The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TerriblePhoenix
a reply to: whereislogic

I only say this because of your horribly dishonest quote regarding the DSS,

Can you be more specific?

Do you mean repeat myself, say what I said a page or two a second time?

I believe my last message was specific.

But for your benefit...

You posted some article claiming that the DSS verified the accuracy of the Masoretic text.

Knowing this is a lie, one you believed without verification, I posted the number of the fragments from Qumran that contain Dt. 32,which is the most important thing in terms of Masoretic vs Septuagint.

I then posted the translation that clearly said Sons of God and the chapter of Dt 32 with footnotes in the NRSV.

Clearly proving beyond doubt your clip, whoever is responsible for it, is a lie a liar.

The fact is that almost every occasion the MT. disagrees with the Sp. the DSS side with the Septuagint, I know this, scholars know this, yet you have sources willing to lie.

Specific enough, again (I already explained this to you).?

a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah, just to let you know, I WAS specific, I said exactly what I was talking about you just chopped it out when you quoted me, but my specific point was right there, so I am not sure what you are doing by asking me to tell you the same thing twice.

More important than the blatant lie of whoever you trusted was being honest is that you trusted a lie, the DSS do not verify the accuracy of the MT. they verify the Septuagint's accuracy.

So my reason, besides my point, is you believed you were supplying truthful information, were tricked, and as a piece of advice I suggested to you that you verify your sources as to accuracy and stop relying on people to tell you things so much because the books are either on the Internet or inexpensive, they aren't only available to scholars, and you would both learn more and have the satisfaction of having done it yourself to the point where a lying "scholar"will be able to spot.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Ancient Manuscripts—How Are They Dated? Awake!—2008
IN 1844, Bible scholar Konstantin von Tischendorf visited St. Catherine’s monastery, located at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt. Combing through its libraries, he came upon some notable parchments. Being a student of paleography,* Tischendorf recognized the parchments as leaves from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, or “Old Testament.” “I had seen nothing that could be judged as of greater antiquity than these Sinaitic pages,” he wrote.

Forming part of what later became known as the Sinaitic Manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus), the parchments have been dated to the fourth century C.E. The Sinaitic is just one of thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that make up a truly vast reservoir for scholars to study.

*: “Paleography . . . is the study of ancient and medieval handwriting. It deals mainly with writing on perishable materials, such as papyrus, parchment, or paper.”—The World Book Encyclopedia.
...
n 1920 the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England, acquired a pile of papyruses newly unearthed in an ancient Egyptian rubbish heap. While examining the items, which included letters, receipts, and census documents, scholar Colin Roberts saw a fragment inscribed with text he recognized—a few verses from John chapter 18. It was the earliest Christian Greek text identified up to that time.

The fragment came to be known as the John Rylands Papyrus 457, internationally designated as P52. Penned in Greek uncials, it has been dated to the early second century—within just a few decades of the original writing of the Gospel of John! Significantly, the text agrees almost exactly with that found in much later manuscripts.



In his book The Bible and Archæology, British textual critic Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures:]“Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” Similarly, regarding the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.”

Those observations call to mind the words of the apostle Peter: “All flesh is like grass, and all its glory is like a blossom of grass; the grass becomes withered, and the flower falls off, but the saying of Jehovah endures forever.”—1 Peter 1:24, 25
Of course there are those who prefer to throw all the research and historical evidence regarding the reliability of the bible and its preservation as promised out of the window (or their consideration/minds) while applying their own preferred interpretation of bible verses such as the one quoted at the end above. For the teachers or religious leaders of these people it also became more of an emotional necessity* as more and more evidence emerged from these manuscripts and fragments that contradicts with their doctrines and theosophies and make it more obvious and clear what happened throughout the history of Christendom in terms of deliberate deception as opposed to inadvertent deception or insignificant errors or differences. *: In some cases it also shows their dishonesty when knowing better, or that they have been obscuring and/or scoffing+denigrating the evidence (encourage people to ignore or dismiss it, or consider it as ambiguous, not clear, not useful for figuring out the truth of the matter, Pontius Pilatus-style; see my commentary in the thread "The Greatest unanswered Question of all time, What is Truth?"). This is multi-generational and its best to look at the influence of entire organized religions or religious movements regarding this subject of doctrines in comparison with translational bias; this is all related to the behaviour of following human traditions and traditional teachings that I mentioned in my first comment in this thread.
Dating the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah

