So the Ten Commandments were written by polytheists.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do Christians accuse other religions of believing in false prophets?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
It is not my imagination that created the words out of your mouth friend .. and no idea why you are bringing hell into the equation.
You believe YHWH is the "Most High" .. This you have stated .. has nothing to do with my imagination.. The Box into which you put God .. is entirely Your Creation .. and that of the SMCT crew.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. the prophets were not polytheists.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You speak of a "nasty god"..
What are you basing your opinion on?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..belief in the One G-d of Abraham, who sent prophets teaching monotheism.
So your gut feeling again.
Do you have anything reasonable to back up your opinion?
"Nasty God" -- Yes Muhamu - Your depiction of GOD is very nasty .. A Flip Flopping Irrational xenophobic genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of Human characteristics.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
But since there is no contradiction, and th stories work together, there is no reason to split them. There is no evidence that they come from seperate traditions.
The evidence describes two sources, and Gen 1 and Gen 2 are part of the same tradition.
No. The text is clear. The verb is singular.
There aren't any contradictions. We can make a list of the ones people point to; they're all imagined.
No. It's not.
God created ( verse 27 ) and created is singular.
The image was plural. The creating was completed by a singular. If you read the story, those verse are about masculine and feminine which is existed in all the things that moved on the earth... they were commanded to reproduce, before verse 26-27. So, this plural form is communicating the masculine feminine dynamic.
Your judgements about "everyone" and "all" are pretty worthless at this point.
Nope, that was when his body was FORMED. Formed, not created.
No, it's an imaginary contradiction resulting from lack of precision, lack of attention to detail, lack of knowledge of the language, but no lack of consuming youtubes from critics who don't give both sides of the argument.
But since there is no contradiction....
There is only 1 god in Gen 1
Both Gen 1 and 2 have the same 1 god which is revealing itself in different ways. Like I said, the cycle of life requires mercy, and that is what is communicated by the different names. And that fits with the context and theme of the stories. They are a unit. And beleive it or not, their unity flows into the flood story, which is also a unity. Eventhough people want to split them. All of these stories work together without contradiction. Which is why...
Documentary hypothesis - Wikipedia
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Nah, the according to the story, the 7 unholy nations were truly awful. Critics complain, but they usually ignore the details.
When the Lord your God shall cut off the nations from before you, where you go to dispossess them, and live in their land;
Take heed to yourself that you be not snared by following them, after they are destroyed from before you; and that you inquire not about their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? that I may also do likewise.
You shall not do so to the Lord your God; for every abomination to the Lord, which he hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burned in the fire to their gods.
So, these nations needed to be stomped. Completely annihilated. They wee rapists, murders, kidnappers, and burned their children in the fire.
InB4: Abraham knew that we would not sacrificing Isaac. That's part of the story.
Of course there is a contradiction ... the claim that there was only one God in Genesis 1:26 is yet another falsehood on your part.
26 Then God said: Let us make[e] human beings in our image, after our likeness.
Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us then go down…”). Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1 - New American Bible (Revised Edition)
Look at that Brother D .. right there in the footnotes - an assembly of Heavenly beings .. and Look Psalm 82 is referenced .. Divine Council of EL. YHWH is not mentioned .. guess it was EL and the divine assembly is the "US" .. although perhaps YHWH was among the Divine Assembly I suppose we can not say he wasn't present .. one of El's many Sons .. as told to us in Deut 32:8
You can cry and pout and disagree with the Biblical Reference/footnote all you like friend, but that is not going to change the "Let US Make - Our Image" into "I will make in My Image" Sorry Paddy.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
As usual, you're reading the wrong the verse. Verse 26 doesn't have any creating in it.
None of this changes that the creation was in verse 27, and God is the only one creating. Anyway, this is just commentary. If you ant to bring commentary, I can bring commentary.
