ASV: "So Jehovah sent a pestilence upon Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. And God sent an angel
unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was about to destroy, Jehovah
beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the destroying
angel, It is enough; now stay thy hand. And the angel of Jehovah was
standing by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. And
David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of Jehovah standing between
earth and heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over
Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell upon
their faces."
Source: Jacob M. Myers, 1 Chronicles, page 148. AB Series.
158 comments:
From time to time I would encounter trinitarians who insist that the "angel of the LORD" in the O.T Is in fact an epiphany of the second(or less often the third) person of the trinity. Is this a mainstream view in your estimation?
My answer would be yes. Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-angel-of-zechariah-112.html
Some of the comments provide evidence for how Trinitarians view this angel.
https://www.fromreformationtoreformation.com/post/poole-on-1-samuel-6-4-golden-hemorrhoids-and-mice
Trinitarians really dig themselves a hole here.
They dispute Jesus cant be angel in Hebrews and other places because he is God
But then go on to claim that the angel of the lord if part of the trinity
well, which is it trinitarians?
(Like that pronoun argument I linked)
וּכְהַשְׁחִ֗ית
Come now anonymous, you know the drill, it is except when isn't and vice versa.
Here's one perspective:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/theophany/
A number of the ante-Nicene Fathers argued that Christ appeared as an angel in the OT:Tertullian, Novatian, Justin Martyr.
Daniel ch.10:21NIV"but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince."
The event (messenger) "was destroying" as indicated by the Hebrew above and the relatively late date of writing of the chronicle removes it from original reasons for the event and allows for a large scope of interpretation.
1 Chronicles 21:1
Thanks Duncan.
1) How does 1 Chron. 21:1 tie into this discussion?
2) The angel/messenger (a spirit being) is not portrayed as an event, but rather as a divine functionary or agent of YHWH.
for one thing, YHWH (Jehovah) speaks to the angel (vs. 15), and secondly, the angel is the one carrying out the destroying as subject of the participial הַמַּשְׁחִית֙
The angel is the subject of the action עֹמֵ֔ד
I', not sure what yoou consider to be a late date for 1 Chronicles. However, the date it was written has nothing to do with the accuracy of its reporting. That is an opinion, not a fact.
2Samuel ch.24:15,16NIV"So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite."
"YHWH (Jehovah) speaks to the angel (vs. 15)" - and the writer heard that or witnesses of the period heard that?
It an interpretation just as the Satan comment is an interpretation.
It does not really matter whether the date is 400s BCE or 200s BCE, The relationship to Persian culture was there the whole time.
The test itself can be an opinion and not a fact. What scriptural key tells you that it is fact?
"Author and Date - The author or authors of 1 and 2 Samuel are not known."
Why does it matter whether the writer/witnesses heard it or not? My point is that the text portrays the angel as a person/agent, not an event: an event cannot be the masculine subject of a verb except via transferred meaning. Furthermore, do we use the same reasoning for texts like Job 1 and 2 where a heavenly conversation takes place between Good and Satan? Which human writer heard those words?
There are multiple issues with 1 Chronicles 21:1 but let's stick with these points for now. How do you know vs. 15 is an interpretation? What gives us that privy info?
Bible writers were not bound to Persian culture anymore than I'm bound to American culture: yes our sociocultural setting influences us no, it doesn't have to utterly condition our theology or view of the world. Same with ancient Israel. They could hold to belief in spirit beings without the help of Persia. Plus let's not discount the divine factor (inspiration).
Nothing I've said or posted about this matter requires that vs. 15 be a fact although I do accept it as such. My two reasons, which go outside the scope of this blog entry are looking at the account via use of historical tools and because I believe the account is inspired of God, produced by his guiding holy spirit. But whether it's factual or not, semantics/syntax/grammar tells me that the angel likely is not (portrayed as) an event.
Respecting authors, I'm not dogmatic about who might have written Samuel or Chronicles.
Of course it's an opinion Duncan. The issue is whether this opinion is in harmony factual reality or not and how do we determine same. But no one can claim that the bible is, in whole or in part, self-contradictory.
Do you believe that the holy scriptures are the product of a extraordinary intervention into human affairs by mankind's creator?
"Bible writers were not bound to Persian culture anymore than I'm bound to American culture: yes our sociocultural setting influences us no, it doesn't have to utterly condition our theology or view of the world. Same with ancient Israel. They could hold to belief in spirit beings without the help of Persia. Plus let's not discount the divine factor (inspiration)."
Spirit beings are a common tread throughout the world.
The the formation of structures and hierarchies are not.