The first Dead Sea Scroll of the Bible book of Isaiah, discovered in 1947, was written on leather in a pre-Masoretic Hebrew script. It has been dated to the end of the second century B.C.E. How did scholars arrive at that date? They compared the writing with other Hebrew texts and inscriptions and assigned it a paleographic date between 125 B.C.E. and 100 B.C.E. Carbon-14 dating of the scroll provided additional evidence.

Amazingly, a comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Masoretic text, prepared many centuries later by scribes called Masoretes, shows no doctrinal change.*

You see that star after "no doctrinal change"?

That means it requires further explanation, in this case apparently you decided not to tell us what was explained by the star, I have no doubt it is this which IS a change in doctrine, Israel is not God and only had 12 sons, not enough to cover 70 nations, especially since he wasn't alive yet (at Babel).

MAJOR doctrinal change, which has never been satisfactorily explained because it can't be without the admission of tampering, which is a problem for KJV and NIV users as well as Tanakh readers because it is an alteration of the Torah.

MT. says sons of Israel.
DSS say Sons of God.

I think that it is clear, changing the word God to Israel in a verse of such importance as Dt. 32 qualifies as a change in doctrine.

Doctrine 1 The world was divided according to the number of the Son of God/Angels of God in Greek.

Doctrine 2 The world was divided according to the number of the sons of Jacob/Israel.

The Sons of El/God and number of nations according to even modern Jewish tradition is 70,one Son or angel per nation, the Bible also states there were 70 post deluvian nations and Jacob hadn't even been born to divide the world between his 12 sons at the time this occurred, at Babel.

Major doctrinal difference it is, making your source a liar.

Unless of course Israel IS God, then... no problem. Israel isn't though.

Many of the differences simply involve spelling and grammar. Also noteworthy, the Tetragrammaton—the four Hebrew consonants making up the divine name Jehovah—appears consistently in the Isaiah scroll.

*: The Masoretes, who were meticulous Jewish copyists, lived during the second half of the first millennium C.E.

Yes, so meticulous they replaced the word "God" with "Israel" which is blasphemy.

Meticulously unscrupulous maybe.

edit on 14-1-2017 by TerriblePhoenix because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Education and worldly wisdom is not measure of any mans heart or intelligence

That is exactly true and correct.

It takes the maturity of the soul to grasp the deeper nuances.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Education and worldly wisdom is not measure of any mans heart or intelligence

That is exactly true and correct.

It takes the maturity of the soul to grasp the deeper nuances.

I think education and worldly wisdom, the only verifiable kind of wisdom, actually is the most important factor in determining intelligence, the only other factor being nature itself.

Education +wisdom =intelligence.

I have no doubt that this is true.

Chester thinks worldly wisdom is anything outside of the the interpretation given him of the 1611 King James Bible so I think the two of you might have a different definition of worldly wisdom, a good thing despised by Chester who thinks he has divine wisdom and doesn't need education or wisdom of a factual nature.

If you are educated and wise, you have a good heart, if you didn't you wouldn't be wise, just a smart jerk.

Remove education and wisdom both and you get a dumb jerk. Wisdom, worldly or not, comes from God as does education, there is no bad wisdom, it is all God's if it is true wisdom, whether being a decent person or a super sage, it comes from God.

And all wise men/sages and the like have good hearts, wisdom dictates it.

In fact, the Holy Spirit is Wisdom, called by Gnostics Sophia.

There is a higher Wisdom and a lower Wisdom, both are good.

