Psalm 82

[ProDeo]

A Psalm of Asaph.
1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? — Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;  maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;  deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

As for the questions -

divine council; in the midst of the gods, what is Asaph talking about?

I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you, who is speaking, God or Asaph? and to whom? I suppose God to the divine council full of gods?

nevertheless, like men you shall die, gods (like men) that die?

If it wasn't for the Lord Who quoted from Psalm 82 (John 10:34) I am left with the impression that Psalm 82 isn't Scripture but full of Polytheism. Not that John makes it more clear. At least not for me.

Anyone who can decrypt the divine council full of gods?

[Titus]

A Psalm of Asaph.
1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? — Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;  maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;  deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

As for the questions -

divine council; in the midst of the gods, what is Asaph talking about?

I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you, who is speaking, God or Asaph? and to whom? I suppose God to the divine council full of gods?

nevertheless, like men you shall die, gods (like men) that die?

If it wasn't for the Lord Who quoted from Psalm 82 (John 10:34) I am left with the impression that Psalm 82 isn't Scripture but full of Polytheism. Not that John makes it more clear. At least not for me.

Anyone who can decrypt the divine council full of gods?

Enoch seems to give the impression that God was speaking to the Watchers in this Psalm. The Fallen Angels who were supposed to be watching over the earth.

There is only one God, and "He" is ONE individual. All of the little 'g' gods are not gods at all. They are fallen angels, they are demons. They are referred to as divine often, but that really means, meant, that they were 'of' God Almighty. Which is why they are called Sons of God in many places, including Job 38:7.

That is also who God was speaking to in Genesis 1:26 when He says let US make man in our image. Yes, God did all the "making", but they were present; and they rejoiced at all that God created.

[Fenris]

Your confusion is based on a bad translation.

Verse 1: A song of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He will judge.

The "congregation of God" meaning the Jewish people, the original readers of the bible to whom this Psalm was composed.


Verses 2 through 5 are a rebuke. "I gave you the bible. You should know all these things already, why are you falling short of your potential and disappointing Me?

Verse 6: I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."


In other words "I gave you a set of rules to follow that put you on par with the angels. Now follow them and be worthy".

Verse 7: Indeed, as man, you will die, and as one of the princes, you will fall.

Saying "You are all mortal and will face your True Judge one day. Think about this".

Nothing cryptic at all.

[Titus]

Your confusion is based on a bad translation.

It says the same thing yours does.

The "congregation of God" meaning the Jewish people, the original readers of the bible to whom this Psalm was composed.

False.

The Bible was not written only to the "Jews."

Verse 6: I said, "You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High."


In other words "I gave you a set of rules to follow that put you on par with the angels. Now follow them and be worthy".

Wow. False.

Good luck proving that nonsense with any passage of Scripture.

Verse 7: Indeed, as man, you will die, and as one of the princes, you will fall.

This verse proves my case. It doesn't support yours in the least.

Nothing cryptic at all.

There's nothing cryptic at all about the Sons of God being angels. As I already presented to the court, it is right there in Job 38:7 for all to see.

[Fenris]

It says the same thing yours does.

You'll notice the text is different from what the OP posted.

The Bible was not written only to the "Jews."

At the time it was written, those were the exact people it was written for. That it had a broader audience at a later point in history does not alter that fact.

This Psalm is a rebuke of those people. 

Wow. False.

Why is it false? It makes perfect sense in the context.

Good luck proving that nonsense with any passage of Scripture.

Just because you disagree with what I'm saying doesn't make it "nonsense".

Do you talk to everyone like this? Very un-Christ like.

This verse proves my case. It doesn't support yours in the least.

Even people in positions of power will die and face their Judge someday. That's what it says.

There's nothing cryptic at all about the Sons of God being angels.

It doesn't have to mean angels. Exodus 4:22 So said the Lord, "My firstborn son is Israel."

As I already presented to the court, it is right there in Job 38:7 for all to see.

Again, it doesn't have to be translated as "angels".

[Titus]

You'll notice the text is different from what the OP posted.

My comments were about the text that I have. It is the same as yours.

At the time it was written, those were the exact people it was written for. That it had a broader audience at a later point in history does not alter that fact. This Psalm is a rebuke of those people.

I think we can agree that the events in Exodus and Deuteronomy took place before the time of Asaph's Psalms. Take a close look at just who the Commandments were given to in Deuteronomy 29:11, 14-15.

They were not given only to Israel. The Bible makes that clear.

Older versions of the Bible clearly state that they were given to "all men", but even if one is uncomfortable with that fact, the modern versions say the same thing.

Wow. False.

Why is it false? It makes perfect sense in the context.[/quote]The context is the Scripture as a whole. When you have other Scriptures that make clear that God is speaking to angels, to Sons of God, not Jews, that means you are taking it out of context to make contradictory claims.

