Posts by Mebaqqer2

25

Awake

by Marcial in

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectid=398787&partid=1&searchtext=vase+athletes&page=1.

comparez avec la page 29 de watchtower 01/octobre /2002.

fideles dans les petites choses ...oui pas en publiant des images truquees comme celle-ci.

Mebaqqer2

This reminds me of a recent sketch on SNL.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/569137

Mebaqqer

20

Bible Translation Shenanigans

by Perry in

by jack l. green.

the bible clearly and unmistakably teaches that the lord jesus christ is jehovah god.

the cult known as "jehovah witnesses" deny that jesus is jehovah, thus revealing that they are anti-christ.. not only have the "jehovah witnesses" tampered with the context of hundreds of scriptures, but now they have brazenly moved into the bible translation field.. their reason for doing this?

Mebaqqer2

One of the rules they set for themselves in the foreword is: wherever the Greek words ‘Kurios’ and ‘theos’ appear, they will uniformly translate these as ‘JEHOVAH.’ That is their rule! Upon coming to Phil. 2:9-11 they fail to translate ‘kurios’ as Jehovah.

Green’s argument here fails upon launch since the translators of the New World Translation never said that kyrios and theos are to be “uniformly” translated as “Jehovah” “wherever the Greek words ‘Kurios’ and ‘theos’ appear.” Their “rule” is explained by them quite clearly in the first edition of their New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures as follows:

How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words Κύριος and Θεός into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to ky'ri-os and the-os' and he can then cloth them with personality . . .

To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have tried to be most cautious about rendering the divine name, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures. We have looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions we consulted to confirm our own rendering.

-New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950), 20

In stating a “rule” on how a translator may “know or determine when to render the Greek words Κύριος and Θεός into the divine name,” it is obvious that the translators also envision instances where one will simply translate kyrios as ‘Lord’ and theos as ‘God.’ Thus Green has misrepresented the “rule” the translators of the New World Translation gave in their Forward so that his citations of Philippians 2:9–11 and 1 Corinthians 12:3 as violations of a “rule” that Green himself has imputed to them makes for a very poor argument.

Now Green’s argument would have gone much better had he actually grappled with the “rule” as the translators of the New World Translation articulated it as many others have done. One notes in their “rule” that one is dependent on the “Hebrew Scriptures” to know where to “restore” the divine name and the translators have in mind “verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs” (New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 19). Further, they also state that they looked to Hebrew versions to “to confirm” their translation “to avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator.” While the 1984 revision gives nearly the same verbiage as the 1950 edition about methodology in “restoring” the divine name, the 2013 only discusses the translator’s general argument that the divine name appeared in the New Testament (see New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—with references (1984), 1564, 1565; New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (2013), 1736–1741). However, as there has been no change in handling the divine name in the New Testament in the 2013 revision, one may assume that the more recent translators accepted the original methodology that stands behind those 237 instances where the translation introduces ‘Jehovah’ into the text. The methodology for “restoring” the divine name, as it is presented to the reader then, is as follows:

Find a passage in the New Testament where either the word kyrios or theos appears.
Examine the Jewish Scriptures to determine if it reflects a citation or allusion.
If so, replace kyrios or theos with ‘Jehovah’ in the translation.
Check if any of the J-References include the divine name at this point and if so, note it as confirmation of the decision.

Now while the forgoing perhaps appears quite reasonable and objective, there are huge problems with all this. The biggest problem, beside the fact that there is no Greek manuscript of the New Testament with the divine name, is the theological presupposition upon which the whole methodology is built, namely, that the divine name is only applicable to the Father. This is the reason behind why they state that a translator “restoring” the divine name into the New Testament “can determine the identity to give to ky'ri-os and the-os' and he can then cloth them with personality.” However, assuming that the arguments made by the translators are correct that the divine name did appear in the earliest New Testament writings, there is nothing in that fact that necessitates that the divine name was not applied to Jesus by New Testament writers. It may well be that the name was exclusive to the Father, but it may equally have been applied to Jesus as well. Thus the translator’s methodology is predicated on a pre-conceived theological position and cannot in any way be considered objective. As such, their statement about “overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis” is rather disingenuous given the fact that whereas a translator attempts to render words found in his source text into those of another language which are of the same semantic domain, the enterprise of seeking to “cloth [the words kyrios and theos] with personality” by substituting these titles with the divine name under the guidance of a preferred theological view is exegetical, or more correctly, eisegetical in nature. It should be remarked here that anyone interpolating the divine name into the New Testament in any major way, i.e. outside of explicit citations, will have this problem since in the absence of any real textual evidence to guide them where to place the divine name, one will necessarily be guided by theological views related to the (in)applicability of the divine name to Jesus. In light of the forgoing then, one may now see an additional step in the methodology used by the translators of the New World Translation:

Find a passage in the New Testament where either the word kurios or theos appears.
If the passage’s use of kyrios or theos can only be understood as referring to Jesus, translate with ‘lord’ or ‘god.’
If not, examine the Jewish Scriptures to determine if it reflects a citation or allusion.
If so, replace kyrios or theos with ‘Jehovah’ in the translation.
Check if any of the J-References include the divine name at this point and if so, note it as confirmation of the decision.

The theological presupposition embodied by the additional step (number 2) is demonstrated in a number of verses in the New World Translation. As an example, let us consider 1 Peter 2:3 with only the 4 step methodology presented to the reader in the Forward. In the New World Translation (2013) this verse reads:

provided you have tasted that the Lord is kind.

(ei egeusasthe hoti chrēstos ho kyrios)

For ‘the Lord’ the Greek text reads ho kyrios. Thus per step 1 we have a verse which has kyrios so that we should next examine the Hebrew Scriptures to see if this verse reflects a citation or allusion per step 2. Doing so we find Psalm 34:8 (vs. 9 Heb.) which reads in the New World Translation (2013):

Taste and see that Jehovah is good; Happy is the man who takes refuge in him.

Now, in turning to the Septuagint, one finds that this verse reads “taste and see that the Lord is kind.” (geusasthe kai idete hoti chrēstos ho kyrios) where ho kyrios should be YHWH per the translators of the New World Translation’s argument that the Septuagint originally had the divine name where it is found in the Hebrew text. Having then found that 1 Peter 2:3 alludes to Psalm 34:8, we should replace kyrios with ‘Jehovah’ in 1 Peter 2:3 per step 3. Having done that, we should check the J-References to see if any of them use the divine name per step 4. Doing so we find the following J-References “confirm” the divine name here:

J7, J8, J13, J16, J20, J28

(J14 not examined, but since J14 is a simply a reprint of J13 it almost certainly reads YHWH as well).

Thus we find that 6 (most likely 7) J-References “confirm” the divine name here so that by using the methodology the translators of the New World Translation themselves present to the reader, we should translate 1 Peter 2:3 as “provided you have tasted that Jehovah is kind.” And yet this is decidedly not how the New World Translation reads. The reason being of course that 1 Peter 2:4 shows that the kyrios in verse 3 is Jesus. As such, per the theological presupposition that the translators of the New World Translation bring to the text, they are forced to disregard the allusion to Psalm 34:8 as well as the J-References in preference to that presupposition. This verse then, is an excellent example of the serious flaw in the methodology of the translators of the New World Translation, highlighting as it does the subjectivity in “restoring” the divine name.

This presupposition works the other way as well. This is most obvious in the case of Ephesians 6:8 where the divine name was originally “restored” because the translators “feel strongly” about the inclusion of the divine name in this passage based on “the context and . . . related texts” (New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 20). This even though the verse does not contain any citation or phrase from the Jewish Scriptures and originally even lacked support from the J-References.