Trust me, Chester despises wisdom otherwise he wouldn't deem it worldly, code for the wisdom of men. As if wisdom is bad because we figured it out was wise to do or not to do something.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix

I think education and worldly wisdom, the only verifiable kind of wisdom, actually is the most important factor in determining intelligence, the only other factor being nature itself.

Education +wisdom =intelligence.

I have no doubt that this is true.

Neither do I.

It is absolutely true and something I promote daily. Some people (souls) are just not prepared, constitutionally, or intellectually, to grasp the finer points in a compare and contrast sort of process. They just can't.

They don't speak that language.....they aren't ready.

And then there are souls (people) who see the truth via review of ALL of the data, and are able to see past the one tome that seems to quench their pain.

oh btw - did I say that I think Israel should be allowed to fail on her own merit?
Yes, I think I did.
But, if not ---- I think it would be a boon to the ENTIRE GLOBE if Israel were simply phased out. The residents could maybe have their own states over here. But keeping up with this useless feud is NOT. PRODUCTIVE.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs



Yes, if you are reading one book for 4000 days and never educate yourself with other books regardless of the religion, philosophy or science that book teaches, but in this case let's stick with religion for the moment, you will never see the similarities between your religion and the one not yours, and only the differences.

Differences that could be understood if not feared, in fact I think fear of finding wisdom outside of the confines of your religion due to a total lack of faith is what prevents this and to compensate those other religions are ridiculed as some twisted attempt to display how much faith you (don't) have.

If I believe my religion is true, yet refuse to study other religions, I would say that I don't have a strong enough faith and fear conversion or the thought of being open minded.

Plus how many times do you need to read a book? I get that you pick up new things every time but at the expense of learning something completely new it sounds rather foolish to sat aside all books for one.

But I like to read and learn, I missed out on getting a college education so I spend my time learning new things of a personal interest to me. I can't discuss quantum mechanics but if you want to talk history or religion I will talk your ear off and if you are a Bible study leader be a huge thorn in your side, but the people I associate with run from Christian to Muslim to Hindu, Sikhs, Krishna devotees and I participate in discussions with Freemasons from time to time because these people are all tolerant and interesting, the Christians I speak of are Unitarian with a giant sign on their Church saying "We (Christians) need to support our Muslim brothers."

This is the place I go to do Kundalini and before that I didn't know what Unitarianism was, but it is literally a philosophy of total tolerance of all religions, usually with a Christian foundation.

Nevertheless I am glad to know some Christians, Catholics too btw, that believe all believers go to heaven regardless of religion.

Vatican II declared it so it is Catholic doctrine now that Heaven is not dependent upon being a Pauline Christian, which in my eyes is a good thing, because I don't know any Catholics who disagree.

I also have a priest that is a friend, salt of the earth kind of guy.

I don't see the appeal in being intolerant of religious beliefs just because they are not yours, have a hard time respecting people who do. I don't see the difference between a racist and a creedist, hate is hate, and Jesus said love even your enemies which makes most Christians hypocrites.

NOT ALL THOUGH.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
No, I needed a direct quotation for the specifics. People on ATS, like your predecessor* (SethTsaddik; *: as in someone who argued and behaved just like you and who I am reminded of when reading your comments; but stopped talking it seems a few days before you began to be noticed by me, just after I had shown him to be misrepresenting something about the bible and its history in the thread he started about Marcion) have a tendency to slightly change the point that was being made to a point that is more easily refuted or attacked (claimed or viewed to be dishonest for example or not properly researched, ignorant, etc.; and consequently used as an excuse for dismissal, attempts to discredit the original source of the point + the one using it and reducing everyone's willingness to consider the point reasonably, or the person+source making it or any consequent points). It's called presenting a straw man argument (they actually read their preferred straw man argument into what was said or quoted; followed by the paint jobs described above after "dismissal,"). Sometimes, I think that's actually what they're hearing cause it's what they want to hear, so they cherrypick a few key terms and fill in the rest themselves (making it less deliberate or not deliberate at all, depending on how you count emotional bias and seeing things that aren't there as a result, or getting the wrong impression from reading too quickly often looking for something to disagree with or pound on*). *: Mark 3:2: "So they [the Pharizees] were watching him [Jesus] closely to see whether he would cure the man on the Sabbath, in order to accuse him." Not saying that that is the case here. But I do need to know what you are referring to exactly and what your issue is exactly with that quotation. But I found it.

