"The Sons of God!" Mere mortals, literal sons or angels? (priests, protestant)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

So you and Daniel just cherry picked the people or commentaries that back up your position. Proves nothing. Spirit beings don't die, are not mortal. Next.

As Daniel pointed out, these are based on the consensus view in Biblical Scholarship. There's no cherrypicking going on there - unless you consider a majority "cherry-picking". He also pointed out that he doesn't have to rely on a commentary for the argument, especially as he actively works on the subject professionally (and if you followed his links, you would probably get a better understanding of the subject - even if you disagree in the end, at least you would be coming from an informed view); I provided a random Study Bible's notes, in contradiction to the several which you carefully picked out, to show that it's pretty par for the course in Biblical studies. One has to actively seek out older or extremely Fundamentalist views to get to the reading you're adhering to.

[dtango]

Originally Posted by whoppers

In another thread, I pointed you to the work of Hermann Gunkel - not as an end to a means, but to show you that he ushered in scholarly investigation into oral traditions that are still continuing today. Do you even keep up with folklore or oral tradition studies? Wait - don't answer that: you don't. Or you would not have said that. To show just one recent example of a scholarly work that surveyed the work of Biblical Scholars to examine oral tradition and folklore (going even beyond Gunkel), see Patricia G. Kirkpatrick's The Old Testament and Folklore Studies (JSOTS 62, 1988). If you want a digital copy, I'll gladly send it your way - but you've got to get rid of that idea of yours that "the scholars...occupy themselves solely with what poets, philosophers and theologians produced in writing", instead of recognizing that these writers "derived their ideas from oral traditions". By your own admission, you don't even bother with keeping up with modern scholarship, so you have no real basis to make your claim. I pointed you in a direction, previously, to see that the oral traditions behind the text ARE important to scholars, but I guess you just missed that - or are wilfully forgetting that fact.

The fact that oral traditions behind the texts is important to scholars is of no importance and of no value as long as the scholars regard oral traditions mostly as popular fiction.
I read the “Conclusions” chapter of the book The Old Testament and Folklore Studies and I thank you very much for your kindness to offer me its digital edition but I have no intention to read it. Here is a part of the authors’ conclusions:

For our understanding of the patriarchal narratives, one of the more significant findings of modern folklore is that oral compositions are rarely preserved unchanged over an extended period of time. Although few in number, those studies which have followed the careers of story-tellers over several decades have demonstrated the considerable change which is involved in each retelling of the stories. This suggests that oral tradition, far from preserving the sources of its past (whether they be entertainment or historical recollection, or both) constantly reinterprets that past in the light of the present.

Indeed one of the hallmarks of tradition is not that it conserves the past but rather that it is constantly evolving in such a way as to incorporate the changes of different historical periods and circumstances.
The written transcription of presumed oral tales will inform us more, therefore, about the period in which those tales were transcribed than about the period in which they were presumed to have been composed.

It is therefore evident that the “assured results” of form criticism concerning oral compositions and transmission can no longer be accepted with reference either to the origins or the antiquity of the patriarchal narratives.

Originally Posted by whoppers

That's a very interesting correlation you offer. But several things:

Originally Posted by whoppers

Genesis 6:3's "spirit" is not comparable to your idea of "pure spirit". You're basing your comparison on a later, Christian idea of what the Hebrew word meant. In addition to that - the verse is not clear as to it's meaning: does it mean that there is a 120 year reprive before the Deluge? Does it now limit the natural lifespan of man to 120 years (a silly idea if one is intending to wipe them all out)? What is the correct way to translate the verb given as "strive" in the translation you picked?

There is no doubt about the God’s intentions (Genesis 6:7 I will destroy the man whom I have created) and as for the “spirit” it has always been the difference between god and non-god whatever the quality or the identity of the god; something that Kirkpatrick failed to realize. The non-god element has to be eliminated be the god material or immaterial.

Originally Posted by whoppers

See my first reply. You're starting to make even more absurd claims, Dtango... Somebody wrote down the stories, or we wouldn't even have the stories.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by whoppers

Do you really think that everyone who wrote down stories that made it into the Hebrew Bible consulted some sort of mono-myth diagram, or had a copy of "The Mono-Myth: Please add your version and pass on" at hand?

