Psalm 139:7 and Latter-day Saint Theology

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I fell from Your presence? (Psa 139:7, NASB)

Some critics have appealed to this verse as evidence against God being embodied. This is problematic (and eisegetical) for a number of reasons:

Firstly, in Latter-day Saint theology, the speaker (whether directly or through agency [representing/speaking on behalf the Father]) was the premortal Jesus, who at this time was “only” a spirit and not yet received his then-future glorified, resurrected body.

Secondly, the psalmist is speaking of not being able to flee from God’s spirit. In Latter-day Saint theology God the Father (and, post-resurrection, Jesus, too) are not “only” a body; while their person is localised at one place, they are spirits who have a body, so their spiritual presence is everywhere, and God can go anywhere he wishes in an instant. This is also the theology of Jer 23:24 (see Does Jeremiah 23:24 pose problems for LDS theology?)

Thirdly, many critics of the Church who raise this argument do not realise it is just as problematic for their theology. In the Hypostatic Union, as formulated at Chalcedon in 451 AD, Jesus will remain embodied throughout all eternity. In this theology, while having two natures and two wills, he is a single person, and that person will, in his body, remain localised at one place, notwithstanding his spiritual presence being everywhere present.

LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle made the following astute observation:

Most all critics also believe, and indeed the Bible teaches, that Jesus has a body of flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39; Acts 10:40-41; John 2:19-22; 20:19-20, 24-28; Philippians 3:20-21.) A physical body occupies both time and space and, can be at only one place at any given time. Yet for the critics this does not in any way limit the omnipresence of Jesus Christ. If it does not limit him who was raised from the dead with a body, why should it limit the Father were he also to have some kind of a physical body in such a manner, according to LDS beliefs? If the Father is limited by the bounds of corporeality, the Son similarly also must be limited. But then there are those pesky doctrines of the Mystery of the Hypostatic Union and of the Consubstantiality of the Trinity! They cannot have it both ways and still be theologically consistent.

Interestingly enough, Paul explains at Ephesians 4:9-10 how Jesus first descended to the lower parts of the earth and then ascended far above all heavens ινα πληρωση τα παντα, “so that he might fill all things.” The word ινα is what is called in Greek grammar a subordinating conjunction, expressing purpose. The word πληρωση is a verbal form that is in the subjunctive mood, and, with the subordinating conjunction ινα, it expresses an indefinite and dependent statement. In other words, these two words form a subordinate clause that actually states the reason that Jesus descended and ascended—so that, or, in order that he might fill all things—showing that the action (the filling of all things) therefore is dependent upon both his previous actions of descending and ascending. What Paul said, to be to the point, is that Jesus could not fill all things unless he first descends to the lowest parts of the earth and then ascends above the highest heaven. Jesus also makes passing reference to the shape/form of God that his detractors had not seen (John 5:37).

These scriptures are hardly conducive to the position of the Evangelicals on the subject of omnipresence. But in LDS belief, God the Father, although possessing a body—and thus being in but one place at any given time—is omnipresent and in metaphysical touch with all things through the influence of his Spirit. The Spirit (or spiritual light) which radiates from him is just as much as part of him as his physical body. Hence, in a very real sense, he is omnipresent and fills all things. Said the Psalmist: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” (See Psalms 139:7 [1-16]).

The Lord Jesus Christ, in Latter-day Revelation speaking in detail of the light of Christ, explains that this light:

proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:12-13 [see also the fuller context of verses 4-13). (D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented) [CreateSpace, 2018], 277-78)

For more on this issue, including an exegesis of John 4:24 and Gen 1:26, see:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

The Post-Tridentine Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences and the "Papal/Last Blessing"

I have discussed the continuing practice of indulgences in Catholicism a few times on this blog, including The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences. Needless to say, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) did not get rid of indulgences. Furthermore, the recent catechism has a number of paragraphs dedicated to indulgences, speaking positively about them and their efficacy (click here).

The Jesuit theologian and priest, F.M. De Zulueta, wrote the following about the “Last Blessing” or “Papal Blessing” which confers a Plenary (“full”) Indulgence at the hour of a faithful Catholic’s death, showing again that Indulgences were, and are still today, alive and well in Post-Tridentine Catholicism:

The Papal Blessing—Obsequies—Burial

The ‘Last Blessing,’ or ‘Papal Blessing,’ conferring a Plenary Indulgence at the hour of death on certain conditions, is a mark of the paternal solicitude of Christ’s Vicar on earth for his dying children. The blessing comes from the Pope, who deputes the Bishops to communicate it, and these, in turn, sub-depute their priests to deliver it.