Just because you disagree with what I'm saying doesn't make it "nonsense".

The Bible disagrees with you and, again, you will find no Scripture to support such a claim.

Do you talk to everyone like this? Very un-Christ like.

On the contrary, Christ always corrected false doctrine and was far more Fire and Brimstone than I am being here. This is a Christian Discussion Forum, and Bible Discussion forum at that. Of course I am going to hold all claims up to a Biblical standard.

Even people in positions of power will die and face their Judge someday. That's what it says.

No, it is telling the Fallen Angels who have always prided themselves who have always prided themselves in their great power, along with their prideful leader, that they will all die like men, as they have been immortal as long as they have known existence. It is an insult to them to die like men, who they view as disgustingly below them, and it is one of the worst punishments they can imagine.

As the Bible teaches that the servant is not greater than his master, all servants will go where their master goes. In following with this teaching, those who serve these false gods will go with them to their ultimate end. The fallen angels upon the earth died like men physically and will be punished in the Lake of Fire, whether that be an eternal torment or temporary really makes no difference in the end. It will be unpleasant.

It doesn't have to mean angels. Exodus 4:22 So said the Lord, "My firstborn son is Israel."

It makes perfect sense to allow the Scriptures, God's Word, to define the Scriptures. We see Sons of God defined as angels in Job 38:7. It makes perfect sense to define it the same elsewhere. God never implied in any way that men are angels. He does call those who love and worship Him Children of God, but the terms are not used, or defined, the same.

[Fenris]

I think we can agree that the events in Exodus and Deuteronomy took place before the time of Asaph's Psalms. Take a close look at just who the Commandments were given to in Deuteronomy 29:11

וְגֵ֣רְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּקֶ֣רֶב מַֽחֲנֶ֑יךָ

"The sojourners within your camp."

 The mixed multitude who came out of Egypt with them? They would have been at Sinai too. So also part of that original audience.

14-15.

וְאֵ֨ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵינֶ֛נּוּ פֹּ֖ה עִמָּ֥נוּ הַיּֽוֹם

..."those who are not with us today". It's referring to the descendants of those at Sinai. Not the world at large, who did not get the bible in a language they could read until the Septuagint which was a thousand years later.

They were not given only to Israel. The Bible makes that clear.

That the rest of the world reads the bible is a Good Thing, but not its original intended audience. You're not winning any points here.

Older versions of the Bible clearly state that they were given to "all men"

Book, chapter, verse, please? What "older versions"?

The context is the Scripture as a whole. When you have other Scriptures that make clear that God is speaking to angels, to Sons of God, not Jews, that means you are taking it out of context to make contradictory claims.

The bible is God's communication with man. Not angels.

The Bible disagrees with you and, again

I think you mean your interpretation of the bible.

All this ranting isn't winning you any converts here and your behavior is not very Christian. Don't you know how to disagree without being disagreeable?

On the contrary, Christ always corrected false doctrine and was far more Fire and Brimstone than I am being here.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. Proverbs 15.

No, it is telling the Fallen Angels who have always prided themselves who have always prided themselves in their great power, along with their prideful leader, that they will all die like men, as they have been immortal as long as they have known existence. It is an insult to them to die like men, who they view as disgustingly below them, and it is one of the worst punishments they can imagine.

Again, the bible is God's communication with man. Not angels.

As the Bible teaches that the servant is not greater than his master, all servants will go where their master goes. In following with this teaching, those who serve these false gods will go with them to their ultimate end. The fallen angels upon the earth died like men physically and will be punished in the Lake of Fire, whether that be an eternal torment or temporary really makes no difference in the end. It will be unpleasant.

Ah now we're accusing others of serving false gods. Wonderful.

It makes perfect sense to allow the Scriptures, God's Word, to define the Scriptures. We see Sons of God defined as angels in Job 38:7.

It doesn't say "angels". You're interpreting it to mean "angels". And what if it does? I found you a verse where the nation of Israel is called "God's firstborn son". Why are you ignoring that verse?

[Titus]

"The sojourners within your camp."

 The mixed multitude who came out of Egypt with them? They would have been at Sinai too. So also part of that original audience.

Sojourners means "strangers." So not Israel, not Jews.

Yes, part of the original audience (at least those who were present), not part of Israel. Not Jews.

..."those who are not with us today". It's referring to the descendants of those at Sinai. Not the world at large, who did not get the bible in a language they could read until the Septuagint which was a thousand years later.

It is referring to all those who would ever come to know, love and worship the God of the Bible.

Why do you suppose God inspired the Bible to be translated into all languages?

All nations and tribes serve Him. All who have ever come to know Him and seek to learn about Him when they are called by God. (John 6:44; Romans 8:28b)

You're not winning any points here.

