1. Bree'shiyt baaraa' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim w'eethaa'aarets.

Above is the openign verse of Genesis, in transliterated Hebrew.

In the King James Verison of the Holy Bible, it is rendered in english as follows:

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now, Skeptics for years have said this was a mistranslation, designed to give a conformity to Monotheism that doesnt exist, and recently DC has reused this tired old Argument.

Supposeldy, the Shokcign truth is that the word elohim means " gods", and so, the correct transslation shoudkl read " In the Beginning, the gods created the heavens and the Dearth', reflectign a Polyteism that existed int he earliest times of Hebrew culture. Yahweh was gthe cheif god, and others wher eunder him. This is why He uses the term " We" and "Us', and later, accordign to DC, on Chaoter 3, states in Verse 22 " And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Supposeldy, this is a counsilof gods.

But is DC correct? The shrot answer is "No."

You see, DC doesnt know Hebrew, and just beleives whatever he reads off Skeptic sites, blidnly, beleiving their rhetoric abotu beign freethinkers, and at liberty to be themselves, when in reality they are slaves to their own hatred and hollwo need to attack. I know, Ive discussed withhtem in the past and DC is on a dark road.

Lets look at the contested verse, shall we?

Bree'shiyt bara' 'Elohim 'eet hashaamayim w'eethaa'aarets.

Supposeldy, the term elhim is plural, however, what the Skeptics seem incapable of relaiseing is that the verb tence for created, Bara, is SINGULAR.

If it where plural, it woidk be Baro.

Bree'shiyt Baro' 'Elohim 'eet hashaamayim w'eethaa'aarets.

No Hebrew text reads Baro, and since Bara is always, exlcusively sued for an action by a signle individual, we knwo elohim is a signle entety as well.

In reality, the word " Elohim" means " god, gods, judge, ruker, king". It can be plural, like the word Sheep, but only is isilated, or ued in conjunction with a plural verb.

Since the verb is SINGULAR, the elohim in this text MUST be ALSO singular, a single god. not named, justt he generic "god" , but still a signle being.

Now, DC, tell me truthfully, where did tou comd upwiththeis " Polytheism" claim, where did ytou read it form?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004

Answers

Baree elohim YHVH

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Not so fast, Zarove. I can respond more fully if you first translate and explain Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Sorry DC, I heard that oen as well, however, before we move to it, please lets stick to Genesis. Shall we?

I want you to prove Genesis 1:1 is relly "The gods' and not God. Porve it linguistivally.

I have demonstrated the verb tence Bara as oppose ot Baro used, but can you find any reason, any at all, to translate it " The gods" instead of " God" as it usually is even by secular soruces?

By the way, Deuteronomy 32: 8-9 does not have oen god bequeithing inheretance to another, it just said God chose the Children of Adraham as his people. but we will get into it if you ansser Genesis 1:1. Stick to the topic. Prove Genesis 1:1 relaly shoudl be translated " In the beginning, the gods created the heavens ad the Earth" rather than God. I am actulaly workign on a Bible translation of my own. I know Hebrew. I have consulte dpthers hwo know Hebrew. I have comuter programmes that cna translate Hebrew.

What do you have? SAB?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Read Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in context. Supposeldy, accordign to SAB, we have Yahweh getitgn the peopel of Israel as an inheretance, presumebely form a Higher god or other gods, right?

I relaly wish Skeptics wherent so outright stupid. Sorry to insult DC, im just tired of dealign with woudl-be skeptics, such as yourself, who do nothign but quote other skeotics as if they know what they ar eon about. it gets old and frustrating, fast.

Read the whole bloody Chapter. In fact, I will reproduce it twice. one on my trademark KJV, and the othe rin a more Modern American Standard, so you can get the point.

1. Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.

2. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

3. Because I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

6. Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

7. Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

8. When the most high divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

(ASV) 1. Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak; And let the earth hear the words of my mouth.

2. My doctrine shall drop as the rain; My speech shall distil as the dew, As the small rain upon the tender grass, And as the showers upon the herb.

3. For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he.

5. They have dealt corruptly with him, they are not his children, it is their blemish; They are a perverse and crooked generation.

