.

Exactly.

[_Fortigurn]

And they probably have even less respect for Mormons who try to uses scholarship to forward crappy and hopeless apologetics. I wonder how many in your field know of your true agenda. Your slams against Evangelical scholarship will eventually come back to bite you in the butt, I promise you. You don’t sound like a well-reasoned scholar in these rants. You sound like a bitter and arrogant fool who thinks that just because he rubs elbows with the leftist of liberals in academia, that he has the license to speak authoritatively as a corrector of an entire field of scholarship that has been arbitrarily held in contempt. You’re still just a kid, and a pompous one at that.

I do think this was pitched too strongly.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Forti:

Just so we’re clear on what took place. When I provided a few examples of biblical scholars who translate the Hebrew phrase “sons of God” as “gods,” you responded:

In Hebrew, the phrase 'son of X' refers to a class which is characterized by a quality of X. It is not equivalent to X.

Thus:

* 'son of Belial' does not mean 'Belial'

* 'son of my right hand' does not mean 'my right hand'

* 'son of man' does not mean 'man'

* 'son of perdition' does not mean 'perdition'

* 'son of peace' does not mean 'peace'

* 'son of righteousness' does not mean 'righteousness'

* 'son of the morning' does not mean 'the morning'

* 'sons of might' does not mean 'might'

* 'son of Abraham' does not mean 'Abraham'

• 'son/s of God' does not mean 'god/s'

My response to this post that Kevin stripped quoted, namely “…the expression ‘son of X’ does mean ‘X,’” has now been proven correct.

Of course I did not qualify the comment with the term “always” because as demonstrated throughout the thread, I’m quite aware that “son of Abraham” can refer to a literal “son of Abraham.” But I still stand by the correct statement that, as demonstrated, in all Semitic languages the expression “son of X” does means X!

For me, the only positive thing that has come out of this thread has been the fact that since you acknowledge that “'son of man' means 'human being', 'an individual of the human species', 'a human', as the dictionary helpfully says,” you must also acknowledge that Sons of God can grammatically refer to “gods, individuals of the species god.”

You see. You’re trapped!

Mirabile visu! Mirabile dictu! Don't worry, you're not the only one who noticed this.

Kevin’ s comment “But you have never said the phrase could mean anything other than divine beings in Semitic languages. I just proved that it can and now you want to pretend you have been agreeing with this all along.” is demonstratably not true for two reasons.

First, Kevin did not demonstrate that “son of Gods” can refer to anything other than a divine being because Ugaritic kings were gods, hence the appropriate designation “son of God,” or “god” applied to the divine king.

Moreover, several pages ago prior to Kevin’s mishandling of the Ugaritic evidence, I made the following comment which demonstrates that from the beginning I have acknowledged that “son of God” can carry other meanings:

Said I:

"However, whether “son” in Genesis is taken literally to mean “Sons of Elohim” in a manner comparable to the tablets of Ugarit which refer to the gods as the literal offspring of El, or rather Genesis 6 refers to “son” as a member of the group of gods, either way, the mainstream position holds that “there can be no doubt that in this fragment of a mythical narrative the author of the original oral or written tradition was thinking of gods.” H. Haag, “ben,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 152, 157.

Of course the English expression "no doubt" carries a pretty strong implication.

I suspect, since the fragment derives the J source, that the text simply uses the term son to denote the gods and not the literal divine sons of El/Elohim."

Because they were born human. Do you really believe they were gods?

Of course they were humans. However, even in the Bible, humans appear as theomorphic beings. I explain this in great detail in the forthcoming response to Michael Heiser.

Good points. That a ruler was deified did not always mean that he was viewed by the people as a god. He could take on a divine role as the representative of a god, without being himself viewed as a divine being (many modern scholars seem to think that ANE people were silly grunting savages just down from the trees, who couldn't tell between a mortal and a god, or who really thought that a guy they decided one day to refer to as divine actually was a divine being)

Simply because the Ugaritic king does not fit your perception of what it means to be a god, doesn’t meant that the king did not fit the Canaanite perspective of what it meant to be a god. The mere fact that the king was a mortal man did not mean that he wasn’t in their mindset a god. The great Baal himself died in Ugaritic mythology.

Excellent points. Did you note the other circular argument, regarding Psalm 82? Apparently the phrase 'you will die like men' means that they aren't men, because if they were men they would be able to die anyway, so this would not be a real threat. But when pressed with the difficulty of explaining how they can die if they are gods, the response comes back 'Gods can die!'.

Well that's an unfortunate problem, because the previous argument was based on the idea that the phrase 'you will die like men' means that they do not die like men. And yet the very next argument is that they already die like men. Confusion abounds when ad hoc apologetics are the order of the day.

