Jack the Bodiless

Phlox Pyros: Do your "ancient sources" include the Ugaritic texts?

Loomis

You don’t get it. Do you?

The Most High in Deut 32:8 and Psalm 82:6 is not Yahweh, its El - the most high god of the Ugaritic pantheon. :wave: You won’t find Yahweh in Psalm 82 at all. He isn’t there. But if you read carefully you will see that Yahweh is portrayed as one of El’s sons in Deut 32:9.

There is no reason for a well-informed person to think that these are my translations. You seem like the type of guy who is easily impressed with Ph.Ds, so let me toss this at ya:

Dr. James Tabor is the Professor of Biblical studies for the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Here is his translation of Deut 32:8
Dr. Mark S. Smith is the Professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies, New York University.

Here is his translation of Deut 32:8
Dr. Michael S. Heiser earned his Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He holds an M.A. in Ancient History (Egypt, Palestine) from the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and an M.A. from the UW Madison in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages. He taught theology at the undergraduate level for 12 years, and now serves as Academic Editor for Logos, a leading Bible software company.

Here is what Heiser has to say about Deut 32:8
Now let’s go back to Mark S. Smith from his book The Early History of God

Hey Phlox Pyros, Smith is making some pretty serious allegations about your god.

Doesn’t it seem a little ignorant, arrogant, and dishonest, to spend all day yapping off about Julian and Vitruvius and to ignore what real scholars are saying about your god?

It’s insulting for me to sit here and read what you are saying about atheists in the other thread: that our lives are meaningless. You think you are a decent good guy. You think you deserve respect. You think you are well informed. You think that Yahweh is a real god who rides on the backs of cherubs and bows smoke out his nostrils.

Please reconsider.

Phlox Pyros

No, it is not, just as Elohim means God (singular) in Gen. 1:1.

Not particularly. Doctorates mean little to nothing. Quality of information means everything.

Two scholars and who? If you look back up at the translations that I gave, there are plenty of PhDs behind nearly every three letter acronym.

I am familiar with Dr. Tabor as well as Dr. Heiser, who, with a degree from Dallas Theological Seminary (a conservative seminary) most likely would not translate in the fashion you've given. As for Mark Smith, I have no idea who he is or why I should care.

In fact, Loomis, I find that you are either being insincere and misrepresenting information or that you just aren't reading very well.

As for your first translation by Dr. Tabor, it is not found as you have it, but only the snippet about "sons of El". However, if you read a little closer, Dr. Tabor is saying that "the Dead Sea texts of Deuteronomy, which date from before the time of Jesus, agree with the Greek Septuagint version". The Septuagint version has Theos (God).

Dr. Tabor, for his original bible project called the "Transparent English Bible (TEB)" appears to believe the El is simply a title/epithet for God, just as I have maintained and will continue to maintain.

Still don't believe me about Dr. Tabor (since I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting information about scholars)? Then check out what he has to say about the names/titles/epithets for God that will be in the TEB.

The Original Bible Project: Names of Diety

I do believe that "Elyon" is in there amongst the names of God.

As for Dr. Heiser, I noticed that you did not provide a link to the information, so I took the liberty of looking for the text myself, since I could not believe he would accept such a translation. I hope you do not mind. It turns out that Dr. Heiser's position in the article you referred to is similar to the position held by Dr. Tabor. Here is a quote from that very article.

I hope you simply missed that part.

Turns out that they are not making the allegations you think. Off topic, where did I say anything about "my god"?

Finally, I'll add just a bit more to bring this thing to a conclusive end. Let us refer to the text of Genesis 14:22:

So, as many standard dictionaries and lexicons mention, El Elyon, is just one of many titles/epithets for God.

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. If you persist, I shall desist because it is not worth it to me to banter with someone who will not listen to reason and evidence.

Obviously, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. My "yapping" about ancient sources was actually a request that others present some information about ancient sources that they find interesting and why. Such a request is, in fact, honest, humble, and inquisitive as to others' interests and education.

I am sorry you were insulted (because that was not my intention...I think you misunderstood again) and that you are likely a bit embarrassed now as well. However, I do not understand why you follow me from thread to thread talking about what I said in some other thread. I am glad if you find meaning in your life as an athiest? agnostic? (I do not wish to assume) I was being honest and thoughtful about how things appear to me when attempting to look through the lens of "atheism" at life. If you disagree, then simply disagree. Why do you care so much what I think if you do not believe it anyway?

Finally, "please reconsider" your harsh tone and rhetoric. It is not becoming and sure won't win you any friends.

Notsri

Loomis, this is not exactly the settled issue that you seem to assume it is. There are notable scholars that take (or took, in some cases, given their passing) an approach to Deuteronomy 32:8-9 different than Smith's et al.

Paul Sanders, for instance:

"[T]here is no reason whatsoever to assume that in Deut. 32:8-9 אלהים , עליון, and יהוה originally designate different gods. The external parallelism suggests that the designations all relate to the same god" (from p. 373 of Sanders' The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32).

W.F. Albright:

"[W]e have here [in Deut. 32:8-9] merely another example of parallelism carried over groups of verses…In other words, 'Elyôn=Yahweh kept Israel for His own special domain" (from "Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII," Essays in Honour of Millar Burrows, p. 7).

Similarly, Matitiahu Tsevat:

"In the distant past, Yhwh, the Most High, divided mankind into nations, whose number He determined by the number of the sons of God/El, i.e. the minor gods; each of these gods received a nation as his portion (and, conversely, each nation received its tutelary deity…). Only one nation was not given over to these gods—Israel; that people Yhwh retained for Himself" ("God and the Gods in Assembly," Hebrew Union College Annual, vols. 40-41, p. 133).

Tsevat also notes:

"[This is an] adversative כי [at the opening of the third and final line of the pericope] that is not in opposition to a preceding negation: [translate: 'But Yahweh's portion, etc.']…This interpretation presupposes, for this text at least, the identity of עליון with יהוה, i.e. the former is a nominalized adjective and an epithet of the latter, and not the name of a separate and distinct deity" (p. 132, ibid.).

In The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, E.E. Elnes & P.D. Miller take a somewhat different tack than Tsevat on this latter point, though ultimately arrive at the same conclusion:

"[C]ontexual considerations suggest that the preposition kî in v. 9 be translated as an asseverative particle, rendering, 'Indeed, Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob was the territory of his possession.' Thus, 'Elyôn is more plausibly understood as functioning as an epithet for Yahweh."

Regards,
Notsri

xaxxat

Who are these other gods and what nations were given to them?

Loomis

4QDeut reads sons of El. The LXX reads angels of God.

They don’t agree. There are no ‘angels’ in 4QDeut (or the MT).

If you think Heiser's papers can refute my arguments - or support yours, then paste something here so we can look. Don’t just pretend.

’Yahweh’ is a gloss. It’s not in the LXX, Peshita, or Genesis Apocraphon.

Show us the overwhelming evidence against my position. Don’t just pretend.

Phlox Pyros

Loomis, I have looked over your previous threads <edit>. In other threads, you actually talk about twisting things for your own agenda. Therefore, I have no more interest in continuing this discussion because it is obvious that it will go nowhere. Where's that ignore button....

Loomis

Jack the Bodiless wants to know if your “ancient sources" include the Ugaritic texts.

Loomis

I am ready to discuss specific issues when you are.

Loomis

Did the stick out tongue hurt your feelings?

Be honest.

Because if they did then I will stop using them.

I'm sorry.