“Elohim, in the present context, is always combined with a verb in the singular. Why should “said” be in the singular, if “let us” indicates the plurality of Gods? Again, any departure from the strictest monotheism is unthinkable in the writing of the Priestly Code. The explanation may safely be dismissed as improbable in the extreme.
iii. It has been explained as the plural of Majesty. It is pointed out that the commands and rescripts of royal personages are conveyed in the 1st pers. plur.; and reference is made, in support of this view, to Ezra 4:18, 1Ma 10:19; 1Ma 11:31. It may be allowed that the view is tenable; but the examples adduced are drawn from a very late period of Biblical literature, and, as an explanation, it appears to be little in harmony with the directness and simplicity of the passage.
iv. It has been explained as the “plural of the fulness of attributes and powers.” It is pointed out that not only is the word for God (Elohim) plural in form, but also the words for “Lord” (Adon) and “Master” (Ba‘al) are often used in the plural of a single person. “It might well be that, on a solemn occasion like this, when God is represented as about to create a being in His own image, and to impart to him a share in that fulness of sovereign prerogatives possessed by Himself, He should adopt this unusual and significant mode of expression”
It's just commentary. I can bring commentary too which challenges it. And none of that changes that the actual creating is singular.
No... it doesnt say EL.
It doesn't say that.
True! This revelation is strict!
no, process of elimination doesn't work when the name is given and it's elohim.
InB4: Elohei is singluar for elohim, when it is plural.
Nah. Not really. but even if you're right, that's just the form, not the creator(s).
EL isn't in Deut 32. And Deut 3:39 explicitly says YHWH is alone and there are no other gods. So, that whole chapter is a fail.
If you trust the LXX... here it is:
ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν ἐμοῦ ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω πατάξω κἀγὼ ἰάσομαι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐξελεῖται ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν μου
ἴδετε ἴδετε - See, See ( repeated for emphasis )
ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι - that I am
καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς - and not Is God
πλὴν ἐμοῦ - except me
I'm not pouting. I know what it says. You are looking at the wrong verse if you want to know the creator.
ויברא אלהים את־האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו זכר ונקבה ברא אתם׃
So God ("אלהים" singular ) created ("ברא" singular ) man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female He created them.
And since neither a man, nor a woman are anywhere in Gen 1. And neither a man nor a woman are delivered to the earth in Gen 1. There is no contradiction with Gen 2 in regard to the creation of a man and a woman.
Ready to move on to the next so-called contradiction? Is it the sprouting?
Not reading the wrong verse at all Brother D. the deception is upon you once again
26 Then God said: Let us make[e] human beings in our image, after our likeness.
God is discussing the creation of Humans with the Divine Assembly. did you not read the footnote ? The word "Make" means create Friend .. is that where your confusion lies ?
Here is the Footnote again since you didn't seem to understand the first time ... lost on some other verse .. on a different page.
"in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us then go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings."
So you see .. it is not about what you think .. but what the Israelites thought .. and when they tell you that it was "US" involved in the creation .. it means "US" as in multiple Gods are present ... albeit one seems above the others .. but in this version of the Story that "Most High" is not yet YHWH .. YHWH does not evolve into that position until the time of Moses within Israelite Religious belief
You Understand Now .. -- The Isralites believed in many Gods along side YHWH .. The Bible Tells us so ..
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
That doesn't describe the actual creating.
Creating is in the next verse by a singular god using singular words.
ויברא אלהים את־האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו זכר ונקבה ברא אתם׃
So God ( singular ) created ( singular ) man in His (singular) own image (singular), in the image (singular) of God (singular) created (singular) He (singular) him; male and female He (singular) created (singular) them.
10 times, it's singular. And you're focused on 1 word "us" in the previous verse?
Discussing, maybe with some angels.
Discussing isn't creating.
The footnote is not talking about creating.
It's just commentary, and I brought equally if not more convincing commentary to refute it. The verbs used in creation are all singular.
Do you know what a verb is? People often call them action words. So all the action in Gen 1, all the creating, is done by a singular force/being.
The footnote is not talking about creating.
Here is my rebuttal. My commentary is more detailed, has more reasons, and is simply better.
