The Trib Is Before the Resurrection Is Before the Rapture

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, again, Justin Adams.

Oh, and by the way, you do know that "Baashaan" is a VERY REAL plain east of the Jordan River, don't you?

[Justin Adams]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Hebrew is SONS OF GOD... your translation is a silly one. Bene Elohim. But since you know so much, you are well able to skew truth in favor of really bad and wishy-washy theological renditions of the supernatural. Read on if you care. Blessings!

Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God By Michael S. Heiser

Introduction Moses' farewell song in Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is one of the more intriguing portions of Deuteronomy, and has received a good deal of attention among scholars, primarily for its poetic features, archaic orthography and morphology, and text-critical problems.1 Among the textual variants present in the Song of Moses, one in Deut. 32:8 stands out as particularly fascinating. The verse is rendered as follows in the NASB: “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” Controversy over the text of this verse concerns the last phrase, “according to the number of the sons of Israel,” which reflects the reading of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (hereafter, MT), l)r#oy ynb. The MT reading is also reflected in several later revisions of the Septuagint (hereafter, LXX): a manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion.2 Most witnesses to the LXX in verse 8, however, read a1ggelw=n qeou= , which is interpretive.3 Several also read ui9w=n qeou= .4 Both of these Greek renderings presuppose a Hebrew text of either Myhl) ynb or 1 For an up-to-date overview of the scholarship on the Song of Moses, see Paul Sanders’s thorough treatment of Deuteronomy 32, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996). See also F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, Biblical Resources Series (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997); W. F. Albright, “Some Remarks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXII,” Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): 339–46; and D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature: Dissertation Series 3 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1972). 2 Fridericus Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus I : Prolegomena, Genesis-Esther (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), 320, footnote 12. 3 This is the predominant reading in the LXX tradition and is nearly unanimous. See John William Wevers, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum, vol. III,2: Deuteronomium (Go.-ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 347 (hereafter, Go.-ttingen LXX); idem, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, 513). Wevers refers to this majority reading as "clearly a later attempt to avoid any notion of lesser deities in favor of God's messengers" (Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, 513). 4 Septuaginta, 347 (hence the Go.-ttingen LXX has adopted this reading as the best, dispute fewer attestations). 2 Myl) ynb. These Hebrew phrases underlying a1ggelw=n qeou= and ui9w=n qeou= are attested in two manuscripts from Qumran,5 and by one (conflated) manuscript of Aquila.6 The debate over which text is to be preferred is more than a fraternal spat among textual critics. The notion that the nations of the world were geographically partitioned and owe their terrestrial identity to the sovereign God takes the reader back to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10-11, and two details there regarding God's apportionment of the earth that are important for the context of the textual debate in Deuteronomy 32:8. First, the Table of Nations catalogs seventy nations, but Israel is not included in the inventory.7 Second, the use of the same Hebrew root (drp) in both passages to describe the "separation" of humankind and the nations substantiates the long-recognized observation of scholars that Genesis 10-11 are the backdrop to the statement in Deut. 32:8.8 Israel alone is Yahweh’s portion and so is not numbered among the seventy other nations. The referent of the number seventy, the "sons of Israel" (in MT), initially seemed understandable enough, for both Gen 46:27 and Exo. 1:5 state that 70 members of Jacob's family went down to Egypt in the days of Joseph.9 Little thought was given, however, to the logic of the correlation: How is it that the number of the pagan nations was determined in relation to an entity (Israel) or individuals (Jacob and his household) that did not yet exist? Even if one contends that the correlation was in the mind of God 5 l) ynb is not an option for what was behind the LXX reading, as the Qumran support for Hebrew text underlying the unrevised LXX demonstrates. First, 4QDtq has spaces for additional letters following the l of its [ ]l) ynb. 4QDtj clearly reads Myhwl) ynb (Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 156). See also Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 269. 