TrevorL

Greetings again angels4u, I appreciate that others have different tastes in music and what they consider acceptable worship. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I like fairly simple hymns, say four lines, four stanzas. I also like the Psalms set to music and consider that the Psalms are Divinely inspired guides as to acceptable worship and praise. I like Psalm 8 and Psalm 145 as examples of David’s Psalms of praise, and I consider that Psalm 8 could be early in David’s life, possibly commemorating his victory over Goliath. This is rich in Divine concepts, drawing on Genesis 1 and is quoted and expounded in the NT in many places. This Psalm is a good example for young people. Psalm 145 is considered by many to be the greatest of all the Psalms, and could have been given by David towards the end of his life. In my fellowship’s hymn book we have four hymns based on Psalm 145, the first being very old but catches the thoughts and feelings of the first three verses. I also like a recent addition to our hymnal on Psalm 1, with a bright tune and well balanced words reflecting in summary all of Psalm 1. We also have other hymns that I like, some written by members, and their main feature is that they capture Scriptural sentiments, even if they do not directly quote Scripture. Our meeting does not have loud musical accompaniment, as is popular in some churches, especially local Pentecostal churches. I enjoy our organ and piano and would welcome some quality additions such as violin, but not drums or electric guitar. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Angels4u, Some of the thoughts are interesting, but I do not like the repetition - 5 times the following stanza (with or without "say"): Nor the repetition - 24 times: And I believe that "Jehovah" is an incorrect translation of the Divine Name YHWH. In total I would feel very uncomfortable hearing or singing this song. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings simplejeff, The thief on the cross was justified by faith at the time of his repentance on the cross. It is irrelevant whether or not he had been baptised earlier by John or Jesus. What is important is to desist from using the thief on the cross as an excuse to refuse or not practice water baptism. I suggest that his confession, request and crucifixion with Jesus is the prime example of the very meaning of baptism. It has been suggested that John's record of the crucifixion states that the thief was crucified with Jesus, while the other was only crucified. John 19:32 (KJV): Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. Also Paul uses these terms to describe the crucified life, showing that this is an example to all believers, especially to the Galatians who had started to turn aside unto Judaism. Again this highlights the true meaning of baptism, a uniting by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Galatians 2:20 (KJV): I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Deidre, Undoubtedly there is a wide range of opinion on this subject, but in the following there is no direct mention of Holy Spirit baptism, nor baptism of children. Acts 8:5-6,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. There is no need of Holy Spirit infusion to believe what is preached. Salvation is by belief of the gospel, and this belief will motivate the individual to become identified with the death and resurrection of Christ through the waters of baptism. The thief on the cross was fully identified with Jesus in his crucifixion, and in the hope of the resurrection and coming kingdom, and in effect underwent a greater baptism than we experience. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again "Sister", I am a bit confused by your Posts. My understanding is that the four metals of Daniel 2 are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. I also believe that the four beasts of Daniel 7 are the same four kingdoms or empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. The fifth kingdom is the Kingdom of God that will replace these kingdoms of men at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ when he returns to sit upon the throne of David in Jerusalem Daniel 2:44, 7:27, Isaiah 2:1-4, Zechariah 14. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings "Sister", Have you compared the four kingdoms of Daniel 7 represented by four beasts with the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 represented by the four successive metals of the image? Daniel 2:37-40 (KJV): 37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. 38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. 39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Brittany, I would suggest that a proper understanding of the gospel will motivate a believer to be baptised Acts 8v5,12, and this will be an initial strengthening. This will be followed by a gradual growth in the things of God if we listen to the Word of God and seek to grow in this, and thus lead to a life of dedication and holiness towards God. If we are beset by particular sins, then there are some examples for example stealing and anger given by Paul in Ephesians 4v20-32, and his suggestion of gradually overcoming these faults by a process of sublimation or replacement. Nevertheless the believer is beset by many trials and failures, but God can strengthen us to overcome. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Spock, Sorry for the delay, but I have been having computer problems and the following is a brief response. Without responding to all the detail of your and Kan's Posts, do you consider that Daniel 8:25 is speaking of the same events as depicted in Daniel 11:40-45 : Daniel 8:25 (KJV): And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. Daniel 11:40-45 (KJV): 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. In other words this is a military power, and distinct from the man of sin aka the antichrist. Also there is no hint of the 3rd temple here. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Spock, After reviewing this thread I decided to expand on a few details including my previous comment above. I believe that a proper consideration of Jesus’ allusion or quotation helps to establish a better understanding of Daniel 8. I would also like to reaffirm my belief that the little horn of the goat is primarily or initially the pagan Roman Empire in its military aspect and not Antiochus Epiphanes and that the 2300 evening / mornings does not primarily refer to his desolation of the Temple for 1150 days. What happened with Antiochus was only a partial, tentative fulfillment. The allusion or quotation is not altogether clear at first reading: Daniel 8:13-14 (KJV): 13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Luke 21:20-24 (KJV): 20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Now there are a number of terms that are similar, and there are others that despite their similarity have some difference in meaning or range. I would like to suggest first that Luke 21:20-24 is speaking of the events of AD70 and this is fixed firstly by v20, but especially by v24 which speaks of the captivity of the Jews and their dispersion into all nations and that after this event Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles for a long period of time, culminating at the end of “the times of the Gentiles”. If we also add Matthew’s account, then some of the differences in terms will be clarified: Matthew 24:15-16 (KJV): 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Now Matthew speaks of “when ye see” “the abomination of desolation” “stand in the holy place”, while Luke interprets or records this as “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies”. Significantly Matthew states that this is prophesied by Daniel, and thus the abomination of desolation of Daniel 8 and 9 is the Roman army besieging and making desolate Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70, slaying many of the Jews and taking many others captive and removing them from Judea into all nations. Now Luke tells us that this would be the start of a long period, during which Jerusalem would be trodden down of the Gentiles, and this down-treading would only end when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. This fixes the meaning of this prophecy as both AD 70 and the long period of “treading down” since AD 70 verifies. Firstly what does the term of “treading down” imply? This seems to imply subjugation by a military power, and this is usually followed by political subjugation, and sometimes religious subjugation. There does not seem to be an equivalence between the 2300 days or years and the expression “the times of the Gentiles”. I believe that of “the times of the Gentiles” is a larger period of time, commencing with the first Babylonian captivity and ending with the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth at the return of Jesus Isaiah 2:1-4, Daniel 2:35,44, Zechariah 14. The Kingdom of Babylon overthrew the Kingdom of God when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem and this was the time when Daniel was taken into captivity. The 2300 years from BC 334-33 to AD 1967 is a shorter time period, starting with Alexander’s conquest of Medo-Persia, the goat vs the ram, and the period speaks of the Greco-Roman dominance over Judea and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is yet to suffer another invasion from the north as depicted in Daniel 11:40-45 and Ezekiel 38, and on this occasion Jesus will intervene and overthrow the kingdoms of men and establish the Kingdom of God, reigning from Jerusalem on the throne of David. The present distress in the Middle East and Syria could be precursors to the invasion from the north depicted in Daniel 11:40-45 and other parallel prophecies such as Ezekiel 38, Zechariah 14 and Revelation 16:12-16. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Spock, My understanding is that the little horn of the goat is a military power and the same as the latter day king of the north mentioned in Daniel 11:40-45. The antichrist is a religious power and is a different development than Daniel 8. The antichrist originates in a falling away from the faith, an apostasy, and has been manifested in the Roman Catholic system. They will oppose Christ when he comes to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth. This system is depicted by the little horn of Daniel 7 and man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2 and the development mentioned in 1 John 2:18-19. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again Spock, BC334 was the Battle of Granicus and BC333 was the battle of Issus, where Alexander defeated the Persian Army. This corresponds with the major element of the vision of Daniel 8, the Goat with the prominent horn slaying the Ram. The significance of this event is the transfer of sovereignty of the Holy Land and Jerusalem to a nation that was at various times antagonistic to the Jews and their worship. The Romans, who also were at times antagonistic to the worship at Jerusalem, replaced the Greeks. The Persians had on the other hand encouraged the Jews to return and to build the Temple. This situation of dominance by the antagonistic Gentiles continued until AD 1967 when the Jews recaptured Jerusalem. I do not believe that Daniel 8 is speaking of the Antichrist, but of a military power that will invade the Middle East at the time of the end. My present view is that Russia will invade Turkey and consolidate, and some time later with the backing of other nations invade the Middle East, but they will be conquered by Christ at Armageddon. I believe that the Antichrist is connected with Daniel 7 and will oppose Christ after Armageddon. No. The latter day manifestation of the goat power will be Apostate Christian, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Protestant, that is mainly European, and backed with some Islamic confederacies, such as Iran. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings Spock and others, I agree with some aspects already posted on this thread, but also have a few other different perspectives. I agree that the primary vision of the Goat with the notable horn is the Grecian Empire, depicting Alexander and his conquest of the Medo-Persian Empire represented by the Ram. After Alexander the Empire was split amongst the four generals, and a little horn developed out of one of these sub-divisions. Where I differ with some is that I believe this little horn speaks of the gradual development of the Roman Empire in its eastern military aspect, specifically in its position of taking over the King of the North territory. Also I believe that the 2300 evening-mornings are 2300 days, and represents a time span of 2300 years. A major fulfillment of this is from BC 334-333 to AD 1967 when Jerusalem was taken back from Gentile domination. I believe that Jesus is alluding to Daniel 8:13-14 in Luke 21:24. The 70-week prophecy is an expansion of some of the detail of Daniel 8. The 70 weeks represent 490 years, and this confirms that the 2300 days should also be considered as a day for a year. Daniel 8:11 speaks of the crucifixion of Christ and the events of AD70, corresponding to Daniel 9:26-27. There will be a latter day military aspect of the King of the North as suggested by Daniel 8:25, 11:40-45 and Ezekiel 38. This will again be the little horn of the goat, again the eastern part of the Roman Empire, military in character, but distinct from the little horn of Daniel 7 which is more religious in character. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again WilliamL, I appreciate your response. No I have not considered the history and detail that you have now provided. Since I posted yesterday I checked 3 Bible Dictionaries, but none of these gave me the conviction that the “Book of Enoch” is an inspired text. I will try to research “Tartarus” with my limited but usually adequate reference library. If this was taken that way, then my use of this figure was wrong and offensive and I apologise. Perhaps I could have used View A, A1, A2, A3 and View B, B1, B2, B3 possibly meeting at A5 and B5, but this is a bit clumsy. I appreciate the discussion that we have had and your sharing. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again WilliamL I appreciate your response. I hope you did not take my scale of 1-10 as indicating that 10 is better than 1. I used this only as a scale between two different views. I used Genesis 6:1-2 to indicate that in my opinion the term “sons of God” can apply to non-angelic beings, even though from your response you endorse your view that this must be angelic beings. I am not familiar with the “Book of Enoch”. It is not contained within the canon of inspired books of the Bible, so I would like to express my reservations in accepting this. My present view of the reference in Jude and 2 Peter is that this is referring to the incident of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, or rather that this is one of the possible explanations. One problem is that I do not believe that the angels marry or have children, possibly expressed in the following: Luke 20:34-36 (KJV): 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Moses was appointed as “Elohim” to Pharaoh: Exodus 7:1 (KJV): And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Heb. Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. I am interested in the subject of the Name of God, Yahweh and the various titles such as El, Eloah, Elohim, El Shaddai and others, and the meaning of all these in their various contexts. Have you considered some of these? Also how do you view the meaning and use of Elohim in Genesis 1:1 and especially Genesis 1:26-27? One that caught my attention is where Jacob uses the expression “El-eloho-Israel”: Genesis 33:20 (KJV): And he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again WilliamL It seems that we have a different perspective on the term “sons of God”. For example: Genesis 6:4 (KJV): There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. I do not accept the view that “the sons of God” in the above to be heavenly beings, but those of the line of Seth in comparison to the line of Cain. Also I take the following as bookends to the theme of the sons of God: Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV): 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Luke 3:38 (KJV): Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 1 John 3:1-3 (KJV): 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. The following seems pretty close to the concept that God is the Father of the nation, and therefore the individuals within the nation are sons of God. Exodus 4:22-23 (KJV): 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. What is sometimes remarkable concerning the Psalms, is that some very important NT teachings are based on a verse of the Psalms. Consider two verses in Psalm 110: Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Psalm 110:4 (KJV): The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Both of these are widely quoted and expounded in the NT, and without these two verses we would be very much the poorer in our understanding of the position and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. On the same basis I am content with my understanding of Psalm 82, especially with the link to the judges in Exodus, and Christ’s comments in John 10. The Psalm stands upon its own message. If we could imagine a range of 1-10 on our understanding of this, and I suggest that you are 3 and I am 8 on this scale, when we approach Psalm 82 with our previous understanding and teaching environment, then we apply our present view to this Scripture. Psalm 82 may help you to go to position 2, and my view may move me to position 9 on the scale. I had hoped, not to immediately move you to 8, but if you had a closer look at Psalm 82 I would hope to help you to go to position 4 on the scale. Your suggestion of small gods reminds me of the Catholic position of patron saints. I am not sure if you consider this as a different scale or position altogether. My Dad bought a 2nd-hand car but it had a St Christopher badge on the dashboard. He took it off, but it also covered a hole. He decided to reverse the badge instead. He used to joke that he never had an accident in that car. Do you accept the Catholic claim that these semi-gods have some influence in the earth today? Kind regards Trevor