6. Do ye thus requite Jehovah, O foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy father that hath bought thee? He hath made thee, and established thee.

7. Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations: Ask thy father, and he will show thee; Thine elders, and they will tell thee.

8. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men, He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. 9. For Jehovah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

If you actually bothered to read more thna just verses 8 and 9, and bothered to actually try to see what is goign on, you eoudl relaise this sint Yahweh getitgn thepeopel of Israel form other gods, as SAB presumes, but is just him picking certain people ot be his children, since the others went astray.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Now back tot hereal point. Accordign to you, and SAB, and a few other skeptic soruces, the correct translation fo Genesis 1:1 is " In thebeginning, the gods created the heavens and the Earth", I want you to explain, if this is the case, why Bara, ratherthan Baro, was used, indicatign a signular person action rathee than a plural.

Why is it that these gods seemed ot do nothign, and hwich oen of these gods created the heavens and the Earth? or, if they all did, why is it the text reads singular?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Why is the subject, Elohim, plural? The analogy to the English word "sheep" does not apply because there is no separate singular form of sheep. But their is for Elohim, which is Eloah.

How do you explain Genesis 1:26 "And God (Elohim) saith, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."

By the way, I had no idea what SAB was until I read it in your post just now. So I did a web search and found it: Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Very interesting.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Yes, Uniek me, SAB is hionwst and shows the real turht aboththe Bible..., its not bias or anything, and its not liek they willdistort, lie, or take our of context...

By the way, here is a passage for you.

Judges 2:19 Whaayaah bmowt hashowpeeT, yaashubuwwhishchiytuw mee'bowtaam, laaleket 'achreey 'lohiym 'cheeriyml`aabdaam uwlhishtachwot laahem. Lo' hipiyluw mima`alleeyhemuwmidarkaam haqaashaah.

I guess, sicne the plural elohim is used,it must be talkign abiuytht ose gods again, right? Well, lets see what an english tra slation says, shall we?

19. And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.

Judge, singular.

If the motive for translating it singular was ot hid the polythism, what is the prupose of rederign it a sngular in all known translations when its speakign of a judge? Of coruse the context reveals their speakign of a single individual, byt you wantot ignre context...

Listem the word eloah is feminin e, and the word DElohim can be singular, dependant on the verb use. Hebrew is greatly dependant on the verb tence to determien if soemthign is sigular or plurtal, unlike english.

You can pretend to be an expert because you read soem artile soemwhere, or tou can losten to me. Review SAB and keep with your skeptic surces, and pretend Im hiding my head in the sand,, or else beleive I know what Im on zbout and beleive me, or, better yet, check yourself. Dotn check on a Skeptic site,just get a good lexicon of the Hebrews language, or else a Strongs exhaustive concordance, and start studing the origional language.

Elohimn is not always plurtal.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

So I ask again, why is the text Verb Tence singular if it is, in fact, referign to a plurality of beings? If this is multile gods workign on creatign the Heavens and the earth, as you state, why us BAra rather than Baro? Surely these polytheists knew their own langage well enough to relaise that this woidl render the word elohim automaticlaly a singular, rather than a plural, so why did they do it?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

See, this si why Im mad. I know Hebrew. I spent years learnign it. I can read an untranslated Hebrew Bible. You cant, and yet your lecturign me about this " Shocking" revelation that the first Chapter of Genesis is polytheistic. Get real, its not Polytheistic and m not doign mental gymnastics, anyone who knows Hebrew will tel,l you the Verb tence determiens the Noun. In this case Bara rather than Baro is used, making elohim singular, rather or not your skeptic site acknowledges this fact .

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Okay, then. So how do you explain Genesis 1:26 "And God (Elohim) saith, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..."

-- DC (skeptick@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

How do you explain the very next vedrse? 1:27? 27.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Remember, "God" is elohim, so shoulf be "The gods."