Are you saying that it originated with the Hebrews, when we have no material & datable proof of it?
I am not arguing from silence here.
I'm not arguing from silence either, but trying to glean ideas from the text. Yes, the belief in spirit beings is widespread, even the belief in a great spirit (i.e., God/god). Studies have been conducted to show how the belief in heavenly structures developed over time, but does Chronicles teach angels are arranged hierarchically or structurally?
I believe that early humans held a rudimentary form of angelology, but I'm not arguing any of those things now. You ask for datable proof, but how is that possible when these ideas started from an oral tradition just like Greek poetry did. How does one place an exact date on such things or have tangible proof for them? All ancient religions face this problem.
To illustrate, Buddhism started circa the 6th century, but Siddhartha's disciples did not write anything down for hundreds of years after the fact.
See https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37319575.pdf
traces historical development of Jewish belief in angels
From 600 BCE - his start date is no coincidence.
I think that Christians and Jews today basically ignore the evidences that are staring them straight in the face. We have Egyptian thrones with winged beings as arms well before Moses left Egypt. We also have cherubim in other (Persian & Hittite cultures) and these were prior also.
These biblical texts are a product of the time they were written. That's why the later texts embellish the accounts.
There are core truths in the bible that are undeniable. We can also draw much from each account, but to say that all literally factually happened is jus not helping anything.
It would be interesting to see just how many people use John Bright's book, a history of Israel to bolster there confirmation bias. That is not a history, not even close.
Genesis ch.11:1"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2As people moved eastward, a they found a plain in Shinar b and settled there.
3They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
Actually the similarities that we see among religions worldwide is exactly what one should expect if one takes the bible literally.
So you have done the work have you servant? I spent months analysing every flood story I could find from around the world. They are not the same from continent to continent, but since floods have always been a common phenomena it's not surprising tha most everyone has one. Of course mankind has one origin, it could not be any other way. Hittite culture never used tar and neither bid many other throughout Eurasia. The land that was renowned for it was Persia. They also did it due to flooding.
"Actually the similarities that we see among religions worldwide is exactly what one should expect if one takes the bible literally." The words of confirmation bias. Similarities between religions are more easily explained by the fact that we are all humans.
Duncan, to some extent you're correct that the biblical texts were a product of their time. How could they not be since they were written by humans in human language. On the other hand, the Bible is God's Word. It is not just the word of men, so it's not just a product of its time. In fact, the Bible writers wrote many things that were not a reflection of their times and they militated against polytheism, which was the norm in many societies. So there are similarities between some things in the Bible and the prevailing culture but also many differences as well. Jehovah repeatedly warned the Israelites not to become like the nations and he disciplined them accordingly when they failed to heed his admonition.
In one respect, if you're right about the cherubim (and I think a number of scholars agree with you and that includes the Catholic Encyclopedia), this putative fact would not endanger the Word of God's status qua its theopneusty. Since you've brought up the issue, I've studied it in some depth. I will just say for now that this understanding of matters is possible. Nevertheless, I am not willing to blithely accept this claim and I need to give it more thought. Something else to consider is that the cherubim were supposed to be in Eden, guarding the entrance to the paradise of pleasure. If we're to accept the Genesis account at face value, then the cherubim were dealing with humankind way before Israel went into Egypt. In any event, I'm not going to chalk up belief in spirit beings to Israel's Egyptian sojourn, and there's really no need to do it.
Concerning Bright, see https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/john-bright/a-history-of-israel/
No book is perfect, but it's been called the "definitive text" for its field and audience.
The cherubim were modelled on the Hittite sword god. The were not in Eden, but outside it. The farming motif tells us a story in itself but there is absolutely no reason that it was a continuous curse on all mankind since then. 300 years ago South America had a completely different culture and it was not based on grain. I know people talk about corn, but it was no more important than anything else until the low hanging fruit and civilisation were destroyed by the diseases of the Spanish. They are not the same Cherubim on the arc. The language was limited and keruvim has a meaning that covers both.
I don't need a Catholic encyclopedia to tell me what to think. I have seen the evidence for myself, that's what many more need to do - see the evidence rather than just relying on "experts".
Who wrote that review exactly? That book is a major exercise in cherry picking, I used to believe it but now I know better.
Along with that are books like - the bible in the British museum by T.C.Mitchell.
Alice Wood's book, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the Biblical Cherubim, seems to challenge popular interpretations of the cherubim.
https://hannahpethen.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/protosinaitic_sphinx.jpg?w=612
Ancient Hebrew - or whatever you want to call it, I can read it.
