Sheshbazzar

Personally I find the substitution of the generic pagan appellation to be objectionable on several levels, firstly, in being so disrespectful of the actual religion that was held by the writers of the Bible, might as well substitute in Baal or Dagon, secondly, it encourages the syncretisim which the writers were endevoring to withstand.

yummyfur

el, elohim and adonai are also generic pagan appellations but the bible writers seemed to have no problem using them.

gregor

writers endeavoring to "withstand" syncretism

Do you mean avoid syncretism?

Hah - Pull the other one.

Sheshbazzar

Being called away, I had to cut my previous post shorter than desired, life happens.
Yes Yummyfur, el, elohim and adonai were also used as generic terms, but unlike the variations on "g-d" they are an integral part of, and have the support of the original writings, whereas the term "g-d" in its various pronunciations is directly related to the ancient deity of luck or fortune-
"Gad",- the vowel pointing indicates this name to be pronounced as "Gawd" and is referenced in the place name "Baal Gawd" or literally "Lord Gawd" (Jos 11:17, 12:7, 13:5) moreover, this "Gawd" and the name of this g-d was employed by those people who were in ignorance of Yahweh the Elohim of Israel, and more importantly by those who did know of Yahweh Elohim, yet willfully worshiped Luck under the name Gawd in direct opposition and spite towards Yahweh and His prophets; This is what the substitution effectively obscures.
To continue here adding to my previous objections to the usage of the appellation "G-D" as a substitute for the original Name or titles,
Thirdly, The appellation "G-D" is not a translation of the original Name occurring within the TaNaKa, and is nothing more than a rank substitute, not containing the meaning inherent in the original Name.
Fourth, That organized religion has thus far managed to "get away" with this substitution, is one of the main factors that has allowed them to -"pull the wool"- over peoples eyes, that is by the switching of names they are able to delude and deceive many people into believing that their modern beliefs and practices are similar to, or are supported by the text of the Scriptures.
Restoring the original Name and titles to the text forces present day
"believers" to confront just how alien the actual belief system of ancient Israel was, and is, to their present practices.
A few may try to claim otherwise, but by firsthand experience I can testify how by simply employing the true Scriptural Name and titles, I was identified as an enemy to their popular religion, being first scornfully rebuked, then ridiculed, and finally shunned, all because of a Name, that supposedly - "doesn't make any difference".
I love it when atheists employ the correct Scriptural terms in their writings and conversations as it is the most effective way to wake people up from the "G-d spell" that has ensnared them, far more effective than attacking the silly beliefs that they have so willingly accepted.
Better to just let them know the truth of how the ancient manuscripts actually read, so they can perceive that popular religion has managed to pull the greatest con game in history on them.

yummyfur

Um the english word god has nothing to do with Baal Gawd at all, it's a generic term for a divine entitiy, from the gothic ghue meaning "to invoke" or "to sacrifice to", from Indo-European roots not Semitic origin. Since we are speaking English, we use the gereric term for a divine entity, otherwise people would look at us funny, I don't see what the problem is.

Do you consider the Septuagint to be dishonorable?, as I believe it uses the Greek theos or kurios, generic terms from another language?

NZSkep

Not to mention the Kiwis, Moas, Emus, Penguins, Polar Bears, Koalas etc etc.

Another interesting question is "How did they get back without leaving any evidence of their massive migration whatsoever"

John A. Broussard

Avoiding the issue and questionning my honesty doesn't negate the fact that you haven't answered my question.

I'll give you another chance, though I suspect you don't have an answer.

What do you mean by "overly creative?"

Thank you.

GakuseiDon

Yes. Notice the "to keep them alive with thee" part.

It's "Two of every sort to keep them alive with thee" vs "every clean beast take by sevens". I presume that the extra animals were used for food and sacrifices.

Sheshbazzar

By "gothic" am I correct to assume you are referring to that branch of the Indo-European peoples known to history as the Goths?
To save time, I'll continue here under that assumption for now,
At the time the nation Israel was worshiping Yahweh in the temple in Jerusalem, these barbarous Teutonic tribes were engaged in the service of their own tribal deities, even then being referred to under such names as "Gawd", "Gud", and "Gott" along with hundreds of other such names for the deities that they offered up their human sacrifices and services to, without any knowledge of Yahweh, or of that faith.
Many of these names survive into the present day, and are commonly used as substitutes for that proper personal Name of the Holy One of Israel that is recorded within the text of Scripture over seven thousand times;
The employment of a "generic" term or name distorts and corrupts the text to conform it to the ignorance of the majority.