As Catholics are aware, there are also Plenary Indulgences for the hour of death attached to various devout practices and to the use of certain devotional objects—e.g., to Confraternities, Scapulars, Crucifixes blessed for this purpose, Rosaries blessed with the Apostolic Indulgences, etc. But these Plenary Indulgences differ from the one belonging to the Last Blessing in this—that they can be gained by the sick person without the presence or ministration of any priest. In this way they have the advantage of being obtainable y one dying very suddenly before a priest can be procured.

The Last Blessing is said to be conferred in articulo mortis—i.e., at the very point of death. But this expression refers to the moment when the Indulgence takes effect (for the remission of temporal punishment due to sin), and not necessarily to the time when the blessing is given by the priest. There is no need to wait till death is imminent in order to impart it. It can be given as soon as it is lawful to administer the Last Sacraments, and it is conferred after these. Should the patient survive many weeks after receiving the Blessing, the Plenary Indulgence is able to remit the debts of temporal punishment accumulated since the priest administered the rite, as well as those incurred previous to that administration during a lifetime.

The Last Blessing is imparted only once in the same illness, although the cessation and recurrence of danger during its course may have justified a repetition of Extreme Unction. It is still given but once in the same illness, albeit the invalid have a right to a Plenary Indulgence for death on several distinct titles, such as those just mentioned.

Certain conditions are attached: (1) The sick person must accept death willingly from the hand of God, which, according to Benedict XIV., is the main condition. Acts of sorrow for sin, fervent acts of the love of God, are recommended by some authors in order to make the Plenary Indulgence more secure. (2) The Holy Name ‘Jesus’ must be invoked once—in the heart, at least, if articulation be impossible.

Moreover, according to the terms in which the faculty for imparting the Blessing is nowadays usually couched, previous reception of the Sacraments of Penance, Viaticum, and Extreme Unction would seem to be required—that is to say, when the circumstances of the case admit of this.

This Papal Blessing and Indulgence may be obtained also in another way. By a grant, dated March 9, 1904, Pius X. has extended to all the faithful a valuable privilege, by which any person may gain once, but at any time during life, the Plenary Indulgence for the moment of death. The conditions are that he receive Holy Communion on any day he may choose, and then recite the following Act of Resignation in the dispositions which it expresses: ‘O Lord my God, whatever manner of death is pleasing to Thee, with all its anguish, pains, and sorrows, I now accept from Thy hands with a resigned and willing spirit.

Thus, one may choose some favourable opportunity, when in exceptionally good dispositions—e.g., at the close of a Mission or Retreat—for performing this Acts after Communion, and so make more sure of receiving the full benefit of the Indulgence when the moment of death arrives.

It will be noticed that there is no mention in this grant of the second condition given above—the invocation of the Holy Name of Jesus.

N.B.—The prayers ‘For those in their agony’ may be said by anyone. (F.M. De Zulueta, Letters on Christian Doctrine (Second Series), Part II, Volume III [5th ed.; London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd, 1921], 34-36)

For more, see:

William Cogan on the Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences

The Catholic Doctrine of Indulgences and Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

Debate: Peter Williams (Catholic) vs. James White (Reformed Baptist) Do Indulgences Deny the Gospel?

F.M. De Zulueta on Holy Oil in Extreme Unction Mirroring LDS Regulations about Consecrating Oil

While reading a book by a Jesuit priest, F.M. De Zulueta, I came across the following discussion of the Holy Oil to be used in extreme unction (Last Rites), and the strict rules concerning such. One was reminded of the various rules and regulations about the nature of the oil and how to properly bless such in the Latter-day Saint tradition as such would be a sacred substance and no longer common or “profane,” serving an important, sacred purpose:

The ‘Holy Oil.—For validly anointing, the oil of the sick must be olive oil, and, moreover (in the Latin rite), be consecrated by a Bishop. For lawful anointing, it must have been consecrated by the Bishop of the diocese, or, if the see be vacant, by the neighbouring Bishop. The view that a priest can consecrate the oil, besides having been censured by Pope Paul V. as ‘rash’ and ‘bordering upon error,’ has been expressly disallowed in an answer of the Holy Office, May 15, 1878: ‘Oil by a priest is useless matter for administering the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, and cannot be employed even in a case of extreme necessity.’ This decision, of course, supposes that the priest has no faculty to bless holy oil from the Holy See. For the Sovereign Pontiff can give this power. Then, in the (Catholic) Greek Church, priests give the Last Unction with oil blessed by themselves. It is not certain that some other kind of duly consecrated oil—e.g., ‘oil of catechumens,’ would not serve. Consequently, it may lawfully be used in a sudden emergency—at all events, ‘conditionally.’