It's an opinion that they were modeled on the Hittite sword god. Why should I accept your opinion of this subject? With all due respect, you cannot definitively substantiate that claim. It's a perspective.
Gen. 3:24 suggests the cherubim were placed at the entrance of Eden. It's like me standing at the entrance of my house. The point is that they were manifested way ahead of Moses' time.
They were not the same cherubim as on the "arc"? Okay, and you know that how? :-)
If one reads the important studies on this subject, then he/she might come to a different conclusion.
Okay, so you've seen the evidence and I have too. But one thing I've learned is that evidence has to be interpreted. So-called "facts" are mediated through human intellects that come to wildly differing conclusion about said "facts."
I'm not sure who wrote that particular review, but there are many positive reviews of the book elsewhere. However, I'm not advocating the book but just noticed how students of the discipline tend to view it.
Https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7e6701bd-90ae-4fa3-b269-79e1dad9f504/files/m899eaf265e7ef71f38d8c6d7b069eadc
There are many works on them but it just shows how one generations idea of these beings alters over time.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/what-kind-of-creatures-are-the-cherubim
I don't agree with the conclusion of the article, but it does address your sphinx suggestion:
The prevailing opinion in current scholarship is that the cherub is a winged sphinx, i.e., a human-headed winged lion, such as that depicted on the sarcophagus of the late second-millennium B.C.E. Phoenician king Ahiram [Figure 6].[16] However, numerous indications found in the descriptions of the sculpted cherubim over the ark (Exodus 25:18–20 = 37:7–9; 1 Kings 6:23–26) reveal that their authors presupposed upright creatures.[17]
Even if you say the figures are not the same as depicted later, notice that the author describes the sphinx view as "prevailing opinion"
Which are the "important studies"? The one that suit the preexisting consensus?
In the same way that the cherubim in Solomon's temple were not the same as the one on the arc - if we are to believe what Jewish tradition say about them.
The writing on the sphinx is Proto-Sinaitic script. I don't see that as proof that the cherubim are connected to this figure.
They are all variations on a theme that is common to the surrounding cultures. So I am not bothered about the minutiae of the description. We have winged creatures in many cultures world wide but for many they are obviously based on eagles.
2 Samuel 22:11
Eagles have tallons and I would not be surprised if the early word for sword is actually tallon.
Sorry that was not a connection I was trying to make, but I am saying that Hebrew was clearly a symbolic language. The term term we translate as sword and keruv are clearly related.
From what I can gather, the etymology for cherub/cherubim is notoriously difficult to piece together. And while I find value in archaeological finds/studies, I am disinclined to reduce the Bible to what other cultures thought about God/gods and/or spirits.
Oral traditions are going to be more subject to change than a written record preserved by a highly skilled class of professional scribes so of course variations are going to creep in . But it's not Just the flood stories , stories of gods taking on human form and consorting with human females to produce heroic hybrids /demi gods. Also the idea of humanity beginning in a golden age and forfeiting it because of the folly of our founders. The coming of a Messiah like figure who would restore the golden age. There is significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that the bible is on the money re: humanity's common origin
And that many of the spiritual notions we hold in common were drawn from a common if contaminated pool.
Acts ch.17:26KJV"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;"
All the cultures had there own spin on "wind"/"breath", that which cannot be seen but moves. What was David saying when he pleaded to yehovah not to remove his holy spirit from him. Was this a plea not to die or a plea about things he wanted to do, a lle not to lose Solomon, we can guess but not know for sure.
This notion of god's Vs one god is misleading when one look at hierarchies in othe surrounding cultures. The Sumerians had the Anu at the top and others had the kind of structures. Did Judaism just demote the others to angels? There is some indication of that, but it does not really matter. What matters is the first cause the original god.
The flippant dismissing of a common origin for humanity in the face of a mountain of circumstantial evidence seems more like cognitive dissonance.
Servant, who is dismissing a common origin for human kind? Even evolutionists would not dispute it.
I have to say that I find your comments formulaic and typical of those who refuse to discuss the real issues. Your questions are not new to me and they are generally designed to shut people up, those who do not recognise them for what they are.
Have you done the work? I spent months analysing all the flood myths from around the planet for commonalities and differences. They are not as common as some would like and commonalities are across adjacent lands. Persian is the closest to Hebrew and I am not referring to the Gilgamesh epic.
Servant, whenever you are ready I am quite happy to hear your "circumstantial evidence", however , if it's cherry picked I will point that out and give you the alternatives.
