RyanS2

That's the problem. Allah is IL-lah, "The God", but Allah was around in pagan Arabia for thousands of years before Muhammad made him a monotheistic God. In fact, in the "Satanic Verse" of the Qur'an, Muhammad has three daughter Goddesses who are "divine intercessors". The Satanic verses are verses that Muhammad claimed to receive from Iblis, (Satan), that he recanted and threw out.

So the argument:

Doesn't hold any water. For the second part, I'll reference Joseph Wheless, ("Christianity: Is it the Word of God?") on the subject of Hebrew beliefs and the “dignity of plurality”:

“But the actual verb plural-form (which in Hebrew is the tiny vav -- "u" -- tacked on the end, as we add "s" in English to form the plural of nouns), although mostly missing, is a number of times to be found, and is undeniable proof of the plurality of ha-elohim. Father Abraham himself avows this plurality: "When elohim [gods] caused [plural: hith-u] me to wander from my father's house" (Gen. xx, 13).

Jacob built an altar at Luz, "and called the place El- bethel"; because there ha-elohim were revealed [plural: nigl-u] unto him" (Gen. x-xxv, 7). And David makes the selfsame open avowal of the plural gods of Israel: "Israel, whom gods [elohim] went [plural: balk-u] to redeem ... from the nations and their gods [elohim]" (2 Sam. vii, 23).

The law says: "At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut. xix, 15). Here then is the fulfillment of the law: three witnesses, of the chiefest of Israel, have declared by inspiration the plurality of the gods of Israel. But there is more textual proof of plurality of the gods of Israel. Moses uses the plural adjective with the plural noun elohim: "hath heard the voice of the living gods [elohim hayyim]" (Deut. v, 26; Heb. text, v, 23). And twice David threatens Goliath for defying "the armies of the living gods" (elohim hayyim; I Sam. xvii, 26, 36). Here we have six times the textual admission of the plurality of elohim; the editorial blue pencil overlooked the little "u" plural sign of the Hebrew verbs and the unobtrusive "im" of the adjective…

All through the Old Testament the two names El and Yahveh appear, some preferring one, and some the other; and both inextricably connected with the Canaanitish form "Baal." The names of the Bible worthies are the clearest proof of this preference and combination of titles of their deity. The votaries of El bore his name: Israel, soldier of El; Reuel, friend of El; Samuel, Daniel, Ezekiel, Emmanuel, Elisha, Elihu, Elizabeth. The adorers of Yahveh or Jehovah chose his name: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joshua, Jehoahaz, Jehoshaphat, Jehu. Such names as Elijah and Joel combined the two. The names of Baal and Bel shared the same honors: Gideon was nick-named Jerub-baal, which seems to combine Jehovah and Baal. The name of Abimelech, a son of Gideon, who set himself up briefly, during the days of the judges, as first king over Israel, means "Moloch is my father." One of the sons of Saul was named Eshbaal, "son of Baal"; one of the sons of David was Beeliada, "whom Baal has known" (1 Chron. xiv, 7), and whose name is also given under the form Eliada (2 Sam. v, 16), showing that El and Baal were interchangeable names. This is also shown in the name of one of the "mighty men" of David, Beal-iah, "Yahveh is Baal" or Lord, and in Jezebel, both perfect combinations of the two heathen (Israelite and Canaanite) names for "Lord." That Baal, Bel, and El were equivalent terms for "Lord," but that Yahveh preferred the figurative term "my husband" to the more formal "Lord," and that a customary name for Yahveh was "Baal," he himself is quoted as declaring: "And it shall be at that day, saith Yahveh, that thou shalt call me Ishi [my husband]; and shalt call me no more Baali [my Lord]" (Hosea ii, 16). Not only the Hebrews, but all the Semitic peoples had this custom of compounding their names with that of their favorite deity, in the desire thus to secure the protection of the local Baal for their children. We may recall such names of Belshazzar, Hasdrubal, Hannibal.”

