/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

No, I will not read boomer fan fiction.

>>847189

He's a biblical scholar, not some crackpot boomer christian

>>847215

The argument is more compelling than you might think, read into it first

>>847218

Sorry I'm a Christian so I don't believe other gods besides the true God exist

>>847219

Again, read into it. You are not offering an objection to the divine council view.

>>847209

I don't care if his crackpot ideas are sponsored.

>>847221

This is what happens when you sever yourself from the understanding given by God. The gods are those of John 10:34, a vocable the true church uses to this day.

>>847220

>>847221

>Thou shalt have no other gods before me

>Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

>>847257

>>847250

Having not to have any other gods of other nations before Yahweh doesn't imply their nonexistence, nor does them being idols. For the ancient Israelites and for NT writers including Paul idols had a supernatural significance and were connected to actual spiritual beings, 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 being a prime example of that. Though it is true that the language used for beings of the supernatural realm is different in Hebrew than in Greek. In the Septuagint all instances of elohim are translated either into theos or daimon depending on the context and whether the being described is evil or not. Still, that doesn't dismiss the existence of the supernatural realm that was known to all biblical writers.

In the OT, God allots different nations to different gods (specifically in Deutoronomy 32) and there's a clear narrative in the background showing the rebellion of the gods. And in the NT, Paul clearly links the delegitimization of the power of the gods with Christ's resurrection and how the gentiles can finally be free from worshipping the oppressive gods of other nations. Political power and allegiance to gods were directly intertwined and the NT writers knew about it and expressed it in the NT.

Again, none of this is conflicting with the Bible, it's legitimacy and monotheism. There's simply a deeper layer of the supernatural realm in the entire biblical storyline.

>>847287

So far, you are attributing divinity to idols though. In the first post of this thread you are attributing the statements of Almighty God in the first chapter of Genesis, to created things. In actuality this applies to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the uncreated and living Lᴏʀᴅ God.

See Psalm 115

>Not unto us, O Lᴏʀᴅ, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.

>2Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

>3But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

>4Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

>5They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

>6They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

>7They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

>8They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.

So then what we are talking about are inanimate objects, idols, in effect. That's what the gods of the heathen are according to Psalm 96.

>In the Septuagint

The Hexaplar Septuagint also says that Methuselah outlived the flood by 14 years. It is an fallible and corrupted translation. We can not define true doctrine nor any textual variations to it.

>1 Corinthians 10:19-20 being a prime example of that.

Doesn't disprove the fact that idols cannot move, speak, and are in their essential definition powerless inanimate objects. Which is in direct contrast to the Lord God, which is the true and living God. You can't compare them in any respect. If you unrepentantly choose to then that is heathenism.

>Deutoronomy 32

Oh, you mean the passage where it specifically says "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me"? Are you going to go against that and say that the exact opposite is true? Because if someone does do that, they are not following Scripture as they are contradicting these things.

If you're going to bring up the John 10:34/Psalm 82:6-7 reference, you should also notice that the relational position known as "the gods" applies to many things, not necessarily God proper, such as either idols in the case of the heathens, and in the case of the above reference, to the judges of Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9. If you have studied your Bible fully, you would know this.

Now devils as seen in 1 Cor. 10:19-20 and also in Deuteronomy 32 is a word that is elsewhere equivalently translated as "goats." See 2 Chronicles 11:15. Obviously they were making brazen images after animals or maybe in some cases also taking carcasses of animals. That is the kind of thing you are apparently trying to refer to as actually being co-equal with the Lᴏʀᴅ here.

>Political power and allegiance to gods were directly intertwined

Because most people have been heathen throughout history.

>and the NT writers knew about it and expressed it in the NT.

Book of Revelation 9:

> 20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

> 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

It seems pretty consistently the way that has just been described to me. God in Genesis 1 is eternally pre-existent. According to Psalm 96 He created the heavens while the gods of the nations are idols, created inanimate objects, made by fallible people (Romans 1:22-23), with eyes but not seeing, with mouths but unspeaking, unmoving, etc.

