Fact Checking Ep 46 Divine Council with Mike

The following is a fact check by ChatGPT 5 of Jimbo Radio episode "Ep 46 Divine Council with Mike." Here is a transcript of the episode. 

Quick verdicts

• Two creation accounts in Genesis (and the “older one comes second”) — basically right. Gen 1:1–2:4a (Priestly, generally dated later) is followed by a different creation story in Gen 2:4b–3 (often dated earlier), then redacted together, so an older tradition likely does appear after a later one. Bible Odyssey

• “Let us make humankind…” (Gen 1:26) ≠ the Trinity in the original context — mainstream view. In the Hebrew Bible, the plural is best read as God addressing a divine/heavenly council (or a “plural of exhortation”), not a fourth-century Trinitarian formula. Gen 1:27 then reverts to singular verbs (“God created”), underscoring God’s primacy. TheTorah.com

• Divine council scenes are real features of the Hebrew Bible — correct. Besides Gen 1:26/3:22; 11:7, see 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Job 1–2; Ps 82; Ps 89:5–7. Psalm 82 explicitly pictures God judging elohim “in the council of El.” Many scholars read these elohim as heavenly beings, though some traditions take them as human judges. Bible Odyssey

• Deut 32:8–9 and the Dead Sea Scrolls — you stated the key point correctly, but pushed one inference too far. The oldest witnesses (Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Septuagint) read “he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God,” with v.9 “YHWH’s portion is his people” (contrasting the later Masoretic “sons of Israel”). That supports an older “divine council/territorial deities” worldview. It does not require Elyon to be a god “over” YHWH telling him what to do; many scholars see Elyon identified with YHWH in Israel’s developing monotheism. The Gospel Coalition

• “Angels can’t be insubordinate,” therefore Gen 6 “sons of God” can’t be angels — false. The NT itself refers to rebellious angels (e.g., Jude 6; 2 Pet 2:4). A widespread Second Temple reading (e.g., 1 Enoch) connects Gen 6’s “sons of God” to fallen angels/Watchers who cohabit with women and beget the Nephilim. This doesn’t “contradict” Matt 22:30, which says angels in heaven do not marry; it doesn’t address rebellious angels acting outside their proper domain. Bible Gateway+1Bible Odyssey

• “Angels aren’t physical, only ‘essences’ ” — over-stated. In the HB, heavenly messengers routinely appear in embodied ways (e.g., Gen 18–19 where the visitors eat with Abraham); whatever their ultimate nature, the texts present tangible encounters. Bible Gateway

• “Ancient Israelites were polytheists/monolatrous” — needs nuance but directionally fine. Many scholars describe early Israel as practicing monolatry/henotheism (exclusive worship of YHWH while acknowledging other divine beings), with strict monotheism consolidating later. That squares with inscriptions and texts from Israel/Judah and broader ANE parallels. Acts Network

• “Trinity didn’t exist until centuries after Jesus” — accurate as a historical claim. The doctrine was formally articulated in the 4th century (Nicaea 325; Constantinople 381); reading it back into Gen 1 is anachronistic. (Background embedded in the “divine council” scholarship above.) TheTorah.com

• Church finance/salaries: it’s fair to critique practices, but a couple specifics were too sweeping:

  • U.S. churches are not required to file the public IRS Form 990, which makes transparency uneven, but many voluntarily publish reports. Saying “90% won’t be audited or transparent” is an assertion, not a documented statistic. Simulation Argument

• “Young people’s religiosity is now going back up” — not supported by the best current data. Large-sample U.S. surveys (Pew, 2025) show Christian identification declining overall with possible leveling, not a clear rebound among Gen Z. Media pieces talk about small “stirrings,” but the broad trend has not reversed. Encyclopedia Britannica+1

• Simulation hypothesis bits (“binary code in the laws of physics”) — over-sold. Bostrom’s simulation argument is a philosophical probability puzzle, not empirical evidence; popular claims that physics has “computer code” baked in are speculative and contested, not consensus science. RedditTheTorah.com

A few precise fixes you can make in-episode notes/transcript

• It’s “divine council,” not counsel (the transcript alternates both).

• Nag Hammadi (not “Nagamati”): discovered in 1945 near the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi; codices date mainly to the 4th century CE.

• The Hebrew term you were reaching for is bᵉnê ʾĕlōhîm (“sons of God”), not “Nahilohim.” (Related forms like bᵉnê ʾēlîm occur too; in several places these denote heavenly beings.) Bible Odyssey

What you got especially right (and nicely framed)

• Treating Gen 1:26 as divine-council language and noting the singular verbs of 1:27. TheTorah.com

• Seeing Ps 82 as a council/judgment scene (while acknowledging the alternative “human judges” reading). Bible Odyssey

• Recognizing Deut 32:8–9 textual history (DSS/LXX vs MT). The Gospel Coalition

If you want, I can mark up the transcript line-by-line with suggested wording tweaks and embedded citations you can drop into show notes.