I'm not sure whether someone actually felt the need to contact this person, or whether he had been in the discussion earlier, but was out for a while, then came back in again responding to some comments I had made in regards to the nature of God, and the Yahweh/El Elyon issue. Either way this fellow seemed intent on pushing his assertions on me in an almost strangely fundamentalist fashion. What's equally strange about this little discussion is that this gentleman is an Oxford graduate, but from his behaviour and handling of the dialogue you wouldn't actually know this unless he told you. And to be perfectly honest it's when he actually did end a post with his Oxford credentials that I found out he was from Oxford. Before I post the dialogue, I just want to point out to the reader the extremely sad, liberal, corruption that has made itself manifest in many once-solid grounded schools, (of course, this type of corruption has always been at Oxford and every school, but certainly not as much in the past as it is now) and consequently produce graduates who come out skeptical not only of the biblically inerrent texts, but also of past scholarship and by-gone values that we just don't see too often in this world today. Now, of course, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard, and many other universities do indeed contain persons who do apply honest research on issues regarding the Bible, the Church, the historicity of Christ, etc, but they are so few in a world filled with so many who are, well, deluded. I really don't think I have to continue explaining what I mean, since all you need do is take a look at the world around you and see for yourself.
As for this dialogue, not only is it an update on how the discussion is going, but also I want it to be educational especially on the current state of so-called scholarship. I do not consider myself a good debator, but I do consider myself a Christian with a desire to take a stand for the Truth. Now I have no doubt whatsoever many of you would have done a far superior job than I in this debate, but I can honestly say I did as best I could. This goes for any discussion or debate I frequently encounter, online or in person, with various people. I'm certainly no scholar, far, far, far from it in fact. My desire is to learn more and more, and I really do think learning is by experiencing. So, for me, this is a great learning experience.
***
THE DEBATE
(NOTE: In this first post you are about to read, I am responding to another gentleman named Walker. Walker quotes the Oxford graduate, Daniel, with whom I have this debate. The actual quote from Daniel is this:
"Heiser makes quite a few fallacious arguments in this paper. To begin with, this paper glosses over a number of concerns that lead me to believe it's written for a lay audience that won't think to question a lot of his premises. For instance, he neglects to mention the fact that the ml'k yhwh of the Hebrew Bible theophanies is textually suspect. Scholars are quite in agreement that the "ml'k" is a late interpolation meant to avoid direct contact between God and man. Certain texts, however, crept through. Exod 24:10, instance. See Nahum Sarna, Genesis = Be-reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 383; Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990), 296. These text-critical considerations are ignored by Heiser.)
Post #463
1 reply
You replied to Walker's post4 hours ago
"If you use 'humanoid' in the strict sense of resembling human characteristics, then I would agree. However, I hardly think Carol is using 'humanoid' as a synonym for 'anthropomorphic' (or 'theomorphic' in the case of humans)."
I can see your point. But judging from Carol's character it is extremely doubtful she is using it in any other way than the strictest sense.
"Heiser isn't the only scholar on this matter. He disagrees with Mark S. Smith and others that Yahweh was originally a son of El. And Daniel McClellan responded to Heiser's assertion in this case, which I don't believe you ever responded to. Allow me to repost..."
Daniel McClellan makes some strange fallacies here. First, the top scholars, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, would disagree with his assertions. First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT, which, contrary to your assertions, contain:
Genesis 14:22 Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,
Psalm 7:17 I will give thanks to the LORD according to His righteousness And will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
Psalm 9:1 {For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.} I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders. 2 I will be glad and exult in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High.
Psalm 21:7 For the king trusts in the LORD, And through the loving kindness of the Most High he will not be shaken.
So unless McClellan discounts men such as Kenyon, who affirm that if there is so much as a tiny doubt to any passage of Scripture, we have literally hundreds of very early texts that we may easily refer to that shall clarify a certain translation if it is called into question. If he takes his sources from ancient pagan texts, I fail to see what this has to do at all with orthodox Judaism and Christianity, which rejected such ideas about God historically.
"Heiser also relies heavily on ad hoc fallacies. For instance, he claims Yahweh is incorporeal and invisible unless he "chooses to be detected." This argues from the conclusion, searching for a way to preserve god's incorporeality and explain texts where he is manifestly corporeal. John 4:24 no more indicates divine incorporeality than it indicates human incorporeality. The Greek of John 4 explains that "God is spirit" (NOT "God is a spirit"), but John 3 explains that all people born of the spirit are spirit. The predication is identical to that of John 4, so if one insists John 4:24 indicates God has no body, they must accept that John 3:6 indicates saved humans have no bodies. Heiser skips that consideration."
Once again, the Greek does not at all support your claim about God. John 4:24 actually says 'pnuema ho theos', literally Spirit=God, that His very essence is spirit. The Greek leaves no room whatsoever for the theory that the passage is simply saying God *has* a spirit. In fact, the Joseph Smith Translation totally rewrites this verse altogether to say exactly that. But allow me to demonstrate using the original autographs:
John 3:6 - ... καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.
John 4:24 - πνεῦμα ὁ θεός...
Now, does John 3:6 say that "spirit" is the very essence of every believer who comes to Christ? Nah, I don't think so either. The Greek wording is fundamentally different, therefore changing the meaning of both passages. God's essence is spirit, as I've just shown from the Greek. But Christians are born of the Holy Spirit, or as some translations say "The Spirit gives birth to spirit", an obvious metaphor refering to the regeneration of the soul which is quite obvious once examined in the original Greek.
