Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

Hi mak:

So what, precisely, does that mean? Can it mean the author was inspired to record her own thoughts, or must it mean each and every word is directed by God?

I would rather leave it an open question. ; ) Reminds me of the conflict between the eyewitness accounts of the Book of Mormon "translation" vs. the D & C 9 "study it out in your mind" version.

Let's take Billy Graham as an example and let's assume he's a man who receives inspiration from God. Does that mean God gives virtually every word to Billy Graham that he says during a sermon? I wouldn't think so. Does that mean that Billy Graham's grammar has to be perfect as he's giving a sermon? I don't think so (but it would mean that if God was giving him every word). Does it mean that the reporter who makes a transcript of Billy's sermon can't make a mistake? No. Does it even have to mean that Billy's theology has to be 100% correct? That's debatable, but I would still think God could use Billy Graham to spread an inspired message even if Billy is human and makes a few honest mistakes. The overall message could still be "inspired by God." But we'd run into a big problem if Billy started proclaiming: "God spoke to me and told me he wants us to reinstitute child sacrifice."

That falls closer in line to my conceptualization of inspiration as well.

Okay. Now I'm following you. I would still question how you know that since you don't have the original text.

Good question.

1) Amos 9:11-12 makes perfect sense in the context of the rest of the chapter and refers to the military reconquest of lands that had previously been taken over by Israel. The text makes absolutely no sense if we import the version preserved in Acts 15:16-17.

2) Acts 15:16-17 makes perfect sense in the context of Acts 15. It pronounces a prophecy about all the nations of the earth searching for YHWH and becoming a part of the rebuilding of the house of David. The original version preserved in Amos 9:11-12 makes absolutely no sense in Acts 15. It does not support James' argument about taking the gospel to the nations at all.

3) The two mistranslated words are east to confuse. אדום is mistaken for אדם, and יירשו is mistaken for ידרשו. This actually changes the original direct object into the new subject, and leaves the transitive verb without a direct object. This is how the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11-12 reads. That's the locus of mistranslation, but the text is actually nonsensical in the Greek because of that missing direct object. The translator left the sentence hanging. They will seek. What will they seek? That's where the author of Acts, or the author of a testimonium being quoted by the author of Acts, simply adds one: the Lord.

These three considerations make it clear that the mistranslation occurred prior to the composition of Acts, and that the author of Acts appealed in her original composition directly to a mistranslated Old Testament text. The mistranslation had to have been in the autograph of Acts.

[

I generally don't dismiss anything outright unless I have good reason to. It's certainly a possibility, although not the one I would like.

I don't know it and no one does. We are asked to have faith that it is. Faith is promoted as a good thing to have. But it doesn't have to be blind faith. It can be faith based on evidence. The way the Bible has come together and has been preserved certainly makes it unique. And again, I go back to the resurrection of Christ as the pivotal question. If Christ rose from the dead, then any other potential conflict has a resolution, even if I can't see it.

So let me ask you, given that you indicate you are a Christian, do you believe Christ rose from the dead?

I do.

If by "that" you mean scholarship, I don't disagree, although there still may be some value in understanding the traditions and dogma.

Absolutely, which is why I study it.

I don't believe in Biblical "inerrancy" in the current texts. Obviously mistakes have been made down through the years otherwise there would be no variants. It seems to me there are two related questions:

1. Were the original texts inspired by God and if so, as you ask, what does that mean exactly?

2. Was the eventual emergence of a Biblical canon inspired by God?

Two good questions. How would one know if they were?

Hmm. I find Jesus's "rhetorical dodges" to have been quite ingenious considering the traps his enemies were hoping he'd fall into.

From a historical context point of view, it may be able to provide some useful information, but from a theological point of view I would think it would be worse than nothing at all. Why would you listen to someone who falsely has God commanding child sacrifice? And someone else who deceptively tries to gloss it over?[/quote]

Well, we have YHWH asking for someone to deceive Ahab to his death. Deception is obviously a legitimate instrument in the divine toolbox.

Sounds like an interesting book.

'Tis.

C'mon mak. What are they paying you for?

All the best.