Or the Hittite sword God was modelled after the Cherubs. Your arbitrary interpretation of observations is no more compelling than the experts whom you decry arbitrary interpretation of the same observations
https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/files/115626046/Konstantopoulos_They_are_Seven_Sebettu.pdf
People try to impose the number 6 as the persian)Babylonian number, but they used many numbers. Compare Revelation. Also the term demons in the Persian context can be very misleading.
I will be busy for several hours, but will approve comments afterwards. Thanks.
The Hittites had the earliest known swords made of iron/steel, not from mined sources but forged from meteorite material. They were truly exceptional. Some think the myth of Excalibur came from this.
There is nothing arbitrary here. Do your homework.
So, tell me why it would come from an Eden tradition, garden traditions have more to do with Persia. I do not know of a Hatti equivalent.
www.atlasobscura.com/articles/before-iron-age-most-iron-came-from-space-meteorite-egyptian-bronze.amp
https://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/dvb/bio.asp?b=Bright_John
Hi praise indeed - "He used both science and faith to enhance scriptural exegesis and deepen understanding of God's revealed will."
Science?
Let's put Bright to bed - https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/7/1/article-p1_1.xml
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/2001-2_099.pdf
Ok, I'm going to say it Duncan. Why did you bring up Bright in the first place? I didn't say anything about his book, did I? And I doubt he'll be put to bed or pasture anytime soon.
Duncan, understanding David's words in the 51st Psalm are not that hard. I seriously doubt that he was asking to not die in view of what Nathan told him in 2 Sam. 12. He truly seemed to be contrite and likely thought of what happened to Saul, who did have the holy spirit taken from him. Most of the Bible is more perspicuous than you may think. Besides, God promises to lead his worshipers into all truth. See 1 John 2;20, 27.
With respect to Gods vs. gods, Judaism became strongly monotheistic over time. Did this mean angels could not fit in the thought world of Israel/Judah? No, they recognized the most high God who alone could be worshiped, but there were subordinate deities who bent their will to Jehovah. The Bible repeatedly says that Israel was to be set apart from the nations and their gods.
If you have a point to make go ahead make your point your posturing is not scoring any points here . Actually most evolutionists would dismiss the idea of a original founding pair. The "science" around human origins is in a total mess at present. Why do you keep coming back to the flood that is Just one example of a global recollection there are a number of others and as I explained the Hebrews' account is documented and in the keep of a professional scribe class thus it is better preserved than those relying on oral transmission.
Another reason we have confidence in scriptures is that unlike other "historical" records the bible record is clearly not official propaganda some of the harshest criticism of the ruling elite of the time and place can be found in the bible unlike the official records of neighbouring nations which tend to publish only flattering accounts of the sovereign and the nation.
You reserve exclusive right to cherry picking of data do you?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/a-history-of-israel-fourth-edition/
Mentions both potential downsides and upsides to thhe book.
You claimed that the Persian empire was still around in the first century remember ,so I'm sorry but we can't take your posturing as some kind of an authority on history seriously.
The article you posted from John Goldingay includes this howler: "The New Testament does not attempt to persuade people that Jesus is the Christ on the basis of his having fulfilled predictions."
Well, if you don't count prophhecies as predictions, I guess he could be right. See Matthew 21:4-5; Luke 4:16-21; John 2:19-22; Acts 10:43.
To Goldingay, I would also read the words of 2 Peter 1:16-19 (NIV):
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
I disagree with Tryggve N. D. Mettinger on a lot of things, but he does write in one work aboout the cherubs:"The Hittite analogue is a very far-fetched one. It seems quite impossible to me to detach the Israelite cherubim from the Syro-Palestinian sphinx thrones."
Here is the encyclopedia Britannica on global flood myths:flood myth, also called deluge myth, any of numerous mythologies in which a flood destroys a typically disobedient original population. Myths of a great flood (the Deluge) are widespread over Eurasia and America. The flood, with a few exceptions, is an expiation by the water, after which a new type of world is created.
I brought up the book. I know that it is the goto book for many but you wanted to assert how reliable it is and here we are.
If that was the only link to Hatti culture he might be right but there are others.
The cuneiform writing suggests that the Hittites had some connection with Mesopotamian empires, either through direct communication or through the Hittites’ conquest of another central-Anatolian group, the Hatti, who had connections to the Sumerians—a Mesopotamian empire. Either way, Mesopotamians’ writing technology was transferred to the Hittites.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/world-history-beginnings/ancient-egypt-hittites/a/the-hittites
Servant, No, you make a point and back up you claim about circumstantial evidence or is it just hand waving?
Was it before of after Saul's death tha David speaks of holy spirit?