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur: Let's be fair to poor Christians now... First, I don't think Elohim is feminine (is it?) because the "im" ending is masculine plural. The feminine plural would be "ot" or something like that. Second, Elohim is obviously not always plural because the verbs that go with it are singular in form. It'd be like saying "Gods does good works" instead of "God does good works" or "Gods do good works." God it?! Gut!!

I'm arriving late on the scene, but I can say that gender in Hebrew words is meaningless in terms of assigning traits to the objects they represent.

For example, the Hebrew word for "penis" is feminine. Case closed. (Insert relevant joke here.)

Paul5204

RyanS2:

Does the author and work you referenced discuss Genesis 18-19? Probably not. At least the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary on Genesis has the moral courage to initially admit [in the relevant note] that "the English translation obscures difficulties in the Hebrew text." With the first being ole Abe's use of that certain plural form of 'adon otherwise reserved in the Torah exclusively for God. I will let you visit your local library to examine the relevant note to discover the second difficulty, but I will disclose that it has something to do with the singular versus plural form of the verbs.

As to your other point, why is Jewish belief controlling? Were and are their beliefs infallible? From the secular perspective, ie., all this is the creation of someone's imagination, no doubt one would find Jewish belief controlling since they invented this God. But if we posit, as do they [my Jewish friends], that Someone gave the word to Moshe, then maybe those who got the word did not necessarily understand it in its entirety. Let me ask you this question: does the Torah teach that divorce is morally correct?

And by the way, if my modern Jewish friends [as it were], did not adopt the view of a so-called "plural of dignity [majesty, take your pick]," then they would be forced to accept that a truly plural God could be possible. So less room to dismiss as fantasy the Christian "Trinity."

Now, to answer my own quesion, Deuteronomy presumes the existence of divorce as a social practice. It does not expressly state, however, that this practice is okay. Nor does it expressly condemn the practice. All the passage in Deuteronomy concerns is under what circumstance the husband and wife can resume their marital relations following divorce. The word is that if the woman has, in the interim period [ie., since the initial divorce], slept with another man, she is defiled and she and her first husband cannot lawfully remarry.

Now, one more question. If the initial divorce was okay, and thus the woman could presumably remarry, then please tell me how she became "defiled?" How does one lawful marriage, plus one lawful divorce, plus one lawful remarriage, plus one lawful divorce, equate a "defiled" woman? Or if you prefer, how does all of this supposedly lawful conduct render the poor woman "defiled?"

The simply answer is that the woman became defiled because she had the assumed/presumed sexual relations with both marital partners, i.e, she consummated both marriages. But, again, if this divorce thing is okay, why would sexual relations in the second but valid marriage cause her to be defiled?

The answer is that the initial divorce was not a good thing, and hence her having sexual relations with her later husband causing her to become "defiled," i.e., since she had sex outside the marriage to her initial husband.

You might otherwise ask some of my "orthodox" Jewish friends, those who agree with the proposition that the Torah provides for God's perfect law, just who gets custody of the kids upon divorce? There is absolutely no provision on child custody in the Torah. On behalf of all those who love their children, I would submit that this is a rather glaring omission from God's so-called perfect law.

But there is no glaring omission if God's perfect law told these people that their existing social practice[s] respecting divorce were wrong, and divorce was simply unacceptable [meaning that there would be no need for a child custody provision in the Torah].

Now, as to why I believe that Yeshua, if nothing else, certainly understood Torah, He is reported to have remarked, in response to a question of whether it was okay for a man to divorce his wife, that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that Moshe allowed them to divorce. I take His remark as meaning that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that Moshe, standing in for Yah as His spokesman, did not expressly prohibit divorce, ie., that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that the existing social practice of divorce was not expressly condemned by Moshe [and hence by God].

Then Yeshua gives the reason for his position, something about it not being so at the beginning, back when those two were one flesh. Since you are apparently familiar with the Hebrew, then you should are presumably aware that Yeshua's reference is to that portion of Genesis 2 which provides: "This at least is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called, woman, because she was taken out of man." And then the Torah's commentary on the man's exclamation: And for that reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined [in sexual relations] with his wife, and the two [egg and sperm], shall become for flesh one [that smiling child over there].