I'm currently paid to supervise the translation of the LDS standard works. My scholarship is on hold until I finish my PhD.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[…] Their voice was the thunder and lightning, and they rode upon dark clouds to battle. Their pedestal animal was the bull (young, violent, fertile). Here are some examples of Northwest Semitic storm deities in ancient art:

If I recall correctly, Stroumsa has written (briefly) about how the "thunderous voice" was also sometimes utilized for the transference of esoteric knowledge (in particular by El). I think it is in “Hidden Wisdom…”

(Going by memory here, so caveat emptor, and all that jazz).



ETA: Thank you Roger and Mak for the great discussion. I have really enjoyed following along.

[_Roger]

ETA: Thank you Roger and Mak for the great discussion. I have really enjoyed following along.

Glad you are enjoying the banter. The conversation moved way beyond my pay grade several pages back. Mak, being a fellow Elway fan, however, has obviously taken pity on me.

[_LittleNipper]

2 Kings 13:1-25 When Ahaziah’s son Joash the king of Judah had reigned 23 years, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu became the king of Israel at Samaria. He ruled 17 years. Jehoahaz did what was sinful in the eyes of the Lord. He followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel sin. He did not waver. So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel. He put them always under the power of King Hazael of Syria, and Ben-hadad the son of Hazael. Jehoahaz begged for the Lord’s help, and the Lord listened to him. For He saw the bad power held over Israel. He saw how the king of Syria made it difficult for them. The Lord sent Israel someone to save them. And they were saved from the power of the Syrians. The people of Israel lived in their tents as before. However, they did not turn away from the sins of the family of Jeroboam, which made Israel sin. They lived by those sins. And the object of the false goddess Asherah was left standing in Samaria. The king of Syria did not leave to Jehoahaz an army of more than 50 horsemen, 10 war-wagons and 10,000 foot-soldiers. For the king of Syria had destroyed them and made them of little value. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, all he did and his strength, are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. When Jehoahaz died, they buried him in Samaria. And his son Joash became king in his place.

In the 37th year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz became king of Israel in Samaria. He ruled for16 years. And he did what was sinful in the eyes of the Lord. He did not stray from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, in which he made Israel sin. But he acted upon those sins. Jehoash did many things. With his strength he fought against Amaziah king of Judah. The rest of his acts are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Jehoash died, and Jeroboam sat on his throne. Jehoash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel.

Elisha became deathly sick. And Joash the king of Israel came down to him and cried over him, saying, “My father, my father, the war-wagons of Israel and its horsemen!” Elisha said to him, “Take a bow and arrows.” So he took a bow and arrows. Then he said to the king of Israel, “Put your hand on the bow.” So he put his hand on it. Then Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands. And he said, “Open the window toward the east,” and he opened it. Then Elisha said, “Shoot!” And he shot. Elisha said, “The Lord’s arrow of winning the battle! The arrow of winning the battle against Syria! For you will fight the Syrians at Aphek until you have destroyed them. Then Elisha said, “Take the arrows,” and he took them. He said to the king of Israel, “Hit the ground,” and he hit it three times, and stopped. So the man of God was angry with him and said, “You should have hit it five or six times. Then you would have fought Syria until you had destroyed it. But now you will win the fight against Syria only three times.”

Elisha died, and they buried him. Now groups of Moabite soldiers would come and fight in the land in the spring of the year. As one man was being buried, some Moabite soldiers were seen, so the man was hurriedly tossed into Elisha’s grave. When the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came back to life and stood up on his feet.

Now King Hazael of Syria had made it difficult for Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. But the Lord showed them kindness and loving-pity and turned to them because of His agreement with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He would not destroy them or put them away from Him until now. When King Hazael of Syria died, his son Ben-hadad became king in his place. Then Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took back from Hazael’s son Ben-hadad the cities he had taken in war from his father Jehoahaz. Three times Joash won in battle against him and took back the cities of Israel.


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

1 In the twenty and third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, hath Jehoahaz son of Jehu reigned over Israel, in Samaria -- seventeen years,

2 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, and goeth after the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, that he caused Israel to sin -- he turned not aside from it,

3 and the anger of Jehovah burneth against Israel, and He giveth them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram, and into the hand of Ben-Hadad son of Hazael, all the days.

4 And Jehoahaz appeaseth the face of Jehovah, and Jehovah hearkeneth unto him, for He hath seen the oppression of Israel, for oppressed them hath the king of Aram, --

5 and Jehovah giveth to Israel a saviour, and they go out from under the hand of Aram, and the sons of Israel dwell in their tents as heretofore;

6 only, they have not turned aside from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, that he caused Israel to sin, therein they walked, and also, the shrine hath remained in Samaria, --

7 for he left not to Jehoahaz of the people except fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen, for the king of Aram hath destroyed them, and maketh them as dust for threshing.