Though old holy oil is valid, for lawfulness (except in case of necessity) the oil must be new—i.e., have been consecrated in the current ecclesiastical year: that is to say, on the previous Maundy Thursday. (F.M. De Zulueta, Letters on Christian Doctrine (Second Series), Part II, Volume III [5th ed.; London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd, 1921], 19)

 For a book-length treatment of sacred oil in various traditions, see:

The Oil of Gladness: Anointing in the Christian Tradition, eds. Martin Dudley and Geoffrey Rowell (Liturgical Press, 1993)

Richard Horsley, "The Recent Mistranslation of Sickness and Healing as Disease and Cure"

In a rather insightful book on “magic” and “miracles” in the time of Jesus (and was endorsed by Craig Keener, who is an excellent scholar on the NT and “miracles”), Richard Horsley wrote the following about how the NRSV (and otherwise excellent translation) and other modern translations using “disease” and “cure” instead of the more correct “sickness” and “healing” in light of the Sitz im Leben of the NT;

The Recent Mistranslation of Sickness and Healing as Disease and Cure

A mark of the narrowness of New Testament studies and of the modern scientific mentality that generated and reinforces the concept of miracle in the NRSV translation of the key Greek terms for sickness and healing (esp. nosos and therapeuein) as “disease” and “cure” (e.g., in Mark 1:34; 3:2, 10; 6:5, 13). The RSV (1946) still translated therapeuein with “heal.” But the same translation committee that, with more critical awareness of the social-political history of Roman Palestine, changed the “robbers” or “thieves” crucified with Jesus to “(social) bandits” narrowed Jesus’s healing to curing. Presumably they were influenced by what had happened in the ethos of health care in North America and elsewhere in the course of the twentieth century. Scientific biomedicine, having won the struggle against other forms of healing, had come to dominate health care and the health care industry.

Language usage in reference to sickness and healing came to correspond to the dominance of biomedicine. Under the influence of scientific medicine disease became a or the standard term for a bodily disorder or dysfunction in a human (or animal or plant) that produces specific symptoms or signs or effects at a specific location of the body (usually not a result of injury). One of the great reasons for the success of scientific medicine was its growing ability to diagnose a specific cause for a specific disease, such as a bacterium or a virus. Perhaps the most common corresponding term became cure, as medical doctors and scientists discovered drugs and treatments for all manner of diseases. Meanwhile, the concepts of sickness and healing retained some of their traditional broader meaning. Sickness could still include feelings, emotional response, and social extension (as in the phrase “I am feeling sick/ill”). And healing retained the broader sense of making health, sound, or whole (again).

Ironically, the NRSV translation committee shifted from the word heal to the word cure at just about the same time that many in the medical profession, along with medical anthropologists increasingly aware of different modes of healing, became concerned that sickness involved more than disease (bodily or organ disorder or dysfunction) and that healing involved more than biomedical diagnosis and medical intervention. In fact, medical anthropologists and some medical practitioners began using just these set of terms in attempts to gain leverage on the narrowness of the very biomedicine they practiced. They began using “sickness” or “illness” to include or refer to personal and social dimensions that often accompanied “disease” (biological dysfunction), and “healing” for the therapy addressed to the personal and social dimensions as distinguished from or inclusive of the curse of the disease.

In contrast to the NRSV translation, the discussions of Jesus’s response to the lame, blind, deaf, or haemorrhaging people who came to him will translate nosos with “sickness” and therapeuein with “heal.” Insofar as “disease” and “cure” are so closely associated with biomedicine, which did not come to prominence until the last century, those terms seem singularly inappropriate for Jesus, who could not have known about them. Some of the sickness he healed may have involved what today might be diagnosed as a disease. (Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Magic: Freeing the Gospel Stores from Modern Misconceptions [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2014], 31-32)

"Citation Needed"

Recently, a LDS apologetics group has published 3 parts of a 5-part series attacking 19^th century anti-Mormons and portraying them as sex-craved perverts. Amazingly, this group has not provided a single source so far to substantiate their claims, and in spite of being called up on it by critics, this group continues to dismiss such calls for references, with even the editor of the Website stating that if they are bothered by this procedure, they should be bothered by the New York Times and other publications from doing the same (though this is a false comparison as the NY Times et al do link to sources and provide source when the claims they make are sensational and inflammatory).