It is truly a pity that far too many Jews and Christians take this part of the story as meaning that somehow my wife and I became spiritually one on marriage. Problem with that proposition is that the Hebrew translated as the English, flesh, is basar, and it does indeed mean, flesh, meat, etc. And last time I checked, my spirit, or if you prefer, breath of life, was referred to as my nishmat chayyim, with nishmat coming from nasham [a strong wind]. That Yeshua understood the distinction is made plain by John 3, that part about hearing the wind, the sound of it, but not knowing from where it came and where it goes, so it is with all those born of the Spirit [i.e., Yeshua directly related the Spirit of God to the wind [in Hebrew, would be ruach, for God's spirit].

Again, basar, means flesh, meat, etc. And last time I checked, the only way that my wife and I can possibly become for flesh one is to "produce" a child. Then, it would be literally true to report that she and I have become for flesh one. And it is indeed "For that reason" that the mother of all living was taken out of man. Ironically enough, as the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary on Genesis also reports, the attitude of the woman on the birth of Abel was: just as I was taken out of man, so a man was taken out of me."

With the JPS comment in mind, again, This at last is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called, woman, for she was taken out of man. AND FOR THAT REASON, ie., because she was taken out of man, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become for flesh one. As the mother of all living well understood, as related by the JPS, just as I was taken out of man, so a man was taken out of me.

Next item, the akedah, or if you prefer, the binding of Isaac. No doubt to stay well clear of the Christian claim of resurrection, modern Jewish majority commentary is of the opinion that the story of the akedah serves the purpose of making it plain that God does not desire human sacrifice. You will either have to forgive or indulge me, or both, but that is just so much nonsense. Read the book. Up to that point, there is simply report that a human has been sacrified to God. As a matter of fact, God already has told ole Abe just what constitutes a proper sacrificial offering, and it did not include humans.

Thankfully, at least one "ancient" Jew understood the story, since the author of the New Testament work we call "Hebrews" reports something about ole Abe receiving his son from the dead, as in a parable. Indeed.

The modern majority Jewish explanation is not merely nonsense, it is intellectually dishonest as well. Read the story of ole Abe's life as reported. First, God promises him the world [as it were], but ole Abe says, who cares, I do not have an heir. Then God promises an heir from his own body. According to the report, ole Abe believes God and such belief is counted to him for righteousness. But then, the seed of doubt creeps in, and rather than relying on God to deal with Sarah's infertility [post menopausal], ole Abe relies on a custom standard at the time, and uses Hagar to have a child. Not good. YHWH, as reported in Genesis 18, locally manifests in the flesh, and says: ole Abe, is anything to hard for the Lord? I will return, at the time reviving [spring] [a rather clear allusion to coming back from the dead, since, as all those who truly experience winter understand, the world does indeed seem rather dead during winter, but then life returns in all its glory (as it were), in the spring], and Sarah shall bear a son. Ole Abe agains believes, God then visits Sarah as promised, and Sarah then bears Isaac. But then, Ishmael gets the boot [along with Hagar]. Then the command to sacrifice Isaac.

And here is where I part company with the JPS. I am sorry, but if I am ole Abe, I am now wondering whether my God is simply insane. Either that, or simply incredibly cruel. To recap, first, God promises the world, but ole Abe says, who really cares Lord, I have no son. Then the promise of a son. Then Ishmael. Then the visit. Then Ishmael gets the boot. Now you want me to kill Isaac? Lord, that would put me back at square one. And everything you promised to give me will be meaningless to me without my son, just as I indeed related when all this began.

So why are you asking me to do this Lord?

And therein lies the key: why?

HINT! HINT! As the Genesis text reports, God has already promised: in Isaac shall your seed be called. But Isaac has no kids, as of yet, so if he dies now, there will be no seed of and from Isaac.