8 And the rest of the matters of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?

9 And Jehoahaz lieth with his fathers, and they bury him in Samaria, and reign doth Joash his son in his stead.

10 In the thirty and seventh year of Joash king of Judah reigned hath Jehoash son of Jehoahaz over Israel, in Samaria -- sixteen years,

11 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, he hath not turned aside from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, that he caused Israel to sin, therein he walked.

12 And the rest of the matters of Joash, and all that he did, and his might with which he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?

13 And Joash lieth with his fathers, and Jeroboam hath sat on his throne, and Joash is buried in Samaria, with the kings of Israel.

14 And Elisha hath been sick with his sickness in which he dieth, and come down unto him doth Joash king of Israel, and weepeth on his face, and saith, `My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and its horsemen.'

15 And Elisha saith to him, `Take bow and arrows:' and he taketh unto him bow and arrows.

16 And he saith to the king of Israel, `Place thy hand on the bow;' and he placeth his hand, and Elisha putteth his hands on the hands of the king,

17 and saith, `Open the window eastward;' and he openeth, and Elisha saith, `Shoot,' and he shooteth; and he saith, `An arrow of salvation to Jehovah, and an arrow of salvation against Aram, and thou hast smitten Aram, in Aphek, till consuming.'

18 And he saith, `Take the arrows,' and he taketh; and he saith to the king of Israel, `Smite to the earth;' and he smiteth three times, and stayeth.

19 And the man of God is wroth against him, and saith, `By smiting five or six times then thou hadst smitten Aram till consuming; and now, three times thou dost smite Aram.'

20 And Elisha dieth, and they bury him, and troops of Moab come in to the land, at the coming in of the year,

21 and it cometh to pass, they are burying a man, and lo, they have seen the troop, and cast the man into the grave of Elisha, and the man goeth and cometh against the bones of Elisha, and liveth, and riseth on his feet.

22 And Hazael king of Aram hath oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz,

23 and Jehovah doth favour them, and pity them, and turn unto them, for the sake of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and hath not been willing to destroy them, nor to cast them from His presence as yet.

24 And Hazael king of Aram dieth, and reign doth Ben-Hadad his son in his stead,

25 and Jehoash son of Jehoahaz turneth and taketh the cities out of the hand of Ben-Hadad son of Hazael that he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father in war; three times hath Joash smitten him, and he bringeth back the cities of Israel.

[_Mittens]

http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/p ... -of-christ

Jesus is God

[_Mittens]

http://www.scionofzion.com/160_reasons.htm

160 ways to prove Jesus is God

[_Roger]

The sentence literally reads, "I defiled them in their gifts and in the causing to pass through of the firstborn in order to desolate/appall them . . ." The verb has reference to turning over an offering or sacrifice to the altar or fire and is the same exact verb used in Exod 13:12 (KJV):

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.

This is unquestionably a reference to sacrificial offerings.

One of the ten commandments given in chapter 20 is "thou shalt not murder." How could they not equate child sacrifice with murder?

It's absolutely not "I let them defile themselves." It's a first common singular piel with a separate direct object marker and third masculine plural pronominal suffix. Literally, it is "I put in a state of defilement them."

I can see how there's room for subjectivity but this does sound like God is the one causing the state of defilement rather than allowing it to occur. On the other hand, the point Ezekiel is making is that God only does this out of exasperation because the Isrealites constantly want to worship idols. So it sort of boils down to a chicken and egg question with Ezekiel putting the ultimate blame on humans.

If it means anything to you, I think you're approaching it much more honestly and objectively than anyone else with whom I've had this same conversation.

I can certainly understand a less than objective response. These verses are never studied in Sunday School or in Bible study classes.

"The surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idols is seen as one of the laws from God, inasmuch as he directs even the evil deeds of men to their own good. Sacrifices of human infants are condemned in v. 31 and in 16:20; also in Lev. 18:21; Jer. 7:31"

It's also a flagrant misrepresentation of what the text actually says.

Which text? Ezekiel or Exodus? It's worded a little odd, but the commentators seem to be suggesting that "the eldest sons" would have been surrendered to idols rather than to YHWH which is what Ezekiel is saying, no?