Turning to Ephesians 6:8, verses 5 and 6 setup the context by admonishing slaves to serve their earthly “masters” (kyriois) with real sincerity “as to the Christ” (hōs tō Christō) so that “as slaves of Christ” (hōs douloi Christou) they will actually be performing the will of God though such service. Having thus explained that the service of slaves to their earthly “masters” (kyriois) stands in relation to their true position as “slaves of Christ,” a position which actually makes Christ their true heavenly “master” (kyrios), verse 7 then goes on to admonish that such service should be performed with a positive attitude “as to the Lord” (hōs tō kyriō), i.e. Christ. The New World Translation obscures this otherwise clear context though its “restoration” of the divine name to read “as to Jehovah” which works to move away from the theme of servitude to Christ that was established in the previous verses. It is only after the theme of servitude to Christ has been cancelled out though the intrusion of the divine name into the context at verse 7 that one can speak of the context as calling for a “restoration” of the divine name at verse 8. Both of these intrusions, however, are unwarranted not only given the fact that verses 5 and 6 explicitly show that it is servitude to Christ which is in view here, but also from the fact that the integral use of slave (doulos) and master (kyrios) in both a temporal and spiritual sense beginning at verse 5 and continuing on though to verse 9 necessitates that “Lord” (kyrios) is the original reading of verses 7 and 8 as well.

As for related texts, the footnote of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950) at Ephesians 6:8 explicitly states that the inclusion of Jehovah was made there “to correspond with Colossians 3:22-24.” However, the same integral wordplay of slave and master noted in Ephesians is evident throughout these verses in Colossians as well. Furthermore, Colossians 3:24 ends the section by explicitly showing that the “master” (kyrios) it has been discussing is Christ by saying “slave for the Lord Christ” (tō kyriō Christō douleuete). In this way, the use of the divine name throughout Colossians 3:22-24 is just as problematic as it is in Ephesians 6:5-9. Thus neither the context nor the related texts adduced by the translators show that the inclusion of the divine name at Ephesians 6:8 is justified contrary to the assertion made by the translators of the New World Translation. In fact, these appeals to context and related texts actually presume what needs to be proved in that both are contingent on still other inclusions of the divine name that are equally suspect. All of this shores up the point made previously concerning the exegetical nature of the divine name’s inclusion into the New Testament and how it moves one beyond the work of simply translating into the realm of exegeses.

Before closing one final thought is in order. Since the 1984 revision of the New World Translation support for the inclusion of the divine name has been cited from J22 and J24 for Ephesians 6:8 and J23 for Colossians 3:13, the later also originally lacking support from the J-References. Ironically, with this same revision 1 Corinthians 7:17 ended up losing its support from J17 which had been given since the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950). This too has been remedied in certain foreign language editions of the New World Translation where J28, a J-Reference not cited in English editions, has been cited to “confirm” the inclusion of the divine name in this passage. These three examples show quite clearly that the translators of the New World Translation do not use the J-References as the basis for their “restoration” of the divine name. Rather, the J-References only serve as ad hoc justification for the decisions already arrived at by the translators of the New World Translation. Knowing this should serve as a corrective to those who argue “J-Reference X has the divine name in this verse, thus the New World Translation should read ‘Jehovah’ in this verse too.” It should be obvious from these three examples, as well as the one from 1 Peter 2:3, that the translators only care about the J-References in so far as these source may be exploited to give their own translation a veneer of objectivity.

While examples may be multiplied, this post is already too long as it is. I only wanted to point out that Green’s argument is problematic because he does not really engage what the translators actually said or seriously try to grapple with their methodology as stated by them. As such, he comes off as some fundamentalist Christian who wants to point the finger at Witnesses because their theology differs from his. I, as an agnostic, am not concerned with whether Jesus was actually God, an archangel, an incarnation of the Buddha, an avatar of Kirshna, or a Jewish zombie. What matters in the translation of any text is accurately conveying the thoughts of the original writers on their own terms. That is what I am concerned with. As it stands the New World Translation’s inclusion of the divine name in the New Testament follows from a specific theological agenda rather than sound methodology which in turn obscures the intentions of the original writers. That is what I find problematic. The forgoing post hopefully helps to aid others in the correctly focusing the discussion about the New World Translation’s use of the divine name in the New Testament to where it needs to be.

Mebaqqer

376

How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

it is disproven.

but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.

creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.

Mebaqqer2

The argument is that "we exist, therefore maybe an intelligent creator" or even "we exist, why not an intelligent creator?"

The central claim is "the universe was created by an intelligent being" so that I would assume that support for this claim would not entail any weasel words as if the claim where "the universe might have been created by an intelligent being." In this way, the argument "we exist, therefore intelligent creator" is the most applicable summarization to the claim given your argument which likewise was not formulated as a potential: "I use US (and everything) as the proof, now you have to disprove that we were created by a self-aware entity capable of creating everything." Thus switching the affirmative into a potential or changing it to a question does not really work.

