Littlejohn

".. you are spouting misinformation"

From how you built this sentence, is clear that your goal is to challenge everything that I'm posting here in the forum Infidels.org.

Elhoim it is only a pretext that allows you to express your dissent. I have already stated clearly that absolutely do not pretend to do "proselytes", ie convert readers to "my" truth! My aim is only to provide ideas and data to generate a moment of reflection and to induce, if possible, who read to make their personal research, to see if what I say has any chance of being true or not. It seems to me that you showed so far prevented and I can not even know what the cause of everything. However, it seems to me that your method of dispute is far from common sense of "fair play" ...


Littlejohn

.

HaRaAYaH

Please explain this:
If you cannot dispute this with anything other than an Israeli said so, you are spouting misinformation. Period. Treat yourself to a Hebrew grammar book. The above has nothing to do with archeology, theology or history. It is straight and simple Hebrew grammar. A language which you do not read and clearly understand less than that. This is fair play. Just like it's fair play for me to say me went to the park is grammatically incorrect while I went to the park is grammatically correct. These are the rules.

Littlejohn

And I did what you said? ... Elhoim is a plural form in hebraic, because of its ending to "IM"!... In hebraic language all or almost all Jewish names ending in "im" are male plurals and ALL verbs in sentences are referring to this noun, have to agree with it: it's a grammatical rule that applies to the vast majority of languages, both ancient than modern! The fact that have be the verbal form to determine the gender of the nouns is a rule that you have invented, also!

After the seventh century BC Jewish reform, all verbs that appeared in sentences where there was the noun Elhoim were converted in the singular. This is testified by the fact that in some cases (for reasons probably due to oversights of the faking scribes) the verb remained in the plural!

I return to propose still the example of Psalm 82:1:

"..In Psalm 82:1 the words are in the following order: "Elohim takes his place in the El-assembly, in the midst of the Elohim he judges.."

In versions fully translated into English we read:

"..God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods.."

It is therefore clear that the second Elhoim (gods) expresses a plural concept, although accompanied by NONE verb, since it is a simple complement! Then, according to the "YOUR" rule, who, in this case, it establishes the gender, singular or plural, of the second Elhoim ??.... It's here that your logical sense one should "cimentare" ....(forced to reflection and to reasoning)

The TRUE singular originally was ELHOI (see the canonical gospels )(*), then transformed into Elhoi-m to give the impression that this was a singular word in order to make forget to the new generations of Jewish faithful, their past polytheist worship.

I you remember that you have disputed my statement that is the suffix "-im" that turns hebraic male singular names in plural form, while you, on the contrary, affirmed absurdly that it was not the suffix to form the plural but the verbal form, based on the fact that there are cases where some unusual singular words in Hebrew lexicon ending in "im". Well, you made of the exception a rule! It seems to me that "spouting misinformation" this are you! ..

"..Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara ??? is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect..

By adding an "m" in the singular Elhoi it is obtained precisely "Elhoim", and so one created the absurd of a verb in the form of third singular person, referring to a plural word! ... This does not prove your absurd rule, but simply it witness ignorance of the jews faithful of that time, which were unable to grasp the absurdity of the thing.

This is only a literary "capriole"! Here is debating whether Elhoim is a form plural or singular. From your citations not arrive nor a confirmation or a denial! The falsehoods and lies inserteds in the "sacred" texts, both hebraic andt those Christians, have endured for over 20 centuries. To pretend them endure yet, at dawn of the third millennium, seems at least disconcerting!

"..If you cannot dispute this with anything other than an Israeli said so.."

What "said" are you talking about? .. All what I have reported so far is more of a simple "said", despite your assessment ...

"..The above has nothing to do with archeology, theology or history"

The archaeology is simply exposing the lies of the Bible, in first place that the original Jewish worship was a polytheism and NOT a monotheism! The plural "Elhoim" PERFECTLY one accords with the polytheistic appearance of the original hebraism! In honour of the truth, archaeology gives us confirmations, as any scholar who is not "by part", has already sensed for some time, from simple reading of the Bible, that there was a period in Jewish history in which the worship of the Jews was a polytheism.

".. you are spouting misinformation..

Hey, Trunk..... I'm not a trinket!..

_______________________

Nota:

(*) - It's very likely that "Elhoi" represents a phonetic evolution of the primitive "Elhoah". From the Jewish Bible (Job 19:26): VEACHAR-GORI'-NIQEFU'-ZOT-UMIBESHARI-ECHEZEH-ELHOAH -
"And after that will be destroyed my skin and my flesh no longer will exist, I will see God"

Littlejohn
.