27. So the gods created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The gods are refered to as He, singular...

As for me, I stick to this being a referenc to Goid and his angles, which is the traditional Jewish interpretation, is this so wrong?

eSPECIALLU SICNE "THE GODS" ARE ALL A SINGLE COLLECTIVE "hE" in the very next verse.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Keep in mind that language changes over time, so the way you read a text today may be very different from what was meant when it was written. As Jews became monotheistic they revised their definition of Elohim depending on its usage. As one Ph.D. writes:

"The process of achieving monotheism had involved several stages. At first, the foreign gods of the Assembly of gods had been viewed as simply subordinate to Yahweh, the God of Israel. Gradually, their status as deities was eroded until they were viewed merely as Angels rather than gods. As this change happened, the term Elohim came to be used only as another name of El, its plural eventually being reinterpreted as a "Plural of Majesty", a concept of post-Exile origin that was developed to reconcile the older biblical use of the plural noun elohim with the completely monotheistic views that had evolved among the Jews and that we now take for granted as if it had been accepted from the beginning." (source: http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/bible.htm)

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

The grammer did not change, however.

It is unlikely that they revised the text itsself, if they did, then they wodl have just foufn it more expeirencet to remove the word Elohim.Replaving the word elohim form the 11 or 12 places its in the first choter of Genesis woidl not have been that hard, espeically if they managed to fool everyone nto thinkign it was just anothe rhane for Yahweh.

The PH/D doesnt realy impress me, its clear the author has an agenda. I dont buy most of the modern theiries. Don get me worng, I use to. I use to be failry liberal in my theology. Use ot buy into that crap. But for the most part most PH.D's I know of who prattle on about this arent relaly interested in the turth themselves, but ptomoting their opinion as an authirity.

The fact remains, you cannot explain why the use of the word Bara instead of Baro, and you cannot explain why the huse of He instead of they in the 27th verse. You don know Hebrew, you dont know what the text reads like in Hebrew, and you dotn realy know what the difference is beteween a verb tence singular and a word plural.

with regards to your oen PH.D, many, many, many more disagree with him and agree with me. He ASSUMES Polytheism came first, and later Monotheism slowly evlved, btu has no real evidence. You cna be circular here, use the text to prove he hypothei an the hypothesis ot prove the text, but that wont get it very far.

Just explain the grammer rules ot me that makes elohim plural, rather than the now two examples that it was a signular.Or, admit that you are wrong. Or, admit that you aren't too concerned withte truth if the truth disagrrees with your new foudn atheism and you are just looking for a way to prop up your atheism.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

From the same wesite (http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/bible.htm):

So it is more likely that, whatever the origin of his name, Yahweh took over the history of Ba'al in Hebrew folklore and is best understood as the Hebrew equivalent of that Canaanite god. That Yahweh was originally a son of El is attested by a document (KTU 1.1 IV 14) from Ugarit, a Palestinian site occupied by neighbors of Israel. It reads sm . bny . yw . ilt, which translates as "The name of the son of god, Yahweh." This status as the foremost of the sons of El is remembered in the Song of Moses, one of the oldest of the Hebrew scriptures, in Deuteronomy 32:8-9: "When the Elyon [another name of El] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods [i.e., each god controlled one nation of people]; Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob [i.e., the nation of Israel] his alloted share." (1.)

(1.) Translations are generally from the New Revised Standard Version, with appropriate substitutions of the original Hebrew words when the English translation fails to make their role as divine names clear.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Stick tot he grammer and ignore the websites. Do you knwo Hebrew? Can you prove " The gods" created eveything? Or not?

Again, I realy coidl care less about that one site, as their are thousands of theories and thousands of explanations, I coidl go to any numebr of Univieristy websites and discredit that article, I cna fidn ten articles with ten different answers.

Nonetheless, we aren't talkign about any of that, we are talkign abiut Genesis, and ow Genesis chapter 1 reads.

Does Genesis Chapter oen state that the gods, plrual created the Heavens and the Earth, or does it say God, singular, did? is it Polytheistic or Monotheistc?

This si the topic, and the grammer clealry indicates that its singular, unelss you show me soemthign more sunstantive, then your entire statement is bogus.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Maybe you're right, Zarove. Maybe not. My search for the truth requires that I give all sides a fair hearing. I'm not going to dismiss anything outright.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

You alreayd have by veerign off topic for more rubbish scholarship that dosnt realy conect tot he topic at hand.