>>847290

No, I am not attributing the attributes of God to idols. Idols are inanimate dead object, but they are connected to actual real spiritual beings. It's just that the word elohim doesn't contain any attributes, there's nothing blasphemous with saying that our God is a god, and other gods are also gods, but no god is like our God, the Almighty One. In fact, that's exactly what the biblical writers do. They point to the uniqueness of Yahweh and no other god being like Him. It wouldn't make sense to compare Yahweh to non-existent beings. In fact, that would rather be dishonoring to Him. It would be like comparing Him to a leprechaun.

The overarching narrative of what's wrong with the world isn't limited to the Fall from Genesis one, but it also extends to the rebellion of God's watchers in Genesis (who are also technically elohim, which again, doesn't make them equal with God) and the dispersing of the nations from Genesis 11 with the tower of Babel and then the Bible comes back to that narrative in Deutoronomy 32 in verses 8 and 9. It's just that the Masoretic Text changed the sons of God to sons of Israel, older versions of the OT like the ones from Qumran and Aquila had the sons of God version which is consistent with the rest of the storyline.

These sons of God are the gods of the nations that were dispersed at the tower of Babel event, and those gods became corrupt. That's why God holds judgement over them in Psalms, in Exodus when "judging the gods of the Egypt". It wouldn't make sense for Yahweh to judge inanimate idols and figurines for the evil of a nation. The god of a nation is directly related to it's rulership.

And the language talking about gods of the other nations being idols doesn't deny their existence, rather it continuously emphasises the Hebrew monotheism and the uniqueness of Yahweh, who is the only uncreated eternal God, who can't be confined to an idol and instead has his own images of himself in the form of humans, though that's a topic for another debate. The point is, the idols are inanimate dead objects who can be inhabited by spiritual beings (aka elohim/gods), think of the same logic as in Catholic transubstantiation in the Eucharist. God doesn't prohibit idolatry just because it's not worshipping Him, it was a very real thing to the ancients that they were worshipping another god, an inferior being to Yahweh that doesn't deserve Yahweh's glory.

And in all of the various Divine Council scenes in the OT, the gods/sons of God can't be just plain idols. Unless you think that a "holy ones" can be idols, like in Psalm 89

5 Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!

6 For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings (elohim) is like the Lord,

7 a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him?

Neither can members of the Divine Council be humans (and yes, even in Psalm 82 which clearly sets the scene where God resides with his sons (aka gods). In Daniel 4 and 7, the Divine Council scenes are clearly happening in the heavenly realm/skies/heavens, and nowhere are they described as humans and it's erroneous to assume that there's somehow just Jewish elders, judges or rulers in the sky making decisions with God.

>>847296

cont.

And it especially doesn't make sense in Psalm 82, since that would completely undermine Jesus' claims of His divinity. In John 10, Jesus directly quotes Psalm 82 to justify Him being one with the Father.

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

He doesn't say "you are gods" to somehow calm down the Jews that 'hey since the judges in Psalm 82 are somehow called gods, then I can call myself divine too in the same way as you are, it's all okay, nothing controversial here, we're all just one big happy "divine" family'. No. He points out that there are divine beings called sons of God, and He is the true one. He uses that language to point out his divine parentalship. It wouldn't make any sense if the gods in Psalm 82 were human judges. That view is a majority view because it helps people avoid touching the divine plurality idea as they think that it would somehow tamper with the monotheism of the Bible. There's no reference to Exodus or judges in Psalm 82 whatsoever. When Jesus says "is it not written in your law" it doesn't have to refer exclusively to the first five books of the OT, but the whole Hebrew Bible in general, that was a common way of talking about the scriptures. Him quoting the Psalm just to actually refer to a specific section of Exodus where people are taken for judgement and in turn back off from His claims of being the Son of God would require a very twisted logic. That's simply a connection made by commentators or scholars with an anti plural divinity bias which most of us have. It's not something you can discern from the text by itself logically.

As for the Septuagint part. You can't completely write off the Septuagint considering it was used by Jesus, the NT writers and most Jews from that period. I used it to illustrate the way the language about supernatural beings changed along with the transition from Hebrew to Greek. And then that same language was used in the NT. As I've said already, the divine/supernatural beings (elohim) were translated into different terms such as gods (theos), angels and daimonion to signify whether the being is evil or not depending on the context. That's also why it's logical to call the gods of the other nations demons, using the Septuagint/NT language.