"Heiser also explains that no humans can see Yahweh's true essence and live, but in Exod 24:10 it explains that Moses and his seventy saw the God of Israel. The next verse explains that they, in fact, were not killed. Heiser is begging the question by arguing that there must be some extenuating circumstances preventing Moses' death, and he presupposes the univocality of the text, which is quite naive."
Actually what he says, when taking the entire OT into context, is that they saw the visible Yaweh, but other biblical scholars propose they saw His glory. I prefer to visible Yahweh, who is rightly called God, as well as Angel of Yahweh. Once again, we must take Hesier into context.
"Lastly, Heiser ignores that intermediate conflation between the Ugaritic literature and that of exilic Judaism. Before the strict monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah and post-exilic Judaism, Yahweh was identified with Baal, but not with El. The Israelite El was identified with the Canaanite El. It wasn't until Yahweh and El were conflated during the monarchy that the second tier was vacated. At this point there was no "Second Power." It wasn't until the Second Temple Period, much later, that Jewish angelology inserted another participant. 1 Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the first and most clear manifestations of this. Heiser fails to account for the centuries of religious development between the Ugaritic texts (1500 - 1200 BCE) and Second Temple Judaism (500 BCE - 70 CE), when the "Second Power in Heaven" was relevant."
But then we have in the earliest accounts of Genesis a Second Power in Heaven, which the earliest Rabbinical literature we have to date say is a visible Yahweh. As I have shown befor, El Elyon is indeed Yahweh.
"They attributed His presence to the tabernacle, temple, or mountain, though you seem to have missed my point: a physical location (both in the case of Mount Zion and Kolob) is not necessarily to be viewed as literal."
Actually they viewed His presence beyond the temple and tabernacle too, since Solomon asked how a human-made house contain Yahweh. You've clearly missed my point that your early leaders always stressed the idea that Kolob was literal, and it is only modern-day LDS teaching, as opposed to early Mormon doctrine, that tries to reinterpret the idea.
Post #465
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your postabout an hour ago
Carmenn said:
Daniel McClellan makes some strange fallacies here. First, the top scholars, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, would disagree with his assertions.
++++++++++++
Frederic Kenyon died over fifty years ago. First learn to spell his name correctly, and then don't use phenomenally outdated scholarship to prop up your assumptions.
++++++++++++
First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT
++++++++++++
Of course not. Nowhere is there a promise that the biblical manuscripts will remain pristine.
++++++++++++
Genesis 14:22 Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth,
++++++++++++
Actually the word "LORD" in that verse is a Common Era interpolation. It's not in the Greek, the Syriac, or at Qumran. The translation "possessor" is also incorrect. It's "creator" or "begetter." You're in the wrong millennium with your scholarship.
++++++++++++
Psalm 7:17 I will give thanks to the LORD according to His righteousness And will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.
Psalm 9:1 {For the choir director; on Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.} I will give thanks to the LORD with all my heart; I will tell of all Your wonders. 2 I will be glad and exult in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High.
++++++++++++
Both Second Temple Period compositions, and so irrelevant.
++++++++++++
So unless McClellan discounts men such as Kenyon,
++++++++++++
I absolutely do if those are his proof texts.
++++++++++++
Once again, the Greek does not at all support your claim about God. John 4:24 actually says 'pnuema ho theos', literally Spirit=God, that His very essence is spirit.
++++++++++++
Utterly ludicrous. It says nothing of the sort, although the prior chapter in John says the exact same thing about spirit and humans, so your exegesis fails even if your assertion were correct. They're both predications and nothing more. I suggest you learn Greek before you presume to lecture me about it.
++++++++++++
The Greek leaves no room whatsoever for the theory that the passage is simply saying God *has* a spirit.
++++++++++++
I never made any such comment. It says that God is spirit. The problem is, the previous chapter also says humans who are born again are also spirit. The copula is omitted in John 4, which is merely syntactical preference. There is no semantic distinction. Also, pay better attention.
++++++++++++
Now, does John 3:6 say that "spirit" is the very essence of every believer who comes to Christ? Nah, I don't think so either. The Greek wording is fundamentally different, therefore changing the meaning of both passages. God's essence is spirit, as I've just shown from the Greek. But Christians are born of the Holy Spirit, or as some translations say "The Spirit gives birth to spirit", an obvious metaphor refering to the regeneration of the soul which is quite obvious once examined in the original Greek.
++++++++++++
No, the Greek does not say that. You don't know Greek, so stop wasting everyone's time.
++++++++++++
Actually what he says, when taking the entire OT into context, is that they saw the visible Yaweh, but other biblical scholars propose they saw His glory. I prefer to visible Yahweh, who is rightly called God, as well as Angel of Yahweh. Once again, we must take Hesier into context.
++++++++++++
This does not address my concerns. In fact, it utterly ignores them. I'll say it again. The Bible is not univocal. If you would like to challenge that point then do so, but simply ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.
++++++++++++
But then we have in the earliest accounts of Genesis a Second Power in Heaven, which the earliest Rabbinical literature we have to date say is a visible Yahweh. As I have shown befor, El Elyon is indeed Yahweh.
++++++++++++
No, those are not even close to the "earliest accounts of Genesis," and early rabbinic literature is over a millennium secondary to the conflation of Yahweh and El. You don't even come close to engaging my points with these comments, and I'll thank you not to presume to lecture me about topics with which you have such severely deficient capacity.
