Is the God of Abraham Really That Special?

[Didachist]

passage you quoted from is not fully correct as it should sa

You'll have to ask translators why they do it, not me. I notice that nuance often gets lost in translations. Perhaps they just don't care? I - like most other Orthodox Jews study Tanach in Biblical Hebrew, so I don't really deal with translations except when someone links it on this site. If I have a question about the meaning of a word, or how it differs from the meaning of another similar word (like elim, elilim and elohim or the example here) I don't check a translation, I check this book here written by a 19th century Rabbi, Hebrew grammarian and commentator. That's where I know this from.

This is not a question of Scriptures misleading you, but of translators misleading you. The word "god" isn't in the Bible. The word אלהים is the word that's in the Bible. Its the translation that you have issue with. And frankly, you won't hear knowledgeable Jews arguing in favor Christians translations. I can give you a few places off hand where they fudge the translation to favor Christian theology.

I can understand that being from a completely different root language then English, its hard to incorporate nuance every time and still maintain a flowing translation. And this is nuance, since the word is being used to reference the things that people were worshiping - which is what you call 'gods' in English. But ultimately, your question is on them to answer.

Forgive me , but I must state for my fellow Christians that you and your community use the masoritic text which was compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries. for us this must be stated as the cause of a discrepancy between our text and our translation, as every translation is of course an interpretation.we must state this before we get into a discussion of "Fudging" .

 

[savagewind]

This "the words in the Bible, or the Tanach, don't really mean what they signify because they've been mistranslated," is one of the more lame arguments for defending one's theology. If a word doesn't carry the meaning we've come to understand then what is it doing in the Bible? Why does such a misleading word remain in the Bible so as to continue to mislead? What's wrong with Bible publishers that they can't correct the scripture to reflect its true meaning? Furthermore, such a mistake casts doubt over everything else in the Bible. If Exodus 20:3 is in error then what other pieces of scripture are misleading us? A common reply is that any such mistakes wouldn't be significant, but, of course, this argument is so self-serving as to be ludicrous. In the end, mistakes in translation, or whatever form they may take, only point to the conclusion that god either doesn't really care what his Bible says---even if it misleads---or he's incapable of making sure "His word" is correct and doesn't mislead.


.

Or, it isn't "his Bible". His word can't mislead God's people. Mistakes can show up who aren't God's people because they believe in the mistakes. Someone who is really trusting in God can't be fooled by the ideas of people.

 

[Tumah]

Forgive me , but I must state for my fellow Christians that you and your community use the masoritic text which was compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries. for us this must be stated as the cause of a discrepancy between our text and our translation, as every translation is of course an interpretation.we must state this before we get into a discussion of "Fudging" .

Let's not forget about the Targums that I've seen you quote in another thread.

Let's also be a little more clear: the Masoretes didn't compile the text. As scribes, they established a method for copying the text with less errors. The text was not lost and rewritten through the work of the Masoretes.

Quite some time ago scholars pointed out that the Midrashic method of exposition, which makes subtle inferences from words and spellings, was applied by Pharisaic Jewry before the Temple's destruction, and this can only be understood against the background of a principle about the sacredness of a specific text. They also cite the words of Josephus in Contra Apion as proof that in his days there was already a text hallowed in its orthography, as he says: "And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them." It is not essential to suppose that Josephus is speaking of a specific letter sequence, but this is proof for the notion of a unified text.

We can now adduce textual proofs to these indirect proofs, and they testify that the Pharisees and Zealots possessed, for some of the books of the Bible, a version that can be identified with the current MT. In the ruins of Masada were found remnants of Biblical texts, brought there by the final defenders, which show clear ties with the present-day MT. We can therefore safely state that the move towards textual unification and the establishment of a definitive text preceded the destruction of the Temple, though the exact dates, as well as the measure of success in that early period, can not be determined.

In any case, it seems that after the destruction the array of text-types disappeared from normative Judaism, and the Masoretic type alone remained. This conclusion is bolstered by all textual evidence of the era, whether direct or indirect, both original and in translation. In the fifties, remnants of Scriptural scrolls used by Bar Kochba's soldiers were found in the Judean desert (Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal Hever). They all show that Bar Kochba's people used the same text which we call the MT, with only the slightest of differences. During the same period, new Greek translations were being prepared in place of the Septuagint, which, by virtue of its becoming an official Christian text, was rejected by the Jews. These translations, especially that of Aqilas which was praised by the Sages, reflected the Masoretic text-type. Likewise, the Aramaic translations such as Onqelos, Targum Jonathan, and the Palestinian Targum, whose roots date back to that same period, reflect a common text-type.
​

Incidentally, the Talmud has a list of 15 discrepancies between the LXX and the text they used, of which I recall only finding a few in the LXX that exists today.