Bright is done for honest and accurate historians, that's my point, nothing more to say about it. Servant, your quip about the Persian empire seems to be a cop out. As edgar said, there is evidence and there is interpretation. I welcome your evidence.
https://www.thoughtco.com/longevity-of-the-persian-empire-112509
You reviews on bright and the book are like comparing apples and oranges. I will stick with the book, he did the work.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429904-500-found-closest-link-to-eve-our-universal-ancestor/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman%E2%80%93Parthian_Wars
Alexander did not defeat Persia, he became king of Babylon. I the Persians did not want him his army could have been dealt with quite easily, to say they were outnumbered would be an understatement. Anglo American history writers did a hatchet job on the true situation at the time. My suspicion is that the Greek slave trade was a model they admired.
Duncan, I'm going to be tied up for a while today, but I never said Bright's book was reliable nor did I recommend it. I just shared what others said about it, both the pros and cons. Please review my comments if you have time 😁
This may be interesting - https://www.jstor.org/stable/23518350
I made my point it's not necessary that all the tropes I mentioned be Identical across cultures. The bible would be the most trustworthy account it was documented the earliest and kept by a highly skilled and motivated scribe class not beholden to any human elite.
You can't be serious.
Are you denying your own admission of a common human origin or of common religious tropes such as the global deluge. Do you deny such common religious tropes as the demigod or the golden age which are present globally
The fall of the Persian empire is as about as well documented a historical fact as can be conceived encyclopedia Britannica:Battle of Gaugamela, also called Battle of Arbela, (Oct. 1, 331 BC) battle in which Alexander the Great completed his conquest of Darius III’s Persian Empire. It was an extraordinary victory achieved against a numerically superior army on ground chosen by the Persians. As at Issus, the aggression of the Macedonian cavalry led by Alexander carried the day.
From your source:She was not the first human, but every other female lineage eventually had no female offspring, failing to pass on their mitochondrial DNA. As a result, all humans Today can trace their mitochondrial DNA back to her.
So this is a bit different from the biblical original pair. Of course our faith in an original pair is not dependent on men's opinion.
https://makedonia-alexandros.blogspot.com/2016/10/alexander-in-hot-pursuit-of-darius.html
The Persians let this happen. One battle does not a war make.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent#:~:text=According%20to%20modern%20evolutionary%20biology,from%20a%20single%20ancestral%20population.
You can spin this anyway you like but its all about common ancestors.
Oh, here we go - Is this one of your "evidences" -
"It was documented the earliest and kept by a highly skilled and motivated scribe class not beholden to any human elite."
Evidence please?
https://bahaiteachings.org/rig-veda-worlds-oldest-scripture/
https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-torah-scroll-how-the-copying-process-became-sacred
https://biblehub.com/greek/peple_ro_tai_4137.htm
So you believe in universal common Ancestry?
The bible the Torah was put into writing in 16 century B.C.E according to internal evidence of the book itself. The fact that the it was copied over the centuries by a highly skilled class of professional scribes has also been established by a review of ancient manuscripts as well as Jewish history. And the fact that these scribes did not assign pandering to royal or national vanity any weight in their decision making is easily established studying its contents
Deuteronomy ch.9:6"Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people."
Not even the most revered of the ancient prophets is spared Numbers ch.20:12"But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”
https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-ancient-sopherim/
The internal evidence shows it to be later than that and what proof do you have?
The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE).
Not saying I have the same opinion but what internal proof do you cite?
Deuteronomy was definitely written later.
Duncan, the superscription to Psalm 51 says it was written after David's sin with Bathsheba. Hence, that would be after Saul's death, right?
This article explains some of the challenges of dating the Torah: https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2018/schmid-torah
So if the comparison came after there is the option to interpret it as his life.
Yes there are challenges to the dating. I am sure that much of the Torah is from an early date but understanding the book of the law found by Nehemiah as the Torah we have today is another matter.
Ps. 51:12 ESV reads this way: "Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me."
Other translations read similarly, but one thing I'd stress here is the parallel statement in the first line, where David asks not to be cast from Jehovah's "presence." Furthermore, if it's "Holy Spirit" or "holy spirit," that he doesn't want taken away, then why say he was referring to his own life? Saul was given God's holy spirit but had it taken away, then replaced with a bad spirit from Jehovah.
