Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Many gods? I think not.

Expand Messages
  • praesto12
    They fly better than the idiotic garbage you ve posted. I mean that with much respect, but the arrogance with which Higher Criticism puts forth is
    Message 1 of 32 , Jun 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      They "fly" better than the idiotic garbage you've posted. I mean that with much
      respect, but the arrogance with which "Higher Criticism" puts forth is
      astounding.

       Richard




      ________________________________
      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 12:13:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Many gods? I think not.

       
      Ha. I've read a whole lot of Fundie "explanations". Some are real complicated,
      but they don't fly. Where did you download this one?

      Richard.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: praesto12
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:07 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Many gods? I think not.

      Elohim: Plural or Singular?
      (Part 1)
      by Nehemia Gordon
      www.karaites.info
      In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth.
      Genesis 1:1

      The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. Elohim ends with the masculine plural suffix
      "-ִים" From this we might conclude that Elohim signifies a numerical plural
      (i.e. denoting multiplicity) and translate it accordingly as gods. But before we

      determine whether the world was created by a single God or multiple gods, we
      must consider whether Elohim is really a numerical plural.
      In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:
      1. It receives a plural suffix;
      2. It receives a plural verb;
      3. It receives a plural adjective.
      The first characteristic, the plural suffix, is familiar to the English
      speaker. In English, most nouns have the plural suffix "s" or "es". For example,

      dog is the singular while dogs is the plural. Hebrew adds another dimension by
      matching adjectives and verbs to the noun. In Hebrew, a plural noun gets a
      plural verb and plural adjective. In contrast, English verbs and adjectives do
      not change to match the noun. For example, in English:
      Singular: The big dog guarded.
      >>Plural: The big dogs guarded.
      But in Hebrew:
      Singular: The big (sg) dog (he) guarded. שָׁמַר הַכֶּלֶב הַגָּדוֹל
      >>Plural: The big (pl) dogs (they) guarded.שָׁמְרוּ הַכְּלָבִים הַגְּדוֹלִים
      >>
      So the first thing we must check about Elohim is whether it gets a plural
      adjective and plural verb, because this will tell us whether or not it is a
      numerical plural denoting multiplicity. In the very first verse of the Torah we
      read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning "Elohim (he) created". Were Elohim a numerical
      plural, the verse would have to say בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים "Elohim (they) created".
      Indeed, the word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout
      the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb. It

      is always "And Elohim (he) spoke to Moses " and never "And Elohim (they) spoke
      to Moses ". The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for
      Elohim is singular, not plural. Thus we find אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous (sg)
      Elohim" (Ps 7:10) and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Elohim".
      So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with
      a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of
      plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular

      with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic
      plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that
      there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or
      majestic". For example, אָדוֹן means "master" while אֲדוֹנִים (Isa 19:4; Mal
      1:6) with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, lord". Thus we read,
      "I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh lord; and a fierce king
      shall rule over them" (Isa 19:4). In this verse the fierce king that will
      enslave Egypt is described as an ?ֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה "a harsh (sg) lord (pl)". In
      this verse, the plural suffix attached to the word ?ֲדֹנִים does not make it a
      numerical plural ("masters") but instead magnifies the meaning ("great master,
      lord"). Because אֲדֹנִים is a majestic plural it receives the singular adjective

      קָשֶׁה (harsh) and not the plural adjective קָשִׁים that would be required for a

      numerical plural. The word בַּעַל also means "master" while בְּעָלִים with the
      masculine plural suffix means "great master, owner". For example, in Exodus 21
      the owner of the "goring ox" is repeatedly referred to as the בְּעָלִים "owner".

      The word בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one

      person. In this case, the plural suffix magnifies the noun imbuing it with a
      connotation of "absolute owner, complete master". Because בְּעָלִים "owner" is a

      majestic plural it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent
      owner whose ox has killed, "the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be
      put to death" (Ex 21:29). The verb ?וּמָת meaning "he will be put to death" is
      in the singular even though the word for "owner" בְּעָלִים has the plural
      suffix. The common characteristic of majestic plurals is that they have the
      plural suffix while denoting singular objects and as a result they receive
      singular adjectives and singular verbs. Elohim is quite simply an example of the

      majestic plural and means "great God".
      It is worth noting that the word Elohim is not always a majestic plural.
      When referring to the pagan gods, the term Elohim is usually a numerical plural.