Of course, I'd be interested to see the Hebrew text on which was based the capitalizing of the word "messiah" in Daniel 9. So we can start there if you'd like to talk about not fudging the text in the interest of Christian theology.

 

[Skwim]

Or, it isn't "his Bible".

But this isn't what Christians claim. They claim the Bible is indeed God's word.

The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s.Word and is
..... supernaturally protected by Him.
.....source


..4. The Bible: The Written Word of God

source
​

..the Bible is the Word of God because of its scientific accuracy.

It’s so majestically deep that scholars could swim and never touch the bottom. Yet so wonderfully shallow that a little child could come and get a drink of water without fear of drowning. That is God’s precious, holy Word. The Word of God.
source​

..the Bible is exclusively the Word of God is because of its chronological order.

the Bible is exclusively the Word of God is because of its perfect unity.
the Bible is exclusively the Word of God is because it predicts the future.
the Bible is exclusively the word of God is because of its perpetual survival.
[etc., etc.]
source​

Evidence That the Bible is God's Word:

1.
2.
3.
.
.
.
15.

source​

His word can't mislead God's people. Mistakes can show up who aren't God's people because they believe in the mistakes. Someone who is really trusting in God can't be fooled by the ideas of people.

Nice thoughts, but hardly substantiated by any evidence; however, if you think you have some I'd be happy to look at it.


.

 

[savagewind]

But this isn't what Christians claim. They claim the Bible is indeed God's word.

The accuracy which has been preserved despite every attempt to corrupt, attack, or destroy it is clear testimony to the fact that the Bible is truly God’s.Word and is
..... supernaturally protected by Him.
.....source


..4. The Bible: The Written Word of God

source
​

..the Bible is the Word of God because of its scientific accuracy.

It’s so majestically deep that scholars could swim and never touch the bottom. Yet so wonderfully shallow that a little child could come and get a drink of water without fear of drowning. That is God’s precious, holy Word. The Word of God.
source​

..the Bible is exclusively the Word of God is because of its chronological order.

the Bible is exclusively the Word of God is because of its perfect unity.
the Bible is exclusively the Word of God is because it predicts the future.
the Bible is exclusively the word of God is because of its perpetual survival.
[etc., etc.]
source​

Evidence That the Bible is God's Word:

1.
2.
3.
.
.
.
15.

source​

Nice thoughts, but hardly substantiated by any evidence; however, if you think you have some I'd be happy to look at it.


.

Good work. That is the Skwim I know.
Nowhere does the Bible say to obey anyone else but God and there you have people in the first example saying, "If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it.". In it says that Christ is God's Word and also that a believer should trust God with his WHOLE heart. Oh wait a minute! Not whole. Some of the heart must be given to the written word. I suppose you can choose how much you give it because it does not say how much. Also, that there are two God's words. The man and the book.

 

[savagewind]

Actually, so far I think that the Bible has not survived. It is changed, so the actual God's Words (the work) is gone. The Bible is a false god.

Oh but, Halleluja, Jesus has survived. I am sure.

 

[Skwim]

This is not a question of Scriptures misleading you, but of translators misleading you.

This is like saying that it wasn't the bullet blowing a hole through the heart that killed him, but the guy who pulled the trigger. The issue of "question" depends on where in the chain of events one decides to focus. Did the bullet kill him? yes. Did the guy who pulled the trigger kill him? Yes. Did Scriptures mislead you? Yes. Did the translators mislead you? Yes. And one answer doesn't negate the other(s).

The word "god" isn't in the Bible. The word אלהים is the word that's in the Bible.

Well, the word "God" is in the Bible.

John 3:16 (Numerous translations)

For God so loved the world that he . . . ."
source​

Its the translation that you have issue with.

It makes no difference where one cares to lay the blame, the translations or the translators, but the final product: The Bible, which bears the mistake and ultimately misinforms the reader.


.

 

[Skwim]

and Exodus 23:24 suppose to be identical?

The passage you quoted from is not fully correct as it should say

From the Greek

23:24 Thou shalt not worship their gods, nor serve them: thou shalt not do according to their works, but shalt utterly destroy them, and break to pieces their pillars.

Are you claiming that Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 are suppose to be saying what Exodus 23:24 says?


.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why is His say-so more crediable than the say-so of any other god?