And yes, it is true that God in Genesis 1 is eternally pre-existent. None of what I've described conflicts with that.

>>847296

This sounds like a form of heresy specifically reliant to the ESV and modern versions. If you are attributing to created things the divine attributes then you are going against "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me" as already given three times now in Deuteronomy 32:39.

If you want to disbelieve scripture such as Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35 and 1 Peter 1:23-25 and follow the modernist scholars who think there is a continuing revelation of the Holy Bible, which started with Tischendorf in 1859 then don't act like you are taking Scripture seriously and mislead others into thinking you are.

>6 For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings (elohim) is like the Lord,

That is a total misquote.「בִּבְנֵי אֵלִים 」is what Psalm 89:7 says, is not「אֱלֹהִים 」.

It seems like I'm talking with a mormon. Problem with them is they never just come out and tell you what they are, it has to be exposed to a point it cannot be avoided any longer.

>>847309

Heiser isn't a Mormon, are you just making a comparison?

>>847309

I'm not a mormon and I don't even use English bibles as my primary source. I don't even know who Tischendorf is.

And sorry for putting elohim in the bracket, it made it sound like that's what was directly written in the text, what I meant by it is that the sons of God are elohim as in gods or just beings from the heavenly realm.

And what do even the verses you just brought up have to do with this discussion? I don't believe that there's "a special continuing revelation", I do believe that we as humans 21st century lack the original context that every ancient Israelite would have and by trying to force our modern ideas we remove a lot of the depth of the original text. And the Deutoronomy 32:39 talks about other gods not existing only if you take it in a blindly literal way which doesn't fit with the rest of the supernatural context. It's just language that shows the uniqueness of Yahweh and only Him being the origin and Creator of all things and Him having rulership over life and death, which the other gods don't possess. Do you really believe that every evil supernatural being doesn't actually exist? That every evil god/demon that's being judged and against whom Yahweh warns is not real?

>>847318

>I don't even know who Tischendorf is.

Well, you're quoting from a modern version based on him. The ESV is based on him.

>And what do even the verses you just brought up have to do with this discussion?

Deuteronomy 32:39 quite explicitly says that the LORD is God, and there is no other god before him.

In other words, people might position idols in the place of where God rightfully belongs. In that sense, these idols are the gods of the heathen. It (wrongly) holds the position of a god to them, it is their false gods: Not in the sense that they existed in the beginning with the LORD God and were, as you erroneously said, "divine council of other gods/elohim/heavenly beings" being referred to in Genesis chapter 1. The false gods or idols we are talking about, are just things men created at later times, as pointed out even in Deuteronomy 32, and also everywhere else. They were not present in the beginning with God, are inanimate objects and should not be grouped together with God in any capacity.

If you want to talk about other spirits and so forth that is a different subject. As taught in Hebrews chapter 1:

> 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

> 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

See the difference now? Unto the Son does he say "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Not unto created beings such as angels. And even less so to idols, or evil spirits, which is what you keep implying.

>I don't believe that there's "a special continuing revelation",

Great, then don't use modern versions because they are based on that. That would prevent many of these errors.

The other verses I just brought up have to do with the fact that the word of God actually does not change over time and people do not "rediscover" more accurate manuscripts that were ""lost"" for some indeterminate time. No, those represent corruptions. God states throughout his word that he will preserve it to all generations, not leave it buried in a pit until some guy discovered it. That would be continuous revelation of Scripture. And there have always been people corrupting the word of God (according to 2 Corinthians 2:17), but we have still received the pure, incorrupt Scripture at the same time, taken from the sources the KJV and other Bibles, before Tischendorf in 1859, used. If you simply use the received version (still exists in its complete, incorrupt state) and avoid the corrupt versions that people make and have made in every era, then you will be fine. Otherwise you are implying there is a continuing revelation because maybe nobody has discovered the original yet, which is what the modern version folks keep subtly implying. The irony is, that we have it all along, they just don't want to accept it. It condemns their sin and they can't keep changing it to say different things.