HaRaAYaH

I could care less about whether Judaism was originally polytheistic and later became monotheistic. There is enough evidence to show it was about the time of Isiah that monotheism took over Judaism and it was written back into the text.

But the plural or singular form of Elohim will depend on the verb. If you think not please explain the word mayim.

Littlejohn

".. it was about the time of Isiah that monotheism.."

If Isaiah lived in the time that experts have estimated (eighth century BC), then in his day Judaism was still a polytheism (become a monotheism with the reform of Jewish King Josiah and his high priest Helkya, which took place between the middle and the end of the seventh century BC)

"..But the plural or singular form of Elohim will depend on the verb.."

I have already said that in Hebrew there are exceptions about some names that appear on their form as plural nouns but which in reality are singular terms. This did not affect the rule that to transform a singular male Jewish name in a plural, it must be used to add the "-im". In English and French it happen something similar, as it must add a final "s" to transform a singular name in plural. In Italian it is more complex because one must not add anything, but they changed the final vowels of the names to obtain the corresponding plural.

Just as in English there are some names that al the singular they end with an "s", so also in Italian there are names that have the same shape, both the singular and the plural. In this case to make a difference are the articles (both determinative and indeterminativi) they change the gender depending on the gender of the noun to which they are accompanied.

In the case of Hebrew language is likely to distinguish a term that does not change its shape from plural to singular, is used conjugation of the verb associated with the noun, to make a difference. At this point, however, I repeat once again the text extracted from Psalm 82:

"Elohim takes his place in the El-assembly, in the midst of the Elohim he judges.."

The corresponding Hebrew word of English "to take" is sicuramemnte reported in the third form of a singular (pronoun "it", "he") and this does NOT mean that in this way the PLURAL Elhoim is transformed by the alleged homonymous singular term, but simply that the "foxes" authors of the text sought, with such artifice, to pretend Jewish believers of many centuries ago, to believe that Elhoim was a "strange" singular.

In the second part of the sentence is "... in the midst of the Elohim he judges .." Here is found the verb "to judge", but it is concerning the first Elhoim, not the second! So, who determines that the second term is a plural or singular ??... How do you see the alleged rule by "verb" that determines the gender, it make "water" from all sides! (*)

"..If you think not please explain the word mayim..."

"Mayim mayim mayim mayim - hey mayim b'sasson"

A famous "water-dance" that the ancient Jews copied from the ancestors of Indians "red-skin". (actually this is not rainwater but that extracted from wells!)

Once again I go back to you repeat that the presence of exceptions not invalidate the rule but they confirmation it, also!

____________

Note:

(*) - Italian idiomatic sentence which, by conceptual comparison, means a container poorly constructed leaking water from all sides.


Littlejohn
.

HaRaAYaH

You are free to believe what you want. You are however woefully lacking in knowledge of Hebrew.



Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Not Gods

Veha'arets hayetah tohu vavohu vechoshech al-peney tehom veruach Elohim merachefet al-peney hamayim.
The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface. Not the spirit of the Gods.

Compare to at the shore of the sea of reeds:


Mi-cha-mo-cha ba-e-lim A-do-nai.
Who is like You, Adonai, among the gods that are worshiped.

And by the way, the word mayim is simply water. It is a plural form, just like Elohim is a plural form. You never use the word waters.... What you fail to understand is that Elohim and mayim are exceptions to the rule that anything that ends with yud and a final mem are plural.

It's time to invest in some Hebrew lessons or a good Hebrew grammar book. Elohim does not mean GOD's plural in 99.99% of the verses in the Torah. Just read Genesis and you will see that when the Torah speaks of the God of Israel, it is always singular and when speaking of generic gods it is plural.

Littlejohn

Already ... so it seems.

However, a little later we find:

Gen. 1:26

''And God said: let Us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

Now, in Italy "let Us make" sounds woefully as a plural. I do not know in your language what happens ...

As It appears from the outset of the description of "Creation" is also quite clearly realized that "Elhoim" order and someone else (called in turn God) is running.

If you also recognize in some way that "perhaps" the origins of Judaism were a polytheism and that today it appears a monotheism, as the logical sense, that each of us should have, otherwise there is no point debating on a forum like that Infidels.org, one should guess that something has been done to transform the original polytheism in a monotheism. Something like, for example, change the verbal form of verbs, enough to do appear Elhoim as a singolar, although in other cases the verbal form or however the meaning of the sentence makes us understand that this is a plural. Again the Psalm 82:

"..Elohim takes his place in the El-assembly, in the midst of the Elohim he judges.."

