Board index ‹ God

[jimwalton]

> But if we had complete knowledge of every particle in the brain and what it is doing we would be able to detect if a supernatural force was altering the brain to cause a vision. ... Once again, this is a practical limit imposed by our current technological capabilities.

This is a god-of-the-gaps argument, and it doesn't wash any more than it would coming from a Christian.

> You don't need any faith to be an atheist

I strongly disagree. There are many gaps in your (and many other atheists) arguments and evidences that require quite a lot of faith: gaps in the evolutionary record, the first onset of life, and even this argument where the reasoning becomes: I believe it despite the lack of evidence, or I believe that some day it will all come together into a sensible wholeness. It takes faith to believe that personality came from nothing personal, that morality came from nothing moral, that purpose came from nothing purposeful, that consciousness arose from chemicals, that life came from non-life, and information came from non-information. You have a HUGE faith system of things you believe even though the evidence is scant to missing completely, but you still believe. You have a worldview full of holes, but you have faith that there are pieces in the holes that someday will be found.

[J Lord]

> This is a god-of-the-gaps argument

While it is true that god claims almost always fit into the gaps in our current scientific knowledge at any point in history, that is hardly a criticism of my point. I am just saying that supernatural impacts on the natural world are detectable in theory. It isn't my fault that the only remaining claims of supernatural interaction fit into gaps in our current technology.

> gaps in the evolutionary record, the first onset of life

Saying that you don't know something doesn't require any faith. Claiming to know that "God did it" despite no evidence requires faith.

> I believe it despite the lack of evidence

What is it you think atheists believe despite a lack of evidence?

> It takes faith to believe that personality came from nothing personal

There is good evidence that humans evolved from simpler creatures with less complex brains. So that is what I think probably happened. Human brains at some point were then able to have personality, consciousness, morality, purpose, etc. But this also has nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. If you were to provide some reason to think that humans didn't evolve from simpler creatures then I would revert to not knowing how humans came to be. It wouldn't lead to the conclusion that a god exists.

> things you believe even though the evidence is scant to missing completely

I don't know of any examples.

[Spiderman]

> I'm sure that's Michael's suggestion, but two things come to mind

i want to state from the outset here that i don't necessarily agree with heiser on this matter. i think the idea is interesting, but it sounds an awful lot like anachronistically inserting a later christian doctrine into iron age texts.

> When we consider Isaiah's flow, themes, and context, there is little or nothing to support Heiser's theory. The serpent in Genesis 3 is never in the OT associated with Satan, Lucifer, or any king.

i'm not so interested in defending this view, because i don't particularly hold it, but this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO13BSSjsYU) has an excellent summary of the parallels that heiser draws. suffice to say, there's a bit more than "nothing", notably the imagery about being cast into the dirt, the imagery about shining, and ezekiel's rather clear statement about it being in eden.

these descriptions are not literally about the kings they address, but are using mythology as commentary on the kings. isaiah's "lucifer"/hillel ben shachar is not literally a star in heaven. the king is being mocked for thinking he is divine, and may be modeling this fall imagery on an earlier myth of fallen divine entity. in heiser's view, anyways. i think there may be some other things going on, of course.

"the satan" is never brought into this because he doesn't seem to have existed in jewish mythology at this point.

[jimwalton]

> it sounds an awful lot like anachronistically inserting a later christian doctrine into iron age texts.

Yes, we have to be more than careful about this faux pas. Certainly was have to read the OT texts within their cultural, literary, and theological context, and that will lead us to better interpretation and understanding. Likewise the NT texts in their very different cultural, literary, and theological context. And while the two (OT & NT) speak to each other and fill out each other, we dare not fall into the trap of anachronistically inserting later Christian doctrine into Iron Age texts, so I agree with you and your word of caution.

> this video

I watched the video. I have long contended on this forum that the serpent in Gn. 3 was not a snake but an upright shiny spiritual being, so I have no problem with Heiser's linguistic analysis. Where I think he veers off the mark is interpreting Ezk. 28 and Isa. 14 as speaking of Satan. This evidence for that leap is quite slim, and despite Heiser's credentials and expertise, there is an abundance of equally credentialed scholars who disagree with him. Heiser is deep in the minority position.

> these descriptions are not literally about the kings they address, but are using mythology as commentary on the kings.

They use metaphor and figurative language, but I'm not ready to go with "mythology".

> isaiah's "lucifer"/hillel ben shachar is not literally a star in heaven.

