Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes indeed - it seems to be par for the course, when things get tough, for certain people to reach for the most obscure, unreliable and out-of-date translations, older references that more light has been shed on, etc. to prove their point.
By the way - I finished your paper on "Deity in LXX Deuteronomy" today. Great work! Enjoyed it immensely.
Thanks. Glad to hear it. I've worked quite a bit of it into my second master's thesis. The only person to really critique it with any degree of thoroughness so far has been Mike Heiser, and we go back and forth on a number of issues related to the nature of deity.
Well, this is rather interesting. It seems like there is OVERWHELMING evidence and support for the idea as to who the "sons of god" were in the early Old Testament.
Well, this is rather interesting. It seems like there is OVERWHELMING evidence and support for the idea as to who the "sons of god" were in the early Old Testament.
That's right, just as Adam was called a son of God.
Jesus, the Jew of the New Testament said: Mat_5:9 "Happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
He called the Jews "gods" or "subjectors" or "placers."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? "
Joh 10:35 If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled),
Luk_20:36 For neither can they still be dying, for they are equal to messengers, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
And Paul, who was a Jew and a strict Pharisee and taught under Gamaliel wrote:
Rom_8:14 For whoever are being led by God's spirit, these are sons of God."
Gal_3:26 for you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus."
That's right, just as Adam was called a son of God.
Jesus, the Jew of the New Testament said: Mat_5:9 "Happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
He called the Jews "gods" or "subjectors" or "placers."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? "
Joh 10:35 If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled),
Luk_20:36 For neither can they still be dying, for they are equal to messengers, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
And Paul, who was a Jew and a strict Pharisee and taught under Gamaliel wrote:
Rom_8:14 For whoever are being led by God's spirit, these are sons of God."
Gal_3:26 for you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus."
I think it was Citizen Cane who earlier mentioned context and different meanings. The NT concept of "sons of god" was something entirely different from what it meant in the early OT. In the NT, a "son of god" could mean, "one anointed to do god's work" OR people who were ADOPTED into the family of god by means of conversion. As for Adam, "son of god" meant one CREATED by god. "Sons of god" in the early OT meant or was understood to mean, LITERAL born sons of the gods. I think you can distinguish all of these, Eusebius.
The Septuagint does not have "El," it has ουιοι θεου ("sons of God") in the earliest manuscripts and αγγελων θεου ("angels of God") in the later manuscripts. θεου could be אלהים ,אלוה, or אל.
That is correct. We conjecture that the Septuagint scribe, when he saw "El/Elohim," he wrote "Theos."
Quote:
Actually Qumran has בני*אלוהים (here). Also, 4QDeut-j is in Hebrew, so it's kinda silly to refer to "the Hebrew mss." as a different collection.
The Q has Elohim. The Hebrew has "Israel." It really isn't that silly, now, is it?
By the way, we wish to THANK YOU VERY MUCH Daniel, for pointing this out about the Qumran text.
We looked into our Qumran text books here at the office and indeed you are correct that it should be "Elohim."
So, because of this whole conversation we are making the correction for upcoming printing. Thanks!
Quote:
Footnotes in study Bibles are not infrequently a waste of time.
That's right, just as Adam was called a son of God.
Jesus, the Jew of the New Testament said: Mat_5:9 "Happy are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
He called the Jews "gods" or "subjectors" or "placers."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? "
Joh 10:35 If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled),
Luk_20:36 For neither can they still be dying, for they are equal to messengers, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."
And Paul, who was a Jew and a strict Pharisee and taught under Gamaliel wrote:
Rom_8:14 For whoever are being led by God's spirit, these are sons of God."
Gal_3:26 for you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus."
I linked you to a paper where I discussed the ideological developments that lead to these positions. Did you read it?
I think it was Citizen Cane who earlier mentioned context and different meanings. The NT concept of "sons of god" was something entirely different from what it meant in the early OT. In the NT, a "son of god" could mean, "one anointed to do god's work" OR people who were ADOPTED into the family of god by means of conversion. As for Adam, "son of god" meant one CREATED by god. "Sons of god" in the early OT meant or was understood to mean, LITERAL born sons of the gods. I think you can distinguish all of these, Eusebius.
That is still a little incomplete.
The sons of Elohim who sang when the earth was being created were not "born sons of God" but were created that way.
Adam was a son of Elohim by creation. (You are correct about that.)
The human sons of God in Plsam 82 were that by their office.
The point is that the Jews 2000 years ago had the concept that humans were sons of God. That's the point.
That is correct. We conjecture that the Septuagint scribe, when he saw "El/Elohim," he wrote "Theos."
No, it's not a conjecture. When we can point to thousands of instances where elohim was rendered theos, and we can account for the few exceptions, it becomes a conclusion, not conjecture. Besides, once 4QDeut-j was discovered, it was confirmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The Q has Elohim. The Hebrew has "Israel." It really isn't that silly, now, is it?
"The Q" is in Hebrew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
By the way, we wish to THANK YOU VERY MUCH Daniel, for pointing this out about the Qumran text.
We looked into our Qumran text books here at the office and indeed you are correct that it should be "Elohim."
So, because of this whole conversation we are making the correction for upcoming printing. Thanks!
I don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Well, they certainly aren't inspired
They're also often manipulative and uninformed (especially if written for a lay Evangelical audience).
The sons of Elohim who sang when the earth was being created were not "born sons of God" but were created that way.
So it's metaphorical? To what evidence can you point that supports this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Adam was a son of Elohim by creation. (You are correct about that.)
The human sons of God in Plsam 82 were that by their office.
No, Psalm 82 absolutely does not refer to humans. The אמרתי . . . אכן construction in vv. 6–7 precludes identifying the subjects of v. 6 as mortals. This is very simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The point is that the Jews 2000 years ago had the concept that humans were sons of God. That's the point.
And I linked you to a paper that showed that this was the case for some Jews 2000 years ago, but not 2100 years ago or earlier. You didn't read the paper, did you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you Daniel!
