Spirituality
01 Dec 05
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFascinating. Given this translation (English Standard?), it certainly does seem that Jehovah has some help. What are the implications to modern monotheism? Could it be argued that this is a case of bad interpretation of the original scripture? Are there any bible passages that might contradict this one?
An interesting article fleshing out the implications of the following quote:
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.
– Ps. 82:1
can be found here: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn the Hebrew the word translated to "gods" in your verse is: eloheem;
An interesting article fleshing out the implications of the following quote:
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.
– Ps. 82:1
can be found here: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm
el-o-heem':
Plural of elo'ah; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Psa 82:1 -
[/b]God standeth in the congregation of the gods[/b] - The Hebrew should be translated, “God standeth in the assembly of God.” God is among his people; and he presides especially in those courts of justice which himself has established. It is a case of: Judges! beware what you do! God is in his court, and in the midst (of the assembly) God will judge.
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseSource for this should be please.
The Hebrew should be translated, “God standeth in the assembly of God.” God is among his people; and he presides especially in those courts of justice which himself has established. It is a case of: Judges! beware what you do! God is in his court, and in the midst (of the assembly) God will judge.
Of course, a glance at the article I cited will show that this verse is one of many that contain evidence for archaic Judaic henotheism.
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by David Cthe commandments state you shall have no other god but me. not sure if he refering to man made gods.
Fascinating. Given this translation (English Standard?), it certainly does seem that Jehovah has some help. What are the implications to modern monotheism? Could it be argued that this is a case of bad interpretation of the original scripture? Are there any bible passages that might contradict this one?
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by stokerThe article covers this point.
the commandments state you shall have no other god but me. not sure if he refering to man made gods.
"Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," does not deny the existence of other deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains that "there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from having anything to do with them."9 The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran.
The ninth century Masoretic text replaces "sons of God" with "sons of Israel," which some modern English versions follow. It does look like the Masoretes changed the text so as to avoid dangerous polytheistic implications. Furthermore, "Son of Israel" makes absolutely no sense in Deut. 32:8. The people of Israel were Yahweh's "portion" while the sons of God "were divine beings or angels to whom God had delegated authority over the nations. Their existence is not denied but rather accommodated to the overall authority of Yahweh to whom they are subservient."10
Were the ancient texts of the WoG edited to fit in better with beliefs prevailing at the time?
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseCould this be a case of creative translation--saying that something should be something else to fit in with the translator's beliefs?
Adam Clarke's Commentry on the Bible.
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.
The question of divine pluralism is addressed in the article:
"A divine pluralism can also be seen in the Hebrew word for deity, 'elohîm, which is a plural form of 'Eloah, which is a form of 'El, the general word for God in the Semitic world. There are some scholars who argue that 'elohîm in reference to Yahweh must be a grammatical plurality only. For them 'elohîm is an abstract plural with a singular meaning. Such a grammatical form would emphasize the majesty of the Almighty. In his study of the "Great Isaiah Scroll" at Qumran, William Brownlee of Claremont has shown the radical extent of the use of this "plural of majesty": even Yahweh's quiver (Is. 49:2) and a single hand are in the plural.14
There is, however, a significant exception, noted long ago by the Hebrew grammarian Gensenius. When 'elohim is referred to pronominally, as in "let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26), then the majestic plural is not applicable.15 Furthermore, the priestly writers use singular verbs for the deity in adjacent passages; hence the use of the plural at 1:26 must be for good reason.16 Canaanite parallels show that the head god uses the first person plural in addressing his divine assembly. It is obvious that this passage reveals a henotheistic situation in which Yahweh is consulting with lesser deities around him."
As a matter of interest, what difference would the fact of archaic Judaic henotheism make to your beliefs?
(The purpose of this thread is not to attack anyone's beliefs. File it under History of Religion, not Theology).
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAs a matter of interest, what difference would the fact of archaic Judaic henotheism make to your beliefs?
Could this be a case of creative translation--saying that something should be something else to fit in with the translator's beliefs?
The question of divine pluralism is addressed in the article:
"A divine pluralism can also be seen in the Hebrew word for deity, 'elohîm, which is a plural form of 'Eloah, which is a form of 'El, the ...[text shortened]... his thread is not to attack anyone's beliefs. File it under History of Religion, not Theology).
Pose a serious theological dilemma.
01 Dec 05
1 edit
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.there is a school of thought that says god the father god the son and god the holy spirit maybe this is the council but god the father holds the judgement and is the one true living god thanks halitose have edit the spelling
– Ps. 82:1
can be found here: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm[/b]