Post #467
1 reply
You replied to Daniel's post40 minutes ago
"Frederic Kenyon died over fifty years ago. First learn to spell his name correctly, and then don't use phenomenally outdated scholarship to prop up your assumptions."
The fact you say Kenyon's work is *phenomenally* outdated really shows me just how "serious" you are about your scholarship. It seems to me whenever you folks find a scholar that disagrees and contradicts your assertions you simply dismiss them altogether. Prove his scholarship is outdated before you want to be taken seriouslly by rational people. Oh, and I find that you even addressed my mis-spelling of his name in the manner you did speaks volumes. A polite correction would have sufficed, wouldn't you say? :-)
"First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT
++++++++++++
Of course not. Nowhere is there a promise that the biblical manuscripts will remain pristine."
Actually, sir, there is quite a bit of evidence, but naturally you will just assume those passages ambiguous at best. For example,
Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
Or Matt. 16:18 - "Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail."
Or lastly, 1 Peter 2:4-8 - "4As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame."[a] 7Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone,[b]"[c] 8and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall."[d] They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for."
But I realize that even though Yahweh promised the preservation of His Word and the everlasting stand of His Church, you still discount His promises because you don't believe God is Soverign, since Mormonism really is centered on the divinity of mankind. But that aside, any true Christian would take those Scripture passages to heart, but in this case with Mormonism we need further proof so here-
I surely hope you will not refuse the scholarship of Samuel Davidson, F.F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Will Durant, F.E. Peters, Bruce Metzger, or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of the Bible, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most especially the OT, throughout the centuries. No LDS argument has ever gone up against this kind of scholarship, and I've only cited a few.
"Actually the word "LORD" in that verse is a Common Era interpolation. It's not in the Greek, the Syriac, or at Qumran. The translation "possessor" is also incorrect. It's "creator" or "begetter." You're in the wrong millennium with your scholarship."
No actually it is in the LXX, and the Jews being very precise about the accuracy of copying the texts have preserved the meaning. I would ask for you to substantiate your assertion from a credible scholar. The scholars I've mentioned (and have not mentioned) would not agree with you here. This same can go for the other passages I've cited, which you dismiss without any sort of credible evidence while I have provided different scholars who are experts on the subject.
"So unless McClellan discounts men such as Kenyon,
++++++++++++
I absolutely do if those are his proof texts."
Which already shows any rational person they simply cannot take your assertions seriously...
" Once again, the Greek does not at all support your claim about God. John 4:24 actually says 'pnuema ho theos', literally Spirit=God, that His very essence is spirit.
++++++++++++
Utterly ludicrous. It says nothing of the sort, although the prior chapter in John says the exact same thing about spirit and humans, so your exegesis fails even if your assertion were correct. They're both predications and nothing more. I suggest you learn Greek before you presume to lecture me about it."
So am I to understand you correctly that you are actually *denying* the fact that 'pneuma ho theos' means God's very essence is spirit? The leading Greek scholars alone would laugh at such a wild claim, but allow me to quote Shandon Guthrie, adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Navada, Las Vegas,
"The interpretation of 4:24 is simple, God is proposed to have the nature of spirit...It is just as feasible to translate 4:24 as 'God=spirit.' Now, when one 'worships in spirit', one [that is, we humans] is not being described. The word 'spirit' here is in the dative case, thereby denoting a medium through which the worship is carried out. This is different from the subject of those who are told to worship Him! In this context [that is, in reference to us], 'spirit' is the means of how we are to worship God, not a description of our ontological status [what our natures are like.]" - A Discussion on Mormonism
So actually, sir, contrary to your fallacious assertion, the Greek here is very much validating what I had first said.
"Now, does John 3:6 say that "spirit" is the very essence of every believer who comes to Christ? Nah, I don't think so either. The Greek wording is fundamentally different, therefore changing the meaning of both passages. God's essence is spirit, as I've just shown from the Greek. But Christians are born of the Holy Spirit, or as some translations say "The Spirit gives birth to spirit", an obvious metaphor refering to the regeneration of the soul which is quite obvious once examined in the original Greek.
++++++++++++
No, the Greek does not say that. You don't know Greek, so stop wasting everyone's time."
If that is supposed to be an sort of a refutation, I suggest you actually address the issue, viz., the Greek text and prove *from* the Greek text how the Greek does not say that.
" Actually what he says, when taking the entire OT into context, is that they saw the visible Yaweh, but other biblical scholars propose they saw His glory. I prefer to visible Yahweh, who is rightly called God, as well as Angel of Yahweh. Once again, we must take Hesier into context.
++++++++++++
This does not address my concerns. In fact, it utterly ignores them. I'll say it again. The Bible is not univocal. If you would like to challenge that point then do so, but simply ignoring it doesn't make it any less true."
Rather than ignoring it, sir, I've substantiated my claim more than once here with regards to the reliability of the biblical texts. It seems you are the one ignoring the issues I'm presenting.
"But then we have in the earliest accounts of Genesis a Second Power in Heaven, which the earliest Rabbinical literature we have to date say is a visible Yahweh. As I have shown befor, El Elyon is indeed Yahweh.
++++++++++++
No, those are not even close to the "earliest accounts of Genesis," and early rabbinic literature is over a millennium secondary to the conflation of Yahweh and El. You don't even come close to engaging my points with these comments, and I'll thank you not to presume to lecture me about topics with which you have such severely deficient capacity."