All you have to do to prove me right is actualy get a Hebrew language coruse, and look up the terms and nuances, it shoudltn take ou over a few days ot a week to realise that their is ni possible way grammaticlaly that this can be a plural.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

That same website AGREES with your interpretation of Genesis 1:1. So it is fair and balanced. Just like Fox News, :) But it also points out some polytheistic verses in the Bible. Why are you ignoring Deut 32:8=9?

-- DC (skeptick@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

I postedthem, I woudl harldy call that ignoring, I just didnt spend much time on them as they wheren't related to Genesis 1:1. The topic of the thread was Genesis Chaoter 1. The topic of translating and linguistics is too invovled tocreate too many alternate splits i the discussion, we have ot stay focused.

But if you actually bothered to read the " Polythestic" Verses 8 and 9, in context, you woudk relise that Yahweh is not given, by el, his peopel asn an inheretance. ive heard that cobbler too. The reality is simple, if you go bac up ad read my postign the chapters again, I poted the KJV, and the ASV.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

But if you actually bothered to read the " Polythestic" Verses 8 and 9, in context, you woudk relise that Yahweh is not given, by el, his peopel asn an inheretance. ive heard that cobbler too. The reality is simple, if you go bac up ad read my postign the chapters again, I poted the KJV, and the ASV.

But all of the English translations are grossly inaccurate. For example:

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. (Deut 32:8-9 KJV)

But according to my source it should read:

When the Elyon [another name of El] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods [i.e., each god controlled one nation of people]; Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob [i.e., the nation of Israel] his alloted share.

The passage makes a lot more sense when read the second way. Yahweh, along with the other gods, was the son of El. El gave Israel to Yahweh. Yahweh was Israel's tribal god, stronger than the gods of other tribes.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Among the Babylonians the children of El were collectively known as the Elohim. That's the connection to Genesis.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

But if you actually bothered to read the " Polythestic" Verses 8 and 9, in context, you woudk relise that Yahweh is not given, by el, his peopel asn an inheretance. ive heard that cobbler too. The reality is simple, if you go bac up ad read my postign the chapters again, I poted the KJV, and the ASV.

But all of the English translations are grossly inaccurate. For example:

{No, their not. their not alwyas capale of translatign the nuances, or else theyr may be arient ways ot translate, but their not all grossly innacurate.}-Zarove

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. (Deut 32:8-9 KJV)

But according to my source it should read:

{Your soruce is wrong. Sorry...}-Zarove

When the Elyon [another name of El] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods [i.e., each god controlled one nation of people]; Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob [i.e., the nation of Israel] his alloted share.

{That doesnt make a lick of sence when contrasted to the other verses, nor does it make more sence as you assert below. Do i have to post the Hebrew for the enture 32nd Chapter, then explain, syep by step, why trsnslators alway seem to mak the same grossly innacirate error? Its relaly simple, its the only logical way to translate the text, your soruce is just flat out wrong. I will tomorrow if you like. Not goig to be on the boards for myhc longer tonoght, btu I am realy seriosuly thinkign about postgn the whoel transliterate Hebrew and showign you, step by step, cross referenced with storngs cncordance and an online Hebrew lexecon, if you resly realy want to know.}-Zarove

The passage makes a lot more sense when read the second way.

{Why? Because grammaticlaly its more in tacet? well no, the second way actually maea lot less sence, espeucally when you factor in the other verses, which you ignore. It only makes more snece to you as it proves the Bible is a cllection of myths and thus confirms your preset agenda. You want it to be disproven, therefore you think this makes more sence since it disprives it... Gramaticlaly and form a translators sec though, it make sa lot less sence.}-Zarove

Yahweh, along with the other gods, was the son of El. El gave Israel to Yahweh. Yahweh was Israel's tribal god, stronger than the gods of other tribes.

{Problem is, thi sint what the text actually said in hebrew, and one cant relaly do anyhtign but stretch and fiddle with it to make it read that way, its a distortion of the text.

as for makign more sence, how do you explain the verses tat are clealry Monotheistic in the same chapter?

Verses 4 and 5 explain why the othes arent hi children...

4. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

In your " Much more rational" translation, how do you explain this? It also attributes creaiton to Yahweh, which in your translatio is only oen fgod of many and the son of El, who shoidl be seen as the creator.

Your version makes much less sence, not more.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Akso, The Hebrews wherent Babylonians...I dotn care abotu scholarlyconcensus, they also once said the Hitites idnt exist and them menitoed in the Bible proved it was a Myth...then they wher eprven wrong. rather than admit it, they just decided the Bible wa a Myth for other reasons.Kind of a pattern...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Let me shwo toy Verse 8 your way and the origional...

8:When the Elyon [another name of El] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods [i.e., each god controlled one nation of people];

9:Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob [i.e., the nation of Israel] his alloted share.

8. Bhancheel`Elyown gowyim, bhapriydow bneey 'aadaam, yatseeb gbulot `amiymlmicpar bneey Yisraa'eel {*}.

9. Kiy cheeleq Yahweh `amow,Ya`qob chebel nachlaatow.

8. When the most high divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Where your says " Numbers fo the gods", thr KJV said " Children of Sirael". Nw, you may wan tot say the KJV is grossly in error, but then why does the Hebrew also say " bneey Yisraa'eel " which emans " Chidlren of Israel" , not " Number of the gods"?

Your much beter version that makes more sence just doesnt fit the texct at all, an is in fact unfaithful ot he Hebrew.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Well, now you know why God, if He does exist, would set up the Catholic Church to guide His people, rather than give them a Bible and say, "Here it is, kids. You figure it out."

Anyway, let me do some more checking. I know that there is a strong bias towards protecting the Jews' image as a monotheistic people.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Bias for, whom? Theirs a storng Bias in modern academia to discredi the Bible altogather...

However, unliek you Im not relyign o websites, as I said I actualluy read Hebrew, the only tools I use are a few english translatosn I have on my PC, and a Hebrew Transliterated I have on my PC, raw text. I woidl use Hebrew origionzl, but that woudkl require learign cres, besies you wont know the symbols...

The bottom lien is no text, not even the DSS, render it " Number ofthe gods", its always " Children of Israel."

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

From HEBREW HENOTHEISM at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The ninth century Masoretic text translates as "sons of Israel," which some modern English versions follow. It does look like the Masoretes changed the text so as to avoid dangerous polytheistic implications.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

1: Not nessisarily. I odn alays trust your soruces, heck, I don even know who they are, so why shodl I trust them? Its not like the nets peer reviewed.

2: even if you are correct, it makes no sence. Songs of God doesnt have Polytheistic ramifications, since the Jews often called themselves that, heck, tis still in the ( Mesoratic version) Psalms!

3:Sorry, your workign too hard to prove polytheism and not relaly addressing the grammer. Likewise, even if you repalce it with " Sons of God", you dotn get " Numebr of God", the word for Number and Sons is raddically different and nto even relate din Hebrew...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

8: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. (RSV)

This still cannot be rendered " Number of the gods", the word Number is different form the word Chidlren. Bney means Chuldren. ( A more acucrae translaiton, in this instance, oidlb chidlren)

The songs of God, in thiisntance, woidl be Israel...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

DC, you’re forgetting one thing. The Creation story was passed down by word of mouth for many centuries. By the time the account we have was actually written (long after the Jews arrived in the Holy Land), the Jews were definitely and resolutely monotheist. Why would they write down anything which implied otherwise? Your propositions, which you are recycling word for word from a bigoted website instead of asking your own honest questions, are absurd.

Zarove, I don’t know much about Hebrew but I thought that in ancient Hebrew only the consonants were written down, with the vowels between them being guessed at by context. In that case wouldn’t “bara” look the same as “baro”?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.

I beleive you will find Bara and Baro to be different, even minus vowls. Inded, I ma rusty but Im nit sure if they even have Vowls.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Response to Steve ---

DC, you’re forgetting one thing. The Creation story was passed down by word of mouth for many centuries. By the time the account we have was actually written (long after the Jews arrived in the Holy Land), the Jews were definitely and resolutely monotheist. Why would they write down anything which implied otherwise?