The sincere reader is edified by what I am presenting. You are not.

Older versions of the Bible clearly state that they were given to "all men"

Book, chapter, verse, please? What "older versions"?

I thought you'd never ask.

Wycliffe Bible

Deuteronomy 29:14 And not to you aloone Y smyte this loond of pees, and conferme these othis, Deuteronomy 29:15 but to alle men, present and absent.

One of the oldest Bibles there is still any translation for. Deny it if you prefer (yes, ... we know you prefer), but the KJV, and newer, teach the exact same Truth.

The bible is God's communication with man. Not angels.

And ... ??

How does that contradict that it records His interactions with angels?

I think you mean your interpretation of the bible.

The only people who ever raise that false argument are those who deny plain Scripture.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. Proverbs 15.

I'm not interested but if we must, we can go there and make a case out of Jesus' slaying Jews in the streets with His very harsh words. Say the word and you will be corrected once again with Scripture.

It makes perfect sense to allow the Scriptures, God's Word, to define the Scriptures. We see Sons of God defined as angels in Job 38:7.

It doesn't say "angels". You're interpreting it to mean "angels". And what if it does? I found you a verse where the nation of Israel is called "God's firstborn son". Why are you ignoring that verse?

Am I understanding now that you wish to argue that the "NATION" of Israel is an angel?

[Fenris]

Sojourners means "strangers." So not Israel, not Jews.

Then why were they in the Jewish camp?

Ah. Exodus 12:38. And also, a great mixed multitude went up with them

Not Jews.

It is referring to all those who would ever come to know, love and worship the God of the Bible.

No it's rather more specific than that. "You are standing here in order to enter into a covenant with the Lord your God, a covenant the Lord is making with you this day and sealing with an oath, to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you and as he swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Whose fathers?

Why do you suppose God inspired the Bible to be translated into all languages?

Because He wanted the message to get to the broadest possible audience. That does not change the fact about who the original audience was.

The sincere reader is edified by what I am presenting. You are not.

So I'm not sincere now either?

Wycliffe Bible

I don't see why and old bad translation should be any more authoritative than a new, bad translation.

to alle men,

It does not say "to all men" in the Hebrew. C'mon, you read Hebrew, you know this. Right? וְאֵ֨ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵינֶ֛נּוּ פֹּ֖ה עִמָּ֥נוּ הַיּֽוֹם

How does that contradict that it records His interactions with angels?

Because you want it to say "angels", and so now you're4 recording God giving warnings to angels. The bible isn't about God talking to angels. It's irrelevant for our purposes.

The only people who ever raise that false argument are those who deny plain Scripture.

So you and you alone has been empowered to teach the bible to the entire world? You and you alone know the truth?

I'm not interested but if we must, we can go there and make a case out of Jesus' slaying Jews in the streets with His very harsh words.

Yes, but (and here's the thing) you are not Jesus.

We see Sons of God defined as angels in Job 38:7

No, that's how you are interpreting it.

Am I understanding now that you wish to argue that the "NATION" of Israel is an angel?

The nation of Israel is God's firstborn son. Plain text.

[Titus]

It is referring to all those who would ever come to know, love and worship the God of the Bible.

No it's rather more specific than that. "You are standing here in order to enter into a covenant with the Lord your God, a covenant the Lord is making with you this day and sealing with an oath, to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you and as he swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Whose fathers?

You've already conveniently forgotten the Deuteronomy verse I posted. I will only go in one full circle with you.

I've been at this too long to play the silliest games. Some, eh. I still enjoy a little.

Deut. 29:14-15
"Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with" the stranger that is here and him who is not here.

Case closed.

So I'm not sincere now either?

Apparently not.

I don't see why and old bad translation should be any more authoritative than a new, bad translation.

"Prove it, show me Scripture!! .. (Scripture presented) ... "Oh, what does that old Scripture prove?!!"

Yes, very sincere, indeed.

It does not say "to all men" in the Hebrew. C'mon, you read Hebrew, you know this. Right?

I've shown what it says in the old Bibles and the new. Your point has been dismissed with ample evidence to the contrary.

You are flailing. Let the death of this part of the argument wash over you peacefully.

You have lost.

It's irrelevant for our purposes.

Though many a man have assumed otherwise, man doesn't decide what is relevant for our purposes. God does.

Sheesh. The pride.

You and you alone know the truth?

No, the Bible speaks for itself.

Yes, but (and here's the thing) you are not Jesus.

I don't have to be, and for the record, He lives inside of me. He was a living example to us of how to live. Calling out evil is a requirement for Christians per the Scriptures.
John 14:21
1 John 2:6

No, that's how you are interpreting it.

Oh, okay. You're right then. It was the Jews who were standing around God when He created ... everything.

[Fenris]

Deut. 29:14-15
"Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; but with" the stranger that is here and him who is not here.