The terminology used was "....no doctrinal change. Many of the differences simply involve spelling and grammar." Speaking about "The first Dead Sea Scroll of the Bible book of Isaiah..." So talking about Deuteronomy in relation to the quote above would be a straw man argument. Most likely not deliberate (because too quick a read can easily lead to you overlooking this statement is about the book of Isaiah).

Just remember that my comment wasn't responding to your comment about Deuteronomy, I was still a bit flabbergasted with someone elses way of arguing about the preservation of God's Word, the bible. Wanted to address some of that and leave a reminder how real bible research works and has worked for centuries by diligent bible students, researchers and copyists throughout history. People with a genuine appreciation for God's Word including the AV (=KJB).

Long before there were people using the arguments and ways of thinking of the fairly recent King James Only movement while claiming not to be a part of that, seemingly attempting to disassociate or distance themselves from that movement by changing it up a bit. I have a general idea why that may be the case with some people.

a reply to: whereislogic



If you have read my messages you know I have explained to you in detail every point I made, I have to admit that I stopped reading your message when you accused me of having a predecessor because I know this means that you are in the "damn, I got busted posting false information and to counter will turn to total nonsense and pretend you are wrong" phase of debate, which is nothing I care to participate in.

I showed you the inaccuracy of your quotes, anyone can see it, you can't erase what you posted which was deceptive and needed to be addressed and I gave you some good solid advice to do your own research to prevent yourself from being decieved again.

I wasn't being adversarial, just factual. If you can't handle I could not care less.

Exactly what the nature of your beef is, I don't know or care. I was simply telling you that you posted a quote that was dishonest at best from who knows?

You asked for triple clarification, which is as good as ignoring every word I wrote, so I will leave it at that, since my explanation was thoroughly accurate and you can do nothing to change it, I'm satisfied.

Enjoy that bitterness.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
oh btw - did I say that I think Israel should be allowed to fail on her own merit?
Yes, I think I did.
But, if not ---- I think it would be a boon to the ENTIRE GLOBE if Israel were simply phased out. The residents could maybe have their own states over here. But keeping up with this useless feud is NOT. PRODUCTIVE.

It's so ridiculous.

In 1948 a mass migration of Jews called aliyah meaning ascent was already underway but became huge that year. No Muslims protested, why would they? Jews and Muslims lived side by side for centuries with no problem.

So what was the purpose of the 6 days war, there was already Jewish people in Palestine and little to no resistance from the Palestinians?

What the hell did Palestine ever do to anybody? Welcome refugees?

And for that they became the largest group of refugees in the world at the time?

Israelis speak out about this, it is not unheard of to hear a Jew express disgust over inhumane treatment of Palestinians, or a Rabbi declare the validity of Islam, even acknowledge that Islam taught Greek philosophy to Jews who then came up with Kabbalah.

Zionism. Do I think Israel has a right to exist? I do. I feel like if they didn't want more land every 5 minutes and steal people's houses it wouldn't be a problem. If they were just happy living in the Holy Land and didn't make war for literally no reason they could have lived in it.

But I guess it was not enough to live there, they had to take over and that was wrong.

They could have had Yemen but they refused a Jewish homeland anywhere but Palestine and refused to do it peacefully, which was unnecessary as they had been welcome all along.

What a mess. They don't want a two state solution they want to evict every Palestinian, knock down the Mosque and rebuild on top of the mount a new Temple. They think it will make the Messiah come or something, I don't know, but they could build a Temple in Tel Aviv and don't. Stubborn.

a reply to: whereislogic



It's seems like a huge coincidence that I mentioned the DSS disagreeing with the MT. and then you post a quote that relates to it, but it is not relevant as I would have said the same thing regardless, wasn't really concerned with your reasons just the fact that the information was deceptive.