By “wrote down” you meant composed and not recorded or transcribed. The stories of the oral tradition were not the work of an author or even many authors, they are historical recollections, as Kirkpatrick wrote –although she actually does not believe it.

Originally Posted by whoppers

You're only putting forth your argument because of your well-known aversion to those who have actually trained in certain fields.

You should have added: and betray for some reason their training.

Originally Posted by whoppers

How about that non-surgeon who saw some videos online, tried his technique out in an operating room and produced a brain-dead patient when he was done?

How about that non-surgeon who saw some videos online and realized that something was wrong with that surgeon who was delivering babies by cesarean incision eight out of ten times?

The scholars resort to lots of excuses in order to maintain the layman’s belief that myths are fairy tales.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by whoppers

As Daniel pointed out, these are based on the consensus view in Biblical Scholarship. There's no cherrypicking going on there - unless you consider a majority "cherry-picking". He also pointed out that he doesn't have to rely on a commentary for the argument, especially as he actively works on the subject professionally (and if you followed his links, you would probably get a better understanding of the subject - even if you disagree in the end, at least you would be coming from an informed view); I provided a random Study Bible's notes, in contradiction to the several which you carefully picked out, to show that it's pretty par for the course in Biblical studies. One has to actively seek out older or extremely Fundamentalist views to get to the reading you're adhering to.

When one relies upon what commentaries state about the Bible and relies on **concensus views** in Biblical scholarship (which, by the way, [concensus views| proves nothing), one may never really know what the truth is. It is not that commentaries are of no value. I do read all manner of commentaries just to see what others have to say on certain passages. But in no way do I consider any of them the final say.

I can quote Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, Kiel & Delitzsch all of whom agree with me and post all their statements on Psalm 82 here and flood the board with their statements. So I am not alone in my position. Does that prove I am correct? No. Does it prove Daniel is incorrect? No. All we can say is that there are many theologians who are very trained with many years of scholarship under their belts, more trained than Daniel, who disagree with him, who they would consider a tiro.

When I stated

Originally Posted by Eusebius
As to spirits dying, no, they do not die. They are not mortal.

Daniel replied in post #125 this:
Jesus died."

So does Daniel believe Jesus was a spirit being when He walked the earth and when He died?

[dtango]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

So does Daniel believe Jesus was a spirit being when He died?

Eusebius, do not ask scholars that question because they always had problems with the meaning of the words “death” and “spirit”.
One passage in the Book of the Dead reads:

Not dying in the West, but becoming a spirit in it.

Raymond Faulkner, a famousEgyptologist and philologist of the ancient Egyptian language, is translating. As you see, people become spirits after death without… dying!!

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

When one relies upon what commentaries state about the Bible and relies on **concensus views** in Biblical scholarship (which, by the way, [concensus views| proves nothing), one may never really know what the truth is. It is not that commentaries are of no value. I do read all manner of commentaries just to see what others have to say on certain passages. But in no way do I consider any of them the final say.

I can quote Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, Kiel & Delitzsch all of whom agree with me and post all their statements on Psalm 82 here and flood the board with their statements. So I am not alone in my position. Does that prove I am correct? No. Does it prove Daniel is incorrect? No. All we can say is that there are many theologians who are very trained with many years of scholarship under their belts, more trained than Daniel, who disagree with him, who they would consider a tiro.

Eusebius, I couldn't agree with you more on most of what you say concerning commentaries. Really. They are just commentaries, as you say, on one side of the coin. Depending on the quality of the commentary, however, they can advance our knowledge of the Biblical text immensely, and some become standard reference works. Not because the commentator's opinions are all "correct", or because he has a direct line to God, or because his opinion is "right" - most of that is subjective and can be excluded from the value that some commentaries offer. Some become standard reference works because they contain much more information than what one expects when one hears the word "commentary" - they are not just someone writing "well, I think this means that, because I have a gut feeling". A good commentary contains much more information than mere comments. It's purpose is to give you a different perspective from your own at times, force you to rethink your preconceptions, hopefully build on previous scholarship, and generally make the text a little more clearer.