Oh, wait, no, it is not a Mormon apologetics organisation that has been doing this; it is the Utah Bee and their discussion of 19th century LDS, not anti-Mormons.. Who cares now . . . . 

Knowledge of the then-future Gentile Inclusion into God's Covenant People in "Proto-Isaiah"

Some critics have made the claim that the Book of Mormon’s knowledge of Gentile inclusion into then-future New Covenant is anachronistic, as, based on their (eisegetical) reading of texts such as Eph 3:3-7 argue that it was not until Christ’s time that such was made known. I refuted this claim in my article:

The Book of Mormon's Knowledge of Gentile Inclusion in the New Covenant: Does it Contradict the Bible?

In a book-length discussion of Old Testament authors and their knowledge of Gentile inclusion into God’s people, we read the following about so-called “Proto-Isaiah” (chs. 1-39):

THE PROPHET ISAIAH

“All the nations will flock to Jerusalem.”

Apart from the words of the promise made to the first of the patriarchs, we have so far seen only the faint stirrings of universalism and a missionary outlook associated with the advent of the new covenant and the proclamation of the gospel. Is this still true of Isaiah, who also prophesied in the eighth century, but in Judah, especially in the reign of the first reformer king, Hezekiah?

As we read the book of this prophet, we are made aware that the book of Isaiah includes the work of Isaiah himself and al that of his disciples. It is not always easy to be certain which are the genuine words of the prophet Isaiah, of the time of Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah in the second half of the eighth century B.C. Apart from slight comments from the redactor, the following chapters are normally attributed to him: Isaiah 1:1-11:9; 14:24-23:18; 28:1-32:30. Yet even among these passages, oracles composed by his disciples may have been inserted; this is probably true of Isaiah 19:18-25, which you will find quoted later on. It is also much disputed whether the authorship of 18:7 can be attributed to the prophet of the eighth century B.C. Anyway, the first question whether this or that oracle is the work of Isaiah or of one of his disciples in no way affects the fact of their inspiration. In point of act we shall deal here with the first thirty-nine chapters of the book of Isaiah, except for the two apocalypses (Is 24-27; 34-35), which are probably postexilic.

In insisting that faith in Yahweh is the only hope of Israel’s earthly salvation (Is 7:9; 28:16; 30:15), Isaiah prepares the way for the later doctrine of justification by faith as taught by St. Paul. The latter with good reason is in his epistle to the Romans quotes and comments on this oracle from Isaiah:

See, I am laying a stone in Zion,
a stone that has been tested,
A precious cornerstone as a sure foundation;
he who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken.
(Is 28:16; cf. Rom 9:33; 10:11)

Several oracles in the first part of the book of Isaiah proclaim more clearly and in magnificent imagery the salvation of all nations. Yet it is often disputed whether these passages can be attributed to the prophet of the eighth century himself. I is difficult to give them an exact date as the variety of opinion spans several centuries.

The oracle of Isaiah 2:2-4, which is also found in Micah (Mic 4:1-3) describes in magnificent terms the conversion of the gentiles and the universal reign of Yahweh. We must notice however that this universalism is not a missionary kind but that it is “centralizing” in so far as it draws all to Jerusalem and her law:

In days to come,
The mountain of Yahweh’s house
shall be established as the highest mountain
and raised above the hills.
All nations shall stream toward it;
many peoples shall come and say:
“Come, let us climb Yahweh’s mountain,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
That he may instruct us in his ways,
and we may walk in this paths.”
For from Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and impose terms on many peoples.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks (Is 2:2-4).

Fundamentally, the prophet’s thoughts run on the hope of a glory comparable to that of the great days of David and Solomon.

Peace and unity here restored carry us back beyond discord and war to the idyllic days in Eden. It is not surprising that the messianic description in Chapter 11 takes us to a second earthly paradise, where universal peace includes the animals as well:

Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
The calf and the young lion shall browse together,
with a little child to guide them . . .
the lion shall eat hay like the ox.
the baby shall play by the cobra’s den,
and the child lay his hand on the adder’s lair. (Is 11:6-8)

There is still a centralising tendency in the universalism of the prophecy of the conversion of the Ethiopians, the distant inhabitants of the land of Kush:

Then will gifts be brought to Yahweh of hosts from a people tall and bronzed from a people dreaded near and far, a nation strong and conquering, whose land is washed by rivers—to Mount Zion where dwells the name of Yahweh of hosts (Is 18:7).

