Posts by True to the End

10

Has anyone any contacts in Australia specifically Jehovah Witnesses

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

9 years ago

i hope i added this topic so everyone could read & comment.

i was just thinking, since this arc thing, does anyone here know any one in australia, that knows about the arc or how it's affecting the jw's there.

i used to go to a site that had a really nice person who is a jw, he never argued or debated, never sent back hateful comments, & he lives in australia.

6 years ago

True to the End 6 years ago

Hello,

My name is Brenton Hepburn

It was a surprise to find that there were people how used to read allexperts and ask questions there.

I have just stumbled upon this page some 3 years after the above was was written. The figures I gave as to the perpetrators on allexperts and quoted above are a break down of the 1006 names given to the Australian Royal Commission. If you have clicked on the allexperts web site you will see that they closed it down.

Those figures are from official documents that were sent to the Australian Royal Commission. The ARC summoned for that list and they were provided in a hurry before an analysed could be made. A redacted copy of the 1006 list can be found on the ARC web site as well as the analyst that was provided and given to the ARC.

If you want to see our stand and policies on child abuse here is an old, but informative web site

http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html

and read this article from the Watchtower

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/

By the way, for tor1500, I never counted any time while I was answering questions on the all-expert wen site nor do I do it on any other forum since.

Link

36

Revealing Watchtower tax returns

by Nambo in

9 years ago

please excuse if this has already been posted:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysyqish-l_e.

under the freedom of information act, this guy has tax returns showing where your money goes, where it is invested, companies like northrop gruman, monsanto, cigarette and porn peddlers, and we thought we where giving money to god!

i am quite sickened to discover i was giving money to the watchtower to invest in arms manufacturers..

6 years ago

True to the End 6 years ago

The charitable foundation was set set up in 1948. The vast majority of the income comes from oil royalties. Oil was found on the property owned by the Riley family.

The trustee of the charitable foundation is the Detroit Commercial Bank. JWs or the WTS has no say in the running of this trust. The trustee takes out their fees and pays for the tax return preparation and other legal fees due, out of any many made by tradings the stocks (shares). The amount of theses fees is equal to about the anoint that is earned form the no so nice shares (or stocks) held of those companies.

In reality the amount of any monies coming from these questionable shares in coma prison to the overall income is very small.

Link

+1 / -0

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

10 years ago

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

10 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

Rereading your first few posts, and, now the last few on this page, I get the feeling that the idea you started this thread was to try to discredited JWs for their stance that there is only one Almighty God and that Jesus is also “God”.

You totally misunderstand the usage of monotheism and polytheism. You seem to understand that both words relate to worship of God(s)

You made the following point

The point I want to make is that a second divine figure is not monotheistic. This is plainly, polytheistic.

You are correct in that the Bible is a polytheistic book. It discusses the existence of many gods. That is all polytheism means - it is the belief in more than one god. The Bible advocates the WORSHIP of only one God.

The Israelites were easily persuaded by their neighbors to follow other “gods”. They did often get things mixed up. However what (who) the Bible reports on as being “God” is a completely different “god” to the nations and to the ones that the Israelites at times served. The distinctions are very clear and marked.

The main problem there again is your failure to not understand the original wordings. If you insist on putting it in modern terms the second “God” should be written as “god”.

Your assumption is both right and wrong. JWs are both monotheistic and polytheistic.

How are JWs monotheistic? In they they believe that of all the gods that exists there is only ONE supreme God that is deserving of religious worship.

Biblically it is NOT wrong to say that Jesus was “a god”. It is Biblically wrong to say that Jesus was “God”

It is NOT as trinitarinas try to say that JWs are wrong because they say Jesus is “a god”. To teach that Jesus is “a god” does not make JWs worshipers of more that one god.

Again I came back to the point that all the material you are discussing is looking at the meaning of the words from a MODERN point of view and NOT from the perspective of the original writers “god” ( “el” ) from the wrong perspective. The ancient word “el” is NOT a limited word that is used to identify a “god”. It is because of the misunderstanding of the original words that confusion has arisen.

Boyarin talks about the Canaanite and Phonetician object of worship known as Baal (Ba'l ). The word "baal" merely means “master” or “lord”. Just like the “el”, it is generally NOT a name – just a little.