They become active participants in how we understand a Biblical text - after all, we need all the help we can get in trying to comprehend a text written for people who lived thousands of years prior to us in a completely different world and mindset. Many Biblical concepts and ideas that were obscure to us in the past become increasingly clearer and less opaque. Likewise, many concepts and ideas that we were once sure about become increasingly more doubtful as we receive more information. Deilitzsch, who you mention above, is well known for being one of the scholars who really exposed the public to the "Bible/Babel controversy" - and this was possible because we have been excavating in the Near East for hundreds of years now, and it has opened up a whole new way of seeing the Biblical world in it's original context. Almost every year, we discover something new that forces us to re-evaluate things we once thought we had a handle on, or things that become more clear when viewed in the new light. Even in terms of how the Biblical text appears to us, many Hebrew words that were once mysterious - even to the Masoretes who tried to establish an "official" Hebrew Text - are now more clear from cognate terms in other Semitic languages that we have just deciphered in the last hundred years or so.

With the knowledge that our information grows steadily over the years, one will realize that one could quote from the older writers you mentioned, but must realize that they lived and wrote prior to many great discoveries that we have been blessed with: the discoveries at Ras Shamra, and the Dead Sea Scrolls - to name two famous examples; and that scholars have already built upon their work to advance scholarship. So quoting Gills in certain areas would accomplish nothing except to show how outdated the scholarship is. That's how the sciences work. One wouldn't quote from a science textbook from the 1700s, knowing full well that the field has advanced quite steadily since then. There may be a few things that are valuable, but if the particular piece of information you're trying to prove by citing that old source is dealt with in a much better way by subsequent scholars - then one would, of course, wish to get the latest and most reliable information.

The point, for many people, is to be able to gain the tools one needs to be able to assess the validity of claims that are made about the Bible, just like in other areas of life. If one has no critical way of determing what a text says, or what a scholar working on the text is saying - then one can never truly know what's going on, and must rely on pure chance to guide their reading of Scipture. Some people are born into a Baptist family. Some are born into a Catholic family. Some families have a Scofield Bible lying around. Some have a Oxford Bible lying around. Some families have the Hebrew Bible lying around. Some have the Christian Bible lying around. Some people have no Bible lying around. Various influences in our life can determine how we view something, and it helps to be able to critically examine something to make sure we aren't viewing it through a murky glass.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

When I stated


Daniel replied in post #125 this:
Jesus died."

So does Daniel believe Jesus was a spirit being when He walked the earth and when He died?

I cannot speak for Daniel on this, but I don't think he was being as specific as your conclusion seems to imply (that he was JUST a "spirit" while on earth in the standard way many Christians view "spirit"). Many people believe that Jesus was God made man, so essentially - he was a "spirit", "divine being", "god" (however you want to label divinity) that did have the ability to die, even if this was through a process of becoming flesh, and then resurrecting eventually.

How was Daniel using the term "spirit"? Was he using it to mean the same thing you're implying? This is similar to the overall concept of how words, concepts and ideas did not necessarily mean the same thing to, say, the author of Genesis and to the author of the Gospel of John. There's a fallacy in thinking that this is so.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

When one relies upon what commentaries state about the Bible and relies on **concensus views** in Biblical scholarship (which, by the way, [concensus views| proves nothing), one may never really know what the truth is.

I am pointing out these are the consensus views to show that Latter-day Saint ideology has nothing to do with it and that there is no cherry-picking going on. I only bring it up to address specific claims you make, not to try to support my exegesis. This is called a strawman when you respond to an argument I did not make.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

It is not that commentaries are of no value. I do read all manner of commentaries just to see what others have to say on certain passages. But in no way do I consider any of them the final say.

I can quote Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, Kiel & Delitzsch all of whom agree with me and post all their statements on Psalm 82 here and flood the board with their statements. So I am not alone in my position. Does that prove I am correct? No. Does it prove Daniel is incorrect? No. All we can say is that there are many theologians who are very trained with many years of scholarship under their belts, more trained than Daniel, who disagree with him, who they would consider a tiro.

Those commentaries are all from the nineteenth century. They rely on inferior methodologies, on inferior texts, and they do not have the benefit of the numerous archaeological discoveries of the twentieth century that have entirely revolutionized biblical scholarship (Ugaritic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi codices, Kuntillet Ajrud, Khirbet el-Qôm, Arad, Dier 'Alla, etc.). Those scholars were well-respected in their day, but that day ended a century ago, and we know those scholars were wrong about things like Psalm 82.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

When I stated

Daniel replied in post #125 this:
Jesus died."

So does Daniel believe Jesus was a spirit being when He walked the earth and when He died?