If oral tradition said that Elohim -- the gods -- created the world and over time the Jews went from polytheism to monotheism then it would be natural for the definition of Elohim to be modified to support the concept of one God. But everyone agrees that the construction of the word itself is plural.

If God is the Author of the Bible then why would He use Elohim, the very same word that the Babylonians used to describe the assembly of gods who were the children of the the Father God, El?

Your propositions, which you are recycling word for word from a bigoted website instead of asking your own honest questions, are absurd.

I'm posting them here for comments by Zarove. I think that others will find them interesting, too. It's all new to me. I never saw stuff like this before so it's quite a shocker. Is it true? I don't know. But it sure helps to explain some things that puzzled me.

For example, when I learned the 1st Commandment as a kid I always wondered about it: "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This sounded to me like there are other gods, rather than just one God.

As for my sources being bigoted, how can you say that? They are both scholarly academicians. Ph.D.'s. That doesn't mean that they can't be bigoted, of course. But I see no evidence that they are.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

The problem is I have alreyad demonstrated that they where wrong. I used the Hebrew texts, and to returned with noting but yor assumtion...

By the way, recognitin that othr gods where worhsipped is not the same as recognition that they are gods, Paul mentiosn satan as the god of this world, but hes not a real god...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CPM), September 15, 2004.

If there is more than one god, then what is the definition of "god"? My definition of God is "the Supreme Being". More could be added of course, but those two words define the central concept. The definition itself obviously necessitates monotheism since there cannot be more than one Supreme Being, "supreme" meaning "without equal". So, if there is more than one god, they cannot be supreme, and therefore cannot be infinite or omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent, or perfect in any sense, for perfection would necessarily make a being supreme. One might define "god" simply as "that which is worshipped", but such a definition would immediately raise the obvious question - why would anyone worship someone or something who is not supreme or perfect, but who is imperfect and limited just like themselves? And as limited and imperfect beings, such "gods" could not be eternal any more than we can, which means they must have had an origin, which means their existence must have been due to the action of someone greater than themselves. And following that line of reasoning can only lead you back to the inescapable uncaused cause, the uncreated Supreme Being. So really, monotheism is the only alternative that makes any logical sense at all. Atheism cannot be logically supported and neither can polytheism.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 17, 2004.

DC you are either very foolish or very disingenuous. It is obvious from the site you got your faulty arguments from, that they are NOT honest enquirers after truth. They present ONLY what (if they as educated and informed as they claim to be) they know to be faulty arguments, without even mentioning the reasons why they are faulty, as Zarove has explained above for example.

Yes there are plenty of other gods. I remember even in grade school, being warned that the chief "other gods" are wealth and conceited pride. You seem in great danger of worshipping the latter.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 18, 2004.

There is only one God - our Creator! He Created man in the Beginning to His likeness. The man (Adam) had and still carries male and female chromozomes in his sperm, determining the future fetus gender. We, the God's children, also come in both genders. We, the children of God, have soul and spirit - and so does God. Since we cannot see God here on Earth, what we know now is, that God has Soul and Spirit (here is where the plurality comes from). When the desires of your soul are in accordance with the level of your spirit, then everything you do on this Earth will be good and you will see that it's all good - just like it happened with God Himself while Creating, described in The Beginning ch.1;1-31.

-- diana diankova (ddiankova@yahoo.com), September 18, 2004.

T5hansk for the help guys but only Steve seems to have remained on topic...

The topic is not rather or not Monotheism is more logical than Polytgeism or atheism, nor is it our beleif in one God, though those are important topics, the grammer and translation of the Bible in engliash, as wlel as the prigional Hebrew, is at stake.

Steve correclty points out the faults to the arugments above.

I add to this the fact that Ashteroth, a pagan goddess mentioend in the books of the Kings, is also called an elohim.

If elohim is ALWAYS Plural, then why did the authoirs use the PLIRAL term for thr goddes Ashteroth? The reason is because in hebrew plual and singular rent rellay clear minus Verb tence. The passage clearly indicated Ashteoth as a signle intety, but yet shes called an elohim. This is because the word can be Singular.

The word wa sused often in the Old Testament for single dieties; for instance, Baal.