Well, Ezekiel is trying to rationalize just like the NEB.

Either that or he's accurately reporting what God actually did. I don't like either conclusion and one of the problems with the accurate reporting scenario is that it doesn't seem to harmonize with the tone of Exodus.

Good question.

1) Amos 9:11-12 makes perfect sense in the context of the rest of the chapter and refers to the military reconquest of lands that had previously been taken over by Israel. The text makes absolutely no sense if we import the version preserved in Acts 15:16-17.

2) Acts 15:16-17 makes perfect sense in the context of Acts 15. It pronounces a prophecy about all the nations of the earth searching for YHWH and becoming a part of the rebuilding of the house of David. The original version preserved in Amos 9:11-12 makes absolutely no sense in Acts 15. It does not support James' argument about taking the gospel to the nations at all.

3) The two mistranslated words are east to confuse. אדום is mistaken for אדם, and יירשו is mistaken for ידרשו. This actually changes the original direct object into the new subject, and leaves the transitive verb without a direct object. This is how the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11-12 reads. That's the locus of mistranslation, but the text is actually nonsensical in the Greek because of that missing direct object. The translator left the sentence hanging. They will seek. What will they seek? That's where the author of Acts, or the author of a testimonium being quoted by the author of Acts, simply adds one: the Lord.

These three considerations make it clear that the mistranslation occurred prior to the composition of Acts, and that the author of Acts appealed in her original composition directly to a mistranslated Old Testament text. The mistranslation had to have been in the autograph of Acts.

This is interesting but I don't have enough time to comment on it at the moment. Thanks for explaining.

Since you were kind enough to answer that you do believe Christ rose from the dead, I'd like to follow up on that question, hopefully without prying too much. If it turns out that Joseph Smith was a fraud, would you still believe Christ rose from the dead?

I don't believe in Biblical "inerrancy" in the current texts. Obviously mistakes have been made down through the years otherwise there would be no variants. It seems to me there are two related questions:

1. Were the original texts inspired by God and if so, as you ask, what does that mean exactly?

2. Was the eventual emergence of a Biblical canon inspired by God?

Two good questions. How would one know if they were?

I'm at a loss on this. I don't suppose you could ever actually know whether they were inspired or not unless God himself somehow revealed that to you. I realize that is exactly what LDS claim God does - at least with regard to the Book of Mormon. (Strange that we are not similarly asked to pray over the truthfulness of the Bible, but I suppose that's another topic). I do not accept the LDS version of authentication for several reasons. First, I'm convinced Joseph Smith was a con-man. Second, I know former LDS who talk about the warm feeling they got for their "testimony" of the Book of Mormon and I get similar feelings when I hear a moving concert or see an emotional movie. Third, I know other former LDS who say they followed the same feeling on other questions that obviously later turned out not to be from God. Bottom line, I believe God is capable of revealing the truthfulness of anything to humans but until I actually experience that with 100% certainty, I am skeptical when others claim to have experienced it. So, getting back to your question, I don't think we'll ever know whether the original writers and Biblical canon were inspired by God, but we may be able to combine evidence with faith to come to a reasonable conclusion.

What do you think? I'm interested in your take on all this because of some of the comments you've already made and also given your access to and understanding of ancient texts.

I asked:

Why would you listen to someone who falsely has God commanding child sacrifice? And someone else who deceptively tries to gloss it over

And your response was:

Well, we have YHWH asking for someone to deceive Ahab to his death. Deception is obviously a legitimate instrument in the divine toolbox.

Your answer surprised me a bit. The implication is that the whole thing could be a deception for all we know. I suppose that's true. If God is trying to deceive us then chances are we're going to be deceived. But deception is not a characteristic of the God I've been taught to believe in and is instead ascribed to Satan. Numbers 23:19 suggests that God does not lie or even change his mind.

All the best.

[_LittleNipper]

2 Kings 14:1-29 During the 2nd year of the reign of King Joash of Israel, King Amaziah began his reign over Judah. Amaziah was 25 years old at the time, and he reigned in Jerusalem for 29 years. (His mother was Jehoaddin, a native of Jerusalem.) He was a good king in the Lord’s sight, though not quite like his ancestor David; but he was as good a king as his father Joash. However, he didn’t destroy the shrines on the hills, so the people still sacrificed and burned incense there.