      For example, the second commandment forbids us to worship אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים
      "other (pl) gods". In this phrase, not only does Elohim have the plural suffix,
      but it receives a plural adjective אֲחֵרִים other (pl). This tells us that in
      the second commandment Elohim is used not as an majestic plural but as a
      numerical plural denoting multiplicity. The prohibition is not against a
      specific "other (sg) god" but against any "other (pl) gods". Elohim is used
      numerous times throughout the Tanach to refer to pagan gods and in most of these

      instances it is a numerical plural denoting multiple (false) gods. So we see
      that when the Tanach speaks about YHWH it uses Elohim as the majestic plural
      meaning "great God" but when it speaks about pagan gods it uses Elohim as a
      numerical plural meaning "gods". In both instances the accompanying verbs and
      adjectives reveal to us which meaning is intended.
      Does the majestic plural form of Elohim implies that there is anything
      multiple about God? To help clarify this it is worth looking at the few
      instances where the majestic plural form of Elohim is used to refer to someone
      other than YHWH. The clearest example of this is in Exodus 7:1. In this passage
      YHWH tells Moses that he will make him an Elohim to Pharaoh: "Behold I have made

      you an Elohim to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet" (Exodus
      7:1). Certainly this does not mean that YHWH made Moses into a god, but rather
      that he would speak to Pharaoh with authority through Aaron who would serve as
      his mouth-piece in the way that the prophets serve as the mouth-pieces of YHWH.
      In any event, there is clearly nothing multiple about Moses, even though he was
      made an Elohim to Pharaoh.
      On rare occasions Elohim is used as majestic plural even when referring to
      pagan gods. For example, "And they bowed down to Ashtoret the Elohim of the
      Sidonians, to Kemosh the Elohim of Moab, and to Milkom the Elohim of the
      children of Amon." (1Ki 11:33). Here we see three pagan deities each of which is

      referred to as an Elohim. Obviously the book of Kings is not saying that any of
      these false deities is a "great God". On the contrary, the verse goes on to
      rebuke the Israelites for worshipping them. The meaning is that the Sidonians,
      Moabites, and Ammonites looked upon their deities as great Gods and in this
      instance Scripture employs the terms used by the pagans themselves to refer to
      their own deities. At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and
      Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple
      about any one of them.
      Clearly the word Elohim, when it refers to YHWH, is an majestic plural
      which is numerically singular, having a singular verb and a singular adjective.
      This majestic plural is simply a grammatical form that denotes greatness without

      any implication that the object itself is a plurality or multiplicity. If we
      maintain that Elohim implies multiplicity then we must concede that Moses was
      also a multiplicity along with Kemosh the pagan deity of the Moabites and Milkom

      the pagan deity of the Amonites.
      That YHWH is a single individual and not a multiplicity of gods or
      personalities is consistent with what we find throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
      Moses declares to the children of Israel, "YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one" (Dt
      6:4). Were YHWH a multiplicity of gods or personalities what would be the point
      of saying that He is "one"? It is worth noting that it does not say YHWH is one
      of something (one god, one personality). He is just simply "one", in every
      respect of the word. Similarly, the prophet Zechariah tells us about the
      universal worship of YHWH at the end of days, "And YHWH will be king over the
      entire earth; at that time YHWH will be one and his name will be one" (Zech
      14:9). Zechariah is saying that today people multiply YHWH but at the end-time
      all mankind will know that YHWH is a single individual deity with one single
      name. We are taught in the book of Isaiah that YHWH is the one and only, "I am
      YHWH and besides me there is no savior" (Isa 43:11). Elsewhere in Isaiah, YHWH
      poses the rhetorical question, "Is there an Eloha (God) besides me?" (Isa 44:8).

      Similarly we read in the Psalms, "Who is an Eloha (God) besides YHWH and who is
      a rock (=savior) besides our Elohim?" (Ps 18:32). In these verses the word for
      "God" is Eloha ?ֱלוֹהַּ, the singular form of Elohim. These passages are saying
      that YHWH is an Eloha and besides Him there is no other Eloha. Indeed, YHWH is
      called by the singular Eloha (God) some 47 times throughout the Hebrew
      Scriptures which proves that He is not a plurality or multiplicity. This and the

      fact that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are always singular
      confirm our conclusion that Elohim is an majestic plural denoting a singular
      individual but with a connotation of greatness.YHWH is called Eloha (God), the
      singular form of Elohim, in the following verses: Dt 32:15.17; Isa 44:8; Hab
      3:3; Ps 18:32; 50:22; 114:7; 139:19; Job 3:4; 3:23; 4:9.17; 5:17; 6:4.7.9; 9:13;

      10:2; 11:5; 12:4.6; 16:21; 19:6.21.26.; 21:9.19; 22:12.26; 24:12; 27:3.8.10;
      29:2.4; 31:2.6; 33:12.26; 35:10; 36:2; 37:15.22; 39:17; 40:2; Prov 30:5; Neh
      9:17.Some pronounce Elo'ah or Elowah.
      Richard

      ________________________________
      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      OK. No problem. You may be right.