The Canaanites made an idol to their “lord” or “master” that they served

They also had a mighty one (a god in modern language) that they served that had the title “el” that was aptly represented by a bull, because of the mighty strength of a bull. The Israelites had also, at one time made a golden statute of a calf ( a you bull - a mighty one) to serve when they were in the wilderness

The Isrealites had an Almighty (Shad·daiʹ) God (El). (Almighty mighty one) This one had a name YHWH from a verb in the causative case meaning “he who causes to become” (or similar). It is this one that Daniel describes as the “the Ancient of Days” who was able to assign authority to a subordinate

The problem is in the Biblical sense, is that the word god does not appear in the Hebrew writings. It simply means a mighty one. The Bible therefore speaks of many “mighty ones” Most bad, some good and only one ALMIGHTY might one.

You made the assumption that “All we know for sure is that likely in the second century BCE, an unknown (probable) Jew wrote a story about a divine figure.....”

There is more evidence that the book of Daniel was writtenat the time of tghe accounts and not the second century The existence of portions of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls helps to dispel the notion by skeptics that it was written some time in tye second century

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/31/New-Light-on-the-Book-of-Daniel-from-the-Dead-Sea-Scrolls.aspx

Daniels vision of a superior (higher) “God” (mighty one) over a lessor (lower) god (mighty one) does not support a trinity doctrine nor does it suggest that the Israelites were to serve (perform religious worship) to the lessor (lower) mighty one. Only the Almighty mighty one was to served in a religious way

That is the same concept carried through to the 1st century Christians. They served (in a religious way) only one “God” (the Almighty). They did not, and were not taught to serve the lessor (lower) mighty one, as that one had the obligation of serving only the Almighty.

So no the hypothesis of Boyarin that you have fallen pray to, the false idea that Daniel is speaking of two “Gods” is wrong

You said in your last post

It is being argued that one 'God' is higher, than the other 'God,' and therefore it is not polytheism. That must be a failed argument.

The main problem there again is your failure to not understand the original wordings.

I will rewrite the argument as it relates to Daniel 7:9,10, 13, 14

It is being argued that one 'God' is higher then the other 'god' and is not worshiped, therefore even though it is the belief that there are more than one gods in the universe it does not contradict the idea that only one GOD is worshiped.

Link

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

10 years ago

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

10 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

I wrote wrote my next reply yesterday but did not get a chance to post it.

I gather the whole concept of this was to try to disprove the JW idea that Jesus was “a god” and that to say so makes JWs polytheistic.

The point of my previous posts is to point pit that if we look at the original word meanings, it takes out the confusion of what the Bible is saying. Jesus was “a god” because we was a might one. He is NOT the almighty.

Examine that idea closely and you will see the word god in a new light. Originally it was NOT limited to what we today consider the meaning of the word god. Broaden your point of view.

Link

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

10 years ago

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

10 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

Hi Jan.

I am not quoting and JW material. All that I have said is from other sources.

The first words in Strongs are “strength; as adjective, mighty;” for the Hebrew word “el”, it also goes on to tell us that it means “power, strong.” It does use the word god in its description because that is what we came to make it mean. The word god does not appear in the Hebrew writings at all. Our word “god” comes form a different language family all together.

Language evolves and changes and there are relativity few languages that are “pure” as they now all seem to borrow words from other languages.

We need to ask ourselves what did the ancient Hebrew writers mean when they wrote “el”? Use their definition not ours if we want to understand what they wrote

The word “el” BECAME known as the word for god. That is what we accept it as today. HOWEVER..... Originally …. and that is where I keep going to … the original word meanings.... it just meant a mighty one or a strong one and actually had a wide variety of uses. Please read my earlier post to fulltime-student. I have several texts that show from the KJV that “el” and “elohim” actually refer to a mighty one. In an other post I have several links to places the define theses words

In the right context we today understand the word god to refer to someone or something that is of a higher power to us and we “worship” (serve) them.

The title mighty god is just that a title. At the moment there are many people with the title “president” or “king” or “queen”. There are not the same person. We can not use a title assigned opt one or more people to conclude that they are all the same.