I consider it dishonesty, and a willful distortion and perversion of the actual historical facts to continue in these lying religion's name switching tactics.
And if for speaking the truth, and speaking out against the lies of religionists causes ignorant men to "look at us funny", I reckon that a very small price to pay to retain ones integrity, men of old gave their lives for the sake of His Name.
As to your question about the Septuagint, "dishonorable" is not a word I would choose, "deficient" being preferable, as it is lacking in many ways, not limiting that to the obscuring of The Name alone.
As to "Theos" and "Kurios", there are abundant records of the Greeks serving their deities under these names and terms far, far before accepting "Xianity", even when they sacking the Temple of Yahweh and shedding the blood of their innocent victims these were the profane terms were upon their lips.
I prefer even the very worst of Hebrew text over even the very best 'translation' or "Version" that is written in any language other than the Hebrew, because even with the very best of efforts a whole LOT gets lost in translation.

Sheshbazzar

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
John A. Broussard Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar By now it ought to be quite evident to all that you cannot provide a reasoned and supported "metaphorical interpretation" to the three verses referenced in the original post of this thread.
So now you would prefer to dance, rather than have to come through with your "metaphorical interpretation".
No need for me to impugn your integrity or honesty, in your inability to either put up or shut up, you are doing a fine job of it yourself.
I will endeavor to answer your question, although it is clearly apparent that NO answer that I may give will be to your satisfaction.
Nevertheless, I will make the effort.

What do I mean by "overly creative?" Well I didn't think that the concept was so far beyond your intellectual capabilities, so let's review the two paragraphs that are causing you such distress.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
As to an insistence on these verses being "merely a metaphor for mankind overcoming adversity". you are welcome to explain in what way you find the actual words written down in these three verses to be a "metaphor" for anything. However if you are overly "creative" with your explanation, you will be in the same boat as the Fundies who also contrive fanciful and elaborate
"explanations" to defend their otherwise unsupportable positions.

The first paragraph reads;
"As to an insistence on these verses being "merely a metaphor for mankind overcoming adversity". you are welcome to explain in what way you find the actual words written down in these three verses to be a "metaphor" for anything."

Is there something here that you are unable to comprehend?

And the second paragraph reads;
"However if you are overly "creative" with your explanation, you will be in the same boat as the Fundies who also contrive fanciful and elaborate
"explanations" to defend their otherwise unsupportable positions."

You have chosen to fixate on the phrase; "....overly "creative" as though such an idea had never before entered into your own mind with regard to the Fundies fanciful and elaborate "explanations" to defend their otherwise unsupportable positions.
Yet it was only a few short posts ago in this same thread that you were ridiculing the "miracle, miracle, miracle" Fundie resort.
Not that I ought to need point it out, but doing a search on the subjects of "Noah;s Ark" and "Joshua's long day", will produce abundant examples of;
"Fundies who also contrive fanciful and elaborate "explanations" to defend their otherwise unsupportable positions". In fact just entering the word "creative" should provide enough examples of "creative" explanations for you to grasp what the pitfalls of "overly creative explanations" consist of, and of which I was simply trying to forewarn you.
Obviously you managed to dodge that pitfall, by skipping providing any explanation or support for your alleged "metaphorical interpretation" but at the far greater the expense of exposing yourself in a particularly unflattering light, It is a sad commentary that;
"There <is> an as yet unfulfilled and unsupported attempt to give "these verses" --(note; Not 'the whole story', and not 'other verses', but specifically
"these verses") a "metaphorical interpretation".
It would require little integrity to just make the honest admission that the premise of the OP was incorrect."
OK now John, I have expended my time and effort to compose this answer, (not that I'm expecting you to accept it)
Now is your chance to redeem your honor, provide ANY "metaphorical interpretation" that you can invent for these three verses;-- I'll even waive the requirements of any rational "reasoning" and "support" for that interpretation.
Or just admit that you cannot do so.

Oh, by the way, I AM able to provide that metaphorical explanation.