Loomis

Then that means you think there are two Els and two “Most High”s in the Bible.

Right?

Just be honest. :frown:

dzim77

5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

it's right there in the bold text, dude. the key is to read the context.


Sure, yes there are. I admitted that in my last post. But I don't agree with your implications.


haha. sorry bout that. i will use caps from now on.

No. The psalmist is using pictoral language to show that God is superior to the Canaanite gods, who are really no gods at all.

now I see what this really all about.

Loomis

Yesterday, deep in your sincere god-fearing heart you were quite confident of the following:Today you tell us that there are two Els in the Bible:This raises the question: Isn’t some sort adjustment in order at your camp? :rolling:
If a neutral observer had to decide who understands the context of Psalm 82 best, based on the posts in this thread, who should they pick?

dzim or Loomis?

You didn’t understand the context yesterday. Why should we believe that you understand the context today?

How does dying like a mortal support the premise that the god is false?

The ‘judging Elohim’ was executing judgment. Right?

The sons of the Most High were guilty of showing favoritism to the wicked. Right?

They were condemned to die like mortals. Right?

In verse 6 the ‘judging Elohim’ says he said (or thought) they were gods.

Why don’t you believe him?

Why don’t you believe God?

All the best,

Loomis

dzim77

Loomis. First of all, thank you for enlightening me to the alternate interpretations of these two passages that you mentioned. I'll admit that while I am very familiar with the theory that the God of Israel is really a product of combining gods of other cultures, I was not aware of the particular interpretation of the passages you mentioned in the Psalms (referring to the Canaanite god El). So, I actually found it very interesting. However, these interpretations only serve to support my theology and concept of God in the OT. They do not in any way show or prove that the God of Israel is a derivative of the Canaanite gods, rather they show that God is portrayed as superior to them in the OT.

For example, in Psalm 82, the psalmist is using pictoral language (!!!), in other words- imagery, in other words - an illustration, to portray the idea that God is greater than other gods and reigns in judgement over them.

The idea that other gods are false gods is found all throughout the OT - as I'm sure you are very well aware. (psalm 4:2, psalm 40:4, Jer 13:25, Jer 16:9, Amos 2:4, etc...)

I've explained this a few times already, so this will be the last. Please demonstrate your 'honesty, decency, and clear thinking' by not spinning my words when you know very well what I am saying.

Loomis

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says that Yahweh inherited Jacob (or maybe the other way around) because one of the "Most Highs" (aka one of the Els) decided to divide up humanity among his sons.
Yahweh had a dad.

Now where does your argument stand?

Which "El" is Yahweh’s papa?

The good El? :notworthy:

Or the bad El? :devil1:

Loomis

Hey dzim77,

How come there aren’t any polemics against the Canaanite El in the Bible?

The Bible disses gods like Baal, Milcom, and Chemosh, but it never disses the Canaanite El.

How come?

All the best,

Loomis

dzim77

Again, I disagree with your interpretation.

Please note that, once again, this text falls under the genre of poetry, which uses pictoral language and imagery to describe characteristics of God. This passage is describing how God chose Israel as his 'portion', his chosen people, through whom he would carry out his redemptive plan.

Also, Yahweh is not a 'son of El' in this passage. The Most High is not distributing nations to other gods. He is distributing land to the people... assigning mankind to their respective nations - as described here:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided up humankind,
he set the boundaries of the peoples,

Out of all the nations he has set boundries for, he chose Israel as his chosen nation, his inherritance. As described here:

Yahweh's allotment is his people
Jacob is the portion of his inheritance.

Thus, Yahweh and the Most High are one and the same. This passage is a picture of God's covenant love for Israel, and implies that there is a 'promised land' already set up for them.

Amaleq13

That is certainly what the passage appears to say when the phrase you omitted is returned to it:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided up humankind,
he set the boundaries of the peoples,
according to the number of the sons of El


First, why did you omit this phrase when it is clearly relevant and central to the proposed interpretation? That seems awfully disingenuous. Second, do you have an interpretation of it or do you just ignore it?

The plain meaning of this passage is that "the Most High" divided up humanity into "peoples" (presumably identified as nations) by the number of "the sons of El" in much the same way a king might divide his lands by the number of his own sons.

Even ignoring your omission, this simply does not follow from the passage at all.

dzim77

Sorry, didn't mean to sweep it under the rug or anything. I thought my explanation covered it. Some interpret this phrase as 'sons of Israel'. Some say the original was 'angels of God' or 'sons of God'. (i'm sure you're aware of this).

Many have oberved that the backdrop for Deuteronomy 32 may have been the table of nations in Genesis 10-11. Heisler suggests that perhaps God divided the nations among his angels and devoted himself to take special care of Israel as his chosen portion... using the common ANE conception of a divine assembly to illustrate this.

So, either way, I stand by the interpretation that the passage is an illustration of God choosing Israel as his chosen nation and preparing a promised land for them.

Loomis

Heiser doesn’t know how to form an argument:The understanding that Deuteronomy 32:8 should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel" does nothing to quell concerns that accepting the LXX and Qumran evidence for the "sons of God" reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 requires seeing Israelite religion as polytheistic.

In fact, the understanding that Deuteronomy 32:8 should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel" favors seeing Israelite religion as polytheistic.

Geesh. Heiser is a goofbaal.