Greetings WilliamL But the title “Elohim” is applied to the Judges in Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9 showing that these terms do not have such a sharp demarcation as you suggest. Sons of God, that is sons of elohim, is a lesser title than elohim. Sons of the Most High is a poetic parallel with much the same meaning as sons of elohim. Israel as a nation was God’s firstborn son. Another example where “elohim” is used for the judge is: 1 Samuel 2:25 (KJV): If one man sin against another, the judge (Heb. Elohim) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. Another factor is that Psalm 82 is speaking of the role of the judges and not “heavenly spiritual rulers” as you suggest: Psalm 82:2-4 (KJV): 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. But this seems to be firstly a contrast to their present exalted position and other examples could be cited of a similar contrast, such as the King of Babylon. It could also indicate some judicial slaying, or judgement such as occurred with Hophni and Phinehas. If we consider the events of AD70, then this was also a judicial slaying of those who not only crucified Jesus, but hardened their hearts against the preaching of the Apostles. There is some evidence that many were slain by crucifixion, thus reflecting the death of Jesus, the Prince, “one of the princes”. I find this rather astounding. The “gods” of Egypt were “no-gods”. Do you really believe that the gods of Egypt were literal gods. There is some suggestion that the plagues were directly in contrast to the false “gods” of the Egyptians, showing that the One God of Israel, Yahweh had control over all these elements, and that Moses was sent by God. Do you believe that the Egyptian gods were actually evil angels? What about the gods of Canaan, were they actual gods, actual individuals with limited power, or simply the imagination of their evil hearts? What about the gods of the Greco-Roman world? I attempted to insert your perspective into the quotation of Psalm 82:6 by Jesus and his explanation of the significance of why these individuals were called “elohim” but failed. My assessment is that Jesus’ usage and overall explanation in John 10:33-36 only makes sense when we understand that Jesus is speaking of the judges. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings again ProzacR and Ezra, I agree with Ezra that “gods’ in John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6 refers to the judges. The following is a more detailed explanation. John 10:33-36 (KJV): 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? The first thing to note is in v34: “Jesus answered them”. Jesus did not agree with their assessment or accusation. Jesus quotes from Psalm 82 and a careful reading of that Psalm would help to understand that the Psalm is speaking of the unjust judges in Israel, and that God would judge them for their failure to correctly judge the poor. The answer that Jesus gives is based upon the OT usage of the word “God”, “gods”, that is the Hebrew word “Elohim”. Jesus speaks concerning the fact that in the OT the judges were called God or gods. It is interesting to note that the translators had difficulty with the relevant verses where the Judges acted in the role of God (Hebrew Elohim): Exodus 21:6 (KJV): 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 21:6 (ASV): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour. Exodus 22:8-9 (ASV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor. The role and responsibility of the judges is indicated in the following: Deuteronomy 1:17 (KJV): Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. 2 Chronicles 19:6 (KJV): And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. So the judges were called God or gods because they were united in administering the work or judgements of God. Jesus was claiming a similar though superior role as The Son of God, by calling and claiming God as His Father. Another strong feature of Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees and Scribes is that in quoting from Psalm 82, Jesus is showing that they were like these unjust Judges, as they had already sought his arrest and were wanting to kill him. God in Heaven would stand up in judgement against these unjust judges and they would perish. Kind regards Trevor

Greetings ProzacR, The reason why the Judges in Israel were given the title “god” is that they represented God when they judged the people. They received the word of God and were expected to be faithful to this word in judging the people. They were not separate deities. This is partly a Hebrew idiom or language usage, but also we use the same concept when we represent a company by saying “David Jones” here, if this is the name of our retail shop. Jesus explains why they were called “gods” in the following, where he actually quotes Psalm 82:6 John 10:34-35 (KJV): 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; There is a similar usage of this idea where the Hebrew word “elohim” usually translated God is translated angels in the following: Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: Kind regards Trevor