The other point I might mention in regards to this issue is that the Israelite pantheon, in my view, was originally viewed in familial terms (much as in Ugarit), but later, over time, it evolved into a model primarily conceived in terms of a royal court (although, of course, royal terminology made its impact on Ugaritic conceptions of the divine council). If El and YHWH were originally separate in ancient Israel, and El was indeed at first the chief deity of ancient Israel, then I don’t think it is an unreasonable conclusion, in conjunction with the foregoing analysis I have provided, in historical-critical terms to conclude that YHWH was seen as El’s son. I say this, of course, still cognizant of the limits of historical-critical inquiry I mentioned above. Nevertheless, I don’t really see the evidence pointing anywhere else.

Best,

TYD

Best,

TYD

Anyway, this is all really very interesting, given the frequent charges of polytheism thrown against the Mormon church. I’ve long thought that there’s too much polytheism in the Bible for me to take such charges seriously (or at least to take them seriously as charges of heresy), but i’m not conversant enough in the original languages to be able to explain myself well on why. Things like this series help.

IsraeliteIndeed, I believe that if you peruse my older posts on the issues of monotheism and polytheism in the Old Testament, you will find that I have addressed a number of your questions and some of the issues you raise elsewhere. Thanks for taking the time to read this post, however! Feel free to continue participating!

Best,

TYD

“resembl(ing) ancient Near Eastern covenants in which a vassal king, who proves loyal to his emperor, obtains the emperor’s protection of the vassal’s people. The vassal king thus becomes a proxy of his people in obtaining their protection. Jesus (as “vassal king”), by fulfilling the will of his Father (the “emperor”) in all things, thus purchased his people’s ultimate divine protection—their eternal salvation.” -Gileadi

Then YHWH/Jehovah is “granted responsibility over the nations”, mirroring (to some extent) Paul’s statement concerning Jesus that “though he were a son, yet learned he obedience” and now sits “on the right hand of God” (in the divine council).

The KJV contains many, many errors and some guess-work on the part of the translators (cf. the “together with my dead body” passage in Isaiah – ugh!). The NIV is a weak translation, I’ll give you that, in that it is less “wooden” than the underlying text portrays. The NASB would be a modernized version of the KJV, if you’re interested. I prefer the NRSV (Oxford Annotated version) as it represents a decent middle point for woodenness and topical translations. Regardless, I don’t think TYD’s usage of the NIV is fatal to what he’s saying.

Jer 16:19 ¶ O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and [things] wherein [there is] no profit.
Jer 16:20 Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they [are] no gods?
Jer 16:21 ¶ Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name [is] The LORD.

Jer 2:11 Hath a nation changed [their] gods, which [are] yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for [that which] doth not profit.

U cant prove that the people of Moab where not the ones that were full of indignation with Israel, for getting their heir apparent slaughtered to the Molech god of Moab.

Monday Night’s @ 9pm listen to The Grill, the most controversial, web cast call-in radio show hosted by General Yahanna at http://isupk.org/Radio_Show/index.htm Listen to what’s relevant spiritually and politically. The only show you will love and hate, all at once.