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

by fulltimestudent 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

fulltimestudent
TTTE:
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 andactually 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.

TTTE, please! Most names have meanings. A friend is called 'Edmund' which means (according to baby name tables):
- Mystical
- Wise
- Eccentric
- Intuitive
- Imaginative
- Philosophical
- Solitary
To take one of those meanings and apply it to the child is not a usual action. While meanings may shed light on the origins of the various gods that people choose to worship, to make the sort of rule your making does not make sense.
fulltimestudent

TTTE
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]).
But what happens when you read this in the Septuagint, which was absolutely trusted by the early Christians?
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
7His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this. (Trans: Brenton)
fulltimestudent

TTTE: Now Boyarin makes a fundamental mistake as almost all of us do when he said...
"What this text projects is a second divine figure, to whom will be given eternal dominion of the entire world. .
There is no second “divine figure” in view here as there is no first “divine figure” in view. He has wrongly used the word divine from our language to try to describe something from ancient Hebrew.
All that plethora of words, to argue that Boyarin was wrong to use the word "divine," when you think he should have said, (quote: he has the characteristics of a mighty and powerful one).
No matter what word is used, viewed from this perspective, Daniel 7 is speaking of two individual "mighty ones," one senior, one seemingly less so.
This is not monotheism, there is more than one personage described as 'god-like.'
jhine

Hi guys , this is my last two pennyworth then I'm leaving you to it .
Even if El originally meant " mighty , strong " etc when did it start to mean god or God ? .As I said Jews regard El to be the earliest Semetic word for God .
We can argue semantics for ever for but the only meaning of the word that matters is the one meant by the writers of the books of Daniel and Isaiah .
El Shaddai is God Almighty , El 'Olam is Everlasting God , El Hai is living God to give few examples of the use of El .
Jan
fulltimestudent

There's not much more to be said, jhine.
It is difficult to know the personal conceptual view of 'God' held by any ancient writer. We may have a glimpse of how the Daniel writer saw God by closely examining the detail in the vision he imagined. Considering the likely late date of the book of Daniel - we would have to examine the books of Maccabees and the Dead Sea Scrolls, to observe other posibilities for changing concepts of God
TTTE may have approached this discussion as JWs often do, when talking to other (non-JW) believers and the argument gets difficult for them, they resort to arguing about words (it could be called, obscuration, which can have the meaning, 'to cloud over' grin!).
The discussion has been helpful in another sense, also, we can see the lack of logic in the concepts of God held by the witnesses. Stating that they are monotheists, and condemning 'polytheism,' they nonetheless believe that Jesus is 'a god.' Which leaves them in the precise position of most other polytheists by conceiving of 'Supreme Gods' and 'lesser gods,' just as (to use my previous illustration) Zeus is senior, in Hellenic thought, and Dionysus is lesser.
-----------------------------
For anyone seeking more information on the Canaanite God, El, there is in the JWD files an informative conversation between Mebaqqer2 and Leolaia, in a thread entitled, "Israelites so easily influenced by foreign Gods. Why?
The link is: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/220295/israelities-easily-influenced-foreign-gods-why?page=1&size=20
Crazyguy

I believe the title El was only used to describe two different God's. EL THE HEAD of the pantheon of the God's at Ugarit and and older El spelled something like Elion which was believed to be the original creator if I'm not mistaken. Anyway do to the fact that only one God was called El for the most part by the cannaanite we can't just say it just means diety or God. It was his name and title, not other gods in the pantheon were called El-something, no El-Hadad or El-Dagon nothing of this type that I have seen, so this to me proves the original God of the Hebrew s was one and the same. Also since this topic is about Daniel let's not forget in the septuagint there are a couple more chapters and story of Bel and the Dragon.
There are also others that believe Daniel was referring to Marduks or Ea of the babylonians.
True to the End

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.
True to the End

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.
jhine

OK I know what I said , but a girl ( ?) can change her mind .
The Bible makes clear that there are no other gods . Only idols made of wood or metal with nothing behind them .
1Corinthians 8:4
Therefore as to the eating of food offered to idols , we know that ' an idol has no real existence ' and that ' there is no God but one ' .
Sometimes people are called gods
John10:35
If he called them " gods " to whom the word of God came .....
But there are no other gods , divine beings , whatever you call them .
In Daniel the one like the son of man who is led into the presence of the Ancient of Days is by all people ,nations and men of every language .
Hebrews 1:6 tells us
And again when God brings his firstborn into the world ,he says
". Let all God's angels worship him " .
And indeed in Rev 5:12 we find a myriad of angels surrounding the throne where the Lamb who was slain (Jesus ) is standing in the centre and singing ,
" Worthy is the Lamb who was slain ,
to receive power and wealth and
wisdom and strength
and honour and glory and praise "
Jan
jhine

I should have put "worshipped by all people ,nations etc " in the quote from Daniel .
Jan

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

Share this