“Elohim, in the present context, is always combined with a verb in the singular. Why should “said” be in the singular, if “let us” indicates the plurality of Gods? Again, any departure from the strictest monotheism is unthinkable in the writing of the Priestly Code. The explanation may safely be dismissed as improbable in the extreme.
iii. It has been explained as the plural of Majesty. It is pointed out that the commands and rescripts of royal personages are conveyed in the 1st pers. plur.; and reference is made, in support of this view, to Ezra 4:18, 1Ma 10:19; 1Ma 11:31. It may be allowed that the view is tenable; but the examples adduced are drawn from a very late period of Biblical literature, and, as an explanation, it appears to be little in harmony with the directness and simplicity of the passage.
iv. It has been explained as the “plural of the fulness of attributes and powers.” It is pointed out that not only is the word for God (Elohim) plural in form, but also the words for “Lord” (Adon) and “Master” (Ba‘al) are often used in the plural of a single person. “It might well be that, on a solemn occasion like this, when God is represented as about to create a being in His own image, and to impart to him a share in that fulness of sovereign prerogatives possessed by Himself, He should adopt this unusual and significant mode of expression”
I suppose I need to go through each of these references to see if there is any actual deliberation, or if there are simply angels present.
And still, just commentary. I brought commentary too. It's just as good.
The footnote you brought is not talking about creating.
"Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings." does not mean that multiple gods created in Gen 1. That's your addition. The footnote does no say 1 word about creation. It uses the word deliberation.
If it said creation, then... maybe you would have a point.
The footnote you brought is not talking about creating.
it doesn't say that.
The footnote you brought is not talking about creating.
it doesn't say that. it doesn't say Gods and...
The footnote you brought is not talking about creating.
It doesn't say THE MOST HIGH in this chapter anywhere.
There is no evolution. Just different types of revelation. And obviously YHWH is in Genesis long before Moses.
Some did, sure. But that doesn't mean Gen 1 has multiple gods creating. Nor does it mean that Gen 1 and 2 are split traditions.
We are not talking about "The next Verse" and it matters not which Gods nor how many do the actual creation . That there are multiple Gods in a Divine congregation is all you need to understand .. with no mention of YHWH..
Multiple Gods friend .. that Divine Pantheon just keeps cropping up ... over and over.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The verse you're talking about does not create anything.
Oh. But you said this was a contradiction.
So, since creation in gen 1 is singular, and what's happening in gen 2 is also singular, it looks like there's no more contradiction.
There aren't multiple gods in Gen 1. There were male and female fish though, and male and female bunnies, and male and female crocodiles, and male and female birdies.... and maybe angels. but no gods.
not really. we need to see some deliberation. some ya know counciling. actual council cooperative work.
in psalms 82, at best you have the council being killed. that's not deliberation, not cooperation.
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
OK... let's look at these. Your anonomous footnote says heavenly beings deliberated and decided matters on earth. That's a bold claim. God in the Hebrew bible is defering it's power and authority to other beings? That doesn't sound right. Let's see if it's true.
1 Kings 22:19-22
And he said, Hear you therefore the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said to him, With what?
And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, You shall persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so.
OK. Not a bad example. It's still just a vision though. Visions are like dreams. And they are just angels. Not gods.Isaiah 6:8
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
Well, this one is totally bogus. Isa 6 has visions of angels in it. And Isaiah just rec'd a hot coal on the tongue. None of this is actually happening in the story it's just a vision, again, like a dream. But either way, there's no deliberation, there's no deciding matters on earth. There's no assembly.Pslams 29:1-2
A Psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, O you mighty, give to the Lord glory and strength.
Give to the Lord the glory due to his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
OK. For this one they're focused on the literal translation of what is above as "O you mighty". It's b'nai Ailim. They're translating that as "sons of the gods". Ignoring whether that is correct or not, I'm not seeing any deliberation nor deciding matters on earth. There is no assembly, no council, no cooperation.Psalms 82... we know this one. by Asaph. There is no deliberation, no deciding matters on earth, no cooperation, the gods are killed accoring to the pagan pantheon theory.