The conversion of Egypt is described in similar terms, though on a deeper level. This magnificent fresco shows that land receiving the blessings of Yahweh, after its people have become his people. The centralising tendency makes them even adopt the same language:

On that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing by Yahweh of hosts; one shall be called “City of the Sun.” On that day there shall be an altar to Yahweh in the land of Egypt, and a sacred pillar to Yahweh near the boundary. I shall be a sign and a witness to Yahweh of hosts in the land of Egypt, when they cry out to Yahweh against their oppressors, and he sends them a saviour to defend, and deliver them. Yahweh shall make himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know Yahweh in that day; they shall offer sacrifices and oblations, and fulfill the vows they make to Yahweh. Although Yahweh shall smite Egypt severely, he shall heal them; they shall turn to Yahweh and he shall be won over and heal them. On that day there shall be a highway from Egypt to Assyria; the Assyrians shall enter Egypt, and the Egyptians enter Assyria, and Egypt shall serve Assyria. On that day Israel shall be a third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land, when Yahweh of hosts blesses it: “Blessed be my people Egypt, and the work of my hands Assyria, and my inheritance, Israel” (Is 19:18-25) (In fact, at the end of the seventh century, a Jewish military colony, stationed in Upper Egypt, had its own temple dedicated to Yahweh, not far from present day Aswan, in the island of Elephantine).

It was in this way that the promises made to Abraham was realised (Gen 12:2). This passage, which promises the heathen the knowledge of Yahweh and his blessings, on the same terms of Israel, is beyond all question one of the peaks of the revelation of universalism. Even if these oracles are not by Isaiah himself, it is noteworthy that they are the work of prophets of his school. (A. Rétif and P. Lamarche, The Salvation of the Gentiles and the Prophets [The Living Word Series 4; Dublin: Helicon, 1966], 51-55

Ezekiel 26 and the Prophecy about the destruction of Tyre

I have discussed the contingent nature of biblical prophecies and promises, even those without explicit contingencies, a few times on this blog and elsewhere, including:

 An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

 A few years ago, James Stutz and I helped Stephen Smoot research a paper in response to The Bible vs. Joseph Smith that went into some detail, too, about the contingent nature of biblical predictions:

Joel Kramer vs. The Bible and Joseph Smith

A classical text for such is Ezek 26 and the promised (but failed) destruction of Tyre. Recently, Dr  Joshua Bowen has posted a youtube video interacting with, and critiquing an attempted response by a popular (and very errant) Evangelical Protestant apologist on this issue:

Ezekiel's Failed Tyre Prophecy (Ezekiel 26) - Reviewing the Evidence

The Book of Abraham, Revelation, and You

In the December 2018 issue of The Ensign, Kerry Muhlestein, an LDS Egyptologist with a PhD from UCLA, has an important article on the Book of Abraham and related issues:

The Book of Abraham, Revelation, and You

Answering Carl L. George on "Seraphims" and the use of the KJV in the Book of Mormon

In one of the most poorly researched books on the Book of Mormon I have ever read (and that says a lot), a Baptist critic of the Church wrote:

[B]oth the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible originally contained an unusual mistake. The King James scholar used the word “seraphims” for a plural Hebrew word for angels when they translated Isaiah 6:2-6. Unfortunately, the correct plural for the word “seraph” is “seraphim,” not “seraphims.” There was no such word as “seraphims.” When the Book of Mormon passage, which is now 2 Nephi16:2-6, was originally translated and published, it was identical to Isaiah 6:2-6, including the grammatical mistake. The “seraphims” in II Nephi changed to “seraphim” in later editions of the Book of Mormon. If God quoted Isaiah as He revealed 2 Nephi 16:2-6 to Joseph Smith then He was obviously so satisfied with the original translation of the King James scholars that He left the passage unchanged. (Carl L. George, Thank You for the Book of Mormon: A Christian Friend’s Response [2007], 63)