Thus, the ONLY way God can keep the promise if ole Abe complies with the command and kills his son is for God to bodily resurrect Isaac. That is the only way, to bring Isaac back from the dead so that he may live to reproduce.

Thankfully for all humanity, ole Abe understood: The Lord will provide himself a Lamb for a burnt offering, my son. And the test here was not to see if ole Abe was simply willing to sacrifice his son, but whether he had the faith to believe that if he did in fact do so, that his God would keep his prior promise re Isaac and bodily resurrect him from the dead. Which is actually believing in more than one thing, ie., the need to believe that God simply has the power to raise the dead, and the other need to believe that God is true to his word.

So, as that ancient Jew, the author of Hebrews, well understood, ole Abe did indeed, in a parable, "obtain" his son from the dead.

Next item. Something about Noah saying that one of his son's will dwell in the tent of Shem. Just one problem, as the JPS itself notes in its Torah Commentary on Genesis, the relevant Hebrew word simply does not mean "to dwell." As admitted by the JPS, it means, "to displace." The JPS justifies the substitution of "to displace" with "to dwell," because, in its own subjective view, the literal translation of "to displace" does not fit the context.

Now, read that other Paul's letter to the church of God at Rome. That part about the Jews being removed from the vine so that the Gentiles could be grafted in. Someone got displaced, so that someone could be grafted in. Some, me included, understand that other Paul as here alluding to Noah's remark about the one son displacing the tent of Shem.

How could this be so? Read the Genesis story. It reports that YHWH is the God of Shem, ie., Shem knew God according to that particular Jewish conception of Deity. The other son in question did not, as reflected in the text by the substitution of 'el for YHWH, i.e., this son knew God as divine, but only in terms that even a pagan would understand. And what Noah related was that one day, this one son would come to know YHWH as YHWH, while Shem [his descendants] would not. Hence the being "displaced." Or if you prefer, one day, the roles would change. Whereas the one [Shem] understood Diety in the particular Jewish sense and the other did not, one day that would be reversed. My Jewish friends may dispute this, but I did not write Genesis, and I did not use the Hebrew verb meaning "to displace." Moshe did. So if any of my Jewish friends have a problem with this reading, take it up with Moshe. Since, again, he used the word, I didn't.

Next item. 70. First reported as the number of nations. Then reported as the number of persons who "went down" to Egypt. The JPS notes, in reference to the nations, that 70 is used to indicate the totality of humanity. The JPS then later notes, in reference to the number of those that "went down" to Egypt, that 70 is an artificial number, i.e., if we add up all those listed prior, we do not get 70. The JPS then notes that it seems as if the author is relating the second use of 70 to the first use of 70.

Interesting. What is Egypt? That iron furnace, that house of bondage?

How about, Egypt, that land of sin, and our captivity in that sin?

If read that way, then we have a rather clear statement that all humanity went down into sin and became captives in it [as it were]. If anyone disputes this reading, then let me ask, if the JPS is right, and the second use of 70 is related to the first, just why are we relating some going down to Egypt to all humanity?

In any event, we have one more use of 70 that the JPS, unfortunately, does not relate to the prior two uses. The 70 elders. An interesting number, since 70 is not divisible by 12, and since there are 12 tribes, 2 persons must left out. Why not, then, make the number 72 elders? Because if we did, in our stupidity, we might not relate the 70 here back to the prior uses of 70.

But 70 elders. Each of whom receives God's spirit.

So, all humanity recieves God's spirit. But note that this occurs after they have escaped from Egypt. How did they escape, was it by their own efforts or God's? The story reports something about the mighty hand/arm of God being responsible for their freedom.

So no surprise, then, that New Testament report, that Yeshua, who freed us from our captivity in sin, will be found at the right hand/arm of God.

As you are presumably aware, this reading is not mainstream Jewish belief. It is, however, one rather compelling reason why I simply do not find Jewish belief, historical, mainstream, or otherwise, to be dispositive on any given point.