It stated NO CHANGES IN DOCTRINE.

So I had to show you it was a lie, and did.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
Well, I hadn't even read your comment when posting that comment, so quite an interesting coincidence perhaps. Anyway, that whole paragraph was about the book of Isaiah, not Deuteronomy.

In the meantime, I've had a look at this supposed evidence regarding the DSS, the phrase "sons of God" and Deuteronomy 32:8. I could only find* 1 piece of evidence put forward as supposedly being from Deuteronomy 32:8 and using that phrase (*: I read about 2 fragments). I'm not sure the fragment called 4QDeutj is from Deuteronomy 32:8 from my view of it. I also read this about the subject (perhaps the other fragment):

What was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at this point is a very chopped up text with numerous missing words in just this verse alone. Even Dan Wallace refers to it as "a Qumran fragment". The copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Abegg, Flint & Ulrich shows in brackets what is missing. The only parts found here would read: "When...their inherit...he separated...the children of GOD."

That doesn't sound very conclusive to me but more like people are telling half-truths about the subject again. Misrepresenting the value of their evidence. Oh, I'm also not sure it says "the children of GOD." at the end cause looking at the picture it's cut off at the end. I especially have difficulty in matching what I see on the fragment with Michael S. Heiser's commentary about this subject and his Hebrew which I seem to have some difficulty copy-pasting in here. But it's different than what I'm seeing in the fragment than from what he suggests it says (in Hebrew characters; it continues, there's at least 1 more Hebrew character in the fragment). The fragment I'm looking at also seems to contain much less text than suggested in my quotation above. Then again that quotation might also be about the other fragment 4QDeutq or 4QDt q, but with that fragment Heiser seems to be imagining Hebrew characters that aren't even there, not sure what's going on there either (also because the picture of 4QDeutq that I'm looking at now seems to contain more text again than what's mentioned in that quotation above).

What I find more interesting is that verse 9 mentions "For Jehovah’s people are his portion; Jacob is his inheritance." Knowing that Jacob was renamed to Israel. So that fits much better with the rendering "sons of Israel" in verse 8. The other stuff is not convincing or conclusive at all.

a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
Now I'm seeing someone saying even stranger things about that fragment 4QDt q (something about Deuteronomy 32:43 but I can't follow that at all anymore). Neither can I find the phrase described by Heiser in Hebrew characters regarding 4QDt q.

The evidence is shaky to begin with. At least it isn't presented with any clarity and the full picture.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
Now I'm seeing someone saying even stranger things about that fragment 4QDt q (something about Deuteronomy 32:43 but I can't follow that at all anymore). Neither can I find the phrase described by Heiser in Hebrew characters regarding 4QDt q.

The evidence is shaky to begin with. At least it isn't presented with any clarity and the full picture.

It is not shaky at all. And Heiser is a bum, but I actually no doubt he will tell you the same thing, his main thingg is Dt. 32 and the heavenly council.

a reply to: whereislogic


www.religionatthemargins.com...

You sure know how to make a guy work to prove his point.

It's mere coincidence that I was reading this highly critical article about Heiser and this subject because I hate Heiser, he is either a liar or terrible at reasoning.

It's his interpretations I disagree with him on, as does the major consensus of scholarship, but he is incapable of denying well known facts such as the Sons of God is in the DSS fragments I mentioned, that they ARE Dt. 32.

But he will, and there are quotes from his article on the divine council throughout, critiqued for there inaccuracy,agree with me on the translation but not interpretation.

I agree with the majority of the scholarly consensus, that Heiser acknowledges is the concensus among the scholarly majority and disagrees with in weird ways while admitting and making the case FOR the consensus.

But you will see there is no question Heiser says that the LXX and DSS are superior in quality than the MT. AND that Dt. 32 is properly translated as I have shown.