The ancients knew nothing of planets. The Greek word for them is "wandering stars." In their astronomical scientific understanding, "lucifer"/helel ben shachar most likely referred to Venus, which for them was a wandering star—the morning star, the "son of the dawn." "Helel" is not used anywhere else in the OT. The LXX uses ἑωσφόρος in Isa. 14.12, "the carrier of the dawn." In Greek Φωσφόρος is the morning star, the planet Venus. They literally thought Venus was a star, so they were not using mythology.

> the king is being mocked for thinking he is divine, and may be modeling this fall imagery on an earlier myth of fallen divine entity.

You're right that the king is being mocked for thinking he is divine, and the fact that he can be brought down low (14.15) proves he is just a poser. You're also right that it may be modeling this fall imagery on an earlier myth—it is entirely congruent with the teaching of Genesis 3, but there's no particular reason to think Isaiah is making any kind of commentary or interpretation of Genesis 3.

> "the satan" is never brought into this because he doesn't seem to have existed in jewish mythology at this point.

Again you are right (except the mythology part). Satan as a person, a being, doesn't exist in Jewish theology at this point. "The satan," a generic accuser and challenger, does.

[Spiderman]

> As far as the textual evidence, you are probably aware that the LXX reads "sons of God," in agreement with DSS

the LXX actually reads "ἀγγέλων θεοῦ" angels of god, indicating that the translators understood the reference to be about other divine entities. between it and the MT, the reconstructed reading was the sons (MT) of god (LXX) assuming that each manuscript changed only one word. the DSS confirm that there were older hebrew versions that read בני אלוהים [sic]. another suggestion is that this itself is a corruption, and it may have read בני תרו אל (sons of the bull el) because this corrupts into the "israel" more easily. i'm not sure if i buy that one or not.

> So there is debate about which text and which meaning to accept.

pretty much everyone i'm aware of thinks the DSS is the closer to the original than any of the others.

> If we go with LXX & DSS, there is some kind of supervising heavenly being, a kind of guardian angel, so to speak.

a highest god, elyon, and a council. heiser thinks that elyon and yahweh are identical here, and i don't agree for reasons i've given elsewhere in this thread. i side with smith and the consensus view.

> If we go with the MT, God has ordained a plan whereby the number of nations corresponded to the number of the sons of Israel,

which makes no sense. sons of israel when? when the nations were divided? jacob hadn't even been born, so that's zero. the literal, direct sons (and daughter?) of israel? there are more than 13 nations named in the bible. at some arbitrary point in the future? israel is to be uncountable. none of these options are good ones.

now, el and asherah, in canaan, had 70 sons. and 70 seems like a great estimate for the number of nations in an ancient source.

> According to this interpretation, the Lord has set Israel apart unto himself from among all the nations, an idea common in the Tanakh, or Old Testament.

this is true for any reading of the text.

> The nations have their own "gods," who aren't gods at all but are mortal, but they do not have YHWH, who alone is God and there are no others (v. 39).

this past the point of the older inclusion, though. the voice very clearly and obviously shifts.

> The text is still categorical, however, that YHWH is the only real God and the others are imposters, false, and mere mortal inventions. Verse 39 is explicit that YHWH is the only God.

yes, the deuteronomist thought so. but the people who said the thing the deuteronomist included didn't seem to think so. they have these other gods accepting their inheritances right alongside yahweh.

> In Canaanite literature, 'El Elyon is a way of referring to the chief Canaanite god, El.

hypothetically -- all extant references to elyon are about baal, as it is baal who succeeds el and takes over the throne.

> In Israelite literature, however, 'El Elyon is an epithet for YHWH.

except in this case, and psalm 82, where they do not appear to be. assuming that they are is question-begging.

> It is YHWH's assembly, but with some significant modifications to the picture we find elsewhere in the ancient Near East (ANE). The council is composed of the "sons of God" (just like Job 1), and the sons of God are equated to the host of heaven in a manner just like the sons of god in the ANE (the divine powers were associated with the celestial realm). In the OT council, however, while the sons of God can be cantankerous or rebellious, they are always held in check with a tight rein (here in Psalm 82). YHWH gives them assignments (Dt. 32.8, as just mentioned) and solicits them for their ideas (1 Ki. 22.19-22). He engages with them and counsels with them (Gn. 1.26; 3.22; 11.7; Isa. 6.8), though He doesn't need them (Isa. 40.12-14).

yes, this is all bog-standard ANE mythology.

> But the major difference between the Bible and the ANE is that none of the sons of God in the council are on an equal par with YHWH

no warrior is said to be equal to baal, either. or marduk. this is pretty much par for the course with monolatry -- of course they think their god is better than the other gods.

