aa5874

Without going into semantics and the meaning of Elohim, it is written in the Christian Bible that there are more than one God.

Job 1:6, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them".

Job 2:1, "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.


So, the author of Job wrote that the Lord had sons, and these sons do not include Satan, which would imply a 'family of Gods'.

The author of Job also implies that these sons of God were present when the Lord created the foundations of the earth. Job 38:4-7, "Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?, declare if thou hast understanding............When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

It may be that the Lord was talking to his sons, in the presence of Satan, when the author of Gensis states in Genesis 1:26, " And God said, 'Let us make man in our image.........

The reason I mentioned Satan because this may account for the actions of the serpent, in any event, the Bible recorded many Gods.

gstafleu

True, my lament is that it is sometimes difficult to understand when an author writes as a believer and when as a scholar. When the two modes are intermingled, the "believerisms" tend to diminish the credibility of the scholarly parts.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

I have now managed to read the whole article. Very interesting, thanks driver8.

It doesn't seem to suffer from "believerisms," and as a whole reads as solid science. Its concluding paragraph may be a good summary of what is going on:
Gerard Stafleu

spin

Still no. Here's a definition of "pious fraud" for your benefit:

Pious fraud (Ch. Hist.), a fraud contrived and executed to benefit the church or accomplish some good end, upon the theory that the end justified the means.

Note the notion "contrived and executed". This carries intention, yet your attempt at a definition shows that intention was not considered in your understanding.

A translator needs the intent to subvert the text for the benefit of the flock, rather than simply translate a text in a particular way because of one's prior commitment to the religion, this latter not having intent to commit fraud.

They can believe they are accurate without being accurate. You've seen praxeus turn blue in the face in efforts to give validity to his peculiar readings at times. In the face of all opposition and signs of scholarly disagreement, he will refuse to listen because he "knows" that his position is right and will bend over backwards to repudiate what you say in any way possible so as not to face the implications of what is said, as it must be wrong. You cannot call this fraud in any sense.


spin

driver8

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Based on your quote of the "concluding paragraph," I wonder if you read only the one page I linked above. If so, you may wish to start here http://cc.usu.edu/%7Efath6/intro.htm and read all 18 pages.

gstafleu

I know what you're saying, and many would probably agree with your POV. Even I might do so, when in a relaxed mood . However, I'm in general hesitant to to accept religious belief as an excuse for such things. IOW the statement "I did that (e.g. translating it as X while it really says Y) because of religious belief" is in my book equivalent to statement of intent to subvert. So:
That to me is a distinction without a difference.

I should now go read a self-help book on tolerance, I know .

Gerard Stafleu

3DJay

Whether, or not, the Hebrews were consistent in their singular verb usage, doesn't change what the term Elohim meant, back in the time it was being used.

"Part of the path towards monotheism involved the elevation of the term elohim to the role of a a personal title, Elohim for the Supreme God. This usage occurred first among those Israelites" ~ from the Dr. Richley Crapo article

The OT was written, at the earliest, around 650 BC. That's well after the period, in which the term Elohim would have been in common usage, by more than just the Hebrews. Those later Hebrews/Israelites, who believed there was only one God and who were writing down the history of their religion, could very well have changed an oral plurality of Gods, into a singular God, to suit their beliefs. Or, it could have been a gradual oral change, over the 600+ years after the Canaanite civilization waned.

However it happened, the only evidence, from the actual time period, states that Elohim equates to a plurality. A pantheon.


Peace

Steven Avery

Hi 3DJay,

Exactly what is this "only evidence" ?

The quote above from the Mormon scholar ?
An ancient grammar from an ancestor of Kimchi ?
Some exacting analysis of the usage of Elohim in ancient times ?
Or something else ?

And does the Bible itself count as an evidence ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

mountainman

What are the legal ramifications if the entire editorial team
from Eusebius down to the scribes and/or translators were
under an oath of sworn secrecy to a supreme imperial mafia
thug, and emminent thelogical thinker, the self-confessed
malevolent dictator, our dear friend Constantine?

3DJay

The only written material, close to the time period in question (about 1500 BC, when Moses supposedly authored the first 5 books), are the Ugaritic texts (1300- 1200 BC), which describe "Elohim" as a pantheon, "El" as the head of the pantheon, and "Yahweh" as a son of El.

The OT really couldn't have been written, until around 650BC...about when the Chaldeans came to power in Ur, as described in Genesis. Either that, or it was edited about that time, to reflect the change in power, in Mesopotamia. Either way, makes it weak "evidence" of what the word meant, 600+ years earlier.

It's all speculation how the plural Elohim came to be a singular, in Hebrew scriptures. The oldest Ugaritic definition indicates a plurality. Somehow it also came to represent a singular being. But, just because the Hebrews, after 650 BC, consistently use the word a certain way, with singular verbs, isn't proof of how the word was originally used, even by them. It's simply proof that, sometime after the Hebrews started believing there was only one God, they consistently used the word to describe one God.


Peace