Don't get hung up on titles.

Link

205

Hi Everyone. Answer to prayer countdown...

by Stumpy in

jw
friends

10 years ago

i've been lurking for about 3 months now and thought i'd better finally sign up.

you have all been an immense help to me as i have come to realize that this isn't the truth so i want to say a great big thank you!

what a crazy, emotional ride it is to finally face the truth about the doubts that i have carried for many years.

7 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

I have only read or browsed through 3 or 4 threads that caught my eye. And I am staggered at how quickly so many people stumbeled over personalites wrong understandimngs. Many of the posts I read in the threads show a lack of understanding of what has happened with the WTBTS and JWs over the years.

I was greatly affected by the internet and things I found on it about JWs. I let the negative talk get men down. I started doing my own research and have continued doing it. It truly amazes me how gullible many people are (as I was) by listening to (reading) bad reports.

Claims that they joined the UN. Some one says the WTBTS joined the UN look here is a letter from them showing that they were a NGO. So what? There are different classes of NGOs associated with the UN. The wordings of the original documents changed after the WTS become an NGO for the purpose of using their library. I became aware of the UN thing a day or two after it was published in the UK paper. It floored me I could not believe that they could do such a thing. It was made worse when I saw other people making comments about it with some documentation that seemed to support everything that the paper said. I quiytelu belive that thw WTBTS had prooven fasle to what they publicly taught. A few years later I came across this sit http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/ it gives ample documentary proof that the whole UN thing is blown out of proportion.

I was aware of the web site set up William H. Bowen a few weeks after it went on line. I believed him at first. Later I was able to demonstrate for my self that his site sensationalises and blows out of all proportion the problem of child abuse. I know there is child abuse I have seen the effects of it on families and know of individuals that have been accused of it (some rightly and some falsely) This olds site (hasn’t been updated for some time) gives a different perspective http://thirdwitness.com/childabuse/default.html I have tried to hunt down and read court documents about some of these cases. The ones I have tell a story different to what JW opposer say.

It really amazes me at how many people actually think the the WTS have been false prophets. They have NEVER prophesied in the general understanding of the word. They have never tried to foretell the future form nothing (that is come up with something completely foreign and new). What they have done is provide explanations of previously written prophecy. NOTHING has been of their own idea but only from what they have understood from what is in the Bible.

They have made major blunders and mistakes in that regard.

If you actually think that they have prophesied in telling future events of something completely new then you really need to go back and carefully read all the material

Many of the early so called fulfillment of prophecies that Russell spoke of such as 1799, 1874, 1914 did not originate with him. He was influence by what other people had been teaching.

Rutherford and his 1925 was a complete cock up of an understanding of the the jubilees. If you actually read his material at the time “Millions now living..” he builds a case based on scripture. He got it wrong. All it was was him trying to follow the council to keep awake as to the times and he used what he understood of the Bible to help others do that. His understanding of the survivors is completely different to the current understanding.

For a series of articles on prophecy see http://jwinformationl.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Prophecy%20Part%201

JWs are the only religion despite all their flaws that are teaching the true God not a trinity, most religions dishonour both God and Jesus by teaching a form of trinity

Most do not understand that there is no hell-fire, no immortal soul, no going to heaven for all good people,

The need to teach others about why Jesus came and his roll in Gods kingdom. Not many religions teach the ransom. Most put emphasis on his resurrection not not his death.

That God has a purpose for the earth, to restore it to how he intended. Mankind is here to stay.

Most do not accept that God has the right to set boundaries on conduct and to served in a way HE requires not the way we think we should do it. Serving him is obeying HIS laws and principles.

Tough love is necessary that means some must be excommunicated.

I do see a problem though with the way that it is handled by many elders that do not follow the Bibles guidelines. Most elders do not know how to show compassion and good judgement as has been directed. Elders are not trained in recognising stress in an individual and a person that may seem belligerent or unrepentant when asked to come before a judicial committee. Decisions are made far to quickly. Many injustices have happened because most elders just do not have the personal skills and experience to handle many of these things.

Other religions may have some of those things but only JWs have all of those things.

