Would the Jehovah's Witnesses benefit from the Sethite View?

by I_love_Jeff 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  I_love_Jeff

  Why was this question deleted on yahoo answers 10 times in a row???!!!! I contacted yahoo answers rep and disputed this issue. Ridiculous!!!

  Jehovah's Witnesses: Is the Sethite view something you would benefit from?
  

  Why is the Sethite view not accepted in your beliefs since it is CONSISTENT with your NWT
  

  interpretation of Psalm 82:1-" ' You are gods*, And all of you are sons of the Most High (God)' " When you hit on the asterisk (using the 2012 Watchtower Library), you will notice the following interpretations: Or, “godlike ones.” Heb., ʼelo·him′; Gr., the·oi′; Syr.,daʼ·la·hin; Lat., di′i; T, “like angels/ human judges.”

  Why is Genesis 6:4 the exception here? Why not use the T-TARGUM ONKELOS, “like angels/ human judges interpretation in Genesis 6:4 like you did in Psalm 82:1?

  BONUS QUESTION:

  Why is the word "elohim" interpreted as "like angels"? there are no texts in the Hebrew Bible that call Israel’s judges/humans elohim (like angels, godlike, humans). It is actually a different Hebrew word all together.

  
  
• 

  I_love_Jeff

  BONUS QUESTION:

  Why is the word "elohim" interpreted as "like angels"? there are no texts in the Hebrew Bible that call Israel’s judges/humans elohim (like angels, godlike, humans). It is actually a different Hebrew word all together.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I see what you are proposing. The so-called Sethite solution interpreted the "sons of god" to refer to religious purists in the line of Seth. The daughters of men were then the Cain descendants which had become perverted. It was a popular spin on this text precisely because of the embarrassment the passage at face value posed to the more sophisticated Christians. It was hard to be serious about gods (or even angels as was later interpreted) marrying women on earth. It just smacked of mythology. But rather than face the primitive origins of their faith, Christian thinkers needed a creative spin.

  So you're asking why has the WT not adopted the sethite solution, or some variation of it that removes the embarrassing angels having sex part, and just define the sons of god as powerful men. Good question. I suppose it is because of the traditional connection made between that line and the one that follows about the days of renown when mighty men roamed the earth. These mighty ones were interpreted as giant superhumans. Interestingly, Nimrod was specifically called a mighty one immediately after this section,(the flood stories were a later addition to the narrative).Some traditions held Nimrod was a giant and that is why his tower was so tall.
  

  So..If we assume the mighty ones/nephilim were giants and superhuman we need a superhuman explanation, hence stuck with the angels spin on 6:4. My two cents.
  
• 

  I_love_Jeff

  @peacefulpete-Genesis 6:4 "sons of God" (elohim-divine beings) is not consistent with Psalm 82:1,6 (elohim-human judges) Why is Genesis 6:4 the exception? Context???? it could be argued. The argument I am making here is that the JWs are inconsistent.

  Here is a tidbit: There isn’t a single instance in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible that human judges in Israel are called elohim.
• 

  peacefulpete

  And I was agreeing with you. I just pointed out (your other thread, more details) the actual historical meaning of Ps 82 (and other similar polytheistic passages like Deut 32) was deemed inconsistent with monotheism and had been twisted and distorted by editors and theologians dating back to the LXX. The WT is hardly alone in this. The difference in Gen 6:4 is that the popular tradition of superhuman giants necessitated retaining the original sense (albeit interpreted to mean angels rather than sons of El).
• 

  Crazyguy2

  My research tells me that the word Elohim means gods. Not sons of gods not angels but gods. But hey know one wants to admit that there were several gods that made man and several gods that tried to kill man in the flood story etc etc etc.
• 

  Phizzy

  Our old friend Leolaia sheds light on this :

  " Not when the reference is to God because the verb is grammatically singular. It is the grammatical agreement that shows that God (or a god, as in the case of the shade of Samuel), and not a plurality of gods, is meant.

  Now there was a belief in a plurality of 'elohim, or more commonly 'elim, in Canaanite and pre-exilic Israelite religion as the divine assembly convened with El (later Yahweh) atop the mountain of his habitation (the Greeks had a similar concept wrt Mount Olympus). In Ugaritic texts we read of the 'ilm "gods", the bn 'il "the sons of El", the 'dt bn 'ilm "the assembly of the sons of El", the 'dt 'ilm "the assembly of the gods", the pchr kkbm "the congregation of the stars", and the pchr m`d "the congregation of the assembly". In the OT we read of the 'lym and the 'lhym "gods" (cf. Psalm 8:5, 58:5, 86:8, 97:7-9), the bny 'lym and the bny (h-) 'lhym "the sons of God/the gods" (cf. Genesis 6:2-4, Job 1:6, Psalm 29:1, 89:6), the 'dt 'l "the assembly of El" (Psalm 82:1), and the kwkby 'l "stars of El" gathered at the hr mw`d "mountain of assembly" (Isaiah 14:13; cf. the kwkby bqr "morning stars" in Job 38:7). The satire of Phoenician king Ittobaal II of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 similarly has him declare "I am El in the dwelling of the gods ('l 'ny mwshb 'lhym)" (v. 2) who sits in "the holy mountain of the gods" (hr qds 'lhym) (v. 14). Similarly, the Phoenician writer Philo of Byblos summarizing Phoenician mythology wrote that "the allies of El (who is known as Kronos) were also called the Eloim".
• 

  I_love_Jeff

  @Peacefulpete THANK YOU!