judge

I will try to locate Mar Barwai's(?)..(7th cent?) definition for you .

Added in edit here is an except from Mar bawais "book of the union" 6th century. Aramaic and English.
0hl0d 0rb 0xy4m wh dx
(One is Mshikha, the Son of God)
Nynyk Nyrtb fk Nm dygs
(Woshipped by all in two Natures Nynyk)
0b0 Nm dyly htwhl0bd
(In His Godhead begotten of the Father)
0nbz Nm L9l 0yrw4 fd
(Without beginning, before all time)
Myrm Nm dyly htw4n0bd
(In His humanity, born of Maryam)
0dyxm 0rgpb 0nbz Mlw4b
(In the fullness of time, in a body united)
0m0 Nyk Nm htwhl0 f
(Neither His Godhead <was> from the nature Nyk of the mother)
0b0 Nyk Nm htw4n0 fw
(Nor His humanity <was> from the nature Nyk of the Father)
Jwhymwnqb 0n^yk Nyry=n
(Preserved <are> the Natures 0n^yk in their own Qnumeh Jwhymwnq)
Fwrb 0dxd 0pwcrp dxb
(In one Person 0pwcrp of one Sonship)
Fwhl0 hyty0d Nky0w
(And as the Godhead is)
Fwty0 0dx 0m^wnq Flt
(Three Qnumeh 0m^wnq, One Essence Fwty0)
0rbd htwrb hyty0 Nkh
(Likewise the Sonship of the Son)
0pwcrp dx Nynyk Nyrtb
(Is in two Natures Nynyk one Person 0pwcrp)

here si his definition from Chapt 17 of the above work.

"A singular essence is called a `qnoma'. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its `parsopa'. With rational creatures this may consist of various accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures the combination of various contrasting features. Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole ."

LP675

What is spin saying, we all wonder? Why hasn’t spin answered? Could it be spin is stumped?

GakuseiDon

I wish I had the time and the money.

Yahweh seems to be the one saying v15. I'm willing to be corrected on this. Can you show me that Yahweh is not referring to Himself in the 3rd person here?

The king in Ps 2 is the "son of God" because he has been given authority by God. Similarly, the rulers in Ps 82 are "sons of the Most High" because they have been given authority by the same.

Are you saying that "Son of Yahweh" can be a man, but the "sons of the Most High" can't be a man? Can you explain why? Feel free to use the Ugaritic texts if you think it will help.

I thought as much... those darn later redactors! Yes, it is possible I suppose.

I want to say, that God is in the midst of the rulers, called "gods" in the same way as God appointed Moses to be a god to Pharaoh (Exodus), who are sons of the most high, in the same way as other passages claim people as sons of God where God has given them authority.

OK, then. When God tells Moses that He has made him a "god to Pharaoh", what does "god" mean to Pharaoh?

It's from my copy of the NKJV, and is also in the KJV. But let's keep looking. Here is that passage in Young's Literal Translation:

Psa 29:1 A Psalm of David. Ascribe to Jehovah, ye sons of the mighty, Ascribe to Jehovah honour and strength.
Psa 29:2 Ascribe to Jehovah the honour of His name, Bow yourselves to Jehovah, In the beauty of holiness.

It's still being translated as "mighty", you'll notice, in Young's Literal Translation.

Why does Young's Literal Translation use "mighty" instead of "god"? Is it a bad literal translation?

GakuseiDon

This is an interesting article on Deut 32 that tends to support spin (against me), though it concludes that the OT doesn't support polytheism: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ca...DT32COOVER.pdf

An interesting read!

spin

The choice seems relatively simple: learn something about what you are attempting to talk about or continue to make an ass of yourself.


The psalms were written to be "performed", read aloud, and, despite the fact that they have been heavily redacted -- I'd recommend an old poetic/metrical analysis of the psalms I think by the Briggs of Brown/Driver/Briggs Hebrew Lexicon to understand just how the poetry has been put out of kilter by additions which disrupt the metre --, more than one voice is often required to read the psalm. For example, God clearly doesn't say 82:8, despite being the only one in the position to say 82:6-7, ie when Ps 82 would probably be read by a different voice, hence the antiphony. Ps 81:15 has the hallmarks of another example of a verse read by another verse, as is the case with the first five verses.

The most high in Ps 82 is clearly not Yahweh, just as it is not in Deut 32:8.

We have two discreet issues tied together: we have the news that they are gods and at the same time we are told that they are sons of the most high. It is extremely hard for you to plead "metaphor", when the text has first given you a phrase that has no earmarks of being metaphorical, ie there are no precedents, and which is reinforced by another phrase which gives no indications of being metaphorical.

The good news is that enough has survived to show tendency. Besides, we have nice archaelogical evidence of polytheism in Judah.

Where are the rulers in the passage we are looking at? Perhaps you are just insinuating them there.

God appointed no such thing. He said what the situation would be.

This is simple unprecedented invention on your part.

We are not, let me repeat, we are not dealing with sons of god. We are dealing with gods, sons of the most high. If you want to analyse a text you have to use what it says.


Ask him. I could guess that what God has Moses do would be to pharaoh godlike.

KJV has "sons of the mighty" with a footnote explaining that "mighty" is actually "gods".

See, if you could read the original, you wouldn't have to depend on such inaccuracies. I told you before the Hebrew has BNY 'LIM, beni elim, "sons of gods".

You don't understand the original texts and you put yourself in the hands of mistranslations. This should be a little humiliating to you having to be told by an agnostic what a biblical text really says, because the translations you rely on are inadequate. (You simply can't make an informed comment on the subject now, can you?)

If I were you, I'd throw out those bibles which do not even supply you with a footnote to tell you what the verse actually says. You might understand now why I don't like smarmy translations which are not honest to their readers.


spin

spin

No, of course not.


spin

Amlodhi

<chuckle> . . . I couldn't resist jerking your chain.

You should feel complimented though. Not only can I expect you to be adept at parsing the Hebrew and observant enough to pick up on unannounced minutae such as the above, but you also seem to be able to consistently understand English.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Doctor X

GD:

While it probably has been buried in other responses, "Most High" is not synonymous with YHWH in the passage. It is El Shadday or El Elyon--I do not have the text handy--which refers to El.

English translations will, of course, focus on the adjective to avoid this remnant of polytheism.

--J.D.

LP675

Not only can he not defend unjustified assertions regarding alleged contradictions between the existence of gods in the OT and Christian theology, he resorts to rude remarks and crass language. Have fun GakuseiDon, Im going bush for a while...

CX

Joe Wallack,

You are mischaracterizing my position. I do not, and have not, claimed that the Hebrew Bible is strictly polytheistic. Rather there is evidence within it that the peoples who later became "The Hebrews" were polytheistic. There is ample evidence in the text to indicate just that. In fact if you look at much of the Deuteronomistic history, the whole subtext is that every time the israelites go whoring around with other gods bad things happen to them. This implies, to me, that the israelites did go whoring around with other gods, otherwise why bother writing it in the first place? Now then, were these people pretending to worship imaginary gods that they knew were not real or did they believe these gods existed and were worthy of worship? I think you'll have a hard time making a case for the former. Additionally, you seem to be subject to a rather myopic view that we can only know anything about the ancient israelites by reading the bible itself. You might want to take a look at the BC&H reading list and branch out a bit.

Cheers,

CX