Link

+1 / -15

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

10 years ago

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

10 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

Hi Jan

What we have here is along similar lines to what I was discussing with fulltimestudent above. We need to look at the original word meanings and usage in the Bible.

In the KJV Isaiah 9:6 reads “his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,

The Hebrew of Isaiah 9:6 actually reads differently to our English.

shall-be-called name-of-him wonderful councellor god strong

What the original Hebrew is saying is that his name will include the titles “mighty strong one” or “mighty valiant one” or “mighty chief” or “mighty hero” (where mighty is from the word “el” and the other words are possibilities of “gbur” [gibbor])

There is no definite article “the” in the Hebrew. It has been put in by the translators. Is the definite article implied by the context? Or does the grammar of the passage require that the definite article be used to make sense in English. No. The definite article is not implied nor is it necessary to make sense in the English translation. We are told that his name shall be called – and then we are given the titles that make up his name. All modern Bibles insert punctuation to help us understand what is written. The original writings did not have punctuation. Therefore any punctuation that any Bible uses is as the translator deems fitting. The KJV and many others put a comma between wonderful and counsellor thereby splitting the two titles up. However some Bibles keep them together

“and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (ESV)

“..He will be called, "Wonderful Counsellor," "Mighty God," "Eternal Father," "Prince of Peace"...” (GNB)

“.. He will be named: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (GWV)

He will be named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” (HCSB)

Which English reading seems to be the most appropriate?

Here a re a few other variations. Please notice the words I have put in bold. Also, notice that none of these use the definite article “the”

“His names will be: Amazing Counselor, Strong God, Eternal Father, Prince of Wholeness. (Mesage)

“he has been named Wise Guide, Strong God, Father for ever, Prince of Peace.” (BBE)

“And he shall be called Wonderful, counsellor, mighty potentate, Everlasting father, prince of peace;” (Noyes)

The Hebrew word rendered god does not have the definite article before it. Nothing in the passage demands it and it is not necessary to make sense in English. It is just god. Well, at least god in English. As noted above in previous posts, the original ancient word “el” does not mean what we refer to as “god” but come to be used for that.

The Hebrew word rendered as mighty in most of those translations and also as strong, is, as you suggest “gbur”. This word can be used on many different occasions including as to be referring to Jehovah. The actual meaning of the word according to Strings Hebrew Lexicon is “intensive from the same as 1397; powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant: — champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man. “

(the Hebrew word 1397 that is mentioned there is “geber- properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply: — every one, man, X mighty. )

In the KJV this word appears 158 times. The KJV renders it in the following ways mighty 63 times, mighty man 68 times, strong 4, valiant 3, … ones 4, mighties 2, man 2, valiant men 2, strong man 1, upright man 1, champion 1, chief 1, excel 1, giant 1, men’s 1, mightiest 1, strongest 1;

Here ar a few examples that you can check out at http://biblehub.com/interlinear/

Ge 6:4 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 <1368> which were of old, men of renown.

Ge 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one <1368> in the earth.

Ge 10:9 He was a mighty <1368> hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty <1368> hunter before the LORD.

Would you equate Nimrod with God?

Jos 1:14 ... but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty <1368> men of valour, and help them;

Jos 6:2 ...and the mighty men <1368> of valour.

Jos 8:3 and Joshua chose out thirty thousand mighty <1368> men of valour, <1368>

Ru 2:1 And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s, a mighty <1368> man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz.

1Sa 2:4 The bows of the mighty men <1368> are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength.

1Sa 9:1 ... a Benjamite, a mighty <1368> man of power.

1Sa 14:52 And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul: and when Saul saw any strong <1368> man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.

1Sa 16:18 ... that is cunning in playing, and a mighty <1368> valiant man, and a man of war,

1Sa 17:51 ... And when the Philistines saw their champion <1368> was dead, they fled.

2Sa 1:19 The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty <1368> fallen!

1Ch 7:5 And their brethren among all the families of Issachar were valiant <1368> men of might, reckoned in all by their genealogies fourscore and seven thousand.

.

1Ch 9:26 For these Levites, the four chief <1368> porters, were in their set office, and were over the chambers and treasuries of the house of God.