I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars. Just out of curiosity, and I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but...who are you? I can't honestly say I've ever heard of you before, although on second thought your name does sound vaguely familiar. Are you a BYU professor? In any case, I do hope you take into consideration that by actually hearing the opponent's arguments before attempting a response is usually the best way to go. Judging by your answers to me (in a very rude attitude, I'll add, which is very unprofessional if you are a BYU professor) I'll take a guess and conclude you've only read a small portion of my arguments, or just briefly skimmed over the latest. Well, in any case, all the best :-)
Post #466
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post51 minutes ago
Carmenn said:
In ancient Jewish thought, God had no physical location, since Heaven is not so much a place as it is a state of being, so to speak, in a dimension not known to us since God Himself is even a Mystery.
++++++++++++
Flat wrong. To begin with "Jewish" thought didn't really begin until the Persian period. Prior to that we have Israelite thought, but I think you mean to refer to both, since the texts you cite are Israelite, and not Jewish.
Second, the heavens were the skies, and they were considered a palpable and solid boundary between the earth below and the waters above. They were the firmament in Genesis 1, and the early Israelites believed the gods lived over those waters. Second Temple Period Judaism expanded upon this considerably. The heavens were not intangible dimensions of being until just before the Rabbinic Period, when mystical Judaism assimilated Greek ideologies wholesale (which is also about the time the deanthropomorphization of God took place).
One example of this change, which also refutes the silly notion that God took up no physical space, is the variant reading of Exod 24:10 in the Septuagint. The MT reads, "And the saw the God of Israel, and under his feet there was a work like the pavement of sapphire stone." In LXX it reads, "And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood." The translations attests to a Vorlage that wanted to avoid intimating God was seen by Moses and his seventy, but they had not yet abandoned an anthropomorphic deity, since they point out that God was standing in a place. LXX continues to describe the same stone upon which God stood. If you'd like to learn more about this, I suggest you attend my paper at this November's annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. I present on Sunday morning:
22-149
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
11/22/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room TBD - Hotel TBD
Theme: Textual Criticism and Problems of Method and Interpretation
Brent A. Strawn, Emory University, Presiding
Emanuel Tov, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac Translations of Hebrew Scripture vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text (25 min)
Steve Delamarter, George Fox University
Preparing to Write the Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament: Of Digitization, Social Editing and the Sociology of Scholarship (25 min)
Daniel O. McClellan, University of Oxford
Anthropomorphisms and the Vorlage to LXX Exodus (25 min)
You're way out of your league here.
Post #469
1 reply
You replied to Daniel's post22 minutes ago
In ancient Jewish thought, God had no physical location, since Heaven is not so much a place as it is a state of being, so to speak, in a dimension not known to us since God Himself is even a Mystery.
++++++++++++
Flat wrong. To begin with "Jewish" thought didn't really begin until the Persian period. Prior to that we have Israelite thought, but I think you mean to refer to both, since the texts you cite are Israelite, and not Jewish.
You're quite right in your conclusion that I use 'Jewish' and 'Israelite' synonomously, and therefore my first assertion is quite right. Unfortunatly, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttle. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me). I find it interesting that you feel the need to continually say I am out of my league or in much error, and yet provide no documentation. Well, perhaps you're just very busy and cannot provide the quotes just now.
"Second, the heavens were the skies, and they were considered a palpable and solid boundary between the earth below and the waters above. They were the firmament in Genesis 1, and the early Israelites believed the gods lived over those waters. Second Temple Period Judaism expanded upon this considerably. The heavens were not intangible dimensions of being until just before the Rabbinic Period, when mystical Judaism assimilated Greek ideologies wholesale (which is also about the time the deanthropomorphization of God took place)."
Actually, sir, if you consider the earliest texts, the "heavens" had more than one meaning even before the Rabbinic Period. The earliest versions of the Psalms alone prove this quite well. But I won't go into too much detail here. But as for deanthropomorphization (you spelt it wrong in your first post, but mistakes happen :-)) of God, this is just ridiculous at best. You cannot give me one quote from the earliest OT manuscripts that say in any way, shape, or form, that God is an exalted man. I assume this is what you refer to. But we all know what 'assume' stands for, so I'd like your clarification on that. You have not yet said anything about Our Lord's words in Jn.4:24 being a corruption, so I do ask you deal with that passage in relation to your assertion on the nature of God.
"One example of this change, which also refutes the silly notion that God took up no physical space, is the variant reading of Exod 24:10 in the Septuagint. The MT reads, "And the saw the God of Israel, and under his feet there was a work like the pavement of sapphire stone." In LXX it reads, "And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood." The translations attests to a Vorlage that wanted to avoid intimating God was seen by Moses and his seventy, but they had not yet abandoned an anthropomorphic deity, since they point out that God was standing in a place. LXX continues to describe the same stone upon which God stood. If you'd like to learn more about this, I suggest you attend my paper at this November's annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. I present on Sunday morning:
22-149
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
11/22/2009
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room TBD - Hotel TBD
Theme: Textual Criticism and Problems of Method and Interpretation
Brent A. Strawn, Emory University, Presiding
Emanuel Tov, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac Translations of Hebrew Scripture vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text (25 min)
Steve Delamarter, George Fox University
Preparing to Write the Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament: Of Digitization, Social Editing and the Sociology of Scholarship (25 min)
Daniel O. McClellan, University of Oxford
Anthropomorphisms and the Vorlage to LXX Exodus (25 min)
You're way out of your league here."