George is simply wrong in his assessment here. With respect to the 1830 Book of Mormon using “seraphims” (as well as cherubims). It is true that the Hebrew masculine plural ים is properly transliterated –im, and not –ims. It is also correct that the 1830 Book of Mormon (as well as the Original and Printer’s Manuscripts) follow the KJV in this regard when the OT is being quoted by BOM authors. Furthermore, it is true that the KJV adds an “s” to the plural of cherub and seraph in those passages (and many more [see below]). However, notice an important question is begged: why did the KJV translators who knew Hebrew consistently add an “s” to the plurals for cherub and seraph? The truth is, the nouns cherub and seraph were part of the English language when the KJV translators produced the KJV. It is common for a foreign word, when it is adopted into the English language, to take on English rules of grammar (in such an instance, the use of an “s” in a plural). The rather obvious fact (lost on many critics) is that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation (and not a transliteration); it stands to reason that the language into which the Book of Mormon was rendered by Joseph Smith is not that from which, according to its very own claims, it was translated.

Consider, for instance, Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Under the entries for both “cherub” and “seraph,” it presents the plural of these nouns as “cherubs” and “seraphs.” While not a perfect match to the KJV and the Book of Mormon, it does prove my point on this particular issue.

In a note for this paragraph, we read:

Some argue that 2 Nephi 16:2-6 simply needed to be corrected because Joseph Smith’s scribe made a mistake. If so, Smith’s scribe made the same obscure mistake King James’ scholars did 200 years before. (Ibid., 64 n. 29)

The author is simply wrong. Firstly, the use of –ims to transliterate the Hebrew masculine plural as opposed to –im is found many times in the KJV. With respect to seraphims and cherubims, we find the following in the KJV (taken from a search on Bibleworks 10):

KJV Gen. 3:24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

KJV Exod. 25:18  And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

KJV Exod. 25:19  And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

KJV Exod. 25:20  And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

KJV Exod. 25:22  And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

KJV Exod. 26:1  Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.

KJV Exod. 26:31  And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made:

KJV Exod. 36:8  And every wise hearted man among them that wrought the work of the tabernacle made ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work made he them.

KJV Exod. 36:35  And he made a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubims made he it of cunning work.

KJV Exod. 37:7  And he made two cherubims of gold, beaten out of one piece made he them, on the two ends of the mercy seat;

KJV Exod. 37:8  One cherub on the end on this side, and another cherub on the other end on that side: out of the mercy seat made he the cherubims on the two ends thereof.

KJV Exod. 37:9  And the cherubims spread out their wings on high, and covered with their wings over the mercy seat, with their faces one to another; even to the mercy seatward were the faces of the cherubims.

KJV Num. 7:89  And when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with him, then he heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubims: and he spake unto him.

KJV 1 Sam. 4:4  So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims: and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.

KJV 2 Sam. 6:2  And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:23  And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:25  And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:27  And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:28  And he overlaid the cherubims with gold.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:29  And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:32  The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees.

KJV 1 Ki. 6:35  And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered them with gold fitted upon the carved work.

KJV 1 Ki. 7:29  And on the borders that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubims: and upon the ledges there was a base above: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions made of thin work.

KJV 1 Ki. 7:36  For on the plates of the ledges thereof, and on the borders thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm trees, according to the proportion of every one, and additions round about.

KJV 1 Ki. 8:6  And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims.

KJV 1 Ki. 8:7  For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above.

KJV 2 Ki. 19:15  And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

KJV 1 Chr. 13:6  And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth between the cherubims, whose name is called on it.

KJV 1 Chr. 28:18  And for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the LORD.

KJV 2 Chr. 3:7  He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls.

KJV 2 Chr. 3:10  And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold.

KJV 2 Chr. 3:11  And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long: one wing of the one cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub.

KJV 2 Chr. 3:13  The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits: and they stood on their feet, and their faces were inward.

KJV 2 Chr. 3:14  And he made the vail of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.

KJV 2 Chr. 5:7  And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, to the oracle of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims:

KJV 2 Chr. 5:8  For the cherubims spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered the ark and the staves thereof above.

KJV Ps. 80:1  <To the chief Musician upon Shoshannimeduth, A Psalm of Asaph.> Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.

KJV Ps. 99:1  The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.

KJV Isa. 6:2  Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

KJV Isa. 6:6  Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:

KJV Isa. 37:16  O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.

KJV Ezek. 10:1  Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

KJV Ezek. 10:2  And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubims, and scatter them over the city. And he went in in my sight.

