a reply to: TerriblePhoenix
It's not a complicated question, let me rephrase it. What makes you think the picture I shared a link to (that fragment) is showing a part of
Deuteronomy 32:8 (with the bottem line supposedly being the ending of that verse)? Since that's the only piece of supposed evidence that I can find
that is proposed as being a part of Deuteronomy 32:8 and showing the phrase "sons of God" (fragment 4QDeutq is irrelevant, don't even understand why
Heiser brings it up in relation to Deuteronomy 32:8, but then again, the same could be said for 4QDeutj, so how much evidence for the rendering "sons
of God" at Deuteronomy 32:8 based on the DSS does that leave?). Are you even willing to consider that neither fragment is showing any sort of
rendering for Deuteronomy 32:8 (conclusively or otherwise*)? *: Those are 2 questions.
edit on 15-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason
(post by TerriblePhoenix removed for a manners violation)
Look at the way this Heiser fella talks about Dueteronomy 32:8:
Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number
seventy in Deuteronomy 32:8 and have furnished support for textual scholars who argue against the "sons of Israel" reading.
Lol, there is no number 70 in Deuteronomy 32:8. So why would you need an explanation from what he later refers to as Ugaritic mythology (in the next
sentence)? And these are the supposed honest scholars arguing that the DSS provide evidence that Deuteronomy 32:8 says "sons of God"? They can't be
straight and clear about anything related to this subject. Their evidence doesn't work when someone is diligent enough to at least have a short look
at the fragment they're using (which has no indication whatsoever that it's from Deuteronomy 32:8) and their arguments are all heavily steeped in
theosophy and Pagan mythology (their eisegesis of verse 8).
Why are these types of 'scholars' going through so much trouble to misrepresent the evidence (including those who respond without addressing that the
DSS don't provide any evidence for the rendering "sons of God" at Deuteronomy 32:8 when they are disagreeing with that rendering; those who say that
there is a textual variance with the DSS in their footnotes and bible commentary when there isn't one)? Why are so many bible translators going along
with this rendering for Deuteronomy 32:8 (ESV, ISV, NHEB, and if you count variations including the eisegesis terminologies related to this subject
such as "heavenly assembly": NLT, NET)? Might it be part of a plan of someone else to create confusion and mistrust in real biblical research and
bible translators that actually are trying to be honest and show the real important errors and deliberate changes, additions, removals of key words or
theologically biased choices in bible translations and copies for which the evidence is as clear as crystal, leaving a nice trail of breadcrumbs
regarding the real deceptions* involving verses such as 1 John 5:7, 1 Tim. 3:16 and John 1:1? (*: deliberate or inadvertent including
This stuff about Dt 32:8 is a nice Don Quijote Windmill Giant to conquer for those who stick their heads in the sand regarding the evidence of the 3
verses I mentioned (and more verses like it and the more than 6000 times God's name Jehovah has been substituted for "the LORD", "God", "hashem", or
even more deceptively "the Lord" in various bible translations by translators not being honest about the biggest conspiracy on the planet, the
spiritual war against Jehovah).
And these are the people like Michael S. Heiser that a significant portion of society looks to when it comes to debunking conspiracy myths that are
obviously bogus and a nice distraction from some real truth seeking bible research (including history of bible translation issues and the real
conspiracy I mentioned at the end above)?
Michael S. Heiser is an American biblical scholar and Christian who has criticized ancient alien astronaut theorists.
Heiser has spoken out critically against proponents of ancient astronauts theories, especially Zechariah Sitchin. Heiser was featured in Ancient
Aliens Debunked as an expert on the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern texts.
What an expert...expert propagandizer of himself and marketeer of theosophy that tickles a portion of society's ears (appeals to them). Which includes
anyone who likes to think the bible is too vague to be sure about what it even said originally, any bible critic that would want to undermine or argue
aganist its credibility, reliability and accuracy regarding reality, or those who prefer their own human traditions in theology and cherrypick what
they want to consider as words from God. Encouraging people not to look any deeper into that by cunning misinterpretations of what God meant when he
said he would preserve his Word.
edit on 16-1-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.