6 Go.-ttingen LXX, 347; Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus I : Prolegomena, Genesis-Esther , 320. The manuscript of Aquila is Codex 85. 7 As one scholar notes, "On investigation the reader is struck by a deliberate pattern in the selection of names for the Table. For example, of the sons of Japheth, who number seven, two are selected for further listing. From those two sons come seven grandsons, completing a selective list of fourteen names under Japheth. With Ham’s thirty descendants and Shem’s twenty-six, the grand total is seventy" (Allen P. Ross, "Studies in the Book of Genesis - Part 2: The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 - its Structure," BibSac vol 137: 548 (Oct-Dec 1980): 342). As Ross notes in a footnote, some scholars arrive at the number of 71 for the names, depending on how the counting is done. This author would agree with Ross and Cassuto, whom he quotes, that the accurate number is seventy (cf. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to Abraham, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), 177–180. 8 Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Noah to Abraham, 174–78; Albright, "Song of Moses," 343–44. Specifically, a Niphal form of drp is used in Gen. 10:5 (wdrpn) and the Hiphil occurs in Deut. 32:8 (wdyrphb). 9 There is a textual debate on this passage in Exodus as well. Although space prohibits a thorough treatment of these texts, they do provide an example, in conjunction with Deut. 32:8, of what is truly the primary guiding principle in textual criticism: the reading that best explains the rise of the others is most likely original. Put another way, which reading has the strongest explanatory power? In the case of Gen. 46:27 and Exo. 1:5, LXX and Qumran disagree with MT together when they read that 75 people went to Egypt with Jacob. MT's 70 is most likely original here, because the number 75 is quite demonstrably a later "correction" of MT, since it incorporates five additional descendants from Ephraim and Manasseh. This example from 46:27 and Exo. 1:5 features the same textual alignment as with Deut. 32:8 (LXX and Qumran agree together against MT), but here MT is to be preferred. The point is that one cannot be biased in favor of either MT or LXX, but that the reading that best explains the rise of the others is the preferred reading, regardless of the text-type. 3 prior to Israel's existence and only recorded much later, what possible point would there be behind connecting the pagan Gentile nations numerically with the children of promise? On the other hand, what could possibly be meant by the textual option that created a correspondence between the number of the nations in Genesis 10-11 and heavenly beings? Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number 70 in Deuteronomy 32:8 - and have furnished powerful ammunition to textual scholars who argued against the "sons of Israel" reading in MT. Ugaritic mythology plainly states that the head of its pantheon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon, the "Most High") fathered 70 sons,10 thereby setting the number of the "sons of El" (Ugaritic, bn )il ). An unmistakable linguistic parallel with the Hebrew text underlying the LXX reading was thus discovered, one which prompted many scholars to accept the LXX reading on logical and philological grounds: God (El Elyon in Deut. 32:8) divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings who already existed from the time of creation.11 The coherence of this explanation notwithstanding, some commentators resist the LXX reading, at least in part because they fear that an acceptance of the Myhl) /Myl) ynb (bny )lym / )lhym ) readings (both of which may be translated “sons of gods”) somehow requires assent to the notion that Yahweh is the author of polytheism. This apprehension thus prompts text-critical defenses of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8, such as that of David L. Stevens.12 This author contends that the choice of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8 is based on a misunderstanding of both the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and text-critical methodology, prejudiced evaluation of non-MT texts, and an unfounded concern that departure from the MT reading results in “Israelite polytheism.” The primary goal of the present article is to show that understanding "sons of God" as the correct reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 in no way requires one to view Israelite religion as polytheistic. Toward that end, some selected comments on the text-critical issues are necessary.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE "SONS OF GOD" IN DEUTERONOMY 32:8 