TY and have fun with dat!

I must say that you can't be familiar with the work of Heiser, I am not a fan but at least I read opinions that differ from mine, who holds endless lectures on Dt 32 Psalm 82, henotheism and the divine council. And did his dissertation on it I believe.

You really are terrible at researching, I apologize but I was reading this last night before I fell asleep and their are links to his site within my link to verify he says these things.

I found by accident what you could not by trying.

Divine council meaning Sons of God.

But didn't I JUST tell you to stop relying on lying scholars?

Well, anyway, I would not say he is a liar he is just a typical Christian who happens to read Hebrew and Greek and actually be a scholar, just not that great of one.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
Well, I hadn't even read your comment when posting that comment, so quite an interesting coincidence perhaps. Anyway, that whole paragraph was about the book of Isaiah, not Deuteronomy.

In the meantime, I've had a look at this supposed evidence regarding the DSS, the phrase "sons of God" and Deuteronomy 32:8. I could only find* 1 piece of evidence put forward as supposedly being from Deuteronomy 32:8 and using that phrase (*: I read about 2 fragments). I'm not sure the fragment called 4QDeutj is from Deuteronomy 32:8 from my view of it.

Then Heiser and every scholar on earth owe you a debt of gratitude for "correcting" them.

I also read this about the subject (perhaps the other fragment):

What was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at this point is a very chopped up text with numerous missing words in just this verse alone. Even Dan Wallace refers to it as "a Qumran fragment". The copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Abegg, Flint & Ulrich shows in brackets what is missing. The only parts found here would read: "When...their inherit...he separated...the children of GOD."

That doesn't sound very conclusive to me but more like people are telling half-truths about the subject again. Misrepresenting the value of their evidence. Oh, I'm also not sure it says "the children of GOD." at the end cause looking at the picture it's cut off at the end. I especially have difficulty in matching what I see on the fragment with Michael S. Heiser's commentary about this subject and his Hebrew which I seem to have some difficulty copy-pasting in here. But it's different than what I'm seeing in the fragment than from what he suggests it says (in Hebrew characters; it continues, there's at least 1 more Hebrew character in the fragment). The fragment I'm looking at also seems to contain much less text than suggested in my quotation above. Then again that quotation might also be about the other fragment 4QDeutq or 4QDt q, but with that fragment Heiser seems to be imagining Hebrew characters that aren't even there, not sure what's going on there either (also because the picture of 4QDeutq that I'm looking at now seems to contain more text again than what's mentioned in that quotation above).

You are the Heiser fan, you should know he totally agrees with me on this and so do all DSS scholars. Well, besides you of course.

What I find more interesting is that verse 9 mentions "For Jehovah’s people are his portion; Jacob is his inheritance." Knowing that Jacob was renamed to Israel. So that fits much better with the rendering "sons of Israel" in verse 8. The other stuff is not convincing or conclusive at all.

You must be trying to make me look good, thanks but I don't need you to do that at the expense of your own credibility, which is now shot to hell because your hero Heiser even agrees with me, and I can't stand him.

Whereislogic:

What about sons of Israel makes sense, in your words since you know better than Heiser and every scholar on earth not engaging in apologetics?

I will tell you (a third time, par for the course with you, I blame the W. S.) what DOESN'T.

FIRST.

Israel had 12 sons, the world was divided into 70 nations AT BABEL, before the birth of Jacob, right there is proof Israel is not the correct word of Dt. 32, the song of Moses, and that Sons of GOD IS.

In Genesis you will find the world was divided into 70 nations. The reason is that El, in Canaanite mythology which Heiser also acknowledges is connected to the Torah and Israelite religion as they both worshipped the same God or gods. El, Baal, Asherah/Astarte and the phrase Elyon is used (for Baal after he defeats Yamm). I will let my link to the critique of Heisers writings explain since you require an interpreter.

Jacob had no part in the decision of Elyon to divide the nations according to the number of the Sons of El. Which is 70 and equal to the number of nations in Mesopotamian and Middle Eastern mythology.