Those ho claim elohim is plural always, do so on a doubel dtandard. They amdit the word is singular while referg to Baal, Ashteroth, and variosu other pagan gods mentioend in pasingin the Old Testament, but they say it must be ;ural in deuteroomy and Genesis since it dicreditd the Monitheism of the text...

Steve is right, they are diliberatlry presentign flawed zrguemtns designed to confuse poeple and promote their owrldveiw while causign doubt in the faith of others, they arent interested in presentin the truth norf in revealign History.

Remember, Friday Next week, I present the firts of my thread to you DC. Please do u all a faovur and avud Skeptic websites that are clealry biased. This doens tmean go only ti Christain sites, by all means go to edicaional secualr ites, jut avoud the " Shocking revelations" form those clearly intent on destroying the Bible and Chrisyainity.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 18, 2004.

Zarove, Elohim(Gods) is singular when referring to God . Plural when referring to other gods.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 20, 2004.

"The Case for Christ" By Lee Strobel, is an interesting read. It is an account of an ex-athiest journalist's experience of coming to faith in Christ during His quest to prove the Christian faith wrong. He interviews a lot of different experts in various fields, putting the hard questions to them. By the end of His "investigation" He couldn't deny the truth of the exitence of God, namely Jesus Christ.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), September 20, 2004.

ELP- I said it was singular in soem cases, if you read the threads... Ashterah was also called "Elohim" in soem pasagres, yet is a singlar...I was refutigh DC's claims.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 20, 2004.

That's true, Zarove.

Genesis ch. 1 starts using Elohim, but singular verbs.

Gensis 2 establishes the name Yahweh together with Elohim to distinguish the God of creation from other Gods. Thus becoming Yahweh Elohim.

Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Joseph knew God as El Shaddai. Moses was the first to use Yahweh. Now El was the name used by Cannanite communities long before Abraham used it.

Since the Story of Genesis precedes Exodus, then it is possible that ch 1-10 might have been revised and edited to include Yahweh's name .

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 20, 2004.

My response to Zarove, who wrote:

The bottom lien is no text, not even the DSS, render it " Number of the gods", its always " Children of Israel."

and my response to Steve, who wrote:

DC you are either very foolish or very disingenuous. It is obvious from the site you got your faulty arguments from, that they are NOT honest enquirers after truth.

Then how about something from the U.S. Catholic Bishops website? They try to put a monotheistic spin on the following passages by demoting other Gods to angels, just as Zarove tries to do for Genesis 1:26, but you can judge for yourself:

Think back on the days of old, reflect on the years of age upon age. Ask your father and he will inform you, ask your elders and they will tell you: When the Most High assigned the nations their heritage, when he parceled out the descendants of Adam, He set up the boundaries of the peoples after the number of the sons of God; While the LORD'S own portion was Jacob, His hereditary share was Israel. (Deut 32:7-9 New American Bible)

Footnote to verse 8:

The sons of God: the angels; cf Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 89:6-7. Here the various nations are portrayed as having their respective guardian angels. Cf Daniel 10:20-21; 12:1.

Despite the fact that the above passage says "gods" (elohim) the footnote wants us to regard them as angels. But the "angels" interpretation is not supported in other footnotes:

A psalm of Asaph. God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods. (Psalm 82:1 New American Bible)

Footnote to verse 1:

[Psalm 82] As in Psalm 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel's God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Deut 32:8-9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Psalm 82:1) to rebuke the unjust "gods" (Psalm 82:2-4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Psalm 82:5-7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the psalm (Psalm 82:8).

Here we see that the NAB footnote does not try to reduce the gods to angels. But it does try to put them in a subordinate role by claiming that it was "Israel’s God" that assigned the other gods to oversee other countries. This is not supported by the Hebrew text, which simply says that it was "Elyon" [another name of El] who assigned the gods to each country and that Yahovah’s "portion" is Israel. The NAB does the same thing in its footnote to Psalm 58:

Do you indeed pronounce justice, O gods; do you judge mortals fairly? (Psalm 58:2 New American Bible)

Footnote to verse 2:

Gods: the Bible sometimes understands pagan gods to be lesser divine beings who are assigned by Israel's God to rule the foreign nations. Here they are accused of injustice, permitting the human judges under their patronage to abuse the righteous. Cf Psalm 82.

