Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bartok · 06-21-2002, 03:17 PM

All condescending remarks and cheap name-calling aside, I'd like to request to jenn to cite some more Bible passages that back up this claim that human spirits took part in creation. You state the Bible suggests such things. Please elaborate.

john_v_h · 06-21-2002, 04:06 PM

Before you fall all over yourself chastising me, Bartok, consider that the first definition of "troll" refers to the message, not the person posting it (<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html" target="_blank">Hacker's Dictionary entry</a>). And don't mistake "sarcasm" for "condescension." The former is reserved for those whom the speaker believes ought to know better.

The theory that the Bible's "elohim" actually refers to a collective of human and divine spirits may be a worthy topic for "Bible Criticism," but I resent it being dangled as an excuse to launch into a sermon on reincarnation.

King Arthur · 06-21-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cloudyphiz:
okay. i've looked around the web, and found sites that say elohim is feminine plural, masculine plural of a feminine word, and... pretty much anything you want it to mean i guess. that's one of the advantages of writing your sacred texts in the most infinitely interpretable language ever invented.

I think the problem is that nobody knows the exact root word for "elohim". Some possibly suggest a feminine root and others a masculine. However, it seems to be masculine because the verbs seem to agree in masculine singular form when talking specifically about "the God".

Can you put up the links to where they say it is feminine? I'd like to read them and/or the textual examples they give.

Quote:

still, whether masculine or feminine, the word is plural.

also, see Genesis 1:7 for an example of the schizo wargod-in-a-box talking to itselves.

Well, sort of...

The Hebrew word for water, "mayim", is obviously plural too with the "-im" ending. I suppose it's something like when we say "the waters flow by". The Hebrew word for heaven, "shamayim", is also plural. What was up with those guys anyway? I think they must've invented cloning!!

On the "us" thing that Jen brings up, it's no use because Christians will just say that it is obviously the "plural of majesty" as kings used to speak of themselves as "we" (or something).

Kosh · 06-21-2002, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:
It's all about the roots... the root of Elohim is debateable, but most assume it comes from Eloah, which is a feminine root. (Crosswalks says that it's a masculine root, far as I know, that's wrong.)

Elohim is then given a masculine ending, which is "-im", the feminine suffix would be "-oth". An example would be "liloth" which means "spirits" and is a feminine form. Elohim is a masculine suffix, but with a feminine root. Feminists like Barbara Walker or Merlin Stone will tell you that this is because the Hebrew God was once a woman, and when the men created their masculine God, they had to wipe over the feminine parts of the Bible. You can make up your own mind about that.

It should be obvious that the word means "Lady God Who Wears the Pants".

RyanS2 · 06-21-2002, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


It should be obvious that the word means "Lady God Who Wears the Pants".

For full debate on the Beni ha-Elohim, (Sons of the God, or Sons of the Gods as I believe), I wrote an article about Allah which corresponds to it:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/religion/islam2.html" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/religion/islam2.html</a>

You'll have to scroll about halfway down to where I talk about El and Elohim, but I have a pet theory that Muhammad developed Islam from Judaism mostly, and the two correspond in more ways than people think. To get to it directly, copy "henotheistic" and click control-F in the page with the article, and paste "henotheistic" in the search bar. Click it twice.

Bartok · 06-21-2002, 08:07 PM

John, perfectly aware of what a troll is. I reserve such a term for people who are posting for the simple purpose of attacking, disrupting, or spamming. It didn't seem to be the case in this instance.

And rest assured I'm not falling all over myself. I simply wished to get back on topic rather than accuse jenn of trolling and belittling her beliefs. I was under the impression that these forums were for exploring one another's beliefs and engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate. I apologize if you feel I went out of my way to chastise you. I just wanted to stay on the topic.

Jayman · 06-21-2002, 08:32 PM

The NIV Study Bible says: "God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court."

The NRSV Study Bible says: "The plural form does not indicate multiple gods, but God and the retinue of the divine court."

Richard Elliot Friedman says: "Why does God speak in the plural here? Some take the plural to be "the royal we" as used by royalty and the papacy among humans, but this alone does not account for the fact that it occurs only in the opening chapters of the Torah and nowhere else. Others take the plural to mean the God is addressing a heavenly court of angels, seraphim, or other heavenly creatures, although this, too, does not explain the limitation of the phenomenon to the opening chapters. More plausible, though by no means certain, is the suggestion that it is an Israelite, monotheistic reflection on the pagan language of the divine council. In pagan myth, the chief god, when formally speaking for the council of the gods, speaks in the plural. Such language might be appropriate for the opening chapters of the Torah, thus asserting that the God of Israel has taken over this role."

I tend to go with the divine council response.

06-21-2002, 08:42 PM

To all:

How about looking at 'el as the Hebrew root? And how about looking at 'eloahh [in Arabic would be allah] as the Hebrew way of saying, you're the man, i.e., not just any god but THE God.