I am addressing the belief that Jesus was divine (i.e., a god). I have already told you I am not talking about "spirit beings," but about gods. That was the context of this entire discussion, and I assumed you were using "spirit" as a simple synonym. I had no idea you were addressing an entirely different topic. Start paying better attention and addressing the argument I am making.

[Eusebius]

Dear whoppers, thanks for your fine post. It is nice we are posting nicer these days.

However, concerning the agedness of the commentators I referenced and the finding of the Ugaritic texts etc., why would the Ugaritic texts discovered at Ras Shamra give Barnes, Clarke and the others I stated a better understanding concerning Psalm 82 since the knowledge those people of the Ugarit religion had of their "El" were idol worshippers and that not of the one true God? God condemned the idol worshipping practices of the Hebrews as to their Asherah and Baal worship which emanated from the Ugarit religion. Why would king David go to the religion of Ugarit to learn what God was really all about when they of the north knew not the Hebrew God? In 1 Kings 18:19 Elijah had a contest with the prophets of Baal and I imagine the Asherah worshipers from which our thread is woven concerning the Ugarit religion. Who won? Of course you can say the story is all made up. But I can just as easily say, No it wasn't. So don't go there, please. I'm being nice.

Elijah and David and the other prophets spoke through the spirit of Christ. (cf 1 Pet. 1:10,11). Christ nor the prophets had to go to the Ugarit religion to learn of the Ugarit pantheon, God's mother, or their god, El being schizophrenic etc.

Likewise, whatever the Dead Sea Scrolls brought out I hardly see how it impacts our view of Psalm 82 being about the human judges of Israel who were going to die like the rest of their human counterparts rather than die a glorious death.

Some of the evil kings were buried in the tombs of the kings but later were dug up, had their bones burned and ashes cast out. Some of the evil kings died so ingloriously that they weren't even entombed with the righteous of Israel. Read about it in 2 Kings 23 please.

Just some things to thunk on.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Dear whoppers, thanks for your fine post. It is nice we are posting nicer these days.

However, concerning the agedness of the commentators I referenced and the finding of the Ugaritic texts etc., why would the Ugaritic texts discovered at Ras Shamra give Barnes, Clarke and the others I stated a better understanding concerning Psalm 82 since the knowledge those people of the Ugarit religion had of their "El" were idol worshippers and that not of the one true God? God condemned the idol worshipping practices of the Hebrews as to their Asherah and Baal worship which emanated from the Ugarit religion. Why would king David go to the religion of Ugarit to learn what God was really all about when they of the north knew not the Hebrew God?

The Ugaritic texts are full of literary motifs long thought to be unique to the Hebrew Bible. They are centuries older than the Bible, as well, which shows that in many cases the Hebrew Bible is taking these motifs from the wider Canaanite literary world. Examples that are relevant to our discussion include "sons of God," "congregation of El," "Rider of the Clouds," and many others. We know Psalm 29 is a borrowing of a hymn originally written for Baal because of the Ugaritic texts. We know Isaiah's comments about Leviathan are drawn from Canaanite myths in light of the Ugaritic texts. Observe:

Isa 27:1: In that day Yahweh with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Ugaritic texts: When you smite Lotan the fleeing serpent, annihilate the twisting serpent, Shalayat of the seven heads.

Lotan, by the way, is the same as Leviathan, the vowels just developed differently in the different languages (and they are transliterated differently because of transliteration conventions).

Knowing the literary contexts in which these motifs occurred in Ugaritic texts helps us to better understand how they were used in the Hebrew Bible. The Ugaritic texts revolutionized the study of early Israelite cosmology and cosmogony.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

In 1 Kings 18:19 Elijah had a contest with the prophets of Baal and I imagine the Asherah worshipers from which our thread is woven concerning the Ugarit religion.

Actually the omission of Asherah is quite relevant. When Jehu purged Israel he also ignored Asherah. We have discovered Israelite texts from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qôm that praise "Yhwh and his Asherah." When one looks at the condemnation of Asherah in the Hebrew Bible we discover that there was simply no concern whatsoever with her existence and worship prior to the Deuteronomistic history, which dates to the late seventh century. This agrees with findings from Israelite temples and cultic sites from different areas (Arad, Ta'anach, and Megiddo, for instance) that have two standing stones that represent Yhwh and Asherah, respectively. In other words, all Israel worshipped Asherah up until around the seventh century BCE. It simply was not an issue for anyone prior to Josiah.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Who won? Of course you can say the story is all made up. But I can just as easily say, No it wasn't. So don't go there, please. I'm being nice.

