Scott C. Esplin on the reception history of D&C 87

The following is a paper by Dr. Scott C. Esplin, "Have We Not Had a Prophet Among Us?": Joseph Smith's "Civil War" Prophecy

Robust Deification and 2 Peter 1:4

Commenting on the doctrine of theosis (AKA: apotheosis; divinization; deification), Latter-day Saint scholar Blake Ostler wrote the following about the possible views available to a theology of deification:

1.     Absolute Deification. We can be identical to God.

2.     Robust Deification: We become the same kind of being as God.

3.     Moderate Deification: We become like God in the sense that, although there are ontological differences that cannot be bridged, these differences can nevertheless be blurred by sharing the divine energies.

4.     Weak deification: We become something remotely like God in an analogical sense, but there is a vast difference that can never be bridged.

5.     Adeification: We cannot be anything like God at all.[1]

In 2 Pet 1:4, we read the following (emphasis added):

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Commenting on this text from the perspective of Robust Deification, Ostler writes:

Just what does it mean to say that we partake or share in the divine nature? First, it must be noted that the term for “nature” (φύσεως phuseos), is used throughout the New Testament and has a semantic range that largely coincides with the English meaning of “nature.” It refers to the nature of things as fixed by law or natural order established by God. It refers to the order of things established by the Logos or reason. Thus, it is in the scope of the semantic range to interpret it to refer to participating in the very nature of God in the sense that we can partake of the same order of things which includes God. For example, Galatians 4:8 states, “Ye knew not God, ye did service to them which by nature (φυσει, phusei) are not gods.” Here, “nature” quite clearly means “to [not] be the same kind” as God. When Paul speaks of women “acting against their nature” (φυσιν, phusin) in Romans 1:26 he obviously means that they act against the kind of being that they are and contrary to the natural order that defines their kind. In Galatians 2:15, Paul speaks of those who “are Jews by nature” (φυσει, phusei) meaning that they are Jews by birth. Thus, it is quite appropriate to interpret this statement to mean that humans are the same natural kind as God in the sense that they are the same kind of being. They both belong to the kind “divine.” Such a reading supports the robust deification view.

However, it is not unusual to participate in or share a nature in the sense of κοινωνοι (koinonoi) because it means to be a partner in sharing or to share fellowship. Quite clearly, the sense of the passage is that the divine nature if something we share that has been imparted or given from God to humans. We share the divine nature in the sense that a gift is shared as a matter of grace from God. The sense most likely is that God shares what he is with us and that we participate in his nature because it dwells in us and changes our nature to be what he is . . . The believer in robust deification will most likely take “divine nature” in its stronger sense to mean that God shares his life with us; and in so doing, we become the same kind that God is in a familial sense. If the Stoic meaning of “nature” is the correct context to interpret this scripture, then such a reading is further supported. In other words, the proponent of robust theism will take “nature” to mean that we have all the essential properties to be the same kind of being that god is when actualized in a relationship of loving, living, vibrant, indwelling unity. This divine nature is by its very nature a “participated likeness,” as Aquinas calls it, because it is not possible to possess it alone or as a matter of merely intrinsic properties. The divine life grows and flourishes only in the context of loving and growing relationships with others. It cannot be possessed alone or merely by virtue of whatever “nature” one has as an individual. The divine nature is necessarily relational.[2]

Notes for the Above:

[1] Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books,) 360. Ostler correctly argues that LDS theology teaches Robust Deification.

[2] Ibid., 392-93, 395

Refutations of Jeff Durbin and Apologia Radio

Here is a listing of blog posts I have written against Jeff Durbin and Apologia Radio, refuting their misinformation about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other issues:

Does Genesis 19:24 support the Trinity?

Does Mark 7/Matthew 15 support Sola Scriptura?

Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement

Initial Thoughts on the White/Durbin "Response"

Answering an objection about the Patristics and the Trinity (cf. Responding to a critic on Tertullian's Christology)

James White and Jeff Durbin "respond"

Jesus' interpretation of the Shema was NOT Trinitarian

Apologia Radio on Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saint Theology

Jeff Durbin on Luke 7:35, James 2, and Justification

Note on Hebrews 6:4

I have discussed various passages that show that a truly justified individual can and indeed has lost their salvation (e.g., King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology and this exegesis of Heb 6:4-9). One critic of Reformed theology wrote the following about Heb 6:4 (“For it is impossible to those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly git, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost"):

In Hb 6:4, the word “impossible” is the Greek αδύνατον, a combination of the prefix “α” and the root “δυναμις,” literally meaning “without power.” It is the normal word for “impossible” in the New Testament (cf. Mt 19:26; Rm 8:3). It is used again in Hebrews 6:18, stating “it is impossible for God to lie,” and it is used for the same degree of “impossibility” in Hebrews 10:4 and 11:6. Hence, the word has a very specific meaning. Moreover, the companion passages of Hb 10:26-27 and 12:17 speak of the same type of “deliberate” sinning, which will soon end in God’s judgment, and thus salvation is “impossible.”

Two key verses in Hebrews 6 show the direction of St. Paul’s thought. The first is Hb 6:3: “And this we will do if indeed God permits.” It is clear that God is in control of the process of teaching and growth. Following this, 6:4 begins with “For it is impossible,” indicating by the word “for” that God must permit the learning and the subsequent repentance if anything is going to occur (compare 1Co 3:6’s use of planting imagery to show that “God gives the increase,” with the planting imagery of Hb 6:7-8 to show the result of what “God permits”). Hence, it is “impossible” for the apostate to repent, especially when it involves willful and deliberate rejection of the truth (cf. Mt 12:45; Jn 6:64-65; Rm 11:8). If the apostate does repent, it is only by a special movement of God’s grace, usually due to the prayers and sacrifices of others on the apostate’s behalf (cf. Mk 9:29; Mt 17:21— Douay-Rheims, KJV). In this sense, “God permits” or does not permit. What limits His permission is the constraint not to “crucify the Son of God all over again and subject him to public disgrace” (Hb 6:6).

The second key passage is Hb 6:8, which states that the individual who rejects the faith is “reprobate and near a curse, of which the end is for burning.” The use of “near” (Greek: εγγυς) shows that the individual is on the verge of death and judgment, if not for God’s grace to spare him. All in all, Hb 6:4 teaches that it is impossible for a willful apostate to repent, unless a special grace of God permits it to be so. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 353-54)

Did Jesus ascribe the entire Torah to Moses?

That the Torah has been redacted over time is indisputable, though it is denied by some fundamentalists. Consider, for example, the following evidence which shows that the Torah has been redacted by post-Mosaic editors:

·       Gen 12:6; 13:7 were written from the perspective of someone living in a time when the Canaanites were no longer in the land.

·       The list of Edomite kings in Gen 36

·       The phrase "before there reigned any kings over the children of Israel" (Gen 36:31), indicating that the author was living at a time when kings were part of Israel's history (a note which would have been unnecessary during the time of Moses and his contemporaries)

·       The statement "No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses" in Deut 34:10

·       Reference to the "book of the wars of the Lord" (Num 21:14) as an account corroborating a geographical description (Moses would not have needed to write this to an audience contemporary with these events and the geography thereof)

·       The parenthetical note in Deut 2:20-23 is from an author later than Moses, explaining the presence of the Ammonites in the and, and why God had instructed Israel (through Moses) not to fight them.

·       Use of the place name "Dan" in Gen 14:14--this place was originally known as Laish, and was not captured by Dan until the time of the Judges.

·       The explanatory note "Kiriath Araba (that is, Hebron)" in Gen 23:2--this change of place name did not happen until the time of Joshua.

·       The use of "Bethlehem" as a place name in Gen 35:19; 48:7.

·       Repeated explanations of where certain places are, showing the reader was not going to be familiar with them (unnecessary for anyone living during Moses' or Joshua's time)--the wilderness of Zin, identified for the reader as being between Elim and Sinai (Exo 16:1; Num 33:36); Ijeabarim, identified as being near Moab (Num 21;11); Arnon, identified as the border of Moab (Num 21;13); a clarification necessary because previously it belonged to the Amorites (Judges 11:22-26); Etham, identified as being on the edge of the wilderness (Num 33:6); Jebus being identified as Jerusalem (Joshua 18:28; Judges 19:10).

·       Reference in Gen 10:12 to "the great city of Calah" which did not exist until the ninth century BC.