There is no need to be an "Einstein" to understand that the divine world of the first Jews was formed by a God "head" and other gods: the Elhoim, precisely!

If you had done sufficient researchs, as I have made, then you would know today that the God of Abraham (of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Mickey Mouse, etc. etc.) was not the same God of Moses, but another. It is clear, therefore, that for to indicate both, the use of the plural Elhoim is required! (woefully). Moreover, as the archaeological evidence attest unequivocally, Yaweh/Amen (the God of Moses) had a "paredra": ASHERAT! (all this is realized by simply reading the Bible!)

The above is woefully bringing the number of deities of primitive Judaism to THREE. That's why one used the plural ELHOIM !!...

Even if you do not want surrender at the evidence, in the hebraism of the origins, Yahweh/Amen (the "head" of the Elhoim) was woefully indicated by ELHOI/ELHOAH.

Nowadays, no any rabbi would mystified the Bible as childish as it appears, because hardly have escaped deception to those who have completed a minimum of "training" intellectual. But at those times not required a particular cunning to carry out a similar operation, given the widespread illiteracy of the masses of Jewish of that time, which NEVER could perceive deception.

However, there were, among others, the Nazarenes, whose main leaders were learneds and therefore able to expose deception. Thanks to Epiphanius, today we know that the Nazarenes contested harshly to the clergy of the Temple of Jerusalem its lies and its counterfeiting of the original law that Moses delivered to his people. (Testimonies of what can be found even in the book of Jeremiah). It is no a coincidence that the priestly caste of Jerusalem and that rabbinic closest to it, hated "fiercely" the Nazarenes!

The term "Adon-ai" (my GOD and NOT my "Lord", as one would like), in semitic glottology it is identical to Aton-ai, as in semitic languages the "d" and the "t" were interchangeables, without the word considered changed of meaning, officially entered in the Jewish tradition of worship at the "great" reform (650-600 BC), which transformed the initial polytheism in a monotheism: more or less as happened in Egypt at the time of Akhenaten, where the cult of ATON taken the place of that of AMEN/AMON, which was suppressed along with all other cults.

A feature of Jewish new worship, namely that of ADON-ai, was the almost maniacal "iconoclasm", which led to the rejection of any form of representation "divine", both through paintings that through the statues. This was exactly what happened in Egypt after the reform desired by Akhenaten.

Deja vu.... (already looked)


Littlejohn
.

HaRaAYaH

I'm on vacation and away from library, so I can't check the commentaries. Just perusing the web you find alternate information here and this one with Hebrew grammar citations should put this to rest.

First, and I repeat again, I agree Judaism was originally polytheistic. I just dispute the use of Elohim as proof.

Second there are about a gazillion references to Eloihim in the Torah and you have two that are with plural verbs VS thousands that are not.

Finally, you can try all you want, but unless you supply some supporting evidence you can't change the rules of Hebrew grammar to fit your world view.

Just like you do when you say:
While just ignore the very next verse:

Gen. 1:27
"And God created man in His image". In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the NEXT verse by, "And they created man in their image."

We can play dueling bible quotes from now until the Messiah comes (which means forever). I have provided more than enough evidence especially the second link with grammatical references for you to either say uncle or provide evidence of your position. Something to backup the grammar you are spouting. Otherwise am out of here as I might as well try to convince the earth is round and not flat.

HaRaAYaH

And more thing genius. Please, pretty please with a cherry on top. Study something about Judaism.

AMEN is an acrostic or an acronym for Al Melech Ne-aman. God the faithful King.

Littlejohn

Instead of a "cherry" I will put a banana, so that it will be clear that some guys of forum they prefer to think such as those of the "banana republic"!

"..Study something about Judaism..."

Before to get "clash" with you, I clashed myself with many Jews in various forums, and certainly many of them were more prepared that you!

As I studied up to now, is more than enough to explain all the absurd and disconcerting mystifications who are behind the current Jewish monotheism! However, my research still continue, as more data one can to get, more increases the chances that the world of the official erudition one interest to that I go exposing.

"...AMEN is an acrostic or an acronym for Al Melech Ne-aman. God the faithful King..."

Ah! ... This is the last "panzana" I read about the clumsy attempts of mystify the term AMEN!

You try to try to understand what connection there is between the term AMEN and AMEYN one. When you will be able to understand it, you can say have made a significant step forward in understanding the true history of Jewish worship!

Ossequi


Littlejohn

.