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this discussion (which is another I reason I don't believe you've even bothered to read my arguments or watch my video presentations) there must be a careful distinction between God's glory, the Angel of Yahweh, or Yahweh the Invisible. Considering the fact that Israel draws a relation between God and His Angel in his blessing over the boys must be taken into consideration as well. You must also deal with the fact God said in the same book "No man may see me and live". So in reality, Ex. 24:10 fits in perfectly well with historic Christendom and Judaism according to Moses. It seems, while others have noted this clear distinction, you sir, have not. I'm sorry but I just cannot take your assertions seriouslly in light of noted scholars on the subject. I'd like a copy of your paper, if I may, I think it'll be an interesting read.
Post #468
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post22 minutes ago
Carmenn said:
The fact you say Kenyon's work is *phenomenally* outdated really shows me just how "serious" you are about your scholarship. It seems to me whenever you folks find a scholar that disagrees and contradicts your assertions you simply dismiss them altogether. Prove his scholarship is outdated before you want to be taken seriouslly by rational people. Oh, and I find that you even addressed my mis-spelling of his name in the manner you did speaks volumes. A polite correction would have sufficed, wouldn't you say? :-)
++++++++++++
When you learn to be polite to me I'll respond in kind. If you require I address Kenyon directly, then I will do so. Please cite the publication in which Kenyon, a New Testament scholar, directly engages the question of the unity of Yahweh and El. I'll respond to that.
++++++++++++
Actually, sir, there is quite a bit of evidence, but naturally you will just assume those passages ambiguous at best. For example,
Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
++++++++++++
And this does not refer to any text, nor does it support the assumption that "word of God" = Bible.
++++++++++++
But I realize that even though Yahweh promised the preservation of His Word and the everlasting stand of His Church, you still discount His promises because you don't believe God is Soverign, since Mormonism really is centered on the divinity of mankind. But that aside, any true Christian would take those Scripture passages to heart, but in this case with Mormonism we need further proof so here-
++++++++++++
Same as above. "Word of God" does not necessarily equal "Bible."
++++++++++++
I surely hope you will not refuse the scholarship of Samuel Davidson, F.F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Will Durant, F.E. Peters, Bruce Metzger, or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of the Bible, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most especially the OT, throughout the centuries.
++++++++++++
Bruce Metzger has nothing to do with the Old Testament, nor does F. F. Bruce or Will Durant. The others are evangelical scholars who have very clear biases, but none of them would be so naive as to assert the "remarkable preservation" of the OT to any degree that supports your assertions.
++++++++++++
Which already shows any rational person they simply cannot take your assertions seriously...
++++++++++++
Utterly meaningless. My specialization is Old Testament textual criticism and early Israelite theology. If you can point to a Kenyon text that appeals to the texts you cited in defending the pristine nature of the Old Testament texts I'll respond directly, but you've done nothing but vomit up fallacious and ignorant appeals to authority.
++++++++++++
So am I to understand you correctly that you are actually *denying* the fact that 'pneuma ho theos' means God's very essence is spirit?
++++++++++++
Of course. It does not at all mean that.
++++++++++++
So actually, sir, contrary to your fallacious assertion, the Greek here is very much validating what I had first said.
++++++++++++
Not at all.
++++++++++++
If that is supposed to be an sort of a refutation, I suggest you actually address the issue, viz., the Greek text and prove *from* the Greek text how the Greek does not say that.
++++++++++++
I already have. An omitted copula in no way supports your assertion, nor does a predicate nominative. They are both predications, which also does not support your assertion. Done.
++++++++++++
Rather than ignoring it, sir, I've substantiated my claim more than once here with regards to the reliability of the biblical texts. It seems you are the one ignoring the issues I'm presenting.
++++++++++++
Again, no engaging my concerns. You're just saying, "Nu-uh!"
++++++++++++
I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars.
++++++++++++
No, you haven't quoted other scholars to me. You've simply written their names.
++++++++++++
Just out of curiosity, and I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but...who are you? I can't honestly say I've ever heard of you before, although on second thought your name does sound vaguely familiar. Are you a BYU professor?
++++++++++++
No.
++++++++++++
In any case, I do hope you take into consideration that by actually hearing the opponent's arguments before attempting a response is usually the best way to go.
++++++++++++
And I've been dealing with your particular brand of scholarship for years.
++++++++++++
Judging by your answers to me (in a very rude attitude, I'll add, which is very unprofessional if you are a BYU professor) I'll take a guess and conclude you've only read a small portion of my arguments, or just briefly skimmed over the latest. Well, in any case, all the best :-)
++++++++++++
If your only actual response is ad hominem then I'll conclude you have nothing of any substance to say regarding my criticisms of your assertions.
Post #471
You replied to Daniel's post56 seconds ago
"The fact you say Kenyon's work is *phenomenally* outdated really shows me just how "serious" you are about your scholarship. It seems to me whenever you folks find a scholar that disagrees and contradicts your assertions you simply dismiss them altogether. Prove his scholarship is outdated before you want to be taken seriouslly by rational people. Oh, and I find that you even addressed my mis-spelling of his name in the manner you did speaks volumes. A polite correction would have sufficed, wouldn't you say? :-)
++++++++++++
When you learn to be polite to me I'll respond in kind. If you require I address Kenyon directly, then I will do so. Please cite the publication in which Kenyon, a New Testament scholar, directly engages the question of the unity of Yahweh and El. I'll respond to that."