Did Jesus Attribute Mosaic Authorship to the Entire Torah?

In their "response" to my article, Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" James White and Jeff Durbin held that Jesus believed and taught that Moses authored the entire Torah. Consider the following texts often used by White, Walter Kaiser, and others to support this contention:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart and he wrote you this precept. (Mark 10:5)

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:46-47)

However, in these and other texts, Christ never says that the Torah was written en toto by Moses. Mark 10:5 says Moses wrote the commandment concerning divorce, and John 5:46-47, in which Christ tells His opponents that if they had believed Moses they would have believed Jesus since Moses wrote about him. However, Christ does not attribute the Torah to Moses in either passage; Christ never attributes the Pentateuch to Moses at all.

Further evidence of the redacted nature of the Torah and non-Mosaic authorship of much of the five books (Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy) would include the fact that not a single book of the Torah is written from Moses' first-person perspective; the writer of each book of the Torah refers to Moses in the third person as if someone else is the writer. Further, notwithstanding Moses' words being used in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the final versions of the books themselves we now possess were clearly not written by him. Additionally, the Bible itself describes what Moses spoke and/or wrote, demonstrating Moses was not responsible for the Pentateuch itself. This is what Moses is recorded as being responsible for.

Again, James White and others are way out in left field on this issue and other topics.

Jesus’ interpretation of the Shema was NOT Trinitarian

In a (pathetic) defense of White/Durbin’s (equally pathetic) “response” to my article Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism,” we find the following on the Apologia Radio facebook page:

In reality, I demonstrated from Mark 12:28-35 (a text Durbin partially quoted from, but never once interacted with what I actually wrote), Jesus understands the singular person of the Father is exhausted by the Shema (cf. John 17:3; 1 Tim 2:5, etc); instead, He was the second lord of Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX). Here is what I actually wrote on the Shema, including interacting with Jesus' own interpretation of Deut 6:4 and Psa 110:1 in Mark 12:28-38:

Deut 6:4

  שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד

Hear, o Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone [alt. "Yahweh is one"]

The Shema is often cited as evidence of strict monotheism. However, most modern biblical scholars agree that the Shema is not about the “number” of God, but instead, is about how Yahweh is the only God with whom Israel is to have a covenantal relationship with. A parallel would be Deut 5:7, a rendition of the Decalogue:

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. (cf. Exo 20:3 [exegeted here])

According to biblical scholars such as Michael Coogan, this commandment, and the Shema implicitly recognises the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13). As in a marriage, one of the primary analogs for the covenant, Israel was to be faithful, like a wife to her husband. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for having worshiped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous husband (e.g., Exo 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford University press, 2006], 176, 116).

As one recent scholarly commentary states:

Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)

Additionally, there has been a lot of linguistic nonsense about the Hebrew numeral אֶחָדwhich simply means one (not  “plural one” or some other nonsense one finds among some Trinitarians). This particular issue will be discussed below (cf. this article by a linguist on אֶחָד)

For those wishing to delve further into the issue of "monotheism" in the book of Deuteronomy, I would highly recommend Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism" (2d ed.: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

There is a danger, however, of Trinitarians “absolutizing” Deut 6:4 as some are wont to do, not the least is that Mark 12:28f and its parallels refute any Trinitarian reading of the Shema. In this incident with a Jewish scribe, we read the following:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he [Jesus] had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is one other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is one other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:28-34)

In the above pericope, Jesus agrees with a Jew about the Shema. What is interesting is that the Jews were never Trinitarians, in spite of a lot of fudging of biblical grammar by the likes of Natan Yoel (The Jewish Trinity) and other eisegesis-laden texts. This is an undisputed fact of history and scholarship. Furthermore, singular personal pronouns are used to describe God. Furthermore, in the proceeding text, Jesus discusses Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), where Yahweh speaks to “my Lord," and Christ identifies Himself as the second Lord, not the first:

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrines, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces.  (Mark 12:35-38; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13)

Taking the absolutist hermeneutic of many Trinitarian apologists, one must conclude that the Shema is strictly uni-personal, not Tri-personal, in scope. Of course, both theologies are undermined by other factors, not the least is that the ontological existence of plural gods in the midst of the Most High are part-and-parcel of biblical theology, even in the book of Deuteronomy itself (e.g., the earliest textual reading of Deut 32:7-9 or the fact that even modern conservative Protestant commentators are acknowledging the elohim of Psa 82 and 89 to be [true] gods).