Psalms 89:6-7
And the heavens shall praise your wonders, O Lord; your faithfulness also in the congregation of the holy ones.
For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened to the Lord?
OK. This one is interesting. This one's by Ethan. And hopefully you are starting to see what's happening. There's buzz words that they're looking for to make this case of an assembly of divine beings deliberating and making decisions for matters on earth. But there isn't actually any deliberating, and there aren't any actual decisions being made. Here, they're keyed in on the "congregation of the holy ones" "Kachal Kedoshim" and again the "B'nai Ailim". But notice. The B'nai Ailim cannot be likened to the LORD, YHWH. Isn't that interesting? How are these gods? how are these ven angels? They are not anything like YHWH at all. And there's no deliberating, there's no decision making. It's all just poetry talking about Israel. The congregation of the holy ones, the children of the mighty ones.Now it's the last ones... Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, kind of a random smattering. I know the early ones. I don't know 38:7.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Sure... angels, or whatever they are. No deliberating, no decision making... just a buzz word "sons of God".Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
Same thing. No deliberating, no decision making... just a buzz word "sons of God".When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Same thing. No deliberating, no decision making... just a buzz word "sons of God".
OK Sarg, what do you think? It's a bit exaggerated don't you think? The only one that actually has anything resembling a divine assembly with deliberation and decision making is 1 Kings 22. A vision. That's 1. None of the others have a divine assembly. It's just buzz words. So why is the footnote exaggerating? Who actually wrote that footnote?
And something to consider: you know, Christians very much want to have evidence from the OT supporting this idea that "The Father" granted all authority to Jesus. Jews like me naturally are going to balk at that idea. So there is motive to exaggerate.
Brian2
Veteran Member
How does God evolve when God remains the same as said in Psalm 102:27?
Brian2
Veteran Member
But I suppose you are like me and do not know the Hebrew and rely on translations. I also think that Ex 6:3 means that God revealed Himself to Abraham etc as El Shaddai and not as YHWH. But is it a big deal if it does not mean that?
I worship El Shaddai, YHWH, the one who says that He is the only true God. That is why I know that all the other gods mentioned in the Bible are not true Gods.
This is self delusion and fallacy, a violation of logic and reason .. something I am not willing to do to salvage belief in man made dogma.
1) Do not know Hebrew ?? -- then you better not rely on anything in the Bible as True or useful for anything right ?? I am just going to leave it at that and hope that you might one day figure out how desperately silly and fallacious your comment is.
2) No Big Deal ?? (refer to 1) -- Just "scrw it" right ?! belief in anything on the basis of some hebrew book is silly nonsense ... so leave it at that -- it matters not whether the True God is Shiva or BAAL -- nor do any of the rules given to us by either of these God's matter .. even though Jesus has told us that our salvation is dependent upon it. Glad we got that off our chest
3) Reflect on the irrational self deception and deflection in 1 & 2 .. now let it Go - and never mention again.
4) EL Shaddai not YHWH -- > Correct <--- Full Marks , Abe did not know his God by the Name YHWH. This God .. not unlike YHWH .. introduces himself to Abe with an Epithet "I am God Most High" "I am the Supreme God - God Supreme" "I am God of the Mountain" "God of your fore-Fathers" "I am the Sun God" "I am God of Storms" and so on .. all are examles of Epithets ascribed to various Gods.
While learning one of the Epithets of this God helps in the identification of of this God .. Learnign this Epithet does not tell us the name by Which ABE knew his God .. does not tell us the identity of this God nor the name of this God. El Shaddai, is not a name.
5) We have 2 clues thusfar .. A) EL Shaddai is one of the Epithets of this God B) the name by thich ABE knows this God is not YHWH
Given this information --- you then descend into irrational and illogical self deception claiming that El Shaddai is YHWH -- When the clues we have thus far tell us that ABE's God was not named YHWH .. and that we do not know the NAME of this God. Your claim is unfortunately - illogical nonsense.