Mebaqqer

376

How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

it is disproven.

but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.

creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.

Mebaqqer2

I use US (and everything) as the proof, now you have to disprove that we were created by a self-aware entity capable of creating everything.

I'm sorry, but the argument "we exist, therefore intelligent creator" is simply too vague for me to critque. For me, this argument is like the argument "presents exist, therefore Santa" and is simply not specific enough. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Mebaqqer

376

How is creationism DISPROVED?

by sabastious in

jw
friends

it is disproven.

but let's start another thread, because this one is being yanked off track again.

creationism/evolution always deserves its own thread.

Mebaqqer2

sab,

If I am not mistaken, disproving a claim entails demonstrating why the proofs for that claim fail. Thus I think that in the absence of the assumed proofs for the claim "the universe was created by an intelligent being," one simply cannot begin to "disprove" it. Do you have support(s) for this claim which may be assessed?

Mebaqqer

89

Jesus Vs Horus

by Christ Alone in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apmy1f9_d3m&feature=related.

Mebaqqer2

BTW, if you are curious what I am drinking (and I am sure you could care less), it is this:

http://www.shmaltzbrewing.com/HEBREW/genesis_messiah.html

Mebaqqer

89

Jesus Vs Horus

by Christ Alone in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apmy1f9_d3m&feature=related.

Mebaqqer2

I am currently drinking right now and stumbled (figuratively, not literally) into this thread and was reminded of some reading notes I wrote for one of my classes for religious studies. I don't know if it will contribute anything of worth to the discussion, but I guess that will be in the eye of the reader. Remember, these are just reading notes so they will be kind of dry with no actual point to make...

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xi53oj

Mebaqqer

Whether I will revisit this thread to contribute something more substatial (if I am able) I do not know... BTW it is supposed to be "raising the dead," not "rising the dead."

2

The Words of Junzo Akashi

by Mebaqqer2 in

three years ago, in a 2008 post ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/162584/1/partial-translation-of-possible-sans-page ), i gave a partial translation of "the words of junzo akashi" which appear on a page created by possible-san ( http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/jw/akashijunzo.html ).. recently, possible-san asked "would you give me the permission which publishes your translation regarding 'junzo akashi' on my website?

" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/221521/1/the-queer-translation-by-the-japan-branch ).

in answer to possible-san, no.

Mebaqqer2

Three years ago, in a 2008 post ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/162584/1/partial-translation-of-possible-sans-page ), I gave a partial translation of "The Words of Junzo Akashi" which appear on a page created by possible-san ( http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/pages/jw/akashijunzo.html ).

Recently, possible-san asked "Would you give me the permission which publishes your translation regarding 'Junzo Akashi' on my website?" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/221521/1/The-queer-translation-by-the-Japan-branch ). In answer to possible-san, NO. I will not give you permission to publish my translation from 2008 on your website because I have made improvements on that translation and have also translated more of that page which you can publish on your site . I have made the following two PDFs for you to use on your site:

"Words of AJ.pdf" http://www.sendspace.com/file/eoek28

"Words of AJ-2.pdf" http://www.sendspace.com/file/g6zs7q

The first of these (Words of AJ.pdf) preserves the excessive use of emphasis seen on your page (bold, red, and highlighted, really?). The second (Words of AJ-2.pdf) leaves out all that emphasis and simply gives the translation.

To those who may wish to read what I translated, note that Akashi writes in a form of Japanese which was in regular use until the end of World War II which even many Japanese young people can't read today due to language reforms made after the war as well as simply their lack of interest in advanced Japanese language studies. This means that while I have tried to be accurate, certain subtle nuances may have been lost in my translation. For this reason both versions have the original Japanese text included so that one may make a comparison. What I have done should be enough, however, to see Akashi's position. Finally, any of the problems found in this translation will likely be fixed another three years from now.