KJV Ezek. 10:3  Now the cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled the inner court.

KJV Ezek. 10:6  And it came to pass, that when he had commanded the man clothed with linen, saying, Take fire from between the wheels, from between the cherubims; then he went in, and stood beside the wheels.

KJV Ezek. 10:7  And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen: who took it, and went out.

KJV Ezek. 10:8  And there appeared in the cherubims the form of a man's hand under their wings.

KJV Ezek. 10:9  And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubims, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the colour of a beryl stone.

KJV Ezek. 10:15  And the cherubims were lifted up. This is the living creature that I saw by the river of Chebar.

KJV Ezek. 10:16  And when the cherubims went, the wheels went by them: and when the cherubims lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the same wheels also turned not from beside them.

KJV Ezek. 10:18  Then the glory of the LORD departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubims.

KJV Ezek. 10:19  And the cherubims lifted up their wings, and mounted up from the earth in my sight: when they went out, the wheels also were beside them, and every one stood at the door of the east gate of the LORD'S house; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.

KJV Ezek. 10:20  This is the living creature that I saw under the God of Israel by the river of Chebar; and I knew that they were the cherubims.

KJV Ezek. 11:22  Then did the cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.

KJV Ezek. 41:18  And it was made with cherubims and palm trees, so that a palm tree was between a cherub and a cherub; and every cherub had two faces;

KJV Ezek. 41:20  From the ground unto above the door were cherubims and palm trees made, and on the wall of the temple.

KJV Ezek. 41:25  And there were made on them, on the doors of the temple, cherubims and palm trees, like as were made upon the walls; and there were thick planks upon the face of the porch without.

KJV Heb. 9:5  And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

66 instances in 58 verses is not "rare."

Furthermore, in literature pre-dating 1830, seraphims was common, not rate, and was seen as a correct/real noun:

Let the bright Seraphims in burning row . . . (George Frideric Handel, Let the Bright Seraphims: As Sung by Madame Storace in Samson, p. 103)

Little children which represent the seraphims . . . (Encyclopædia Britannica: Or, A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Miscellaneous Literature, Volume 2, Part 2, p. 796)

Christ leads the Way, the Cherubims attend, the Seraphims burn . . . . that the Lord of heaven should deny the Dignity of Power, Principalities, Cherubims, Seraphims . . . . Lo, here a blessed Company indeed, there are the heavenly Choristers eternally singing Jehovah's Praise: The Seraphims cry aloud, Holy, holy, holy . . . . (A. Ingram, J. Dechman, J. Hamilton, & J. Glasford, Complete Works Isaac Ambrose [1737], 89, 118, 154)

Nor shall we offend to enlarge this meditation further, to conceive as some of the fathers did, that as the angels fell from several hierarchies, some from being seraphims, some cherubims . . . . (Methodist Review, vol. 7 [1824], p. 365)

If you would know to what end they had these wings or what use they made of them, the Prophet Esay tells you in the practice of the Seraphims, that it was from these three special ends . . . .(Griffith Williams, Several Sermons on Solemn Occasions, and Treatises, vol. 4 [1663], p. 39)

A painter being employed to represent some cherubims and seraphims, in a country church . . . (H.D. Symmonds, The Monthly Visitor, and Entertaining Pocket Companion, volume 6 [1799], p. 343)

Asham'd that our world, now, can show
Nests of new seraphims here below. (The Works of the English Poets from Chaucer to Cowper [1810], p. 597)

We cannot therefore say, as some boldy do, that these Seraphims were a peculiar order of Angels, the highest and nearest to God of all; for though it may be probably gathered from some other places of Scripture, that there is some order amongst the Angels; yet this word Seraphims setting forth the nature, qualities, and imployments of the Angels in general, it cannot be concluded from hence that the Seraphims were an order of Angels . . . (Annotations Upon the Whole Book of Isaiah, ed. J. Jackson [1682], p. 59)

 Finally, on the topic of the Book of Mormon following the King James when the Book of Mormon prophets quote from the Bible, the author writes the following:

If God, on the other hand, cared enough to insert King James’ passages like this one into the Nephite record, it logically follows that He cared enough to inspire and translate the entire King James Bible. (p. 64)

This is honestly one of the most illogical and dumbest “arguments” I have ever heard from an anti-Mormon author, and that says a lot. For the author, if the translation of the Book of Mormon follows the KJV, the KJV must be as inspired as the Book of Mormon. The author, a Baptist, if he were consistent, must claim that, as the NT follows the LXX, ipso facto, the LXX must be inspired, too, which is absurd.