One last thought. Note that besides the 70, two others receive the Spirit. Those two who just happen to be outside the Tent of Meeting. And consider Joshua [Yeshua]. A little upset that those two received the spirit. Might it be that Joshua is standing in for Shem, and Eldad and Medad for Noah's two other sons? With the moral of the story being that when God gives His spirit to all flesh, that my Jewish friends ought not be wrought up on that account? Since, as Moshe' reported, would that all the Lord's people have His spirit?

In closing, let me say that to refute any interpretation on the basis that it does not accord with Jewish belief, is an absurdity. First, Jewish belief is not monolithic, nor has it remained constant [as it were] over time. I would submit that the danger in that position is that it leads to what I will call an unquestioning, blind faith. Someone a long time ago read a book, and thought it meant this and that. And rather than questioning that reading, or even asking whether the reading was universal, we will simply say it is so, and that only because some dead person, believed to be right while others are wrong, said so. Pathetic. If you want to know where that thought process truly leads, try looking at right wing Christian fundamentalism. To borrow from both my Lord and that other Paul, a case of the blind leading the blind, a case of those following in the footsteps of those who pushed into things not seen [understood]. Thus leaving me with only one thing to say, watch out for that ditch!

RyanS2

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul5204:
[QB]RyanS2:

"Does the author and work you referenced discuss Genesis 18-19? Probably not. At least the Jewish Publication Society's Torah Commentary on Genesis has the moral courage to initially admit [in the relevant note] that "the English translation obscures difficulties in the Hebrew text."

I assume you mean Joseph Wheless? Dunno, I haven't read the book in about a year, but I'd recommend it to anyone interested in an early form of Biblical [exegesis, edited for nit-picking]. I'll go back through it and let you know.

"The extraordinary use of the first person plural evokes the image of a heavenly court in which God is surrounded by His angelic hosts. [...] It is noteworthy that this plural form of divine address is employed in Genesis on two other occasions[.]"

[Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, (JPS, 1989) p. 12}

I assume that's the JPS book you are referencing? If I may remember correctly, the JPS Bible is heavily redacted, i.e. the first part of it for the Book of Genesis changes the translation to read it as fits the Big Bang theory, even though not in-line with the proper translation of the passage. It's very different from the early translation available online:

<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/gen.htm</a>

Unfortunately, I don't possess the current copy of the JPS Bible, so I can't voice my specific complaint. [Added] If I can get it from the public library, I'll show you what I'm talking about.

"With the first being ole Abe's use of that certain plural form of 'adon otherwise reserved in the Torah exclusively for God."

"Now, to answer my own quesion, Deuteronomy presumes the existence of divorce as a social practice."

Okay....

"then please tell me how she became "defiled?"'

I can't understand what you are talking about. Are you referencing my web article or the above post I made? Please quote me so I can be sure of what you're asking me to respond too. I'd assume "defilement" was anything which was against the sanitary codes of Judaism, things like touching a woman on her period, someone with a person with a messed up nose entering the temple, etc. (Want Bible verses or not?)

"I take His remark as meaning that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that Moshe, standing in for Yah as His spokesman, did not expressly prohibit divorce, ie., that it was only because of the hardness of their hearts that the existing social practice of divorce was not expressly condemned by Moshe [and hence by God]."

So, if society demands something enough, God will cave in? (Or God's chosen spokespeople). I guess that answers the question of the extent of free-will humans have in a theocratic domain. I will assume you will use the example of King Saul being King as another example of this.

"This at least is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called, woman, because she was taken out of man."

Yes, Adam Kodman as the Hebrew Bible calls him/her, Man and woman as one. I believe the Greeks had this really romantic idea that humans once had two bodies joined as one, but angered the Gods so they were split. The man and woman spent the rest of their days searching for the other half of them to complete themselves.

"the story of the akedah serves the purpose of making it plain that God does not desire human sacrifice. You will either have to forgive or indulge me, or both, but that is just so much nonsense. Read the book. Up to that point, there is simply report that a human has been sacrified to God."

I have, I wrote about it at:

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

It's about human sacrifice in the Old Testament.