The contest was about who was God in Israel. Baal was another storm deity, just like Yhwh (Ps 29 is praise of the storm deity). The reason they clashed is because the country couldn't have two storm deities. This is why Yhwh never has problems with the Canaanite deity El. He was a different class of deity, while Baal was basically a Canaanite counterpart to Yhwh. If people acknowledged him as the storm deity, Yhwh would be neglected. There was not room enough for two storm deities in Israel.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Elijah and David and the other prophets spoke through the spirit of Christ. (cf 1 Pet. 1:10,11). Christ nor the prophets had to go to the Ugarit religion to learn of the Ugarit pantheon, God's mother, or their god, El being schizophrenic etc.

Likewise, whatever the Dead Sea Scrolls brought out I hardly see how it impacts our view of Psalm 82 being about the human judges of Israel who were going to die like the rest of their human counterparts rather than die a glorious death.

The Dead Sea Scrolls interpret Psalm 82 as a reference to gods, not to humans. There is nothing anywhere about kings and the desirability of a "glorious death."

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Some of the evil kings were buried in the tombs of the kings but later were dug up, had their bones burned and ashes cast out. Some of the evil kings died so ingloriously that they weren't even entombed with the righteous of Israel. Read about it in 2 Kings 23 please.

That chapter refers to the desecration of altars. It has nothing to do with "glorious death." The respectful or disrespectful treatment of tombs has nothing whatsoever to do with some imagine desire for kings to die a "glorious death." That's is simply an illegitimate and unfounded interpretation of Psalm 82, and despite several opportunities to show me where such a concept is attested, you have provided nothing.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Just some things to thunk on.

I'm curious why you think you're not required to think on anything. You're obviously the one who knows the least about the context of this psalm and the composition of the Hebrew Bible in general. Why do you feel you still have things to teach everyone else, while having nothing that you yourself could learn?

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Eusebius, can you kindly see my questions in post #150 and address them please.

Thanks.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Dear whoppers, thanks for your fine post. It is nice we are posting nicer these days.

However, concerning the agedness of the commentators I referenced and the finding of the Ugaritic texts etc., why would the Ugaritic texts discovered at Ras Shamra give Barnes, Clarke and the others I stated a better understanding concerning Psalm 82 since the knowledge those people of the Ugarit religion had of their "El" were idol worshippers and that not of the one true God? God condemned the idol worshipping practices of the Hebrews as to their Asherah and Baal worship which emanated from the Ugarit religion. Why would king David go to the religion of Ugarit to learn what God was really all about when they of the north knew not the Hebrew God? In 1 Kings 18:19 Elijah had a contest with the prophets of Baal and I imagine the Asherah worshipers from which our thread is woven concerning the Ugarit religion. Who won? Of course you can say the story is all made up. But I can just as easily say, No it wasn't. So don't go there, please. I'm being nice.

Elijah and David and the other prophets spoke through the spirit of Christ. (cf 1 Pet. 1:10,11). Christ nor the prophets had to go to the Ugarit religion to learn of the Ugarit pantheon, God's mother, or their god, El being schizophrenic etc.

Likewise, whatever the Dead Sea Scrolls brought out I hardly see how it impacts our view of Psalm 82 being about the human judges of Israel who were going to die like the rest of their human counterparts rather than die a glorious death.

Some of the evil kings were buried in the tombs of the kings but later were dug up, had their bones burned and ashes cast out. Some of the evil kings died so ingloriously that they weren't even entombed with the righteous of Israel. Read about it in 2 Kings 23 please.

Just some things to thunk on.

Eusebius, I think you are letting your beliefs cloud your ability to see the bigger picture (wider religious history). I once had the same problem. You start in the future and then read backwards into history instead of going from the past into the future. You start with the premise that the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, working with the idea that the writers were under the hypnotic spell of a holy spirit to write ONLY truth and ANYTHING outside of that small scope contained in 66 books must be viewed with suspicion, scoffed at, concluded as satanic and so on. For this reason, your view on this subject will be severely limited in my humble opinion.