That you agree with the sons of Israel version that has existed for about 800 years only despite your apparent go to scholar disagreeing with you shows your lack in thoroughness of research.

That you agree with whoever said Israel makes more sense than Sons of God shows your inability to process logic and reason, lack of knowledge of the Bible itself that clearly says 70 nations meaning 70 Sons would be needed to fulfill Dt. 32's standards.

Meaning it would ONLY make sense if Israel had 70 sons at the time of the allotment of nations. Since he wasn't born yet and had 12 sons you clearly lack the ability to use logic when it comes to Biblical matters. And yes, God can predict the future so Jacob being given to Yahweh as an inheritance from Elyon is entirely plausible prior to Jacob's birth.

He just didn't have 70 son. He had 1-12 and then more than the stars of the sky regarding descendants but not literal sons. The point in time when the men in his family were 70, if ever at all as the 69th could skip to 71 if someone had twins, doesn't coincide with the allotment of nations per Sons of God anyway.

As does anyone who has ever argued that the 1200AD MT. is the accurate version despite absolute proof this is not the case (lack ability to reason). Or they are just lying.

No argument can make sons of Israel the more logical version, only bad sophistry from the un scholarly, even then it fails the tests of logic as does all sophistry.

But you can not grasp the simplicity of the matter for some reason.

For the sake of being thorough this is what Heiser says about the situation without his interpretation of the agreed upon translation of the DSS fragments of the song of Moses.

Heiser, Sons of God, Dt. 32 DSS LXX VS MT

I think you should really consider reevaluating your percieved knowledge of scholarships, and I understand now why you are so reliant upon the words of people you don't know, but you are unable even to verify the scholar you mentioned's position on the matter, practically assuming he would just agree with you when nothing could be further from the truth.

A scholar who is a Christian, like Heiser is, who I don't like as a scholar finding him terribly dishonest or biased and admits what he denies to be true is true if you are astute enough to notice, is not someone Christians who want unbiased scholarly information should go to.

Nevertheless he is a legitimate scholar of Semitic languages and on this matter he and I actually agree. Which is rare.

How are you so thoroughly uninformed about your religion? It's not my religion but I know more than you about the Bible AND Heiser, which says a lot about the power of the W. S. to keep adherents clueless and resistant to the facts of scholarship.

That is Heiser's most popular lecture too, so how you could not find it is perplexing.

I suspect you are using JW sources only and that they know damn well what Heiser thinks on the matter and I would say are censoring you.


Google Heiser Dt 32 DSS and at least ten different sites have his words on, again, his favorite subject.

I see no way possible for you to be unable to find it unless you are using WS sources only, which are naturally biased to their version of the Bible.

Well, let's keep it simple then since you are so determined to ignore verse 9 in favor of the eisegesis being told concerning verse 8 (even though there is no indication at all that it's referring to the literal 12 sons of Israel or the number 70 but there is a clear indication this is referring to the future Israelite population number, not a fixed number; the sons of Israel that will have to live there in the future).

Deuteronomy 32:8b, 9a (NW):

When he divided the sons of Adam* from one another, [*: Or possibly, “the human race.”]

He fixed the boundary of the peoples

With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.

9 For Jehovah’s people are his portion;

Jacob is his inheritance.

"sons of Adam" is referring to humans. Jehovah fixed the boundary of the peoples with regard for (keeping in mind or considering) the number of the sons of Israel, as in the number of Israelites (keeping in mind the increase in population) and the land space Jehovah had in mind for them (that's what the fixing of the boundary is for, nothing about "allotment of nations" or "divided into 70 nations"). He did this because Jehovah's people (again referring to the Israelites) are his portion and Jacob/Israel is his inheritance. Pretty clear to me that this is neither referring to the number 12 nor the number 70 but the entire future population number that Jehovah kept in mind or regarded when he decided where exactly to fix "the boundary of the peoples" described in Genesis below:

Genesis 15:18

18 On that day Jehovah made with Aʹbram a covenant, saying: “To your offspring* I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Eu·phraʹtes:

Which is the same "boundary" described later:

Exodus 23:31

31 “I will set your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Phi·lisʹtines and from the wilderness to the River;* for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out from before you. [*: That is, the Euphrates.]