And as concerns a plural singular God, try reading Genesis 18:1-6 in the Hebrew. We start off with: And appeared to Abraham, YHWH... As the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary on Genesis rather aptly points out, this is the only instance where that formula is used without a verbal declaration immediately following. Why here? Because YHWH literally appeared, call it a localized manifestation [as it were]. Hence Abraham reportedly looking up and running towards these three men, and then bowing down before them. Then ole Abe utters: 'adonay...the plural form of 'adon reserved exclusively for God, ie., that certain plural form with the final long vowel, qamets. Confirmation comes by way of the fact that this plural Lord whom ole Abe is addressing is immediately referred to in the singular, as in, do not you [singular, you] pass away from upon your servant. Quite simply, Genesis 18 is that One's way of telling us that He is one, but if He were confined in this box we call our universe and had to inhabit a body like ours, he would be three of us. And hence the reply to Abraham's 'adonay, I pray thee, do not you pass away from upon your servant .....[v.6] And THEY said...Do according as you have spoken. Abraham is addressing his God, 'adonay, but yet, and THEY said.

CX · 06-21-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael:


I don't know about Greek, but in French, usually if a word has a sensible gender (woman, girl, husband, &c) the grammatical gender of the word is that gender, its only when the noun has no sensible gender that the gender is arbitrary.

I think that if the hebrews imagined their god as having a gender, and they used a grammatically masculine word for it, its sensible to deduce that they imagined that their god was male.

m.

Does "god" have a sensible gender? I'm not sure. In any case I know that in Koin� Greek the gender of the word does not correspond to the gender of the object it represents. The Greeks had both male and female deities, but the word for god QEOS, is always masculine. I'm almost certain the same is true of Hebrew. Is there a masculine form of Elohim? That would support the case that the Hebrews believed in a female plurality of deities. I strongly doubt it.

CX · 06-21-2002, 09:05 PM

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]

06-21-2002, 09:05 PM	#20
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2002, 03:17 PM	#11
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	All condescending remarks and cheap name-calling aside, I'd like to request to jenn to cite some more Bible passages that back up this claim that human spirits took part in creation. You state the Bible suggests such things. Please elaborate.

06-21-2002, 04:06 PM	#12
john_v_h Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 1,760	Before you fall all over yourself chastising me, Bartok, consider that the first definition of "troll" refers to the message, not the person posting it (<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html" target="_blank">Hacker's Dictionary entry</a>). And don't mistake "sarcasm" for "condescension." The former is reserved for those whom the speaker believes ought to know better. The theory that the Bible's "elohim" actually refers to a collective of human and divine spirits may be a worthy topic for "Bible Criticism," but I resent it being dangled as an excuse to launch into a sermon on reincarnation.

06-21-2002, 08:07 PM	#16
Bartok Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: St. Louis Posts: 21	John, perfectly aware of what a troll is. I reserve such a term for people who are posting for the simple purpose of attacking, disrupting, or spamming. It didn't seem to be the case in this instance. And rest assured I'm not falling all over myself. I simply wished to get back on topic rather than accuse jenn of trolling and belittling her beliefs. I was under the impression that these forums were for exploring one another's beliefs and engaging in thoughtful discussion and debate. I apologize if you feel I went out of my way to chastise you. I just wanted to stay on the topic.

06-21-2002, 08:32 PM	#17
Jayman Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 68	The NIV Study Bible says: "God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court." The NRSV Study Bible says: "The plural form does not indicate multiple gods, but God and the retinue of the divine court." Richard Elliot Friedman says: "Why does God speak in the plural here? Some take the plural to be "the royal we" as used by royalty and the papacy among humans, but this alone does not account for the fact that it occurs only in the opening chapters of the Torah and nowhere else. Others take the plural to mean the God is addressing a heavenly court of angels, seraphim, or other heavenly creatures, although this, too, does not explain the limitation of the phenomenon to the opening chapters. More plausible, though by no means certain, is the suggestion that it is an Israelite, monotheistic reflection on the pagan language of the divine council. In pagan myth, the chief god, when formally speaking for the council of the gods, speaks in the plural. Such language might be appropriate for the opening chapters of the Torah, thus asserting that the God of Israel has taken over this role." I tend to go with the divine council response.

06-21-2002, 08:42 PM	#18
Paul5204 Guest Posts: n/a	To all: How about looking at 'el as the Hebrew root? And how about looking at 'eloahh [in Arabic would be allah] as the Hebrew way of saying, you're the man, i.e., not just any god but THE God. And as concerns a plural singular God, try reading Genesis 18:1-6 in the Hebrew. We start off with: And appeared to Abraham, YHWH... As the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary on Genesis rather aptly points out, this is the only instance where that formula is used without a verbal declaration immediately following. Why here? Because YHWH literally appeared, call it a localized manifestation [as it were]. Hence Abraham reportedly looking up and running towards these three men, and then bowing down before them. Then ole Abe utters: 'adonay...the plural form of 'adon reserved exclusively for God, ie., that certain plural form with the final long vowel, qamets. Confirmation comes by way of the fact that this plural Lord whom ole Abe is addressing is immediately referred to in the singular, as in, do not you [singular, you] pass away from upon your servant. Quite simply, Genesis 18 is that One's way of telling us that He is one, but if He were confined in this box we call our universe and had to inhabit a body like ours, he would be three of us. And hence the reply to Abraham's 'adonay, I pray thee, do not you pass away from upon your servant .....[v.6] And THEY said...Do according as you have spoken. Abraham is addressing his God, 'adonay, but yet, and THEY said.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.