Does אֶחָֽד allow for "compound unity"?

Durbin, with reference to the Shema (notice how the Hebrew is going the wrong way in the screen . . .) argues that God is one, and yet, in the same breath, that God (who he calls a "he" [singular person!]) exists in three separate persons. However, try as they might, the Hebrew ordinal translated as "one" does not mean "compound one" or "complex unity."

It is common for Trinitarian apologists to argue that the Hebrew term translated as “one” in Deut 6:4 (אֶחָד) can mean “compound” or “plural” “one.” This is a rather silly argument to try to read Trinitarianism into the biblical texts; akin to asking “what computer software did Paul use to write Romans?” The Hebrew term אֶחָד is an ordinal numeral, and means exactly what the English term “one” means. There is no hint of “three-in-oneness” or anything of the like.

One linguistic “trick” used to support the concept of a “plurality” within the semantic form of the ordinal is that the phrase “one bunch of grapes” somehow “proves” the ordinal can have a plural sense. However, the ordinal refers to how many bunches in question, not how many grapes—the apologist for the Trinity or other theologies is bleeding the plurality of the noun back into the ordinal (here “grapes” back into one). To think how fallacious this is, it is akin to arguing that the meaning of “one” in the locution, “one zebra” means “black and white.” "One" in any language may be used to qualify a plural or compound noun, but the meaning of "one" remains the same (one singular), linguistic tricks of less-than-informed (or honest) apologists notwithstanding.

Funnily enough, this would require that divinity/deity, as envisaged in Deut 6:4, is plural, something that is very “Mormon.” Funnily enough, Sam Shamoun, a Trinitarian apologist, argues that the "literal translation" of Deut 6:4 is, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh [is] our Gods, Yahweh is a Unity." No informed Trinitarian would ever claim there exists "Gods" as anyone who has studied the doctrine in any depth will tell you. I am tempted to say to Shamoun that he is not far from the kingdom of God as such is very close to Joseph Smith's teachings in the Sermon in the Grove (AKA Discourse on the Plurality of the Gods) . . .

Some Trinitarians appeal to Gen 2:24 as “proof” of their contention:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (אֶחָד) flesh.

There are many problems with appealing to Gen 2:24. Firstly, the “oneness” in view in this passage is not “oneness of being," but oneness of “flesh” (with the unity in view here being Adam and Eve becoming "one kin" [not "one ontological being"]). As Frank Moore Cross noted, "Oath and covenant, in which the deity is witness, guarantor, or participant, is also a widespread legal means by which the duties and privileges of kinsip may be extended to another individual or group, including aliens." (Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon, p. 8)

 Furthermore, Adam and Eve, even after these words are uttered, were consistently depicted as plural, both in grammar and concord; this is proved in Gen 3:7:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The form of the verb “to make” (Heb: עשׂה) is plural, not singular (יַּעֲשׂ֥וּ), and the later LXX translators understood it as plural, too, rendering ποιεω as ἐποίησαν, the third person plural.

The "compound one" argument if a fallacious one that is found wanting at the bar of both exegesis and linguistics.

Here is the entry under אֶחָד from Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), perhaps the Hebrew lexicon on the market at the moment; notice how this scholarly source does not entertain the Trinitarian nonsense of "complex unity":

312  אֶחָד

) אֶחָד960 x(, Sam.^M18 ÁaÒd: < *ÀahÌhÌaÒd < *ÀahÌad )Arb., BL 219g, Beer-M. §59:1(, ï יָחִיד; MHb., Ug. ahÌd, f. ahÌt, Ph. אחד, f. אחת, Arm. ) חַדï BArm. MdD 116a(, Eth. ÀahÌaduÒ, Akk. )w(eÒdu: abs. אֶחָד, and אַחַד Gn 48₂₂ + 5 x )BL 622b(, cs. אַחַד, חַד Ezk 33₃₀ )Aramaism or text error ? Nöldeke Syr. Gr. §242(, pl. אֲחָדִים; fem. ) אַחַת< *ÀahÌadt( abs. and cs., אֶחָֽת Gn 11₁, 2S 23₈ Q:

—1. numeral one a( מָקוֹם אֶ׳ one )single( place Gn 1₉, בְּשָׁנָה אֶחָת Ex 23₂₉, בְּרָכָה אַ׳ Gn 27₃₈, נֶפֶשׁ אַ׳ one soul = one single person Lv 4₂₇, אֶ׳ :: שְׁנֵי two :: one Lv 14₁₀; מִשְׁפָּט אֶ׳ the same law Nu 15₁₆, דָּתוֹ אַ׳ the same law is in force Est 4₁₁ מִדָּה אַ׳ the same measure Ex 26₂; אֶחָד י׳ Dt 6₄ Y is one )Sept., Pesh., Stade Theologie 1:84(; alt.: the one Y, Y alone, Y only; אֶ׳ one and only Zech 14₉ , the same )?( Jb 31₁₅ alt. one; ï TWNT 3:1079f; vRad Theologie 2:226; Eichrodt Theologie 1:145, Labuschagne 137f; b( part. )VG 2:273aאַחַד הָעָם ( one of the people 1S 26₁₅, הַנְּבָלִים אַ׳ 2S 13₁₃, אַחַת הַנְּבָלוֹת Jb 2₁₀ אֲחִיכֶם אֶ׳ one of you brothers Gn 42₁₉, מִכֶּם אִישׁ אֶ׳ a single one of you Jos 23₁₀, מִמֶּנּוּ ) אַ׳GK §130a( one of us Gn 3₂₂; c( negative form: אֶ׳ … לֹא Ex 8₂₇ and לֹא אַחַד) עַד־אַ׳ abs., BL 622b( 2S 17₂₂ not one, גַּם אֶ׳ ˆyae not even one Ps 14₃ עַד אֶ׳ … לֹא not even one Ex 14₂₈; d( קוֹל אֶ׳ with one voice Ex 24₃, לֵב אֶ׳ 1C 12₃₉ cj. Ps 83₆ )rd. וְ (אֶחָד unanimous, שְׁכֶם אֶ׳ shoulder to shoulder Zeph 3₉; לְיוֹם אֶ׳ for a single day, daily 1K 5₂, cj. Neh 5₁₅ for אַחַר; אֶ׳ יוֹם never-ending day Zech 14₇; ) אַחַתsc. (פַּעַם אַ׳ once: בַּשָּׁנָה אַ׳ Ex 30₁₀ Lv 16₃₄; אַ׳ :: שְׁתַּיִם once … twice 2K 6₁₀ Ps 62₁₂ )?, ï שְׁתַּיִם( Jb 40₅; בְּאַחַת Jr 10₈ and כְּאֶחָד Qoh 11₆ in one and the same time; )ï BArm. כַּחֲדָה, Aramaism Arm.lw. Wagner 124; Akk. kiÒma isëteÒn(, אַחַת Ps 89₃₆ and בְּאַחַת Jb 33₁₄ once and for all; הוּא אֶ׳ only one Gn 41₂₅, אֶחָד … וַיְהִי became one, a unit Ex 36₁₃; וְהָיָה הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶחָד a single whole Ex 26₆; in statistical records repeated after each name Jos 12_9-24 cj. 1K 4_8-18 )Sept.(, Montgomery-G. 124; e( pl. אֲחָדִים: יָמִים אֲ׳ a few days Gn 27₄₄ 29₂₀ Da 11₂₀ אֲ׳ µyrIb;D“ the same )kind of( words Gn 11₁ Ezk 29₁₇ ):: Gordon UTGl. 126: like Ug. ahÌdm du. “a pair”( וְהָיוּ לַאֲ׳ to become one Ezk 37₁₇;

—2. אֶ׳ one another )VG 2:328f(: וּמִזֶּה אֶ׳ מִזֶּה אֶ׳ one here and one there Ex 17₁₂, בְּאֶ׳ אֶ׳ one to another Jb 41₈, cj. אֶחָד אֶת־אֶחָד vs. Ezk 33₃₀ one to another, with gloss אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו; וְאֶ׳ … וְאֶ׳ … אֶ׳ one … another … a third 1S 10₃ 13_17f, וְהָאֶ׳ … òa,h; one … and the other 1K 12₂₉, הֵנָּה אַחַת הֵנָּה וְאַ׳ once here and once there = to and fro 2K 4₃₅ לְאַ׳ אַחַת one after the other Qoh 7₂₇, וְהַדּוּד אֶ׳ … dj;a, הַדּוּד Jr 24₂ the one basket … and the other )Brockelmann Heb. Syn. §60b, 1S 13₁₇ (הָרֹאשׁ אֶ׳;

