I'd have to know about the actual words being translated, but my guess would be it's about spirits posing as gods to men, which is in line with Old Testament theology.
I'm not so sure. Because as you say, that is a theme in the OT but it tends to point out when other "gods" are deceiving spirits or false idols made of wood and stone.
@Pikachu That's why I would need to know more about the word in question being translated. Just because it gets rendered in at least one English tranlation as "gods" doesn't necessarily mean that the word used implied that the beings were divine in the same way capital "G" God is. It might have simply been an epithet like "the powerful ones" or it could merely have been saying "those who are worshipped as gods". Or it might not, I really don't know because I don't know the original text and I'm just speculating.
@OggggO So I went and looked it up, and the actual direct translation of the Hebrew in that verse is "the host of the the high ones on high", with both cases of "high" being in the literal sense of height, not power or might or reverence. To me it sounds like it's talking about errant angels.
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/24-21.htm
Scroll down until you get to the section marked "lexicon".
Yeah could be angels. New errant angels i guess since he cast the third out with ol' Satan. But yeah it refers to a host of high ones which seems like it could easily be referring to other gods. Isn't the idea that the Elohim were a counsel of gods of which Yahweh was the chief or judge?
@Pikachu [quote]New errant angels i guess since he cast the third out with ol' Satan.[/quote] Depends on specific interpretation. They were cast out of God's personal domain, but they still seem to have been able to move about the earth and the skies ("heavens") above it. Reference Daniel and Revelations, assuming Revelations is legit, since there's debate.
[quote]Isn't the idea that the Elohim were a counsel of gods of which Yahweh was the chief or judge?[/quote] Not really. The transition from pre-Israelite polytheism to Judaic monotheism left some weird grammar behind mostly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
True, true. But again, it seems it could equally be referring to other gods. I don't know that angels are often referred to as "the powers" But maybe we're getting into a more exciting mythology where god is not omnipotent but struggles against other powers.
@Pikachu [quote]I don't know that angels are often referred to as "the powers"[/quote] Well, Paul did, but in this case Isaiah didn't call them powers, he called them a host, as in there were a lot of them, without reference to how strong any given member was.
[quote]Reading that kinda just convinces me that the word is pulled from polytheistic roots[/quote] It is. Like, a [i]lot[/i] of the Torah is about God getting Abraham and his descendants to understand that He is the only deity. Abraham was a polytheist from a polytheistic culture, and he likely understood God more as a personal patron out of many gods than the one true divinity. It took a lot of proving and doing things considered unusual for even "gods" to accomplish to wean him off of that. I'm reading a study bible right now that contains a ton of reference information about the cultural and religious beliefs surrounding the various times and places the Biblical stories took place in, and it's fascinating. For example, having Abraham move from where he was to somewhere far away where he had no relatives and didn't know anyone and making that the promised land would have cut him off from the gods of his city-state and those of his familial clan, leaving him [i]only[/i] Yahweh to depend on.
[quote] Isaiah didn't call them powers, he called them a host[/quote]
lol i think this is where we run into issues with competing translations. Because we've got gods, powers, and host.
[quote] Abraham was a polytheist from a polytheistic culture, and he likely understood God more as a personal patron out of many gods than the one true divinity. It took a lot of proving and doing things considered unusual for even "gods" to accomplish to wean him off of that. [/quote]
That's really where i'm coming from. The religion that sprang up from the god of Abraham was drawing on pre-existing polytheistic religions but just setting that god at the top as the most powerful. Because (and i could well be wrong about this) it seems to me that in a few places in the bible a clear distinction is made between false idols of wood and stone and actual other gods which exist but just aren't as good as Abraham's god.
@Pikachu [quote]lol i think this is where we run into issues with competing translations. Because we've got gods, powers, and host.[/quote]
This is where I go back to that link from earlier, the specific Hebrew word used was [quote]צְבָ֥א (ṣə·ḇā) Noun - common singular construct Strong's Hebrew 6635: A mass of persons, reg, organized for, war, a campaign[/quote]
[quote]actual other gods which exist but just aren't as good as Abraham's god.[/quote] I think that may be a limitation of the word "god" in English, in that it can refer to pretty much anything that is supernatural and either very powerful or worshipped. As far as I could tell, the Bible doesn't deny the existence of other supernatural entities, or that they could be powerful from a human perspective, but it does not refer to them as having a truly divine nature. God is, in substance and quality, of a holy and unique character that no other being or object shares. I wish I was a bit better at words so I could articulate my meaning better, but I hope I'm getting the idea across.