In light of your response to me, I have been most polite in replying to you sir. I specifically said Kenyon is an authority relating to the biblical texts, not the El Elyon/Yahweh issue.
"Actually, sir, there is quite a bit of evidence, but naturally you will just assume those passages ambiguous at best. For example,
Isaiah 40:8 - "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
++++++++++++
And this does not refer to any text, nor does it support the assumption that "word of God" = Bible."
I see you ommitted the other passages I've offered. In fact those specific passages were in relation to the Church and the Scriptures. In fact, because the Word of God is contained within the Church, we are quite assured the Bible is is complete and accurate based on the evidence alone without the Divine Promise. I never said the "word of God" = bible, since I believe the Word of God is contained in the Church as well. You missed my entire point of quoting the other passages, sir, which you have not dealt with.
"But I realize that even though Yahweh promised the preservation of His Word and the everlasting stand of His Church, you still discount His promises because you don't believe God is Soverign, since Mormonism really is centered on the divinity of mankind. But that aside, any true Christian would take those Scripture passages to heart, but in this case with Mormonism we need further proof so here-
++++++++++++
Same as above. "Word of God" does not necessarily equal "Bible.""
Correct. And as I noted above, you did not address the other passages I cited. My question is: Why not?
"I surely hope you will not refuse the scholarship of Samuel Davidson, F.F. Bruce, Gleason Archer, Will Durant, F.E. Peters, Bruce Metzger, or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of the Bible, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most especially the OT, throughout the centuries.
++++++++++++
Bruce Metzger has nothing to do with the Old Testament, nor does F. F. Bruce or Will Durant. The others are evangelical scholars who have very clear biases, but none of them would be so naive as to assert the "remarkable preservation" of the OT to any degree that supports your assertions."
Once again, it's the same story: "those folks are biased, therefore we can't really trust them." Are you asserting that you are not biased, sir? I actually have a volume by F.F. Bruce on the OT. Even if he did not, I really don't understand why you discount Bruce and Metzger when I specifically and clearly said, "...or others who actually declare and proclaim not only the reliability of *the Bible*, but also the remarkable preservation of the texts, most *especially the OT*..." Context, context, context.
"Which already shows any rational person they simply cannot take your assertions seriously...
++++++++++++
Utterly meaningless. My specialization is Old Testament textual criticism and early Israelite theology. If you can point to a Kenyon text that appeals to the texts you cited in defending the pristine nature of the Old Testament texts I'll respond directly, but you've done nothing but vomit up fallacious and ignorant appeals to authority."
Speaking of speaking respectfully...Anyways, I'll provide two quotes from Sir Kenyon,
"The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries." - The Historian and the Believer, Religious Studies 2, no. 2, p. 23
"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said for no other book in the world." (Kenyon, Frederic G. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941; pg. 23)
"So am I to understand you correctly that you are actually *denying* the fact that 'pneuma ho theos' means God's very essence is spirit?
++++++++++++
Of course. It does not at all mean that.
++++++++++++
So actually, sir, contrary to your fallacious assertion, the Greek here is very much validating what I had first said.
++++++++++++
Not at all.
++++++++++++
If that is supposed to be an sort of a refutation, I suggest you actually address the issue, viz., the Greek text and prove *from* the Greek text how the Greek does not say that.
++++++++++++
I already have. An omitted copula in no way supports your assertion, nor does a predicate nominative. They are both predications, which also does not support your assertion. Done."
Not done at all. Simply put: you don't have an answer. I can deal with that. I've documented the evidence, you've provided a void argument *without* documentation. I didn't even cite sources such as Thayer, or Low and Nida, and yet you already infallibly declare it wrong. Interesting... Let the reader decide.
"I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars.
++++++++++++
No, you haven't quoted other scholars to me. You've simply written their names."
Case in point. Seeing as how you never read my material or watched the video clips, you obviously would not know I've quoted scholars. In fact, that's what I said in context :-)
"
In any case, I do hope you take into consideration that by actually hearing the opponent's arguments before attempting a response is usually the best way to go.
++++++++++++
And I've been dealing with your particular brand of scholarship for years.
++++++++++++
Judging by your answers to me (in a very rude attitude, I'll add, which is very unprofessional if you are a BYU professor) I'll take a guess and conclude you've only read a small portion of my arguments, or just briefly skimmed over the latest. Well, in any case, all the best :-)
++++++++++++
If your only actual response is ad hominem then I'll conclude you have nothing of any substance to say regarding my criticisms of your assertions."
Your words speak volumes about the type of scholarship you're into, sir. Like I say, let the reader judge. Any comment I would have on that would not mound to what you've already said.
Post #470
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post8 minutes ago
Carmenn said:
You're quite right in your conclusion that I use 'Jewish' and 'Israelite' synonomously, and therefore my first assertion is quite right.
++++++++++++
Actually your assertion isn't right for either of them.
++++++++++++
Unfortunatly, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttle. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me). I find it interesting that you feel the need to continually say I am out of my league or in much error, and yet provide no documentation. Well, perhaps you're just very busy and cannot provide the quotes just now.
++++++++++++
I'm a graduate student, not a professor. You haven't provided any texts to support your assertions, and since you don't respond when I do provide references, I figured I would save my time. If you'd like to provide any references for the assertion that God occupied no space in the earliest Jewish thinking, and that heaven was not an actual place, feel free.
++++++++++++
Actually, sir, if you consider the earliest texts, the "heavens" had more than one meaning even before the Rabbinic Period.
