mark9950

As I understand the meaning of this english word LORD,I understand it to mean master(not necessarily a god).

All through history there were many cruel dictators that killed many people over the ages for trivial things with trivial laws.

Now when the word LORD was used how do we know for a fact that they were referring to the god instead of their king who proclaimed that he was god.

I read on the web King sargons son took over his fathers rule and proclaimed himself GOD.How do we know that the lord was not the proclaimed God king sargons son.

Do not give me the new testament jesus thing,I am referring to the OT only.

Also sargons birth parallels moses birth.

http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/oldtestament/id3.html


How do we know whether sargon came from moses or vice versa.

Which one came first moses or king sargon?

Peter Kirby

The first appearance of the English word "Lord" in the KJV is Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Can we assume that this reference is not to a human king?

best,
Peter Kirby

cjack

Not exactly sure what question you're asking, but...

Perhaps the reason that Sargon's childhood tale mirrors that of Moses is because the OT is a sort of convergence of myths.

I don't know if the LORD referred to in the OT is intended to be a reference to a god-king, but perhaps it is an unintentional consequence of folding much older myths into that which eventually comprised the OT.

Perhaps the term LORD was meant to be all-encompassing...a kind of catch-word whose meaning could depend upon the user, thus making the new faith "go down easier" with the locals, if you catch my meaning.

YHWHtruth

<<<The first appearance of the English word "Lord" in the KJV is Genesis 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Can we assume that this reference is not to a human king? >>>>>>


Gen 2:4 is the first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, (YHWH); these four Heb. letters are referred to as the Tetragrammaton. The divine name identifies Jehovah as the Purposer. Only the true God could rightly and authentically.

The first appearance of lord is at :

(Genesis 18:12) Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?”

Lit., “and my lord.” Heb., wa´·dho·ni´. Sarah is commended for addressing her husband, “my lord.” See 1Pe 3:6.

Max

YHWHtruth

The Greek and Hebrew words rendered “lord” (or such related terms as “sir,” “owner,” “master”) are used with reference to Jehovah God (Eze 3:11), Jesus Christ (Mt 7:21), one of the elders seen by John in vision (Re 7:13,_14), angels (Ge 19:1,_2; Da 12:8), men (1Sa 25:24; Ac 16:16, 19,_30), and false deities (1Co 8:5). Often the designation “lord” denotes one who has ownership or authority and power over persons or things. (Ge 24:9; 42:30; 45:8,_9; 1Ki 16:24; Lu 19:33; Ac 25:26; Eph 6:5) This title was applied by Sarah to her husband (Ge 18:12), by children to their fathers (Ge 31:35; Mt 21:28,_29), and by a younger brother to his older brother (Ge 32:5,_6). It appears as a title of respect addressed to prominent persons, public officials, prophets, and kings. (Ge 23:6; 42:10; Nu 11:28; 2Sa 1:10; 2Ki 8:10-12; Mt 27:63) When used in addressing strangers, “lord,” or “sir,” served as a title of courtesy. Joh 12:21; 20:15; Ac 16:30.

The fact that Christians have only the “one Lord” Jesus Christ (Eph 4:5) does not rule out their applying “lord” (or, “sir”) to others as a title of respect, courtesy, or authority. The apostle Peter even cited Sarah as a good example for Christian wives because of her obedience to Abraham, “calling him ‘lord.’” (1Pe 3:1-6) This was no mere formality on Sarah’s part. It was a sincere reflection of her submissiveness, for she spoke of him as such “inside herself.” (Ge 18:12) On the other hand, since all Christians are brothers, it would be wrong for them to call one of their number “Leader” or “Lord,” viewing that one as a spiritual leader. Mt 23:8-10

Max

yummyfur

It seems like almost the reverse, a supernatural god who wants to be a human king, and is possibly jealous of human kings. I personally can't see the distinction between judges and kings, or why Joshua wouldn't be considered a king, can anyone explain?

below is section from 1 Samuel , god, should be the king of the Israelites, but they want a human king, so god allows it, but they must pay the consequences. Then Saul is appointed as first king.


1 Sam 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
1 Sam 8:8 "Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day--in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also.
1 Sam 8:9 "Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them."

Patrick Schoeb

YHWHtruth

Yummy, sorry for being obtuse, but what is your question or "point."

Max

yummyfur

My point was, seeing that the words replaced with the english lord, are rather generic addresses to any superior, the more important thing to look at is use of the word king, if you want to look at evidence for a diefied human king.

YHWH doesn't seem to fit the mold of a diefied human king, and the original questioner wanted to ignore Jesus. If you look at the use of the word king (where it clearly denotes king, melek, as opposed to the form of malak that can often mean reign or counsel) it is not really used much in reference to YHWH until later. When the Isrealites decide they want a king like everyone else around them, then god starts talking about how he is their king. Almost all of the other uses of king before this, relate to non Israelites, and the only person related as king connected to god, before Saul, seems to be Melchizedek, king and high priest of Salem.

In the period before Saul, in the book of Judges and even in Genesis, it's always stateing that this is the period before Israelites had a king(but it does not say "the period when god was their king"). Though for me I can't see, how Joshua or even Moses is substantially different than say Saul, but they are not referenced as kings.

Then when the Israelites start wanting a king, god gets all upset, and says he is their king, and if they want one they are forsaking him, and he will punish them. I mean they are not asking to replace their god, and as solitary god he must automatically trump king, so whats the big deal? Especially since I can't see any difference between say Joshua and say Saul as far as their leadership roles and priviledges are concerned. God just seems a bit nastily petty and jealous even where its seems irrelevant, though I guess he has already stated this in Exodus.

not sure if that made it any clearer

Patrick Schoeb

mark9950

without a doubt that the bibles God character was not modeled after their human kings and/or rulers of that period,especially since the bible was handed down by oral tradition and heresay that definately will be full of errors.

Since the bible was handed down from oral tradition,how do we know for a fact the bible is not a myth and 100% true without a doubt.

The truth is it is not without errors,it is full of errors.Let me put it this way.

I will pass on believing this God of the bible.