I will spit-ball the other questions and comments, but this one is easy in logic. He is the creator, the other gods are not. So, in that sense-one creator, one God, one savior, one prophet, and so forth everything else is, by that heirarchy logic, below. It's political and logical. Question the philosophers over that. They'd probably give you a bit more insight then a lot of believers given they use a lot of analogies to mirror the human psyche and views. I realize more and more when you get to the heart of a believers faith, either they are defensive, weaken, or just don't talk. It's challenging their sense of reality. Why would anyone want to shatter another person's reality? If there are more than one gods, so be. However, christianity, judaism, islam, and all other god of abraham beliefs all say one creator not many.

The meaning of god to most GOAs is Creator. All other gods, existent or not, are not creators; hence, "there are no other gods/creators before me."

Read the context. Christianity isn't the only people who believe in the god of abraham.

What I've always found interesting is that this goes beyond a simple "have me," or some such commandment ordering people to obey and believe in Him, the God of Abraham, but that it implies the actual existence of other gods.

It implies yes, but it states there is only one god throughout the bible. In Christianity, Jesus only points to one god/the father. One savior. One communion. One chosen people. And so forth. Everything is about unity within that One.

In the OT, many people made all kinds of things out of gods. Maybe understanding the context of what gods mean may help understand the difference between a creator, any 'ol diety, and human.

"Yes there are other gods, but thou shalt have none of them before Me." If there were no other actual gods there would be no need to make note of them. At most, God would have said "Don't believe in any of the make-believe gods. There is only one actual god. Me."

Don't believe in any of the make-believe gods is implied in the statement do not have any other gods but me. Gods being making anything an idol and creator over or as the creator himself.

When eve was being tricked in the garden, satan said that she will have the same knowledge as the creator. So, if the creator is the only one who has all knowledge, how can there be other creators?

In Paganism, gods have different limitations as well as strengths. In Christianity, god of abraham is saying he has no limitations. Big difference.

But he doesn't. As far as actual existence goes, He puts the other gods on equal footing in His first commandment.

He puts other gods at lesser footing by that very statement of "no gods before me." If it were equal, like a friend, he wouldn't have to say that. He'd just say, "I'm your mother not her." instead of "I'm the best mother of mothers in the world." The former is still equal, lesser, or better. The latter is biblical concept. Always higher.

God puts himself on a pedal stool.

 

[RedDragon94]

If there were no other actual gods there would be no need to make note of them.

But there are, Satan rules this planet. Look at all the times Jesus dealt with demons.

there are numerous gods floating around, or whatever they do, including the God of Abraham.

And the God of Abraham is in conflict with them. There is a battle going on for us and our souls.

The rest of the people of the world he left to the other gods. OR, perhaps they left Him to the Hebrews.

The Bible actually says he gave them over to them.

So, other than personal bias and long inculcated beliefs, which have left Him ingrained into the minds of a lot of people that He's numero uno among all the gods, is there any realistic reason to accord Him such a position?

Are the gods that men invented (which are inspired by demons) any better than him? As far as I can tell when reading mythology, they are just as human as us.

 

[Tumah]

This is like saying that it wasn't the bullet blowing a hole through the heart that killed him, but the guy who pulled the trigger. The issue of "question" depends on where in the chain of events one decides to focus. Did the bullet kill him? yes. Did the guy who pulled the trigger kill him? Yes. Did Scriptures mislead you? Yes. Did the translators mislead you? Yes. And one answer doesn't negate the other(s).

That's like saying, there's a manual in Spanish that says, "No presione el botón verde (Don't press the green button)" and some guy comes over to you and says, "the manual says you should press green buttons". And - not speaking Spanish yourself - you believe him, press a green button and your house blows up. Then you complain about how the manual misled you.

Well, the word "God" is in the Bible.

John 3:16 (Numerous translations)

For God so loved the world that he . . . ."
source​

​

I'm not so familiar with the NT and NT history, but presumably that's being translated from Greek, so I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

It makes no difference where one cares to lay the blame, the translations or the translators, but the final product: The Bible, which bears the mistake and ultimately misinforms the reader..

I don't know. It seems like most readers aren't having any problem understanding what the text is trying to say here. I have yet to meet any Christians who question whether the Bible indicates that there are multiple gods. The only ones who seem to be suffering from that misinformation are a few atheists here on RF. I mean, the Hebrew text doesn't indicate there are any other gods. And the Christian text, whether worded well or not, seems to have been understood to say the same by the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians. I have to question where the problem lays.

 

[Thanda]

Interested in the chapter and verse. What do you have?