      But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
      Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
      Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
      "the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
      gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
      probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
      refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
      clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
      in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
      pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
      the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
      Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
      C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
      translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
      Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and

      Manetho for Exodus.

      Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.

      Richard

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bestonnet_00
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
      >
      > I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
      > themselves.

      They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
      they've found something revolutionary.

      > Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

      Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

      > However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
      > firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
      > source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

      Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
      the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Godwin
      Nothing there but preaching, hardball style of a Fundie. I think this is supposed to be a discussion forum. ... From: praesto12 To:
      Message 32 of 32 , Jun 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Nothing there but preaching, hardball style of a Fundie. I think this is supposed to be a discussion forum.



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: praesto12
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:01 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



        Godwin, you speak lies. I've never seen more rationalization than from the
        "Atheistic" community. I know you are not an Atheist, but generally people will,
        literally, drive themselves insane or consider anything, and I mean ANYTHING to
        the reality of God as manifest through his word in Christ. "Scientist" perfer
        theorizing about Aliens or Alien generated life being passed on Mars rock to
        the earth and then these magic living rocks survive for millions of years to
        produce your father and mother and you. It's insanity. Well, hey, the Apostle
        Paul said it best. People are willingly ignorant. "Although they claimed to be
        wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for images
        made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefor G-d
        gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts..."

        I do not know what conversations you have had with what "Christians" and I
        don't really care. You are wrong. Atheist rationalize. People of

        Anti-Christ thinking, like yourself, rationalize and lie. I believe they do so
        willingly. I don't know why you hate G-d, but I would say you should get over
        it.

        What would you like to discuss about Biblical Criticism? I am not concerned
        about your limited accessment of what you think I do or do not know. At half
        your age I believe I know as much as you. "Biblical Criticism.." Right..... Mad
        Germans in the late 1800's rewritting witness testimony in the illusion of
        academic scholarship paving the way for the horrors of the 20th century. Your
        philosophies are doctrines of devils and lead to death. Wellhausen, Nietzsche,
        Voltaire, Marx and so forth are men that lived jadded lives and most ended up
        bitter and alone, if not completely insane. A life without G-d will lead one to
        death of the Body and Spirit. I strongly encourage you to reconsider the path
        you are.

        "Educators" with ideas likethese will lead to destruction. Dont' take my word
        for it. Take Victor Frankl;

        “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well
        corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine,
        as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product
        of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man
        is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that
        corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of
        Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but
        the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood
        and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz,
        Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other
        in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic
        scientists and philosophers.”

        ________________________________
        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 11:29:39 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?


        Oh, so you don't know the history, much very recent, in Christianity. The thing
        about Elohim being plural is very simple. The Israelites lived in Canaan (as
        proven by the Merneptah stele dated 1210, and they moved into the rough hill
        country (shown in archaeology), and they used the same concept of the gods as
        did those where they lived: Canaan. El/Elohim, interchangeable, meant the plural
        gods. Not even Israel in the Bible have monotheism. They had only one god to
        worship among the other gods, called henotheism. Later in the Hellenistic
        period, when composition took place, they took on monotheism as did the other
        cultures, such as Persian Zoroastrianism. Psalms 82 refers to the council of
        gods, headed by El/Elohim, and he kicked them out of the council for not taking
        care of the orphans and widows.

        Everything that doesn't suite the new Christianity simply is either
        re-interpreted freely, or re-written. They always can use rationalization even
        in very complicated ways for support of what they want it to be. Yes, I have
        seen many examples of Christians worrying about, being embarrassed by this
        pluralism, which is why through their method of "apologetics" they rationalize
        them, just as you showed.

        The DUH goes to you, buddy. First it would be expected for newcomers to a
        different culture to absorb ideas of that culture. This is almost a rule
        throughout all history. Second, it's obvious the Elish was involved in the
        Genesis creation account, so it would appear the author(s) used it because they
        learned it.

        You poor man, so helpless, he cannot even google "enuma elish"! It would be a
        good idea for you to get educated on everything involving your religion,
        especially on the Bible. Google "biblical criticism".

        Richard G

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: praesto12
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:10 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

        The "plurality" has never been an embarasment to Christianity or Judaism; read
        prior email.

        Israelites being in Babylon proves nothing but the fact that Israelites were in
        Babylon. Duh.

        I'd be interested to learn more about Enuma Elish, so please send a link. Much
        more to be said on the matter.

        Richard

        ________________________________
        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

        OK. No problem. You may be right.

        But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
        Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
        Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
        "the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
        gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
        probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
        refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
        clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
        in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
        pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
        the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
        Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
        C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
        translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
        Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and

        Manetho for Exodus.

        Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.

        Richard

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: bestonnet_00
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
        Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
        >
        > I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
        > themselves.

        They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
        they've found something revolutionary.

        > Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

        Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

        > However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
        > firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
        > source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

        Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
        the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.