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Justin Adams.

I've read the treatise you presented by Michael S. Heiser, and I must say that, for all the scholarly work, he seems to have glossed over a crucial point: How did Yeshua` ("Jesus") use the 82nd Psalm?

John 10:23-42 (KJV)

22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him,

"How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ (the Messiah), tell us plainly."

25 Jesus answered them,

"I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name (on my Father's authority), they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one."

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them,

"Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?"

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' (Psalm 82:6)? 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'? 
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, 40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. 41 And many resorted unto him, and said,

"John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true."

42 And many believed on him there.

Forget all that you've heard about the "spiritual realm." Most of it comes from Greek mythology introduced first to the Jews in the First and Second centuries B.C., and introduced into the "churches" by Origen in the late Second Century A.D.

I would HIGHLY recommend that you read (and take to heart) Appendix A on "Christoplatonism's False Assumptions" in Randy Alcorn's book called Heaven. While I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I believe that he has made an accurate point in this appendix!

See, there's NOT A SINGLE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where the term "sons of God" applies to "angels" (as the word is defined today)! The term "sons of God," or "bneey Elohiym" in Hebrew, applied to the early heroes of faith in God!

The word "sar," translated as "prince," is more like our term "hero" in English. And, it was from this term that Ya`aqov got his new name: "Yisra'eel!" "He is a PRINCE of God!" "He is a HERO of God!"

Even the term "angel," which is a TRANSLITERATION of the Greek word "aggelos," means "messenger" and can be shown on more than one occasion to apply to HUMAN messengers!

Furthermore, anyone who reads more into the texts of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 than what is given within the context of each chapter, is SIDETRACKED from the actual message presented in these books!

You don't have to fear the Massoretic Text. It has been faithfully copied and translated for many millennia.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Retrobyter

[WilliamL]

On 4/12/2020 at 1:34 AM, Justin Adams said:

TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE "SONS OF GOD" IN DEUTERONOMY 32:8 

The short version to all of this is that each of the 70 nations that originated from out of the Flood has a heavenly ruling spirit. The Bible tells us of this principle in Daniel 10 and 12, which speak of the

Daniel 10:13 “…the sar of the kingdom of Persia [who] withstood Me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, the אחד/first/foremost of the ancestral sarim [Heb. אַחַד הַשָּׂרִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים], came to help Me... 20 …And now I must return to fight with the sar of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the sar of Greece will come.”

In Daniel 12:1, the pre-incarnate Christ tells Daniel that the archangel Michael is “the great sar, the one standing over your people [Israel].”

A sar always denotes a very powerful head of an army or government. The books of Enoch and Jasher tell very specifically that these 70 sarim represent their respective nations in the heavenly council; for example, the one described in Job 1-2. Psalm 82 and Isaiah 24 tell us that these heavenly rulers will be judged in the Day of the Lord:

Isaiah 24:21 It shall come to pass in that Day [of the LORD] that the LORD will punish the host of the heights in the heights…

[Justin Adams]

On 4/13/2020 at 5:06 AM, Retrobyter said:

You don't have to fear the Massoretic Text. It has been faithfully copied and translated for many millennia

Not quite. Its later second century rendition removed the embarrassing two powers allusions (mentioned in the LXX). The Masoretes were tasked with this 'purification' exercise and there is more than one version of the Hebrew text. Aleppo rendition is based on Codex Leningrad and is a more pure form. The oldest complete Hebraic bible. (no 'o' vowel)

Yeshua's reference to psalm 82 is that when He runs rings around them (John 10) He then basically declares that He was the the head of the council and the disobedient ones will 'die like men'. They understood this very well and wanted to kill Him right there.

The sons of God in Deut 32 and Psalm 82 are mentioned many other places. Also Enoch was highly regarded in second temple literature. The seminaries and most 'theological' institutions play all this down and obscure the truth of it all. Just like Augustine and his ilk. The literature of the times (BC 500 until AD 150) also did include much Mythology which seems to be more a confirmation that most thus described was not all myth, but true in many forms. Just like the many flood stories.

There is much supernatural strip-mining of the scriptures for us consumer believers. The Territorial Spirits that God put over the nations have had their authority revoked (as stated in Psalm 82). These 70 or more as described were powerful disobedient holy ones of God ('princes' in Daniel). They are all doomed including the Nacash (haSatan). All are supernatural beings. The term 'angelos' or angel is a job description. A messenger, the 'angel of the Lord' is the second Yahweh figure seen often in the Tanakh. Elohim is a disembodied spirit. In the underworld or otherwise. Yahweh is an 'Elohim' but no other elohim is Yahweh. 

When someone studies as much as Dr. Heiser and has a doctorate in Hebrew and other ancient languages, then they may have something good to say. Dr. Heiser only uses peer reviewed scholarship and is highly regarded even among his critics for being an honest scholar.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Justin Adams

[Justin Adams]

On 4/12/2020 at 3:49 AM, Retrobyter said:

Oh, and by the way, you do know that "Baashaan" is a VERY REAL plain east of the Jordan River, don't you?

Cosmic. Caesarea Philippi where the pagan altars are near Mt Hermon. Where Yeshua was transfigured. General Bathan or Bashan region and a gateway to the underworld - "the gates of hell".