I'm surprised no one has answered you: some of the most famous verses in the Bible from Isaiah 44

6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
​

 

[savagewind]

and Exodus 23:24 suppose to be identical?

Are you claiming that Exodus 20:3 and Deuteronomy 5:7 are suppose to be saying what Exodus 23:24 says?


.

Exodus 20:3
You shall have no other gods before me

above, according to, after, as against, among, and, as, at, http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5921.htm

I think it means I am who I am, do not make me something that I am not.
I think people have that wish also.
It means know ME. Do not make me in your mind something that I am not.

I believe the ninth command means the same, but for your neighbor.
I won't copy it because I think they are all wrong by adding the word against there.
Exodus 20:16 or Exodus 20:13

It says, "do not bear neighbor witness false."

Do not bear God witness false and do not bear neighbor witness false.

 

[savagewind]

I do think God knows that gods dwell in the minds of men.
God's will is that we seek God. The True God.
It happens in the mind. Does it not?
Put another strange god in there and that god will take you off track. It is a guarantee.

 

[Skwim]

I'm surprised no one has answered you: some of the most famous verses in the Bible from Isaiah 44

6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
​

Excellent reply!

I too am surprised no has brought it up before.


.

 

[Didachist]

Let's not forget about the Targums that I've seen you quote in another thread.

Let's also be a little more clear: the Masoretes didn't compile the text. As scribes, they established a method for copying the text with less errors. The text was not lost and rewritten through the work of the Masoretes.

Quite some time ago scholars pointed out that the Midrashic method of exposition, which makes subtle inferences from words and spellings, was applied by Pharisaic Jewry before the Temple's destruction, and this can only be understood against the background of a principle about the sacredness of a specific text. They also cite the words of Josephus in Contra Apion as proof that in his days there was already a text hallowed in its orthography, as he says: "And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them." It is not essential to suppose that Josephus is speaking of a specific letter sequence, but this is proof for the notion of a unified text.

We can now adduce textual proofs to these indirect proofs, and they testify that the Pharisees and Zealots possessed, for some of the books of the Bible, a version that can be identified with the current MT. In the ruins of Masada were found remnants of Biblical texts, brought there by the final defenders, which show clear ties with the present-day MT. We can therefore safely state that the move towards textual unification and the establishment of a definitive text preceded the destruction of the Temple, though the exact dates, as well as the measure of success in that early period, can not be determined.

In any case, it seems that after the destruction the array of text-types disappeared from normative Judaism, and the Masoretic type alone remained. This conclusion is bolstered by all textual evidence of the era, whether direct or indirect, both original and in translation. In the fifties, remnants of Scriptural scrolls used by Bar Kochba's soldiers were found in the Judean desert (Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal Hever). They all show that Bar Kochba's people used the same text which we call the MT, with only the slightest of differences. During the same period, new Greek translations were being prepared in place of the Septuagint, which, by virtue of its becoming an official Christian text, was rejected by the Jews. These translations, especially that of Aqilas which was praised by the Sages, reflected the Masoretic text-type. Likewise, the Aramaic translations such as Onqelos, Targum Jonathan, and the Palestinian Targum, whose roots date back to that same period, reflect a common text-type.
​

Incidentally, the Talmud has a list of 15 discrepancies between the LXX and the text they used, of which I recall only finding a few in the LXX that exists today.

Of course, I'd be interested to see the Hebrew text on which was based the capitalizing of the word "messiah" in Daniel 9. So we can start there if you'd like to talk about not fudging the text in the interest of Christian theology.

well lets begin, one, I do not read hebrew, two do you know which hebrew text the Septuagint was based upon, I certainly don't perhaps there was a paleo hebrew variant, or the variants before the masoritc sanitizations , as for the Targum they predate and stand as witness against the masoritic text in several areas, and in others explain errors between the septuigent and masoritic, such as deuterotomy 32:8 between sons of God (Bene Elohim) and Sons of Israel (bene Israel) as for further reading about the masoritic


https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/


I urge you to read this mans conclusions, I myself dont wish to plagarize his deductions but the most interesting is of course is psalm 145.

