Sheshbazzar

A rather neat trick 'spin', to provide a "QUOTE" from a post that you didn't bother to post, forcing me to carefully type in your words in order to reply to them.
You are of course aware that the NLT, NKJV, NASB, and RSV provide renderings of 1 Kings that agree with the idea that 7000 individuals was the intended meaning?
But really I have no problem with it being only 3500, which would only indicate they were an even smaller minority.
Here I feel I must disagree with you, The writer of Romans obviously had a better knowledge and command of the language and how it was to be interpreted than you or I are ever likely be able to attain to.
And again every translation of Romans 11:4 you can find will be in agreement with the translation that I provided regarding the number of individuals indicated.
Of course rendering "Baal" as "Lord" will never be popular with "The Lord" of this age's preachers.

On the subject of writing and saying "EliYah" rather than "EliYahu", I am writing here to a predominately English speaking and reading audience,
When I read aloud from the Tanaka in Hebrew, I am careful to pronounce every name as it is written in the Hebrew text.
(To the best of my admittedly foreign abilities - if you are ever a honored guest in a foreign country - you will also know there is no shame in speaking the native tongue with a foreign accent- indeed is an honor to the native peoples, when any do so endevor.)
In a forum such as this it is not to be expected that every name be fully transliterated down to the last letter, i.e. "Adam and - who?-
However with respect to the name "EliYahu" it is understood by scholars of virtually every stripe that this name is a statement of that Prophets religious affiliation and conviction "Eli = My El is Yah" or "My El is Yahweh"(or "Yahu" for those that insist) thus it has a significance to me and to my people that I am not willing to subvert.
As one of those who has upheld the Name of "YAH" in the midst of hostile "Christian" ignorance, contempt, and mockery every since the day of my conversion in 1976, It has been my observation and experience that the form "EliYah" is respected and accepted by every group of "Yahwists" everywhere and in every language.

Sheshbazzar

Quite a 'spin' you put on it spin, a few inscriptions, a few idols, and Wallah!
"The evidence from the period doesn't suggest such a possibility." as monotheism.
Sorry, but you are way out of line to reach any such conclusion, because the "possibility" of monotheism most certainly still existed in spite of any preponderance of polytheism.
The concept of monotheism was not "invented" by the Prophets nor by the Priesthood of Israel, You despise "Jewish" monotheism? How about Egyptian?
For monotheism to exist, it is only necessary for there to be one single monotheist alive at the time,You have absolutely no basis or proof that there was not a single living monotheist in those days.

spin

I simply provided a literal translation, ie one matching what the Hebrew actually said. For the rest, have you ever tried cutting and pasting? It's a fairly standard procedure with computer interaction these days.

Thanks for bringing my attention to what these works do. I merely referred to the Hebrew text. Silly me.

I think it should be smaller though. Around zero.

There is nothing obvious about it. It is merely your opinion about the writer of Romans' opinion. Great value that is.

You seem to have happily ignored the most useful thing you could have said as a response to my post: "Can you demonstrate a date of writing of 1 Kings which is relevant to the discourse?"

Uh-huh.

Well, why fiddle about changing it at all, when you don't care to provide an accurate form?

This is just vacuous sophistry. The name is transparent. You are not dealing what you are claiming to. The name is )LYHW. If you insist on a "y" instead of a "j" you shouldn't stop arbitrarily, but go the whole hog and get it right, otherwise, why bother with this half-hearted crap?

It is still wrong.


spin

spin

It's interesting to see such scant respect for the rule of evidence. A "few idols"?? Sheesh Bazza, What are you trying to say?

I guess you could accept the possibility that ancients had video cameras and computers, though no traces have survived of them and all evidence points to the contrary. No-one back then claimed that they didn't have them. This is a parallel to your reductio ad absurdem. Your bald statements of belief might be of interest to someone other than yourself, but they are totally useless in discussion based on evidence. The only evidence I know of is for polytheism. Would you care to supply something from the era which counters the polytheistic evidence? ... I thought not.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Yes, I have to agree, your reputation as a scholar of Hebrew studies, and your skillful translation is of course without any equal;
Now if we can just get all those less learned scholars to fall into line behind you, why then we can then just rewrite the entire text to agree with your version.

Sheshbazzar

Ever heard of Akhenaton? What 'era' do you think he lived in?
He was 'infamous' for what?
Even finding hundreds of millions of idols and inscriptions, is no evidence that monotheism did not exist.

spin

We are talking about the Jews and the possibility of their religion being monotheistic before the time of Jeremiah, especially given the archaeological and epigraphic record, but also biblical indications such as Dt 32 which places Yahweh in the position of Baal in the court of gods, in which El apportioned nations to gods. WTF has Akhenaten got to do with a Jewish monotheism?? (Perhaps you'd like to propose some hare-brained relationship between Akhenaten and Moses. Bwe-he-he. :rolling: )


spin

spin

Arguments from authority are so useful.


spin

Sheshbazzar

It just seems a itsy bitsy tiny bit strange when all of the 'authorities' understand the reading of a verse differently than that provided by the "authority" of the one all knowing spin.

Sheshbazzar

You spent a lot of time investigating Akhenaten? Having read many theories, I propose only two things;
1. That Akhenaton left us a record of the practice of an undeniable monotheism contemporary with the O.T. 'era'. (only because his form of religion did not ban the making of "graven images" of his Deity, and without the "evidence" of his "images" you could also deny that he was a monotheist)

2. That the Hebrew people, and the territory they inhabited, did not live in a cultural vacuum, and that the O.T. contains evidence of Egyptian influence.

The idolaters left behind their idols and inscriptions to be your evidence;
What would you expect the non-idolatrous monotheist's to leave behind other than their protests?