—3. אֶ׳ indefinite article )GK §125b( אִישׁ אֶ׳ 1S 1₁, נָבִיא אֶ׳ 1K 13₁₁, אַיִל אֶ׳ Da 8₃, יוֹם אֶ׳ one day 1S 27₁, יִשְׂ׳ אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי anyone of the tribes 2S 15₂, ) מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּהGK §119w¹( any one of them Lv 4₂; put in front קָדוֹשׁ אֶ׳ a holy one Da 8₁₃, אַחַת מְעַט הִיא for a little while Hg 2₆ מְעַט הִיא) > Sept.(;

—4. ordinal, first: אַחַת :: הַשֵּׁנִית 1S 1₂, יוֹם אֶ׳ the first day Gn 1₅ ):: יוֹם שֵׁנִי 1₈ etc.(; in dates לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּיוֹם אֶ׳ on the first day of the month Ezr 10₁₆ > לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּאֶ׳ Gn 8₅, בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְ in the first year of Da 9₁, וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בְּאַחַת in the 601st year Gn 8₁₃;

—5. distributive: לַשֶּׁבֶט אֶ׳ one in each tribe Dt 1₂₃, לְאִישׁ אֶ׳ from each man 2K 15₂₀, לְאַחַד אֶחָד one after the other Is 27₁₂, לְאֶחָֽת each single one Ezk 1₆, הָאַחַת each 1C 27₁;

—Gn 32₉ rd. הָָאֶחָד; 2S 2_25b dl.; 7₂₃ and Ezk 17₇ ):: Zimmerli 374( rd. אַחֵר, Ezk 11₁₉ rd. אַחֵר or חָָדָשׁ; Jb 23₁₃ rd. בָּחַר for ) בְּאֶחָד:: Dahood Fschr. Gruenthauer 67(, Pr 28₁₈ rd. בְּשָֽׁחַת; Qoh 12₁₁ cj. ) אָחוֹרGalling BASOR 119:18(; Da 8₉ rd. אַחֶרֶת.

To see the impossibility of echad meaning "compound one" or other such nonsense, try to read such into the following passage where echad appears a number of times:

The lands included the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the wilderness and the Negev. These were the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. These were the kings:

The king of Jericho one (אֶחָד) the king of Ai (near Bethel) one (אֶחָד)

The king of Jerusalem one (אֶחָד) of the king of Hebron one (אֶחָד)

The king of Jarmuth one (אֶחָד) the king of Lachish one (אֶחָד)

The king of Eglon one (אֶחָד) the king of Gezer one (אֶחָד)

The king of Hormah one (אֶחָד) the king of Arad one (אֶחָד)

The king of Libnah one (אֶחָד) the king of Adullam one (אֶחָד)

The king of Makkedah one (אֶחָד) the king of Bethel one (אֶחָד)

The king of Tappuah one (אֶחָד) the king of Hepher one (אֶחָד)

The king of Aphek one (אֶחָד) the king of Lasharon one (אֶחָד)

The king of Madone one (אֶחָד) the king of Hazor one (אֶחָד)

The king of Shimron Meron one (אֶחָד) the king of Akshaph one (אֶחָד)

The king of Taanach one (אֶחָד) the king of Megiddo one (אֶחָד)

The king of Kadesh one (אֶחָד) the king of Jokneam in Carmel one (אֶחָד)

The king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one (אֶחָד) the king of Goyim in Gilgal one (אֶחָד)

The king of Tirzah one (אֶחָד) thirty-one kings in all. (Josh 12:8-24 NIV)

Latter-day Saints assert that Yahweh is indeed "one"; Durbin can only do such by manipulating the Hebrew language and engaging in eisegesis. That speaks volumes of his lack of intellectual integrity and the nature of the "Gospel" he preaches.