 

[Tumah]

well lets begin, one, I do not read hebrew,

ok

two do you know which hebrew text the Septuagint was based upon, I certainly don't perhaps there was a paleo hebrew variant, or the variants before the masoritc sanitizations ,

Perhaps...

as for the Targum they predate and stand as witness against the masoritic text in several areas, and in others explain errors between the septuigent and masoritic, such as deuterotomy 32:8 between sons of God (Bene Elohim) and Sons of Israel (bene Israel) as for further reading about the masoritic

1. All three Targums (Onkelos, Pseudo Jonathan and Jerusalem) says "children of Israel" just as the MT does.
2. Although we call them Targums, Pseudo Jonathan makes it pretty clear that the purpose of the Targum was not necessarily to create a word-for-word translation.
3. There is no Halachic requirement to retain the Targum's original language. There are plenty of clear errors that have crept into them.

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/


I urge you to read this mans conclusions, I myself dont wish to plagarize his deductions but the most interesting is of course is psalm 145.

I'm not particularly impressed. The DSS proves that there were plenty of different texts floating around. He doesn't explain what his basis is for determining that the version on which the DSS and LXX is based on, is more authoritative than the MT or its brother found in Masada as described above.

He also neglects to mention that the source of the emendations of the Scribes according to the Masoretes were the Men of the Great Assembly. Essentially he is arguing that the DSS would be a better source text than that which was made by Ezra, Nehemia, Haggai, Zechariah and/or Baruch. Not sure I would agree with that.

With regards to the change in alphabet from paleo-Hebrew to Ashurite script. How exactly that matters is left unclear.

With regards to the vowel points. I'm not sure how "Either conclusion is at odds with mainstream Protestant thought." creates a valid argument.

With regards to the books of the LXX, he doesn't mention that the 70 Sages only translated the Pentateuch. He also doesn't mention that

The translation process of the Septuagint itself and from the Septuagint into other versions can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity.
-Wikipedia​

So its not clear to me that being in the LXX indicates that it was in the original cannon is a valid argument.

And lastly. Yes. Let's take Justyn Martyr's word for it. Because he knows the Truth!

 

[Sonofason]

Consider the First Commandment:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."​

What I've always found interesting is that this goes beyond a simple "have me," or some such commandment ordering people to obey and believe in Him, the God of Abraham, but that it implies the actual existence of other gods. "Yes there are other gods, but thou shalt have none of them before Me." If there were no other actual gods there would be no need to make note of them. At most, God would have said "Don't believe in any of the make-believe gods. There is only one actual god. Me." But he doesn't. As far as actual existence goes, He puts the other gods on equal footing in His first commandment.

So, up in the heavens or wherever, there are numerous gods floating around, or whatever they do, including the God of Abraham. He is just one of many gods, and, as it turned out, caught the ear of the ancient Hebrews and convinced them to forget all the other gods. That he is the guy to go to. Meanwhile, the other gods convinced other peoples of the world that each was the Grand Poo-bah of all the gods. So, His specialness only really derives from his say-so. He declared Himself to be the top dog, and you better believe it of else---to the Hebrews anyway. The rest of the people of the world he left to the other gods. OR, perhaps they left Him to the Hebrews. This isn't to denigrate the God of Abraham, but only to put Him in perspective.

So, other than personal bias and long inculcated beliefs, which have left Him ingrained into the minds of a lot of people that He's numero uno among all the gods, is there any realistic reason to accord Him such a position?

Why is His say-so more crediable than the say-so of any other god?


.

When the commandments were written, there were already false gods in existence. And God told Moses that His people shall not have any false gods. There is only one God, and I believe God was very well aware of that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

23:24 Thou shalt not worship their gods, nor serve them: thou shalt not do according to their works, but shalt utterly destroy them, and break to pieces their pillars.

That's awfully violent and petty. Surely those with strong faiths can look at these pillars without needing to engage in vandalism.

Thou shalt have no other God beside Me. You shall not make to yourselves image or figure, or any similitude of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, or worship before them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God and an avenger, punishing with vengeance, recording the guilt of wicked fathers upon rebellious children unto the third and unto the fourth generation of them who hate Me; but keeping mercy and goodness for thousands of generations of the righteous who love Me, and who keep My commandments and My laws.

And yet we still have religious merchandise being sold. Guess we just don't care what God thinks. Art is art.

Yes there is, because pagan worship was a very real temptation for the Israelites.

Sex and food versus "don't bother Me, kids" ... wonder why they'd switch?

Plus, in "pre-Judaism" Yahweh and El WERE "pagan".

Either way, the take home message is that pagan worship is ultimately futile.

How many biblical characters believed in the True God and lived happily ever after? I'll wait ....

Secondly, God did reveal himself to all, in Christ

Jesus spoke to 12 guys and a few others. Hardly "the world".

 

[Shad]

He probably defeated all of them in the Sky-God Olympics.

God of War 20: Kratos and the Holy Land