>I do believe that we as humans 21st century lack the original context

Ok what about where the Scripture says that the Holy Spirit guides believers into all truth in John 16:13?

Are you saying everyone including God has been wrong for a long time but somehow you have now figured out just now what the original context is? Assumedly from these newly discovered *(or revealed, due to a continuing revelation)* manuscripts? I noticed you mentioned newly discovered or revealed manuscripts as part of your reasoning, in addition to using the ESV version. This is sounding more like a mix of the Hebrew roots movement (everything is different IN THEIR CONTEXT man…) with mormonism (teaching how created things became "divine gods" - despite this contradicting everything the Bible actually says).

I would say pay actual regard to actual Scripture from now on. I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt in explaining all of this, assuming they haven't heard it and rejected that truth already. But this is not a toy or a game, there are serious consequences here. If you have rejected the truth already there is nothing else to add. If not, then I am assuming the best that you really do not know and are not aware of the kind of things you are saying and the level of contradicting multitudes of clear Scripture you are doing here. I've seen it many times: you create a misinterpretation of like one or two passages and just ignore everything.

Isaiah 45:

>Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

>Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lᴏʀᴅ? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

>Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

>>847324

Okay, I'll repeat that again since it keeps somehow to be going over your head.

The word elohim/god for ancient Hebrews doesn't imply any specific attributes, it only means that it's a being from the spiritual realm. Therefore it doesn't mean that every god is eternal, otherwise Yahweh being compared to other elohim and Him being more supreme wouldn't make sense. Yahweh is the only creator God, in fact, he's called the elohim above all elohim. And of course the beings that reside with Him in the council are created beings, because just because an elohim is an elohim, doesn't mean that he's eternal (or any other attribute).

God creating spiritual family ie His sons and other beings like the cherubim and angels (who are also technically elohim/gods, again, the Hebrews don't understand the word god the same way we do. Words like angels and cherubim work as just jobs descriptions for different elohim.) is then mirrored in the creation of humans. Genesis 1 doesn't describe the beginning of all of matter, since the Bible numerously uses chaos language in terms of creation and God bringing order to it. So of course the divine council is not eternal like Yahweh. They serve as God's spiritual imagers, and them God makes humans as his physical imagers. And of course the created elohim don't share the throne of God and definitely not the rebellious ones such as in Genesis 6.

Well the sons of Israel version comes from the MT from the 9th AD which was the "corrupted" version. And the KJV is based on it. The older Septuagint witch's been available all the time had the different version. There's never been a perfectly unified Bible that just dropped from the sky in it's perfect form. Most versions of the scriptures contain God's revelation, even though they might differ in some places. But when they do, we should simply choose the more superior and older text. I'm not saying that there's a continuous revelation. All of those things were written about at the time of Jesus and they had access to even more knowledge. Well if you're a KJV only person, which I hope you're not, then I don't even really know how to discuss anything further with you. And no, I'm not a combination of any of these movements.

I don't have the time to explain what's the actual role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation so just watch this:

https://youtu.be/a97pwxWaCzc

And I'm not a part of any suspicious movement with some "new" revelation. I just use scholarly knowledge to help me understand the scripture. I'm just saying that we've thrown out a lot of understand from the Bible, and it's not like this understanding is completely brand new. Just go watch Michael Heiser for some basic introduction:

https://youtu.be/w5dQb8M2fKU

>>847366

>Okay, I'll repeat that again since it keeps somehow to be going over your head.

There is no scripture to support anything you said, so it is ignored. So, you can keep repeating theories just as many people do but since there is no scripture to support it, it is not moving the discussion.

Ok let me quote it again for you:

Isaiah 45:21

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

>Well the sons of Israel version comes from the MT from the 9th AD which was the "corrupted" version. And the KJV is based on it.

It is actually based on the original Hebrew text as a matter of fact, not an altered version written later. Scholars have it wrong.

As we have discussed, the original Scripture is incorruptible. No one on earth has the power to destroy or remove the original version of Scripture from earth. It is prophesied. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35. That means his word is not destroyed and we have the original 1st century or older version of every book.