Tremper Longman III offers this interpretation (Psalms, TOTC):
"What frightens the psalmist more than anything is that God might abandon
him because of his sin. His attitude here is reminiscent of Moses’ appeal to God not to withdraw his presence from Israel in the aftermath of the sin with the golden calf (Exod. 33:12–22). While Christians have a propensity to understand Holy Spirit (v. 11b) as a reference to the third person of the Trinity (and little damage is done by so doing), Old Testament readers of this psalm would have thought of this as a reference to God, who is a spirit and is holy.15 He wants to feel the joy of a healthy relationship with God again and he desires a steadfast (v. 10b) and willing (v. 12b) spirit in order to keep from sinning again."
Even if one interprets the reference to "holy spirit" in some other way as Witnesses do, I still find the basic tenor of what Longman says to be more likely than understanding "holy spirit" as a reference to David's life.
On the Torah, I accept an early date, but I understand both sides of the debate. Rick Wright has written an interesting book about linguistic dating and the Yahwist source.
Should have said Psalm 51:11.
Here's an article about Deuteronomy that examines various perspectives about its date of composition: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_deut1_wenham.html
It's not any older than Torah even if we use their figures. Also the oral tradition that the Torah draws on contained prophets.
It's a reference to the second temple period later on it also refers to the ancient sopherim
And their legendary perfectionism.
The majority of bible scholars are wrong. Their views are based on the circular logic that prophesies are impossible. Unfortunately for them the scriptures contain prophesies fulfilled after 6 c.e also archaeology demonstrates that the writers were aware of facts that a post exilic writer simply would not have been privy to
Servant, I agree with you that a lot of assumptions are built into hypotheses that say the Torah/Pentateuch was written at a rather late date. Wellhausen and company posited a post-exilic date for the Torah but that's more assumptions than anything. linguistic dating of the first 5 books does not necessarily lead to a late date.
A correlation I noticed there is only one Angles who is ever said to have a sword - and a prophecy for Jesus says "strap your sword O mighty one" - Do Witnesses believe that Angel of the lord (Jehovah) is Jesus (or Micheal) because in some ways that would make sense
There are many reasons to believe that sword in the NT is the Torah.
This may sound really alien to your thinking about the NT but Acts 2:38 in light of what has been said about David, will he be one of the heavenly rulers? What differentiates them?
I'm not going to debate whether the angel of Jehovah is Jesus, but here's what one WT said:
Just as the “prince of the army of Jehovah,” unquestionably the Logos or “Word” (John 1:1), appeared to strengthen Joshua at this point, so Jehovah’s people today have strengthening assurance from God’s Holy Scriptures that the glorified Christ is with them to lead them in theocratic warfare.—Josh. 5:14, 15.
Compare Exodus 23:20. I know the WT has applied that one to Christ.
They say it's possible or probable that he was that angel.
Duncan, whether the sword in the NT is Torah depends on what you mean by Torah plus the respective contexts of the texts you have in mind.
Torah is a polyvalent term.
Duncan, this may be a dumb question, but why believe David would be a joint-heir based on Acts 2:38? See the context where it says that David did not ascend to heaven.
Not every appearance of the angel of JEHOVAH would be the pre-human logos or the archangel, indeed most are probably not.
Hebrews ch.2:2,3NKJV"For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just [b]reward, 3how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, "
So this verse strongly Suggest that none of the angels that communicated with Moses was God himself and likely were not even his pre-human Logos.
The two edge sword is already likened to Torah & is it coincidence that the sword protrudes from the mouth? Wisdom has the same imagery as you already know.
This may also seem odd - https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Acts_2.34.php
But in this case are those who rule raised bodily?
Duncan, did you notice all of the question-begging on that link and absence of evidence for David being raised to heaven. They say that Peter was talking about David's body only although the text says no such thing. But as to whether the anointed are raised bodily, see 1 Corinthians 15:42-44.
They also claim that Jesus' spirit went to be with God on the day he died, but is that what the bible teaches?
Psalms ch.16:10KJV"For thou wilt not leave my SOUL in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
Acts 2:34, he both died and was buried
Some want to say this only refers to David's body, but is that what the verse states?
The Hebrew bible suggests that the whole person dies, not just part of the person.
Yes indeed, servant, and Peter quoted those words in Acts 2:27: For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let thy Holy One see corruption.
See also Ezekiel 18:4; Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 3:19-21
Yes persons die, but are those in heaven raised "bodily"? If so how can that be?
Coming back to the literalness of the bible - Dr. Kipp Davis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1WTQxWEFs0
Duncan, I cited 1 Cor. 15:42-44. Did you read those verses? Also, what about 1 Cor. 15:50; Philippians 3:20-21?
Paul says "we" shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.
See 2 Cor. 5:1-5 as well.
There can be no soul apart from the body. The body is the necessary substrate to the soul.