If they are such circular arguments and you can present a compelling case to alter the mainstream view regarding Psalm 82, why don’t you write up an article. It really needs to be done, because even the very conservative evangelically driven Word Biblical Commentary states:

“Over the past fifty years, several studies have grounded Psalm 82 firmly in the tradition of accounts of the meetings of the divine council or assembly of the gods… the best source for clues as to the literary nature of the psalm is in the reports of such assemblies, especially in I Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Zech 1:7-17; 3:1-5; Isa 6:1-13; 40:1-8)” Marvin E. Tate, Word Biblical Commentary: Psalms 51-100 (Word Biblical: Nashville, 1990): 332.

Of course I’ve presented evidence in this thread that Tate is correct that texts such as 1 Kings 22 and Isaiah 6 present stories involving the divine council of the gods, but you have rejected the analysis. Note that Marvin Tate is a Professor of Old Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

So if you honestly feel that you have gained some grounds in this thread, then you really do need to write it up and send it to the Journal of Biblical Literature because very few scholars agree with your superimposed reading of the text.

I wish you good luck and can assure you that as a mainstream scholar who attempts to read the Bible through ancient lenses rather than the lenses of my own theology, if you present a compelling case, I will change my positions.

[_Fortigurn]

My response to this post that Kevin stripped quoted, namely “…the expression ‘son of X’ does mean ‘X,’” has now been proven correct.

Of course I did not qualify the comment with the term “always” because as demonstrated throughout the thread, I’m quite aware that “son of Abraham” can refer to a literal “son of Abraham.” But I still stand by the correct statement that, as demonstrated, in all Semitic languages the expression “son of X” does means X!

No it doesn't mean 'X'. At most it means 'belonging to a group, class or guild of X'. And I want to note once more your changing story. First you said it 'always means' (the first story), then it 'does mean' (another story), then it 'often means' (yet another different story), and now it has been diluted down to 'can refer to'. I've been glad to see this gradual backing down from the original dogmatic generalizations to a more realistic position (indeed, the position I've been holding all along).

For me, the only positive thing that has come out of this thread has been the fact that since you acknowledge that “'son of man' means 'human being', 'an individual of the human species', 'a human', as the dictionary helpfully says,” you must also acknowledge that Sons of God can grammatically refer to “gods, individuals of the species god.”

I have never denied that it can mean this. I have been arguing that it does not mean this in the Old Testament. Please go back and read what I wrote

First, Kevin did not demonstrate that “son of Gods” can refer to anything other than a divine being because Ugaritic kings were gods, hence the appropriate designation “son of God,” or “god” applied to the divine king.

He already dealt with this.

Moreover, several pages ago prior to Kevin’s mishandling of the Ugaritic evidence, I made the following comment which demonstrates that from the beginning I have acknowledged that “son of God” can carry other meanings:

Said I:

"However, whether “son” in Genesis is taken literally to mean “Sons of Elohim” in a manner comparable to the tablets of Ugarit which refer to the gods as the literal offspring of El, or rather Genesis 6 refers to “son” as a member of the group of gods, either way, the mainstream position holds that “there can be no doubt that in this fragment of a mythical narrative the author of the original oral or written tradition was thinking of gods.” H. Haag, “ben,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 152, 157.

Of course the English expression "no doubt" carries a pretty strong implication.

Yes, I noted this. I already identified your appeal to authority. But I would like to see the entire quote. As it reads, this only refers to 'the original oral or written tradition', not to the actual text of Genesis 6.

Of course they were humans. However, even in the Bible, humans appear as theomorphic beings.

No, they appear as representatives of the divine being.

Simply because the Ugaritic king does not fit your perception of what it means to be a god...

That is not what this is about.

If they are such circular arguments and you can present a compelling case to alter the mainstream view regarding Psalm 82, why don’t you write up an article. It really needs to be done, because even the very conservative evangelically driven Word Biblical Commentary states:

I'm well aware of that. I've read plenty of commentaries, and I have the WBC. But they don't address some of the simple arguments, like the one I just raised. And of course, burdened with the doctrine of the trinity, many commentators are unable to make any headway with Jesus' interpretation of Psalm 82 in John 10 (I stopped Benjamin McGuire in his tracks with that single argument). Nor is it explained why the Psalm makes these 'gods' sound exactly like unjust human judges who are being reproved for not giving right judgment. It's just a mess.