1Ch 11:12 .. the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighties <1368>.

1Ch 11:19 ... Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest <1368>.

1Ch 11:24 .. and had the name among the three mighties <1368>.

The point I have gone a long way around trying to make is that generally we accept and probably expect that translators have done the coring thing with their translations. I hope I have shown that we can not just accept what a Bible says without some idea of the original word meanings and usage.

In Isaiah 10:21 we have the words “el gibbor”. In English it is generally rendered as “unto the mighty God.” (KJV) or “to the Mighty God.” (NIV) (Some Bibles do not capitalise mighty as the NIV and NWT has done)

Alternatives

“to the Strong God.” (BBE)

“back to the Strong God.” (Message)

“to their mighty God.” (GNB) note has not used definite article “the”
“to the mighty Potentate;” (Noyes)

“unto God the mighty one.” (TRC)

The Hebrew reads “to (toward) god strong” Again there is no definite article but the vast majority of Bibles include it here. The questions to be ask are is it implied and is it necessary to make sense in English?

We are told the the remnant are returning to someone of something. Without the definite article the sentence would read

“ A remnant returneth — a remnant of Jacob, Unto mighty God.”

Personally I do not think that the definite article is needed. In a strict Hebrew translation using original word meanings that would read “remnant shall-return remnant-of Jacob toward mighty strong one (or one of the other meanings of “gbbr”) It is word changes over time that we get might god in our English Bibles.

There is nothing wrong with mighty God as long as understand what or who is being referred to.

The God that the Israelites worshiped had a name represented by YHWH and he was indeed a mighty one. The wording a strong might one elevated him above just a might one, just as it elevates Jesus above just a mighty or a strong one.

However Jesus is NEVER referred to as the ALMIGHTY. The Hebrew word “Shadday” rendered as almighty is only ever used of the God of Jesus. The Greek equivalent “pantokrator” again is only ever used of the God that Jesus worshiped. “Pantokrator” appears once in 2 Corinthians and 9 times in Revelation.

Link

205

Hi Everyone. Answer to prayer countdown...

by Stumpy in

jw
friends

10 years ago

i've been lurking for about 3 months now and thought i'd better finally sign up.

you have all been an immense help to me as i have come to realize that this isn't the truth so i want to say a great big thank you!

what a crazy, emotional ride it is to finally face the truth about the doubts that i have carried for many years.

7 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

I feel sorry for you stumpy and for all the other people here that have lost faith. I am in Australia as you are. I was baptised in 1973. haven't put in a report of more that 10 years.

I used to look at all the faults of people and that got me down. It still does. What people do is different to what the Bible says and what JWs are taught. that makes many JWs hypocrites especially those that have the responsibility of taking the lead.

I have not lost trust or faith in Jehovah and JWs as A GROUP of people. But I have lost trust in many individuals. that is a problem I have with them not with God.

As a group JWs ARE the only ones trying to do what God requires despite all their faults and misunderstand of many many texts.

People here should grow up and stop being so self centered and looking at the bad in every thing.

Link

+2 / -12

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

10 years ago

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

10 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

Hi Jan

I am not considered to be an active JW as I have not put a report in for more that 10 years.

Link

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

10 years ago

as jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.

i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.

so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.

10 years ago

True to the End 10 years ago

Hi You said

Can it be stated this way, that you researched the words, that the authors of the ancient document used, and which are often translated by the English word, 'god.'

Yep that would be a good way of putting it, because language evolves. Often, what we understand today by a word is not what was originally meant. The word “god” as we know it never appeared in the ancient texts. The meaning of the ancient words evolved to mean god

That holds true for so many words. Is it not wisdom on our part to try to understand what the original writer was saying and not project into their thoughts what we think they were saying.

To me you have done the same thing that Boyarin has done. Looked at a relatively modern word that has been derived form what has been mistaken used of the ancient Hebrew and Greek

To understand any piece of writing it is good to know something about the author, their culture and time of living, general use of the words THEY used.

I want to use two recently modern examples of knowing what an author was intending.

Lets assume that the following quote is from two different people from two different backgrounds. Not knowing the backgrounds could leave us with “egg on our face” if were attempting to explain this sentence to someone else. As you read this sentence what is the very first thought that comes to your mind.