The only real reason modern scholars don't accept this is because they are nonbelievers and they do not like the received text because it rebukes their sin and they can't change it to say different things. They cloak this in dissimulating language, and try to spread doubt everywhere about whether the prophecy of preservation is really true. They act under the irrational (because all unbelief in Scripture is irrational) presupposition that the original is lost and that we only have fallible versions left.

So again, the KJV and other Bibles before the modern versions used the original received text. Everyone accepted this basically universally until the era of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.

>the MT from the 9th AD

This is actually referring to something like the Leningrad Codex, discovered in the mid-20th century. It differs from the KJV Old Testament sources in various places such as in 1 Kings 20:38/41 where it changes "ashes" to "bandage" and 2 Kings 23:29 where it changes "went up against" to "went to the aid of" (and also creating a contradiction with its parallel passage 2 Chron. 35:20). I know of a handful of changes that the MT makes which are not in the KJV. Another one is Zeph. 3:15 where "see evil" is changed to "fear evil." So these are demonstrably two different texts.

>The older Septuagint witch's been available all the time

We only have the Hexaplar Septugint still in its entirety. This was written by Origen in the 3rd century AD. Any older version has barely any remnant left. Also the Septuagint is a translation - it isn't written in the original languages of the Old Testament. That means it can't be the original version.

Lastly, as I already pointed out, the Hexaplar version of the LXX has Methuselah outlive the flood by 14 years. And not only that. I can point to you additional errors on this text which are true contradictions, if you don't believe me.

>There's never been a perfectly unified Bible that just dropped from the sky in it's perfect form.

The point is the word of God has never been lost. Even before anyone made a complete physical book, the individual books survived. They were no less inspired beforehand. The book of Acts tells us that the word of God grew mightily and spread (Acts 12:24, Acts 19:20). This was in an era before there was an assembled physical Bible in its complete form. The lack of a physical book having all 66 books doesn't matter, the word of God was never corrupted. And was of course never lost at any time. Why? Because the Scripture prophesies as much. Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 59:21, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25. If you like I can post every single verse again on here. I will never stop posting it, and saying this, as long as I live.

>Most versions of the scriptures contain God's revelation, even though they might differ in some places.

There are corrupted versions and in those places where they differ with the original, they should be disregarded. And as a corollary of this, we should avoid as much as possible using corrupted versions in one place, to avoid creating a stumbling block for someone who might start reading it generally and then they will be thrown off by the corrupt parts.

>All of those things were written about at the time of Jesus and they had access to even more knowledge.

So Hebrew roots then, got it.

>Well if you're a KJV only person, which I hope you're not, then I don't even really know how to discuss anything further with you.

What part of this conversation makes you think that I am? I am not. Moreover, do you realize that that is a very old and tired straw man used buy the same modern-scholars to escape from legitimate criticism?

>>847366

>just watch this:

>a97pwxWaCzc

This video just continually cites modern-scholars who run modern seminaries, as if they were infallible mini-gods. What if the seminaries have been infiltrated and corrupted by modernism though? What if these are corruptible institutions suceptible to money buy-out, where rich donors influence or control who is promoted to the high positions and who reward certain kinds of research.

I say this because there is firm evidence to believe based on the changes made in these institutions and their teachings, that they have been subverted by synagogue money and fall into the old saying:

Titus 1:10-11

>For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

>Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

They are generally pro-sodomy. So again, it's a fallacy to rely exclusively on the alleged prestige of modern scholars and the "prestigious" titles they possess. They are not more authoritative than Scripture. This shouldn't even be a question. And as the Lord Jesus said,

>Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

- Luke 16:15

Thus manifestly corrupt subversives like MLK Jr. receive grand accolades while true biblical teaching is shunned by the world. The world rewards people such as him, and calls them "reverend," who are skeptics about the divinity of Christ.

>>847185

>Are you aware that the "let Us" language in Genesis 1 is describing God and His divine council of other gods/elohim/heavenly beings and not specifically the Trinity?

Except it is specifically The Trinity.

>>847402

This.

>>847287

It very clearly is incompatible with the Christianity of scripture and is absolutely not monotheism