It's amazing that a fifteen page article on Psalm 82 can miss something so basic, and end up with the circular reasoning I've just described. It's like the traditional JDEP theory, which just won't drop dead. You can prove anything with it, which is why there are a hundred different models differing from each other. I could write one myself. It's really easy. I once wrote a source criticism of the Code of Hammurabi, proving that it was written by Persians. The evidence is indisputable, and I was even able to appeal to archaeological findings. I posted it on the Ebla Forum, and much to my delight it was taken so seriously that I had to inform a moderator that it was complete nonsense which I had made up (even down to the academic references and quotations, which sounded so 'official' and so 'correct' that no one challenged them).

I once started a source criticism article on the Old Testament, proving that large parts of it were written by a left handed Benjamite man. How do I know he was a eft handed man? Because all the passages he wrote mentioned left handed men! How do I know he was a Benjamite? Because all the passages he wrote spoke of Benjamites! I also discovered that he had one arm longer than the other, wore his hair in a bun, spoke seven languages, and had a pet rooster. It's amazing what you can do with this method of source criticism. Unfortunately I was laughing too hard to finish it.

I note with all this you were unable to address my exposure of the circular argument that the phrase 'you will die like men' means that they aren't men, because if they were men they would be able to die anyway, so this would not be a real threat, but that even though they are gods they do die like men anyway, which means this isn't a real threat, according to the first argument. It's total confusion. Do people get other people to read their arguments through for logic? There's no point in being the world's foremost authority on Ugarit and Hebrew, if someone can't even string together a coherent syllogism.

Of course I’ve presented evidence in this thread that Tate is correct that texts such as 1 Kings 22 and Isaiah 6 present stories involving the divine council of the gods, but you have rejected the analysis. Note that Marvin Tate is a Professor of Old Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Yes, you've presented that evidence (such as it was), and I've responded to it. Appeals to Tate's academic credentials are irrelevant I'm afraid. Would you take his word that the trinity is correct, on the basis of his qualifications? Thought not.

So if you honestly feel that you have gained some grounds in this thread, then you really do need to write it up and send it to the Journal of Biblical Literature because very few scholars agree with your superimposed reading of the text.

It's not a 'superimposed reading of the text'. As you have had to acknowledge, the earliest Jewish commentaries and translations interpret the text the way I do, and so did Christ.

I wish you good luck and can assure you that as a mainstream scholar who attempts to read the Bible through ancient lenses rather than the lenses of my own theology...

But that's not what you are, you're a Mormon apologist. You're attempt to read Mormon polytheism into the Bible everywhere you think you can get away with. There's no way you can change your mind, because it removes an important prop for your religion, and would incur the wrath of other LDS apologists. It would also strike at the heart of the LDS argument that the religion described in the Old Testament was an apostasy from the original true religion, ineptly covered up by the later scribes who were 'extreme monotheists'.

[_dartagnan]

First, Kevin did not demonstrate that “son of Gods” can refer to anything other than a divine being because Ugaritic kings were gods, hence the appropriate designation “son of God,” or “god” applied to the divine king.

This is such an utterly brainless response that pretty much summarizes what kind of “scholarship” we’re dealing with here.

First Bokovoy denies that he ever said that “sons of God” always refers to divine beings; I demonstrated that he has said precisely that. I demonstrate that according to ANE evidence this phrase referred to human kings, and Bokovoy’s only way out of this corner is to insult the intelligence of the masses by declaring an absurdity: these human kings were really Gods!!

Moreover, several pages ago prior to Kevin’s mishandling of the Ugaritic evidence, I made the following comment which demonstrates that from the beginning I have acknowledged that “son of God” can carry other meanings:

Emphasis mine. It is the little unsubstantiated cheap shots you constantly throw in that invokes my harshness David, but you’re too busy claiming to have fallen victim to “the dark side” to even think of taking responsibility or blame for any of it. You have never once shown how I have “mishandled” the Ugaritic evidence. Not once. You’re just upset every time I inform you of something you should have already learned in your Ph.D program. If you did learn it, then you are being disingenuous by neglecting to share it.

Said I:

But you have never agreed that sons of Gods could refer to humans and this citation from TDOT hardly says otherwise. The citation says it could be understood a couple of different ways, sure. But neither involved humanity; the result was still the same: always gods! Remember, you said you never said it “always” referred to divine beings. Here you are stepping all over your feet again as you try to dance through your own sophistry. Here are the two ways in which it said it could be understood:

1. whether “son” in Genesis is taken literally to mean “Sons of Elohim” in a manner comparable to the tablets of Ugarit which refer to the gods as the literal offspring of El

2. or rather Genesis 6 refers to “son” as a member of the group of gods, either way, the mainstream position holds that “there can be no doubt that in this fragment of a mythical narrative the author of the original oral or written tradition was thinking of gods.” H. Haag, “ben,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 152, 157.