But besides all that, can you give me a logical reason to conclusively state that the fragment below is showing the ending of Deuteronomy 32:8 (as those are stating who make the arguments and claims some of which you are also making like Heiser regarding this subject of DSS evidence for "sons of God" at Deuteronomy 32:8; even though you're not spelling it out and referring to specific fragments but the others making similar arguments regarding this subject do)?
Fragment 4QDeutj (picture link)

4QDeutq seems to be a completely different text.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Well, let's keep it simple then since you are so determined to ignore verse 9 in favor of the eisegesis being told concerning verse 8 (even though there is no indication at all that it's referring to the literal 12 sons of Israel or the number 70 but there is a clear indication this is referring to the Israelite population number, not a fixed number).

Ok, so what was the population of Israel at the point of time that the nations were divided?

0. So the statement "clear indication this is referring to the Israelite population" is simply fallacious.

Further, the number 70, as I previously mentioned, is in Genesis "table of (post deluvian) nations."

Making the number 70 a given. The number of the Sons of El was also 70. Clearly you just don't want to understand and just want to be right. But you are not making sense.

Wow, learn to admit when you have been bested.

Deuteronomy 32:8b, 9a (NW):

When he divided the sons of Adam* from one another, [*: Or possibly, “the human race.”]

He fixed the boundary of the peoples

With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.

9 For Jehovah’s people are his portion;

Jacob is his inheritance.

You are using a JW Bible, enough said.

"sons of Adam" is referring to humans. God fixed the boundary of the peoples with regard for (keeping in mind or considering) the number of the sons of Israel, as in the number of Israelites (keeping in mind the increase in population) and the land space God has in mind for them (that's what the fixing of the boundary is for, nothing about "allotment of nations" or "divided into 70 nations").

Again, see the table of nations in Genesis right after the flood. They are 70,something I have told you at least 3 times. Just keep pretending that I didn't, great strategy!

He did this because Jehovah's people (again referring to the Israelites) are his portion and Jacob/Israel is his inheritance. Pretty clear to me that this is neither referring to the number 12 nor the number 70 but the entire future population number that Jehovah kept in mind or regarded when he decided where exactly to fix "the boundary of the peoples" at the time described in Genesis below:

Genesis 15:18

18 On that day Jehovah made with Aʹbram a covenant, saying: “To your offspring* I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Eu·phraʹtes:

Which is the same "boundary" described later:

Exodus 23:31

31 “I will set your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Phi·lisʹtines and from the wilderness to the River;* for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out from before you. [*: That is, the Euphrates.]

But besides all that, can you give me a logical reason to conclusively state that the fragment below is showing the ending of Deuteronomy 32:8 (as those are stating who make the arguments and claims some of which you are also making like Heiser regarding this subject of DSS evidence for "sons of God" at Deuteronomy 32:8; even though you're not spelling it out and referring to specific fragments but the others making similar arguments regarding this subject do)?
Fragment 4QDeutj (picture link)

I have proven my case already several times over using your apparently go to scholar at that.

You are not making a logical argument to support sons of Israel and I think I am clearly wasting my time with someone who is only concerned with defending their Bible version and not truth or legitimate scholarship.

You tried to make it make sense when it doesn't, my explanation fits like a glove and you are ignoring scholarship and logic to win a debate you lost before it started.

If you can look at all my comments, verified for accuracy by YOUR scholar that YOU wanted his opinion on and still insist, without any valid reason, without using logic or common sense, against the concensus of scholars and FACTUAL PROOF, and still insist that sons of Israel is correct, I am not interested in conversing with you.

I have been patient, but I won't have a discussion with you about something I have proven many times over, just because you don't want it to be true.

You have issues.