"The stranger who is not here" has no connection to this event.

Who does?

Well, the Jews who were there. And their descendants, who are not here, but who are also the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Just as the verse says.

And also the mixed multitude who are present, who came out of Egypt with the Jews and were present at Sinai, and who lived in the desert with them for 40 years.

Case closed.

"Prove it, show me Scripture!! .. (Scripture presented) ... "Oh, what does that old Scripture prove?!!"

It's not "scripture", it's a crappy translation what also happens to be old. Big deal.

I've shown what it says in the old Bibles and the new. Your point has been dismissed with ample evidence to the contrary.

And I've shown the Hebrew, which it seems you really can't read.

Though many a man have assumed otherwise, man doesn't decide what is relevant for our purposes. God does.

Actually, :chuckle: in this case it's you who are deciding what's relevant. Not God.

No, the Bible speaks for itself.

Which apparently only you are allowed to interpret.

I don't have to be, and for the record, He lives inside of me.

oooookay

He was a living example to us of how to live. Calling out evil is a requirement for Christians per the Scriptures.

"Evil" as in murder, rape, robbery, and all that? Or "evil" as in understanding scripture differently from the way that you, personally, do?

Because those are not the same thing at all.

You're right then. It was the Jews who were standing around God when He created ... everything.

We're talking about how the phrase "sons of God" doesn't have to mean "angels".

[Titus]

"The stranger who is not here" has no connection to this event.[/quote]Correct. Nothing at all to do with them ... besides the fact that they were present at the giving of the Commandments on Mt. Sinai and Moses stated plainly that the covenant and oath was made specifically with/to them.

... also the mixed multitude who are present, who came out of Egypt with the Jews and were present at Sinai, and who lived in the desert with them for 40 years.

Who were not Jewish, nor Jews, nor Israel.

Case closed.

Finally.

It's not "scripture", it's a crappy translation what also happens to be old. Big deal.

Of course. Yes, of course it's not.

Not Scripture.

Actually, :chuckle: in this case it's you who are deciding what's relevant. Not God.

Right because that would require providing Scripture - which I continue to refuse to do.

No, the Bible speaks for itself.

Which apparently only you are allowed to interpret.

Really? Are you sure about that?

I provide text after text and you declare over and over that the text is wrong, the translation is wrong, the Bible's too old, the verses don't exist, etc.

Okay then.

"Evil" as in murder, rape, robbery, and all that? Or "evil" as in understanding scripture differently from the way that you, personally, do?

Evil as in all manner of lies about His Word. False teachers and false teaching. All open game for Christians to call out.

[Athanasius]

Evil as in all manner of lies about His Word. False teachers and false teaching. All open game for Christians to call out.

You and Fenris are free to argue over the text. But no one is going to go from "you have a bad text and translation" to "therefore you're a false teacher with false teaching telling lies about His Word!".

[Titus]

Evil as in all manner of lies about His Word. False teachers and false teaching. All open game for Christians to call out.

You and Fenris are free to argue over the text. But no one is going to go from "you have a bad text and translation" to "therefore you're a false teacher with false teaching telling lies about His Word!".

No one has.

It was a reference to post/reply #7 where Jesus was brought up as an example of using harsh, vs soft, words for correcting the Jews and their false teachings in the streets.

Jesus didn't pull any punches. That was the point. He told it like it was and Christians are told to do the same when correcting falsehood pertaining to God's Truth.

You have a real hang-up about this Bible version stuff.

A rather odd sensitivity if you ask me.

Care to explain?

[Athanasius]

Evil as in all manner of lies about His Word. False teachers and false teaching. All open game for Christians to call out.

You and Fenris are free to argue over the text. But no one is going to go from "you have a bad text and translation" to "therefore you're a false teacher with false teaching telling lies about His Word!".

No one has.

It was a reference to post/reply #7 where Jesus was brought up as an example of using harsh, vs soft, words for correcting the Jews and their false teachings in the streets.

Jesus didn't pull any punches. That was the point. He told it like it was and Christians are told to do the same when correcting falsehood pertaining to God's Truth.

You have a real hang-up about this Bible version stuff.

A rather odd sensitivity if you ask me.

Care to explain?

Don't you worry, I read the thread before I commented. We are simply not going to play that thinly veiled antisemitic game called "correcting the Jews and their false teachings". For many reasons, but mostly because at that point, you aren't engaging in an intellectually honest discussion of the text but are dead-set on "correcting the Jew" no matter what "the Jew" says (because "the Jew" only ever puts forth false teaching. Did you know "the Jew" is a phrase used ~323 times in Mein Kampf?).

So consider this to be one of those punches-not-pulled. Engage with Fenris in good faith, or agree to disagree.

The gaslighting won't work so, feel free to surprise me with something else.