++++++++++++
None of which support your reading.
++++++++++++
The earliest versions of the Psalms alone prove this quite well. But I won't go into too much detail here.
++++++++++++
And you're going to turn around and accuse me of not providing appropriate citations? I have serious doubts that you even know which are the earliest Psalms.
++++++++++++
But as for deanthropomorphization (you spelt it wrong in your first post, but mistakes happen :-))
++++++++++++
No I didn't.
++++++++++++
You cannot give me one quote from the earliest OT manuscripts that say in any way, shape, or form, that God is an exalted man.
++++++++++++
I don't believe I ever said I could. This doesn't at all address anthropomorphization.
++++++++++++
I assume this is what you refer to.
++++++++++++
I'll thank you to stop assuming and just respond honestly to my posts.
++++++++++++
But we all know what 'assume' stands for, so I'd like your clarification on that. You have not yet said anything about Our Lord's words in Jn.4:24 being a corruption, so I do ask you deal with that passage in relation to your assertion on the nature of God.
++++++++++++
It's not a corruption, but the Greek doesn't at all support your assertion. All it says is that God is spirit. Nowhere does it say that quality precludes having a body. Since the previous chapter says that humans can be spirit in the same way, there's no reason to insist God cannot have a body.
++++++++++++
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this discussion (which is another I reason I don't believe you've even bothered to read my arguments or watch my video presentations) there must be a careful distinction between God's glory, the Angel of Yahweh, or Yahweh the Invisible.
++++++++++++
No such distinctions existed prior to the Second Temple Period. These are mystical Jewish ideologies developed from the juxtaposition of Judaism and Hellenism.
++++++++++++
Considering the fact that Israel draws a relation between God and His Angel in his blessing over the boys must be taken into consideration as well. You must also deal with the fact God said in the same book "No man may see me and live".
++++++++++++
You must then deal with Exod 24:10-11, where it says men saw God and yet did live. This is universally recognized as a reference to Exod 33:20. You just need to read your Bible more carefully. The ideology held that seeing God was deadly, not that it was impossible. The ideology also recognized the possibility of exceptions, of which Exod 24:10-11 is the main one.
++++++++++++
So in reality, Ex. 24:10 fits in perfectly well with historic Christendom and Judaism according to Moses. It seems, while others have noted this clear distinction, you sir, have not. I'm sorry but I just cannot take your assertions seriouslly in light of noted scholars on the subject. I'd like a copy of your paper, if I may, I think it'll be an interesting read.
++++++++++++
Send me your email address and I'll be happy to send a copy to you, but you've entirely misread my argument and the relevant texts from the Bible.
Post #473
You replied to Daniel's post6 minutes ago
"You're quite right in your conclusion that I use 'Jewish' and 'Israelite' synonomously, and therefore my first assertion is quite right.
++++++++++++
Actually your assertion isn't right for either of them."
Actually, it is. Since you feel no need to provide documentation, I'll just continue to make my assertion until a valid argument is brought forth.
"Unfortunatly, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttle. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me). I find it interesting that you feel the need to continually say I am out of my league or in much error, and yet provide no documentation. Well, perhaps you're just very busy and cannot provide the quotes just now.
++++++++++++
I'm a graduate student, not a professor. You haven't provided any texts to support your assertions, and since you don't respond when I do provide references, I figured I would save my time. If you'd like to provide any references for the assertion that God occupied no space in the earliest Jewish thinking, and that heaven was not an actual place, feel free."
If memory serves me correctly, I actually *did* provide a reference and that was the Psalms. But, you have seemingly forgotten that little detail. Considering that you've not provided one shred of evidence, you may indeed have wasted your time. But at least its a good demonstration for our readers on liberal scholarship.
" Actually, sir, if you consider the earliest texts, the "heavens" had more than one meaning even before the Rabbinic Period.
++++++++++++
None of which support your reading.
++++++++++++
The earliest versions of the Psalms alone prove this quite well. But I won't go into too much detail here.
++++++++++++
And you're going to turn around and accuse me of not providing appropriate citations? I have serious doubts that you even know which are the earliest Psalms."
It does seem that when a person is losing the argument they often refer to subtle ad hominem like the above line...It says a lot :-) But thanks, it's simply another demonstration of what I've been continually saying concerning this subject.
"You cannot give me one quote from the earliest OT manuscripts that say in any way, shape, or form, that God is an exalted man.
++++++++++++
I don't believe I ever said I could. This doesn't at all address anthropomorphization."
Actually it does very much so.
"I assume this is what you refer to.
++++++++++++
I'll thank you to stop assuming and just respond honestly to my posts."
Which I have been doing consistently, despite the wild claims you continue to make. It's for the readers' sakes in all honesty, those who are searching for a clue, since anyone with a rational thought would have been long gone shaking their heads.
"But we all know what 'assume' stands for, so I'd like your clarification on that. You have not yet said anything about Our Lord's words in Jn.4:24 being a corruption, so I do ask you deal with that passage in relation to your assertion on the nature of God.
++++++++++++
It's not a corruption, but the Greek doesn't at all support your assertion. All it says is that God is spirit. Nowhere does it say that quality precludes having a body. Since the previous chapter says that humans can be spirit in the same way, there's no reason to insist God cannot have a body."
Despite the quote I give, from an actual professor, and the authoritative lexicons I've cited, you continue to live in denial. Evidently you have no understanding whatsoever of the Greek 'Pnuema ho theos' but Greek scholars do, and they say contrary to your assertion. That says a lot.