-Mebaqqer

80

Is there one Bible Prophecy.....

by Phizzy in

in the form of a prediction, that can be proven to truly be a prediction,i.e written before the event, and it came true ?.

it would be good not to have time wasters on this thread in the form of the common ones that are brought up to demonstrate the bible's prophetic prowess, like cyrus being named , these have been debunked already.. but does there seem to be a genuine prophecy in there somewhere ?.

Mebaqqer2

Well if you ask Larsinger58 I am sure there are many prophecies concerning him that have yet to be debunked in his mind.

-Mebaqqer

43

Israelities so easily influenced by foreign Gods, Why.

by jam in

god delivered the israelities to the promise land.. he shield them from egypt army, fed them in the.

wilderness, open the sea and aided them in.

defeating their enemies.. joshua:24;16 "far be it from us that we should.

Mebaqqer2

Oh man,

I just saw the link referenced by still thinking and see that Leolaia already covers most of the stuff I said concerning the connection between Canaanite religion and Israelite religion (She even recommends the same book I did!). I swear I had not read Leolaia's post before I posted and it appears that we are just on a similar wavelength. I guess I will have to check the archives and try harder to come up with something original .

Reading the post on that thread from Leolaia, I note she mentions Heiser's research and writes "I disagree however with his conclusion which appears to mitigate the polytheistic import of the text and which attempts to harmonize its theology with other much later OT passages. The problem is that the OT was written over a period of several centuries and the different texts referring to Yahweh and El reflect different theological stages between polytheism and post-exilic monotheism." For those who don't know, Heiser's research presents Israelite religion as monolatrous where Yahweh is stated to be "incomparable" to all other gods and this view is presented to hold for pretty much all of the period covered by Biblical writers and even well into the Second-Temple period.

For Leolaia, if you see this post, I also appreciate Heiser's research, which of course follows upon that of Mark Smith, John Day, Lowell Handy as well as others, yet I too saw some problems. Whereas your comment focused on his glossing over indications of polytheism in the Jewish Scriptures, my main concern focused on his downplaying of monotheism in Deutro-Isaiah. To quote myself, in a footnote that was obscenely long for a paper I wrote for school (I make many of my side arguments in footnotes), I state the following after referencing the texts from Deuteronomy mentioned in my post in this thread (which were cited in my paper as well):

The passages cited here from Deuteronomy are dated by Richard Elliott Friedman between the time of Josiah (late 7th cent. BCE) to the time of the Exile (early 6th cent. BCE) (see Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: HarperCollins, 1989) 146, 254-55, 260). Many scholars see monotheism expressed in certain passages such as "Yahweh is God (ha-'Elohîm); there is no other besides him" (Deu 4:35), "Yahweh is God (ha-'Elohîm) ... there is no other" (Deu 4:39); "I, even I, am he, and there is no 'elohîm beside me" (Deu 32:39) through a comparison with Deutero-Isaiah (late 6th cent. BCE). Such passages are thought to be redactions which date from the Persian period (6th-4th cent. BCE) (see for example Juha Pakkala, "The Monotheism of the Deuteronomic History" Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21, no. 2 (2007) 159-178). Mark S. Smith argues more subtly in stating that the monotheistic statements in the Deuteronomistic History should be seen as "Yahwistic monolatry expressed in its rhetoric of monotheism," but that Deutero-Isaiah goes beyond this to the point where "the existence of other gods is denied" so that "Yahweh is not just the god of Israel (both as land and people) but of all lands and nations" (Smith (2001) 154, 171). Michael S. Heiser's dissertation inverts this logic in light of the larger monolatristic context to argue that such statements in the Deuteronomic History as well as those in Deutero-Isaiah only speak of Yahweh's incomparability and uniqueness so that each "very likely speaks only to the continuity of the monolatrous pre-exilic worldview that embraced a divine council" (see Heiser (2004) 90-122). Heiser's criticism of the consensus view which argues that texts were interpolated into the Deuteronomistic History to support monotheism all while leaving explicit mentions of other deities surely shows that the consensus must be reconsidered more carefully on this point. Similarly, his citations of similar phraseology at Isa 47:8, 10 and Zep 2:15 with reference to the claimed incomparable status of Babylon and Assyria to show that the statements from the Deuteronomic History need not be taken as evidence for the denial of other deities are also well taken. However, Heiser's attempts to overcome the consensus view for Deutero-Isaiah's monotheism are ultimately not persuasive for even he is forced to acknowledge the "shadowy activity of the divine council in Deutero-Isaiah" due to the lack of its explicit utilization in this section of Isaiah (Heiser (2004) 106). Heiser's criticism, while dealing with such phrases in Deutero-Isaiah, appears to not to have fully wrestled with the overall force and degree with which Deutero-Isaiah utilizes previous monolatrous statements as well as newer terminology to articulate its view of Yahweh which does indeed appear to give evidence for incipient monotheism (Heiser (2004) 98-113; cf. Isa 43:10; 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21, 22; 46:9). What is clear from all of this is that one should not simply view Israelite religion as expressing monolatrism in the pre-Exilic period and monotheism in the post-Exilic period. In fact, one should consider that both monolatristic and monotheistic trends continued on into the Second-Temple period.