> nor do they carry their own divine authority.

some put up a decent fight, though.

> Whatever authority they have has been delegated to them (not distributed to them) by YHWH.

also pretty standard for ANE pantheons.

[jimwalton]

> a highest god, elyon, and a council.

It's well known that the Bible speaks of a heavenly council. it's also well known that the Bible speaks of only one God. The Bible is radically monotheist for its day, despite that some scholars think there were seeds of monotheism in ancient Egypt.

> "70". which makes no sense. sons of israel when? when the nations were divided?

Exodus 1.5 says that 70 Israelites came to Egypt. Genesis 10 lists 70 nations.

> this past the point of the older inclusion, though. the voice very clearly and obviously shifts.

I don't know the documentary analysis of the chapter. I'd be pleased to see it.

> yes, the deuteronomist thought so.

Yeah, I don't buy into the Wellhausen theory of pentateuchal manuscript development.

> all extant references to elyon are about baal

I have also read that El Elyon is a generic identification of deity, as best as we can tell.

> except in this case, and psalm 82

I obviously disagree, as confirmed by v. 39.

> no warrior is said to be equal to baal, either. or marduk. this is pretty much par for the course with monolatry -- of course they think their god is better than the other gods.

I'm not aware that Canaanite or Babylonian mythologies were monolatrous. They were, as far as I know, polytheistic with rankings of deities.

> some put up a decent fight, though.

Moot.

[Spiderman]

> I have long contended on this forum that the serpent in Gn. 3 was not a snake but an upright shiny spiritual being, so I have no problem with Heiser's linguistic analysis.

one problem i have is that genesis seems to be specifically demythologizing things. so it may be based on some older myth of a serpent cast out from eden, the story we have is "just a snake".

> Where I think he veers off the mark is interpreting Ezk. 28 and Isa. 14 as speaking of Satan.

It's been a while since i watched that video and i haven't read heiser's take on it directly, so maybe i'm misremembering. i thought it was explicit that the seraph heiser sees here is not the satan. you get ideas about the satan following persian contact, and the serpentine imagery is later grafted onto him.

> This evidence for that leap is quite slim, and despite Heiser's credentials and expertise, there is an abundance of equally credentialed scholars who disagree with him. Heiser is deep in the minority position.

heh, you sound like me elsewhere in this very thread.

> The ancients knew nothing of planets. The Greek word for them is "wandering stars." In their astronomical scientific understanding, "lucifer"/helel ben shachar most likely referred to Venus, which for them was a wandering star—the morning star, the "son of the dawn." "Helel" is not used anywhere else in the OT. The LXX uses ἑωσφόρος in Isa. 14.12, "the carrier of the dawn." In Greek Φωσφόρος is the morning star, the planet Venus. They literally thought Venus was a star, so they were not using mythology.

the association with venus is pretty clear, i agree. but you have to remember that stars were mythologized. the sons of god are referred to as "morning stars", and idolators are called things like ovdei kokhabim ("astrologers" if you will). this passage, on a most plain reading level, is about someone setting himself up as a god, as many ancient kings did. the idea about a god-like being cast to ground by yahweh is inherent mythological, and not just referring to the planet venus -- which i should point out is still firmly in its place in the heavens.
where i'm not convinced is regarding the ezekiel passage -- all of the imagery i see there have more banal associations, notably things that were literally, physically on the temple mount when ezekiel was writing. there were literal (graven) cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant, protecting the law. the 9 stones mentioned are all stones on the breastplate of the high priest. he's clearly drawing an allegory between the prince of tyre and the high priest of judah.

> You're right that the king is being mocked for thinking he is divine, and the fact that he can be brought down low (14.15) proves he is just a poser.

for the king, yes. if there is an earlier mythological layer, though, this is not particularly convincing. the gods kill each other all the time in these mythologies -- baal kills yam, litanu, and mawet, for instance. yahweh is seen purging the council in psalm 82.

> but there's no particular reason to think Isaiah is making any kind of commentary or interpretation of Genesis 3.

i agree. i suspect they would have common influences. and proto-isaiah may be older than J, but the dating is a bit fuzzy on J.

> Again you are right (except the mythology part). Satan as a person, a being, doesn't exist in Jewish theology at this point. "The satan," a generic accuser and challenger, does.

to my knowledge, the word never appears in any hebrew biblical text without the definite article, except as a verb. in that case, it's a role that any divine entity can fill. for instance, in num 22:22, it's the angel of the lord "sataning" balaam.

[jimwalton]

> the story we have is "just a snake".

Ah, but it's not. It's a *nahash*.

> where i'm not convinced is regarding the ezekiel passage

We can discuss Ezekiel if you wish. I'll let you lead off with what you're not convinced about.

> yahweh is seen purging the council in psalm 82.

Right. Well, at least getting rid of the cantankerous and rebellious ones.

> to my knowledge, the word never appears in any hebrew biblical text without the definite article, except as a verb.

This is my observation as well.

[Spiderman]

> The Bible is radically monotheist for its day,

that depends on which part and which day we're talking about! deuteronomy is radically monolatrist for its day. most other canaanite and near eastern cultures allowed worship of other gods at the time. deuteronomy prompted the destruction of every other temple save the one in jerusalem.

> despite that some scholars think there were seeds of monotheism in ancient Egypt.

well, there was a "monotheistic" cult in ancient egypt. amenhotep iv (akhenaten) and his son king tut instituted a monotheist amun cult, which was maybe about as monotheistic as the monolatry in judah a thousand years later. then someone killed tut, and they buried the whole affair and went right back to the traditional religion.

there are some connection historically between akhenaten and canaan. he's the pharaoh the amarna letters are addressed to, so we know he was in direct communication with canaanite client-kings. but it's not clear his beliefs had much of any impact. still, it's an interesting idea to explore, i suppose.

one hypothesis i heard is that monotheism, yahweh, and the exodus narrative came out of egypt some time after all this in the traditions of a small band of levites, who joined the population of native israelites. that's an interesting one, and i don't quite know what to make of it.

> Exodus 1.5 says that 70 Israelites came to Egypt. Genesis 10 lists 70 nations.

not counting joseph. but this is a weird time to divide nations, considering that, well, egypt's already there?

> I don't know the documentary analysis of the chapter. I'd be pleased to see it.

well, it literally says,

Remember the days of old,
Consider the years of ages past;
Ask your father, he will inform you,
Your elders, they will tell you:

this sounds like something the elders say -- an old tradition.

> Yeah, I don't buy into the Wellhausen theory of pentateuchal manuscript development.

we've moved quite beyond wellhausen. friedman's the go-to source of the lay audience, but in scholarship it's way more complicated. Where wellhausen (and friedman) were mistaken is in portraying these sources as originally coherent documents with internally consistent narratives and such. To some extent there is agreement within the sources, but they seem to be far more fragmentary than expected. basically, if wellhausen was wrong, it's because he was far too conservative in his assessment.

> I have also read that El Elyon is a generic identification of deity, as best as we can tell.

"el" and "elohim" definitely became generic identifications of deity in israelite sources, yes. this seems to be based on naming them after the specific god, el. "elyon" however always means "highest god".

> I'm not aware that Canaanite or Babylonian mythologies were monolatrous. They were, as far as I know, polytheistic with rankings of deities.

...with a singular god being the focus of worship.

[jimwalton]

> deuteronomy is radically monolatrist for its day

I know there are theories to that effect. One of the primary themes of Deuteronomy, however, is that YHWH is the only God. It shows up most obviously in places like Dt. 4 (at the beginning) and here in Dt. 32.39 (at the end). There are plenty of verses through Deuteronomy that speak of other "gods," but they are portrayed as non-deities, false ideas, and not really gods at all, though that is the term used for them. (Other key themes are one people, one sanctuary, and one law.)

> Where wellhausen (and friedman) were mistaken is in portraying these sources as originally coherent documents with internally consistent narratives and such.

Part of the problem with this is the recognition by scholars Deuteronomy as a whole has the elements of a 2nd millennium international treaty, and therefore seems (by that standard) to have been produced by a single author in a single time to achieve his literary and theological purpose. Perhaps it's not so far-fetched to see the book as a unified whole, originally coherent and internally consistent.

> "elyon" however always means "highest god".

Yes, but as I said, it is used as a euphemism for YHWH, mostly in the Psalms when monolatry was not the issue. I looked for some and found them: Num. 24.16; 1 Sam. 2.10; 2 Sam. 22.14; 23.1; Ps. 7.8, 10, 17; 9.2; 21.7; 46.4; 47.2; 50.14; 57.2; 73.11; 77.10; 78.17, 35, 56; 83.18; 87.5; 91.1,9; 92.1; 97.9; 107.11; Lam. 3.35, 38; Dan. 3.26; 4.2, 17, 25, 32, 34; 5.18, 21; 7.18, 22, 25; Hos. 7.16. So just because the Bible uses Elyon doesn't necessarily indicate monolatry.