"
As I've pointed out repeatedly in this discussion (which is another I reason I don't believe you've even bothered to read my arguments or watch my video presentations) there must be a careful distinction between God's glory, the Angel of Yahweh, or Yahweh the Invisible.
++++++++++++
No such distinctions existed prior to the Second Temple Period. These are mystical Jewish ideologies developed from the juxtaposition of Judaism and Hellenism."
There are actually. After the Second Temple Period the distinction became lost.
"Considering the fact that Israel draws a relation between God and His Angel in his blessing over the boys must be taken into consideration as well. You must also deal with the fact God said in the same book "No man may see me and live".
++++++++++++
You must then deal with Exod 24:10-11, where it says men saw God and yet did live. This is universally recognized as a reference to Exod 33:20. You just need to read your Bible more carefully. The ideology held that seeing God was deadly, not that it was impossible. The ideology also recognized the possibility of exceptions, of which Exod 24:10-11 is the main one."
I assure you sir I've read my Bible very carefully, and as you will see in my previous posts, I've addressed this issue. The God they say was indeed Yahweh, Yahweh the Visible that is. Taking the OT into context this is clearly seen. But I understand the biased interpretations do cloud clear texts like that.
"Send me your email address and I'll be happy to send a copy to you, but you've entirely misread my argument and the relevant texts from the Bible."
No actually what I've heard from you is parrotted by many Mormons and liberals so many times it's like hearing a song that's been played one too many times on the radio. But my email is paxchristus.massa@gmail.com. Much appreciated. God bless.
Post #472
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post12 minutes ago
Carmenn said:
In light of your response to me, I have been most polite in replying to you sir. I specifically said Kenyon is an authority relating to the biblical texts, not the El Elyon/Yahweh issue.
++++++++++++
You said that he would disagree with my assertions. If you don't mean the El/Yahweh question, please tell me specifically which assertions he would disagree with and cite the texts where I can find his disagreements. My gut is telling me you were just tossing out a name without knowing whether or not they disagree with me or even whether or not they engage the same topics I've engaged (Kenyon does not). You're welcome to prove me wrong, and I'll not respond to another word until you either admit that's what you were doing or you provide me with the texts I requested. If you can do either of those then I'll recognize you're being respectful, otherwise you are being anything but.
Post #474
You replied to Daniel's post2 seconds ago
"You said that he would disagree with my assertions. If you don't mean the El/Yahweh question, please tell me specifically which assertions he would disagree with and cite the texts where I can find his disagreements. My gut is telling me you were just tossing out a name without knowing whether or not they disagree with me or even whether or not they engage the same topics I've engaged (Kenyon does not). You're welcome to prove me wrong, and I'll not respond to another word until you either admit that's what you were doing or you provide me with the texts I requested. If you can do either of those then I'll recognize you're being respectful, otherwise you are being anything but."
All I'm going to say at this point is that our dialogue really does speak for itself. Any comment I have would not do anything to illuminate the subject further, so let them judge :-)
Anyways, once again you've failed to note the context of my mentioning Kenyon. If you rely on your gut feeling you will be extremely dissapointed in life, since gut feelings are not always correct and can in fact be completely wrong. That aside, allow me to provide the context that was omitted:
"Daniel McClellan makes some strange fallacies here. First, the top scholars, such as Sir Fredrick Kenyon, would disagree with his assertions. First, McClellan evidently does not believe in the preservation of God's Word from the earliest manuscripts of the OT, which, contrary to your assertions, contain..." - Carmenn Massa
Note first I am speaking on the reliability of the biblical texts, hence my mentioning of Kenyon. He would indeed disagree with your assertions because the validity of the earliest texts draws real historians and scholars to conclusions contrary to the ideas you are reaching. I hope this does clarify the issue.
1 reply
Daniel O. McClellan (Provo, UT) replied to your post15 minutes ago
Carmenn said:
All I'm going to say at this point is that our dialogue really does speak for itself.
++++++++++++
And this is how you are disrespectful and insulting to my intelligence, and this is my primary problem with your argumentation. You make up facts and refuse to take responsibility for it, rather relying on ad hominem to deflect that responsibility. That kind of dishonesty doesn't fly in the work that I do and I won't let it fly here. I'm done with you.
Reply to DanielReport
Post #476
You replied to Daniel's post2 seconds ago
"All I'm going to say at this point is that our dialogue really does speak for itself.
++++++++++++
And this is how you are disrespectful and insulting to my intelligence, and this is my primary problem with your argumentation. You make up facts and refuse to take responsibility for it, rather relying on ad hominem to deflect that responsibility. That kind of dishonesty doesn't fly in the work that I do and I won't let it fly here. I'm done with you."
Daniel, I could not pay for that kind of response. And if I had made it up, no one would believe me. Obviouslly you clearly do not in any way understand the meaning of "it speaks for itself", and immedietly assume I am "attacking" you. Why do you feel attacked? I'm supposed to be the religious nut here, screaming that I'm being attacked but no...It's quite the opposite here. Unlike persons of your sort, I treat the reader as an intelligent human being who can rationalize and think logically and do his/her research on the material presented here. Your attitude seems to imply that you would hope they do otherwise, and simply take your word for it. Since I'm the one who provided the documentation, the reader may easily search and varify for his/her personal satisfaction that what I've said is entirely accurate. Indeed, this discussion does speak for itself.
END
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment