Phlox Pyros

Obviously not. What hurts my feelings is that you distort the views of scholars, using bits and pieces of them to support your views and then backpeddle when you realize you were wrong and their views actually go against yours. What hurts my feelings is that there are people who can't admit when they are wrong and continue to pester the living daylights out of honest people. That's what hurts my feelings. But don't worry, I'll stick around in spite of you. LOL

Loomis

But that never happened. I was never wrong, and I never backpedaled. I never ‘realized’ anything.

I know a little bit about this subject. I read my links before I post them. I’m very familiar with Heiser and Tabor, and I included them to cater to you - because I know they are Believers.

As this thread stands now, you have only made two relevant posts.

This reply has no merit because you are just repeating the tradition interpretation, and aren’t offering anything new to counter the new allegations.

This would have merit if you could show that it was what the original author wrote. But like I said before, it appears to be a gloss. ’Yahweh’ is not in the LXX, Peshita, or Genesis Apocraphon.

Would you like to address these issues. Or are you still going to run away?

Loomis

And like I said before …

If you think Heiser's papers can refute my arguments - or support yours, then paste something here so we can look.

Loomis

YHWH is a gloss. It’s not in the LXX, Peshita, Genesis Apocraphon, or Rashi’s copy of the MT. There is no evidence against my position.
Get a clue; the issue is if the word YHWH was in the translator’s face when he translated it. If it were, then he would have translated it as "kurios." But he didn’t. And that’s because it wasn’t there.
What are you even talking about?

I never said anything at all about 18th century Wellhausian or a JEPD theory. :banghead:

Go back and look.

This whole thing got started because you offered Genesis 14:22 to support your claim that Yahweh was Elyon. But it does not support it at all. It discredits it.

Phlox, if you are open, and not just attempting to intentionally confuse people, then perhaps you'll change your mind given the overwhelming evidence against your position.

Perhaps some day you will be <edit> well informed like me. :wave:

Phlox Pyros

Perhaps one day you'll stop intentionally trying to confuse people.

Phlox Pyros

Complaints about moderator action belong in the IIDB Questions, Problems & Complaints forum.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Jedi Mind Trick

FYI…

Michael Heiser is the guy who believes that Yahweh had a ‘divine council’ of beings greater than the angels but less than gods. The number of the council was around 70 beings the head of which is a being called Lucifer.

Heiser also believes that the UFO / Alien abduction phenomena is evidence of the return of the ‘sons of god’ and a sign of the impending return of Jesus Christ.

You can see for yourself here:
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

Loomis

I encourage everyone to look at the facts.

This whole thing got started because you offered Genesis 14:22 to support your claim that Yahweh was Elyon. But it does not support it at all. In fact it discredits it.

It discredits it because it raises two difficult questions:

1) Why isn’t YHWH in the earliest copies of Genesis 14:22?

2) If the earlier text was sufficient, then why was YHWH added?

Phlox, if you are open – in this case open to new information about Genesis 14:22, and not just attempting to intentionally confuse people (with weird comments about 18th century Wellhausian and a JEPD theory), then perhaps you'll change your mind given the overwhelming evidence against your position.