As soon as he had a firm grip on the kingdom, he killed the men who murdered his father. He didn’t kill their children, for the Lord had commanded through the law of Moses that fathers shall not be killed for their children, nor children for the sins of their fathers: everyone must pay the penalty for his own sins. Once Amaziah killed ten thousand Edomites in Salt Valley; he conquered Sela and changed its name to Joktheel, as of this written record.

He sent a message to King Joash of Israel (the son of Jehoahaz and the grandson of Jehu), daring him to mobilize his army and come out and fight. King Joash replied, “The thistle of Lebanon demanded of the mighty cedar tree, ‘Give your daughter to be a wife for my son.’ But just then a wild animal passed by and stepped on the thistle and trod it into the ground! You have destroyed Edom and are very proud about it; but my advice to you is, be content with your glory and stay home! Why provoke disaster for both yourself and Judah?”

Amaziah refused to listen, so King Joash of Israel the army. The battle began at Beth-shemesh, one of the cities of Judah, and Judah was defeated and the army fled home. King Amaziah was captured, and the army of Israel marched on Jerusalem and broke down its wall from the Gate of Ephraim to the Corner Gate, a distance of about 600 feet. King Joash took many hostages and all the gold and silver from the Temple and palace treasury, with the gold cups. Then he returned to Samaria.

The rest of the history of Joash and his war with King Amaziah of Judah are recorded in book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. Joash died and was buried in Samaria with the other kings of Israel. And his son Jeroboam became the new king.

Amaziah lived an additional 15 years, and the rest of his biography is found in book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. There was a plot against his life in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but his enemies sent assassins and killed him there. His body was returned on horses, and he was buried in the royal cemetery, in the City of David section of Jerusalem. Then his son Azariah became the new king at the age of 16. He would then build Elath and restore it to Judah. Meanwhile, over in Israel, Jeroboam II had become king during the 15th year of the reign of King Amaziah of Judah. Jeroboam’s reigned for 41 years. But he was as evil as Jeroboam I (the son of Nebat), who had led Israel into the sin of worshiping idols.

Jeroboam II recovered the lost territories of Israel between Hamath and the Dead Sea, just as the Lord God of Israel had predicted through Jonah (son of Amittai) the prophet from Gathhepher. For the Lord saw the difficult plight of Israel—she had no assistance. And God had promised that he would blot out the name of Israel, so he used King Jeroboam II to save her. The rest of Jeroboam’s biography—all that he did, and his great power, and his wars, and how he recovered Damascus and Hamath (which had been captured by Judah)— in book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah When Jeroboam II died, he was buried with the other kings of Israel, and his son Zechariah became the new king of Israel.


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned hath Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah;

2 a son of twenty and five years was he in his reigning, and twenty and nine years he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother [is] Jehoaddan of Jerusalem,

3 and he doth that which [is] right in the eyes of Jehovah, only not like David his father, according to all that Joash his father did he hath done,

4 only, the high places have not turned aside -- yet are the people sacrificing and making perfume in high places.

5 And it cometh to pass, when the kingdom hath been strong in his hand, that he smiteth his servants, those smiting the king his father,

6 and the sons of those smiting [him] he hath not put to death, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses that Jehovah commanded, saying, `Fathers are not put to death for sons, and sons are not put to death for fathers, but each for his own sin is put to death.'

7 He hath smitten Edom, in the valley of salt -- ten thousand, and seized Selah in war, and [one] calleth its name Joktheel unto this day,

8 then hath Amaziah sent messengers unto Jehoash son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, `Come, we look one another in the face.'

9 And Jehoash king of Israel sendeth unto Amaziah king of Judah, saying, `The thorn that [is] in Lebanon hath sent unto the cedar that [is] in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son for a wife; and pass by doth a beast of the field that [is] in Lebanon, and treadeth down the thorn.

10 Thou hast certainly smitten Edom, and thy heart hath lifted thee up; be honoured, and abide in thy house; and why dost thou stir thyself up in evil, that thou hast fallen, thou, and Judah with thee?'

11 And Amaziah hath not hearkened, and go up doth Jehoash king of Israel, and they look one another in the face, he and Amaziah king of Judah, in Beth-Shemesh, that [is] Judah's,

12 and Judah is smitten before Israel, and they flee each to his tent.