Indeed, the Greek of the New Testament not only follows the LXX when the LXX disagrees with the Hebrew but often times makes theological points where the LXX and Hebrew disagrees!

In Heb 8:8-10, we read:

God finds fault with them when he says: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them out on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (NRSV)

When Heb 8:9 quotes from Jer 31:32, the Hebrew does not use "no concern" (Greek: αμελεω [to neglect/to be unconcerned]) which the author of Hebrews attaches theological importance to, but בּעל (lord, husband). “Disdain” in Hebrew is a similar-looking term געל, perhaps the source of the difference between the MT and LXX readings.

Using George's "logic," and if he were to be consistent, he would have to conclude thusly:

If God, on the other hand, cared enough to insert LXX passages like this one into the New Testament record, it logically follows that He cared enough to inspire and translate the entire LXX.

For scholarly treatments of the Book of Mormon, instead of this drivel, I would suggest one peruse the Book of Mormon Central Website and/or solid books such as Brant Gardner's solid 6-volume commentary, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books, 2007).

Answering "Modern Reformation" on Forensic Justification and Imputation

While reading a Reformed defense of sola fide (Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification, eds. Ryan Glomsrud and Michael S. Horton [Modern Reformation, 2010]) one was struck again by how Reformed apologists use as “proof” passages and linguistic issues that have long been refuted and shown to represent eisegesis by Calvinists, showing that they are either ignorant and/or deceptive in their abuse of such.

For instance, the book, in the page before the table of contents and in the back quotes Luke 18:9-14 and the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector as if it teaches Reformed theology. It does not—in fact, it soundly refutes the reflexive nature of faith Luther et al preached! On this, see:

Does the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) Support Sola Fide? (cf. Paul Hacker on Luther, faith, and the reception of forgiveness)

Elsewhere, 2 Cor 5:21, the meaning of λογιζομαι, and Gen 15:6 are abused to support the Reformed understanding of justification:

Fortunately, many evangelicals have ably defended the doctrine of imputation, the great double exchange whereby our sins are reckoned to Christ on the cross and his righteousness is accounted to us that we might have life (2 Cor. 5:21). (Ryan Glomsrud, “Getting Perspective,” p. 6)

Following Calvin (Comm. 2 Cor 5.21), Turretin observed that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us in the same sense as our sin was imputed to him: “Christ was made sin for us, not inherently or subjectively (because he knew no sin), but imputatively (because God imputed to him our sins and made the iniquities of us all to meet on him, Isa 53:6). Therefore, we are also made righteousness, not by infusion, but by imputation” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2.652) (George Hunsinger, “An American Tragedy: Jonathan Edwards on Justification,” p. 54)

There is no mistaking the parallel between Christ’s obedience, which is righteousness, and the imputation of this righteousness to the believer. Commenting on the abiding significance of Genesis 15:6 and the imputation of righteousness, Paul writes: “That is why his faith was ‘counted to him as righteousness.’ But the words ‘it was counted to him’ were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 4:22-24). Note that there the English Standard Version translates the Greek word logizomai as “counted,” which the King James Version translates as “imputed.” Here Paul taps into the ancient stream of the special revelation of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, to argue for the imputed righteousness of Christ, and arguably also has other passages such as Isaiah 53 in mind when writing of these things: “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11; cf. “ Cor. 5:19-21). (John V. Fesko, “A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ,” p. 82)

For a refutation of the Reformed understanding of 2 Cor 5:21 and Gen 15:6 (and other like-texts), see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness 

For a full refutation of the Reformed understanding of λογιζομαι, apart from the exegesis of Gen 15:6 in the previous article, see my 7-part Λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament series:

Part 1 (LXX Apocrypha)

Part 2 (Greek Pseudepigrapha)

Part 3 (Apostolic Fathers)

Part 4 (Josephus)

Part 5 (Philo)

Part 6 (Modern Lexical Sources)

Part 7 (Summary)

cf. HALOT and BDB on חשׁב

For a refutation of many of the theological presuppositions underlying the Reformed/Calvinistic theology of the authors, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

While at first Protestant appeals to the Bible to support their errant theology might seem impressive at first, if one delves deeper into the relevant texts, one will see that such apologists rely upon eisegesis, not sound exegesis, to support their aberrant theology.