Here, I will remark that we will perpetually disagree. You see the Bible as being chronologically sound, I see it as having multiple authors who wrote a pseudepigraphy. You also assume all the characters to be real, I assume them to be literary motifs.

"As you are presumably aware, this reading is not mainstream Jewish belief."

It seemingly has tints of Kabbalah elements to it, which tends to be unnerving to traditional Jews. Relating numbers as not having just basic numerical origins, but instead, higher significance, puts some at ill-ease. As I remember one Jewish Rabbi saying: "The Bible contains no hidden codes, everything was meant for humans to plainly understand". Some of your definitions are esoteric. Which, by the way, reminds me. Have you ever met Amos on this messageboard?

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

jenn

John,
Thanks for the complement!!! I am sure I look better than anyone you have met thus far.
I just so happen to have a better sense of my surroundings. Have you LOOKED in space lately? Please don't tell me that you have a better understanding of how the Universe works?

King Arthur

Paul, man, that was great writing! I could tell that you knew your stuff. Are you a teacher or something? If you're a layman, then you seem to know more than most here...

Ryan, you use a lot of big words, but you don't really seem to understand them. BTW, what the heck is "exegenesis" (in other words, I don't think you used the right word...perhaps a slip)?? Anyway, I think Paul is outta your league. By all means disagree with him, but you would probably do well to really think about what he wrote.

jenn

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil (we have the chance to be bad now, only we die because of the choice).
Genesis 5:1 (Adam is talking to Noah)"When God created man he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And they were created, he called them, "man".

I do think that the El is plural in, " Elohim "

Also here is another from Genesis 11:7 ,"Come let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.

If Angels were there then there is no reason why my spirit or soul couldn't have been there.
Secondly, I know that Jesus is not God himself because he never clamed to be. And third, we are all the, "Sons of God ", because he/she (it) said we are.
I say we are all part of God and that is the reason why we need to follow the Light. Because he is LITERALLY the ,"way" when we cross over to the other side.
I know some dislike me for voicing my opinion.
But I find it rather interesting and I am on the same journey some of you find yourself on from time to time.

RyanS2

Paul's writings were excellent. Anti-orthodox, yes, but still excellent. "Exegesis" was the correct word I was looking for, I'm sure I can go through and find plenty of grammatical mistakes that I made. That's just a condescending glib you're making, and we both know it's pointless. Argumentum ad hominem is still considered a logical fallacy.

However, I am still not sure exactly what part of the article he was referencing himself towards, so I can't reply to something I wasn't originally arguing with in the first place. Hence, I asked him if he could quote me because I honestly am not sure what parts he is disagreeing with. For example, he talks about the sons of Shem, but nowhere in my article does the word shem even pop up. No matter how enlightening his thoughts on it are, if it's not in response to something I've written, there's little I can comment upon. To Paul, if you can quote me on what I say and what you are rebutting, it'd make it easier for dialogue. Other than that, interesting views, if nothing else.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

King Arthur

Ryan, sorry, I suppose that Brit judge on American Idol rubbed off on me!

It seems that Paul was responding to your source. If you read all of your source his post might become more clear, I believe.

I suppose it sounds mean, but it seems to me that Paul has a better command of the Hebrew that underlies the text, ad hominem or not.

RyanS2

I'm guessing Paul has taken traditional Jewish study classes, which beats my autodidactic style of learning. Even then though, one of infidels old posters, Apikorus, as the name suggests, had widely different views than Paul would, and Apikorus had one of the best commands of Jewish literature that I've ever seen.

"If you read all of your source his post might become more clear, I believe."

I did. I line-by-lined it. For instance, he talks about the number seventy. In my post, here's where seventy pops-up:

"The ram's seventy appearances in the first four books of Moses are complimented by the image of the Ram of Redemption and is an acknowledgment of God's intervention among the ancient inhabitants of the Negev.....

According to Canaanite literature, the god El begot seventy sons through the goddess Asherah: "{El} summons Asherah’s seventy children."

Now, read his post on the number seventy. It doesn't correspond to any of that.