“They went out and had a gay time”

Were the people just having a pleasant fun time, or were they engaged in some form of same sex activity?

If when discussing that sentence with someone else, and I used the wrong meaning of "gay" - what a mistake.

The only way to know what was meant is to have more details. What did the writer mean by the word?

Here is something else. My grandmother once tells me

“ That was a wicked thing to do.”

A few years ago my teenage son came home from high school and made a similar comment, but the meanings are completely opposite.

My grandmother meant that I had done something bad. My son meant that he had done something fun and exciting. (Its been a while since I have heard the word “wicked” used as my son did)

We, today, generally understand the English use of the word divine to mean that it relates to God – a supernatural being.

That explanations keeps going back to the idea of what WE, today, understand by the word god.

I keep coming back to the ORIGINAL meaning of “el” and “elohim” and the Greek “theo”

“El" (the basis for the extended root ʾlh) is usually derived from a root meaning "to be strong" and/or "to be in front". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

“ el, meaning "a Mighty One", strength, powerful one.” http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/WordsandtermsintheScriptures.html#e

“and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm

El - 1 applied to men of might and rank, mighty one of the nations

Brown-Driver-Briggs

strength; as adjective, mighty; great, idol, might(-y one), power, strong.

Strongs Hebrew Lexicon

Christians profess belief in the Bible. Yet the word “God” never appears in the original language of the Bible. Instead, such words as Yahweh, Elohim, Ho Theos, or Ho Kurios are used.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/misusing-the-word-god/24688

In the Greek, the word God is a translation of the word "Theos" meaning Mighty One. This can refer to any person, man or in some cases non-man. The context determines the meaning. Assuming the word always refers to a non-man is error, as the Greek referred to many with authority as "Theos" (Mighty One).

http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/IsJesusGod/thewordgod.html

Is “God” a strong one or a might one or a powerful one? For those of us that believe in God the answer is YES, of course he has that characteristics. However “el” and the plural “elohim” do NOT MEAN god. The words became applied to the an object of “worship” if it be a man, an idol or what we believe to be the creator of all things.

Today Our narrow and limited understanding (usage) of the word god causes confusion as we see it applying to the creator, or someone claiming to hold such a position, where as the original words applied at mighty and powerful men or parts of creation such as trees and mountains.

When we realise that the word god has a broader meaning the confusion disappears and we can understand why Mosses was called a god by his God and why angels are called gods by the same God that Moses followed, and why Jesus can be called a god by his God.

You asked

I ask simply, according to English usage, is the word 'divine,' out of place? I don't

think that

can be argued. All the English words that can be used, are English and not original.

What word do you think Boyarin should have used?

Yes in discussing Daniel it is out of place because Daniel did not have a concept of the word divine as we do toady. The word divine as we use it does not appear in the OT

What word do you think Boyarin should have used?

This is what you had quoted (I dont know how to make quotes as you have done) Notice the words I insert as they relate to the original ideas of the time. This is based on the Biblical Greek word “theios” which is wrongly rendered into English as divine. As the word theo carries the idea of “a mighty one” (not god) “theios” actually means “like a mighty one”. Unfortunately when the Bible was rendered into English, the word “god” had crept into our language and replaced the idea of “a mighty one”

Boyarin writes: (pp.32,33)

"What this text projects is a second divine (powerful or mighty) figure, to whom will
be given eternal dominion of the entire world. ... it (the text) brings us close to at
least some of the crucial characteristics of the figure named later, the Messiah or the
Christ.
What are these characteristics? He is divine. (he has the characteristics of a mighty and powerful one) He is in human form He may very well be portrayed as younger-appearing divinity (mighty and powerful one) than the Ancient of Days.
He will be enthroned on high. He is given power and dominion, even sovereignty on earth.

Boyarin then goes on to argue that these are the characteristics applied to Jesus as

he will appear in the Gospels,

Boyarin is correct in the characteristics of the Almighty one DO apply to Jesus in the Gospels because Jesus is the SON of the ALMIGHTY Might one.

I will get to the word 'pelach'. and worship.

Link