You then Go on to declare that you know who the one True God of the Bible is (1c. even without speaking Hebrew - at which point brain should be feeling pain at how claim 1 contradicts this this latest claim) and that the other Gods are False -- but give ZERO support for this claim .. nor tell us the name of this one True God (presumably YHWH) and again (1c)
6) You have again claimed indirectly that YHWH is a liar .. YHWH himself tells us about other Gods .. and is certainly not Jealous of a falsehood but that is an inference. Azaz-EL is a real God according to YHWH .. a God to which the Israelites are instructed to Sacrifice
6b) You also are claiming that Bible passages referring to other God(s) - such as that found in Job and Mark are false nonsense - Satan is a God .. a God lesser than "The Father" a God Subservient to his Father .. but a God no less.
So YHWH is a Liar(6) -- and the Bible passages pointed out are a big fat lie and thus are to be disgarded and after all (2) so what does it matter.
7) What part of Satan is referred to as a Divinity with God-Like Powers -- did you not understand when reading the Bible -- or did you not bother to read (due to 1 and 2) and are just going on the Hollywood depiction .. or what Pastor John said one day when at Band Camp as a Youth.
Your mission - should you choose to accept - is to make a list of all the Divine Powers you can think of .. then explain how the having of Divine Powers does not make the entity weilding these powers a divinity .. then adjust your perspective of Satan to something that makes rational sense such that God is no longer a big liar in your story.
8) Now all this --- and we have yet to identify the name by which Abraham knew is God ? Notice that what you think .. and your Perspective "YHWH is a big Liar and the Bible a lie to which we should pay no attention" has absolutely nothing to do with Abe's perspective .. and has no bearing on the NAME by which Abe knew his God .. something you have yet to understand but, hopefully we can have a breakthrough.
The question being addressed is not who you think Abe's God was ... the question is who did ABE think his God was .. what name did Abe use for his God .. by what name did ABE call his God .. not what name you wish to call his God ... and ABE did not call his God by the name YHWH .. according to YHWH .. so stop calling YHWH a liar at this time ... you will have a chance for that later.
We are given another clue, another Epithet for ABE's God in Genesis 14 ... the fated visit with our Good Friend MelchiZedek .. This is a different epithet than "EL Shaddai" not a surprise as a God could have many Epithets in Abes time. This time the Epithet is "EL Oliun" which unlike EL Shaddai -- which has an ambiguous meaning of which we are not exactly sure .. having a number of Possibilities .. EL Oliun is "EL Supreme" a variation on El Elyon "God most high" .. but a different epithet .. .. This same Epithet is also used in Psalm 82 in conjunction with the God EL -- the Chief God of of the Canaanite Pantheon .. depicted as Chief God of the Congregation of EL
While this in of itself is not a slam dunk for EL as the identity of Abe's God .. This was an epithet by which the God EL was known during the time of Solomon.
MelchiZedek is a Canaanite King of Jerusalem .. and Priest of the Most High ... Priest of EL Supreme. This Priesthood in Jerusalem lasts at least 500 years -- down to the time of David .. when the King is Adoni-Zedek "My Lord is Zedek" Zedek being the Patron God of Jerusalem at this time. Zedek is God of Justice and Righteousness .. associated with EL's divine Council --- which makes complete sense and because Zedek is a twin God .. the three then represents a kind of judicial Trinity -
So .. Regardless of you think the name of Abrahams God was -- the name by which Abe knew his God was not YHWH - and there are good reasons why the vast majority of modern Theological Scholarship believes the name by which ABE knew his God was EL "Most High" - the Supreme God of the Canaanite and Phoenician Pantheon (and most everone elses Pantheon in one form or another at the time of ABE)
Other epithets for this God was "Father" "Creator" "God of the Patriarchs" EL lived in a Tent on a Mountain .. had many Storm God Characteristics .
9) The question you neglected ... perhaps the most important part of the story .. Should we kill the child for the sins of the Parents/Tribe .. or Not ?