Hello? You try to trick us into thinking that you always maintained that the phrase could refer to humans, but you never acknowledged this. Notonce. In fact, the whole point of your argument with Fortigurn is that the sons of God couldn’t be referring to humans because in “Semitic languages” it “always” refers to “gods.”

This proposition has been thoroughly refuted on this thread and now you’re torn apart, trying to disagree with it while at the same time pretending you agreed with it all along. This is why you are great as a spokesperson for a choir, but absolutely suck as an apologist. You can’t seem to keep up with what you have said and you’re always tripping over yourself.

Of course they were humans.

Of course! But you have never acknowledged this until I threw the scholarship in your face. Now you’re acting like you always accepted it when in fact your entire argument rested on the assumption that it always refers to gods. If gods are humans and humans are gods, then what’s the point in this debate? Fortigurn said the phrase referred to human “rulers” from the start but you didn’t accept it. When he presented the BDB definition, you never said, “But of course it can refer to human rulers.” No. Instead you dismissed the BDB as outdated and said: “you simply cannot rely upon the BDB as an up to date resource. Especially for issues concerning the word elohim and the expression "sons of God.”

So when the BDB says it can refer to human rulers, it cannot be relied upon. Now all of the sudden what the BDB said is just fine and dandy for you because now you say it can refer to human rulers.

However, even in the Bible, humans appear as theomorphic beings. I explain this in great detail in the forthcoming response to Michael Heiser.

Ah, more mysterious pseudo-scholarship, conveniently absent to save you from yourself?

Simply because the Ugaritic king does not fit your perception of what it means to be a god

It isn’t my perception. A god in the Torah was a being who lived eternally. I had an interesting email exchange with Mark Smith, who is one of the leading authorities on the ANE, and he argued this precise point. The elohim who die could not have been real deities because death is an unacceptable condition for immortality. Bill Hamblin tried to wiggle around this by presupposing the entire Psalm was alluding to a preexistence gathering , something akin to the LDS paradigm, where humans were divine before coming down to earth as mortals. But of course this is reading one’s theology into the text illicitly, which is precisely why you dismiss Evangelical scholarship.

I can assure you that as a mainstream scholar who attempts to read the Bible through ancient lenses rather than the lenses of my own theology, if you present a compelling case, I will change my positions.

David, that was good for a laugh. You have been hell bent on proving Mormon themes for years, while hypocritically attacking Evangelical experts for trying to make scholarship bend to their theology. You read everything through the testimony lens you wear constantly, and you clearly feel some sense of duty when it comes to using your apologetic imagination to fabricate “evidences” for your own theology. This is a serious case of projection if I ever saw one.

[_Fortigurn]

It isn’t my perception. A god in the Torah was a being who lived eternally. I had an interesting email exchange with Mark Smith, who is one of the leading authorities on the ANE, and he argued this precise point. The elohim who die could not have been real deities because death is an unacceptable condition for immortality.

I raised this point more than once in this thread, and watched with interest as both Enuma Elish and Benjamin McGuire ignored it. It's a devastating blow to the 'gods' theory of Psalm 82, and I've been interested to see it overlooked or ignored time and time again in many articles on the subject.

[_Gazelam]

I was taught that Psalm 82 was directed to the judges in Israel, the term God being applied to one who sits in authority over others (Psalm 82:1, 6). That being said they were also referenced to all of them being children of God (6).

The real Doctrine for Godhood from a Biblical perspective would be found in John 17:19-23. It describes both how Christ is one with the Father, and how we can be one with the Father, in essence, Gods.

[_Fortigurn]

I was taught that Psalm 82 was directed to the judges in Israel, the term God being applied to one who sits in authority over others (Psalm 82:1, 6). That being said they were also referenced to all of them being children of God (6).

That's interesting. Of course it wouldn't be the first time that Mormons were taught different ideas.

The real Doctrine for Godhood from a Biblical perspective would be found in John 17:19-23. It describes both how Christ is one with the Father, and how we can be one with the Father, in essence, Gods.

Where does it say that becoming one with the Father there means 'in essence, Gods'?

[_Gazelam]

Well if your one with God, then how will you be spending your time?

How does God spend his time? What does he do? Are we to think that if we are spending time with God we simply dance and sing songs and play harps? What purpose would that serve?

"This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses 1:39

If we are one with Christ, and He is one with the Father, then we will aquire the same culture and attitudes and trains of thoughts that they have, and will be doing the same work. that's the point of all of this. To be sure there wil be those who fall short, that is why there are "many mansions". But the ultimate goal, to be one, is to become all that our Father is.