13 And Amaziah king of Judah, son of Jehoash son of Ahaziah, caught hath Jehoash king of Israel in Beth-Shemesh, and they come in to Jerusalem, and he bursteth through the wall of Jerusalem, at the gate of Ephraim unto the gate of the corner, four hundred cubits,

14 and hath taken all the gold and the silver, and all the vessels that are found in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the house of the king, and the sons of the pledges, and turneth back to Samaria.

15 And the rest of the matters of Jehoash that he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?

16 And Jehoash lieth with his fathers, and is buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel, and reign doth Jeroboam his son in his stead.

17 And Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah liveth after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years,

18 and the rest of the matters of Amaziah are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?

19 And they make a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fleeth to Lachish, and they send after him to Lachish, and put him to death there,

20 and lift him up on the horses, and he is buried in Jerusalem, with his fathers, in the city of David.

21 And all the people of Judah take Azariah, and he [is] a son of sixteen years, and cause him to reign instead of his father Amaziah;

22 he hath built Elath, and bringeth it back to Judah, after the lying of the king with his fathers.

23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, reigned hath Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel in Samaria -- forty and one years,

24 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, he hath not turned aside from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin.

25 He hath brought back the border of Israel, from the entering in of Hamath unto the sea of the desert, according to the word of Jehovah, God of Israel, that He spake by the hand of His servant Jonah son of Amittai the prophet, who [is] of Gath-Hepher,

26 for Jehovah hath seen the affliction of Israel -- very bitter, and there is none restrained, and there is none left, and there is no helper to Israel;

27 and Jehovah hath not spoken to blot out the name of Israel from under the heavens, and saveth them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash.

28 And the rest of the matters of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might with which he fought, and with which he brought back Damascus, and Hamath of Judah, into Israel, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?

29 And Jeroboam lieth with his fathers, with the kings of Israel, and reign doth Zechariah his son in his stead.

[_maklelan]

http://www.scionofzion.com/160_reasons.htm

160 ways to prove Jesus is God

I'll examine a few of these and show you where the authors has problems.

1) The word "image" here refers to a reflection or a stamped image or something like that. A coin bore the "image" (same word) of the ruler. As a result, Jesus does not actually reify or personify the very appearance of God himself, he is conceptualized as a secondary bearer of that image, like a coin, an avatar, or a painting. Even messengers were thought to represent their patron so comprehensively as to be considered an extension of their presence. Jesus represents God to humanity because God was further and further distanced from humanity in Greco-Roman period Jewish thought.

2) This is the most laughably reductive attempt to explain the hypostatic union I've ever seen. Irrespective, it doesn't show Jesus is God.

3) Jesus expresses God's glory because he possesses God's name. Notice Jesus' intercessory prayer asks God three times to make his followers one with him and God just as he is one with God, and specifies that it has to do with a oneness of glory. Unless you insist John's soteriology would have all Christians actually become God, you cannot pretend being one with God's glory means being God.

4) No, "form" just refers to appearance or outward characteristics, and we've already been over image, etc.

5) See #3 above.

6) See #1 above.

7) See #1 above.

8) No, that oneness was a oneness of glory, as Jesus clarifies in John 17.

9) No, to be "in" the bosom of an individual meant to as close as a very close hug. Just like you could be "in" a mountain, it didn't mean physically inside, it meant within the conceptual purview of the entity.

10) Actually that's Hezekiah that's called that. The trees and mountains are also called everlasting, but surely you don't believe that means they're actually everlasting.

11) No, actually καθως there doesn't mean that Jesus should be honored in all the same ways that the Father is honored, it means that the father is honored, and so should Jesus be. The New Testament actually distinguishes sharply between honors given to God and those given to Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament is the verb latreuo ever used to describe worship offered to Jesus, although that verb is frequently used to refer to worship offered to God. Interestingly, when Jesus quotes the scriptures to the effect that one should "worship God only," he uses latreuo. Jesus is never worshipped that way, so that scripture does not refer to worship of Jesus, meaning your #12 does not support identifying Jesus with God.

12) Humans are worshipped this way as well. Revelation 3:9 says Jesus's followers will be worshipped. The verb proskineo can also just mean secular deference through bowing, so some of your texts don't really work to support that "worship" of Jesus.

13) This is a quotation of the Greek translation of Deut 32:43, but being worshipped doesn't make you God, as I explained above.

14) Doesn't make him God.