There is another part of Heiser's research that I have found to be somewhat problematic, but was the original reason why I was drawn to read his writings in the first place: the "messenger (mal'ak) of Yahweh" serving as the hypostatic manifestation of Yahweh himself. I would very much like Heiser's thesis to hold as it would go a long ways to explaining the appearance of a singular angelic being, under various names, that uniquely acts as the divine mediator in seveal Second-Temple texts to the point that they are mistaken for Yahweh himself and provides the basis for the later "two power" heresies discussed by Alan Segal. As you no doubt know, Heiser's thesis is that with Yahweh's usurption of El's position that Baal's position is also taken over by Yahweh in the form of the singular figure of the messenger of Yahweh who is but a hypostatis for Yahweh himself. Heiser of course draws on the appearances of the "messenger of Yahweh" in the Jewish Scriptures where this figure is conflated with Yahweh himself (admittedly it is ambiguous as to whether one should see a singular figure in these appearances or various figures under the same designation, but Heiser takes the former view). However, Heiser also attempts to ground this hypostatic representation of deity in the texts from Ugarit. He focuses on a section of the Baal Cycle (KTU 2.1) where the sea god Yam, who has been told that he will be defeated by magical weapons, sends unnamed messengers to El and his children on the divine assembly to demand that they turn over Baal. Upon seeing the messengers, the gods of the divine assembly become afraid and prostrate themselves to the messengers which act causes Baal to rebuke them. At this point the messengers deliver the message of Yam exactly as they had been instructed to which El responds to the messengers "Baal is your servant, O Yam! ... The son of Dagan your prisoner." Baal then attempts to attack the messengers whereupon he is restrained by Anat and Asherah. Heiser focuses not only the fact that the messengers reinterate Yam's words exactly, but on the frightful reaction and homage paid by the second tier divinities to these messengers from a lower tier. Heiser maintains that the reason for this reaction, as well as Baal's attempt to attack them, is that the individualized character of the messengers has been wholly subsumed by Yam so that their presence indicates the very presence of Yam himself. In this way, these messengers of Yam are said to serve as hypostastic manifestations of Yam.

While there is clearly continuity between how the figure(s?) of the "messenger of Yahweh" is/are presented in the Jewish Scriptures and the messengers in the Baal Cycle, I wonder if the claim of hypostatic manifestation is not somewhat overstated. My reason for this is that immediately following what I recounted from the Baal Cycle above, Asherah states, in an admittedly fragmented text, that "A messenger ... a messenger between [his] shoulders is the word of his lord" (KTU 2.1.41-42). Although fragmented, the text appears to show Asherah reasoning with Baal as to why his anger at the messengers is misplaced. Asherah's argument appears to be that messengers only transmit the words of those whom they serve so are not to be attacked for the message they convey. To me this would appear to contradict Heiser's thesis that the messengers serve as hypostatic manifestations and that they actually maintain a minimal degree of individuality, though admittedly the total evidence regarding messengers from Ugarit shows them to be wholly subserviant to the will of those whom they serve without exercising any personal autonomy or demonstrating any volition of their own. This is where I presently stand with regards to Heiser on this part of his research. Leolaia, I would like to hear your thoughts if you see this post either here or by message since this thread is getting old.

-Mebaqqer