Here is revelation ch.20:6NASB"4Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the SOULS of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years"
Note that it is the SOULS That are resurrected. This would necessarily include a body of some kind but the emphasis is on the SOUL.
1 Cor. 15:42-44 speaks of a dualism, but what is spiritual body?
1 cor 15:52 says - and the dead will rise. Not, we will rise and we will be changed.
If I am reading it correctly?
"So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it." - it does not say in a new body.
Interesting verse. How does one behead an immaterial soul? Also reminds me of Revelation 6:9-11, where souls are under the altar. But I agree with the point about bodies and souls.
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/ancient-hebrew-anatomy.htm
Paul's whole them in 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection, and specifically, the first/spiritual resurrection. The definition of a spiritual body is hotly contested, but I go with the definition given in Louw-Nida and a commentary written by Raymond Brown (not the notable Catholic scholar who focused on Johannine studies). For me, a spiritual body is not composed of matter, not fleshly or material as we know bodies. But that is another subject and we've already strayed from the original focus of this thread, which was 1 Chronicles 21.
ESV: Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
I think there's no doubt that Paul is including himself and other anointed Christians. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:57.
2 Corinthians 5:1-4: For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
Philippians 3:20-21 makes it clear that these Christians would have a new body like the body that Christ now has.
1 John 3:2: Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.
1 Corinthians 15:45ff: Thus it is written, h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1 Cor. 15:52 contains ἡμεῖς and ἀλλαγησόμεθα is a 1st person plural verb.
1 Corinthians 15:51 in the Greek says we shall be changed. Same 1st person plural verb.
https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/15-52.htm
There are also plurals.
https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/15-51.htm
They will be changed with plurals but the dead will rise.
This is no secondary ressurection.
Is you take the souls to mean bodies then it is literally this revelation?
You are going to have to rethink what heaven is.
Duncan, I mentioned the plurals above, but the plural is 1st person, so Paul includes himself and others.
The dead and those who will be changed are one and the same in that account. But he's talking about those in Christ.
Not sure what you mean by no secondary resurrection. True, Paul dies not use the term, first resurrection, but Revelation does. Paul does speak of an earlier resurrection in Philippians.
I don't think anybody said that souls per se are bodies. For me, the soul is a person, who has a body. As servant said, the soul is the substrate of the body. Either way, there is no problem because Paul speaks of people having glorified bodies. Did you read Philippians 3:20-21 and the other Corinthian verses I posted?
Yes I did but I still don't see how they negate 2 Corinthians 5:10 - this is not plain language, easy to follow.
Paul gets a little equivocal in 2 Cor. 5:8-10, but 2 Cor. 5:6-7 clears it up for me. He's already written there is more than one kind of body. vss. 6-7 of the chapter indicate he's talking about our current bodies, not the glorified body. Review 2 Cor. 5:1-5.
When he writes, to be present in the body, that is not the glorified body but the current physical/natural body or tent.
But he is not saying that, he is saying out of the body.
When Paul speaks about being absent from the body, why think that's the glorified body and not our current bodies. Nobody on earth has a body like Christ's body, but anointed Christians are promised that kind of body.
Why also ignore 2 For. 5:1-5 which explicitly teaches about the resurrection body?
"35 But someone may ask, “How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?” 36 What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, >>>it doesn’t grow into a plant unless it dies first.<<< 37 And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting. 38 Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have. A different plant grows from each kind of seed. 39 Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish."
??????
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%2015%3A45
Keep reading. He gets to the point in these verses (NIV):
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Entire theses/books have been written on these verses. It takes some wrestling with the text, but Paul does have a point and he does not teach the dead will be disembodied.
It's difficult to be disembodied and have a glorified body too.
Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/06/1-corinthians-1536-and-resurrection.html
If the translation of the analogy is correct, then it makes no sense to a horticulturalist, which the amharets were.
Glorification is generally associated with being raised from the dead. This does not equate to a different type of body. Isn't jesus called a life giving spirit? I very much doubt that this reference is to "spirits" just as i doubt that god is referred to as A spirit.
Did you pick from the video link I posted that ancient Israelite artifacts had the heavenly structure depicted on them?
We can't read too much into an analogy, but what's wrong with it?
Yes, Paul speaks of glorification in terms of being raised from the dead. But he contends that a new glorified body is raised, not a disembodied spirit. Don't know what other texts I can quote. He speaks about the glorified body in 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3.
Yes Jesus is a life-giving spirit with a glorified body.
I will get back to you on the video.
I saw those inscriptions. What significance do you think they have?
God is a spirit is one way to translate John 4:24.
There is no such thing as disembodied soul. There can be no self apart from a body of some kind that is the point 1Corinthians ch.15:38-40. Every self must have a body of some kind as a necessary substrate. That includes spirit beings.
Joseph Fitzmyer has a long explanation about numerous verses in 1 Cor. 15, but here are some things he notes regarding vs. 36ff (First Corinthians, page 588, Anchor Bible Commentary Series:
Paul now adds the first of three analogies that he will develop in this passage. Asher (“Speiretai,” 107–8) claims that this verse is not an analogy of “the resurrection of the dead,” but rather an illustration of “the creative power of God.” That it indeed illustrates that power has to be admitted, but it is still an analogy of the resurrection of the dead, because Paul says “what you sow is not brought to life unless it dies.” Older commentators may have stressed too much the comparison of sowing with burial, or even with predeath existence, and neglected the aspect that Asher argues for, viz., the creative power of God; but even admitting that, one has to realize that it is still an analogy of the resurrection of the dead. Paul stresses that death must precede resurrection, because the Corinthian denial involves anastasis nekr∑n.
The explanation is given with an ancient understanding of what happens in the biological process when a seed becomes a plant or tree (recall Mark 4:27c, about the sower who knows not how the seed grows). The life of the seed does not end; otherwise it could not pass on its life. A seed, however, must cease to be seed in order to become a new living organism; in that sense, it “dies.” An acorn must dissolve and cease to be an acorn, before the oak “is brought to life” (z∑opoieitai, a divine passive) from it. This Paul explains in the next verse.
What does Paul know about "There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.", did he have a vision with explanation.
A spirit world has a spirit bodies? A "soul" IS a physical body, andas I have already said, if you press this you are going to have to come up with another kind of "heaven".
Do you think that Jesus took his post resurrection body with him, nail holes and all?
https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Luke+24%3A51
A physical body is an absolutely necessary substrate for the existence of a soul. But the soul is not reducible to the body.
Genesis ch.2:7KJV"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." So we note that only with the receiving of the breath of life did the man BECOME a soul,He did not receive a soul thus while the soul is not concretely distinct from the body it is not reducible to the body. To think about the principle another way "Jack went to law school and upon graduating and completing a two year internship Jack became a lawyer" So Jack's being a lawyer is not concretely distinct from Jack himself but it is not numerically identical to Jack.
Duncan, I'm about ready to shut down this thread and move on. We've gotten way off-track from the original post plus I've answered some of the questions you're posing here. To sum up:
1) The ancient Hebrews and Greeks/Romans were not totally ignorant when it came to astronomy. Yes, I believe the Bible was written by the guidance of God's spirit. Somebody recently said, the Bible is not man's thoughts about God but God's thoughts about men. Yet, the ancients knew things about heavenly and earthly bodies. Read stuff written by the Stoics, Aristotle, Aristarchus, and Hipparchus, and even Genesis contrasts the sun and moon and mentions the stars. Paul uses an illustration of our earthly body in 1 Cor. 12.
2) The apostle Paul under inspiration spoke about spiritual bodies and glorified bodies that are immortal and imperishable.
3) I never said that a soul IS a physical body. See Genesis 2:7; 1 Chronicles 5:20-21; Ezek. 18:4; Revelation 6:9-11; 20:4-6.
4) If you read the material I posted like the comments from Raymond B. Brown, you would realize that I don't believe Jesus took his body with holes to heaven. But the Bible does speak of him having a body. So there's that :-)
2)
We can logically deduce that there isn't a one to one correspondence between the soul and the body because the body continues not merely to exist after the soul has perished but to live for quite a while afterward e.g popular mechanics:Here’s some fun news: After you die, you’re not completely dead. In a new study, scientists from the University of Illinois–Chicago reveal that some genes express more actively in the human brain after death.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35938702/zombie-genes-come-alive-after-death/
You claimed that a soul is always a physical body is that the case here as well
Leviticus ch.26:11KJVAnd I will set my tabernacle among you: and my SOUL shall not abhor you."
Interesting info, servant from popular mechanics.
Dunca, there is 1 Peter 3:20-KJV-Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Did Peter mean to say that eight bodies survived the flood? That's true, but is that what he meant?
Romans 13:1-KJV-Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Based on Gen. 2:7 quoted above, the Live Forever book (published by the WTBTS) states that the body + the breath of life = a soul. My illustration would be that oxygen and hydrogen together make water but neither one of those things in se = water. To say that the body = the soul is like claiming hydrogen or oxygen by themselves = water.
Thanks everyone. I'm going to lock this thread within the next hour.
Post a Comment