15) I just built a house. So did West, the construction supervisor. So did McArthur Homes, the construction company. We're not all the same individual. Agents act in the name of and on behalf of their patrons all the time. It doesn't mean they're the same entity.

16) See #15 above.

17) See #15 above.

18) I don't think the author knows what that means.

Ok, it gets ridiculous from here on out, and my last few comments clear up all the misunderstanding. The only other ones that I haven't addressed are the numerous appeals to Jesus' performing a certain function that God performs in the Hebrew Bible. The is/ought fallacy is employed in the notion that because God does it in the Hebrew Bible, only God is allowed to do it. The author also overlooks the fact that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament were written within very, very different cultures by very different authors appealing to very different ideologies and worldviews. Imposing univocality on the Bible is not only demonstrably wrong, it begs the question.

[_maklelan]

I can see how there's room for subjectivity but this does sound like God is the one causing the state of defilement rather than allowing it to occur. On the other hand, the point Ezekiel is making is that God only does this out of exasperation because the Isrealites constantly want to worship idols. So it sort of boils down to a chicken and egg question with Ezekiel putting the ultimate blame on humans.

As he is won't to do.

I can certainly understand a less than objective response. These verses are never studied in Sunday School or in Bible study classes.

Very true.

Which text? Ezekiel or Exodus? It's worded a little odd, but the commentators seem to be suggesting that "the eldest sons" would have been surrendered to idols rather than to YHWH which is what Ezekiel is saying, no?

Ezekiel. No, Ezekiel has absolutely nothing to say about idols. The text refers to sacrifices of children directly to YHWH, as Exod 22 commands.

Either that or he's accurately reporting what God actually did. I don't like either conclusion and one of the problems with the accurate reporting scenario is that it doesn't seem to harmonize with the tone of Exodus.

Which scenario is that?

This is interesting but I don't have enough time to comment on it at the moment. Thanks for explaining.

Since you were kind enough to answer that you do believe Christ rose from the dead, I'd like to follow up on that question, hopefully without prying too much. If it turns out that Joseph Smith was a fraud, would you still believe Christ rose from the dead?

I consider my testimony of Jesus to be contingent upon my testimony of the restored gospel, so it would seriously problematize things. I don't think there's a sharp dichotomy between Joseph Smith as prophet or fraud, and I don't know what kind of circumstances or evidence would be needed to definitively prove one over and against the other.

I'm at a loss on this. I don't suppose you could ever actually know whether they were inspired or not unless God himself somehow revealed that to you. I realize that is exactly what LDS claim God does - at least with regard to the Book of Mormon. (Strange that we are not similarly asked to pray over the truthfulness of the Bible, but I suppose that's another topic). I do not accept the LDS version of authentication for several reasons. First, I'm convinced Joseph Smith was a con-man. Second, I know former LDS who talk about the warm feeling they got for their "testimony" of the Book of Mormon and I get similar feelings when I hear a moving concert or see an emotional movie. Third, I know other former LDS who say they followed the same feeling on other questions that obviously later turned out not to be from God. Bottom line, I believe God is capable of revealing the truthfulness of anything to humans but until I actually experience that with 100% certainty, I am skeptical when others claim to have experienced it. So, getting back to your question, I don't think we'll ever know whether the original writers and Biblical canon were inspired by God, but we may be able to combine evidence with faith to come to a reasonable conclusion.

What evidence are you combining with faith?

What do you think? I'm interested in your take on all this because of some of the comments you've already made and also given your access to and understanding of ancient texts.

I am a staunch skeptic when it comes to just about any notion of inerrancy, and I don't believe there's any evidence at all to support it. This is one of the reasons I am astonished when fundamentalists insist the evidence problematizes the Latter-day Saint worldview but doesn't do the same for the mainstream Christian worldview. Both are equally and unilaterally undermined by the evidence.

Your answer surprised me a bit. The implication is that the whole thing could be a deception for all we know. I suppose that's true. If God is trying to deceive us then chances are we're going to be deceived. But deception is not a characteristic of the God I've been taught to believe in and is instead ascribed to Satan. Numbers 23:19 suggests that God does not lie or even change his mind.

And then the text I quoted above puts the blame pretty squarely on God, showing how there are conflicting conceptualizations of God and his nature in the Bible. There's a chapter in Samuel where the text says God does not repent, but within five or ten verses (I don't remember exactly), it says God repented.