Again, the claim that the gods of other nations were assigned their roles by Israel’s God cannot be supported by the Hebrew text.

Ay any rate, we can clearly see polytheistic beliefs supported in the Bible, although our monotheistic bias tries to reduce other gods to being subordinate to Israel’s God. Nevertheless, these polytheistic verses provide further evidence that Judaism was derived from other religions in the region rather than being revealed to the Jews by a supernatural deity.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.

I had a little fin withthe NRSV... I altered the text along the same lines they did, and replaced " The LORD" with Yahweh... please note the BOLD and ITALISISED segments...

+++

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 24, 2004.

32

1:Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; let the earth hear the words of my mouth.

2:May my teaching drop like the rain, my speech condense like the dew; like gentle rain on grass, like showers on new growth.

3:For I will proclaim the name of Yahweh; ascribe greatness to our God!

4:The Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he;

5:yet his degenerate children have dealt falsely with him, a perverse and crooked generation.

6:Do you thus repay Yahweh, O foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? {Clie one for Monothism.}-Zarove

7:Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you.

8:When Elyon apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods ;

9:Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob his alloted share.

10:He sustained him in a desert land, in a howling wilderness waste; he shielded him, cared for him, guarded him as the apple of his eye.

11:As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up, and bears them aloft on its pinions,

12:Yawhew alone guided him; no foreign god was with him. {Clue 2 for Monothism.}

13:He set him atop the heights of the land, and fed him with produce of the field; he nursed him with honey from the crags, with oil from flinty rock;

14:curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat of lambs and rams; Bashan bulls and goats, together with the choicest wheat-- you drank fine wine from the blood of grapes.

15:Jacob ate his fill; Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked. You grew fat, bloated, and gorged! He abandoned God who made him, and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation.

16:They made him jealous with strange gods, with abhorrent things they provoked him. {Cluw 3 for Monotheism... but wiat it gets better...}-Zarove

17:They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not feared. {Interestoing, to say the least... certain;y if these other gods where gods, they woudl at leats be acknowledged as such, no?}-Zarove

18:You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. {Strong indication here...}

19:Yahweh saw it, and was jealous he spurned his sons and daughters.

20:He said: I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children in whom there is no faithfulness.

21:They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation. {Here these demons are called idols. Remember, the text is Polyheistic... or so you claim, yet here it seems to suggest potherwise, confusing in your way, it is.}-Zarove

22:For a fire is kindled by my anger, and burns to the depths of Sheol; it devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.

23: I will heap disasters upon them, spend my arrows against them

24: wasting hunger, burning consumption, bitter pestilence. The teeth of beasts I will send against them, with venom of things crawling in the dust.

25: In the street the sword shall bereave, and in the chambers terror, for young man and woman alike, nursing child and old gray head.

{Cont...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 24, 2004.

cONTINUED FORM ABOVE...

26: I thought to scatter them and blot out the memory of them from humankind;

27: but I feared provocation by the enemy, for their adversaries might misunderstand and say, "Our hand is triumphant; it was not Yahweh who did all this."

28: They are a nation void of sense; there is no understanding in them.

29: If they were wise, they would understand this; they would discern what the end would be.

30: How could one have routed a thousand, and two put a myriad to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, Yahweh had given them up?

31: Indeed their rock is not like our Rock; our enemies are fools. {You ay want to say Tahweh is the storngest god and thats what their talkign about, but relelmebr the other "Devils" where called "Idols"... Hardly supportive of your case, and thi makes mor eevidence agiant in light of the above.}-Zarove

32: Their vine comes from the vinestock of Sodom, from the vineyards of Gomorrah; their grapes are grapes of poison, their clusters are bitter;

33: their wine is the poison of serpents, the cruel venom of asps.

34: Is not this laid up in store with me, sealed up in my treasuries?

35: Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; because the day of their calamity is at hand, their doom comes swiftly.

36: Indeed Yahweh will vindicate his people, have compassion on his servants, when he sees that their power is gone, neither bond nor free remaining.

37: Then he will say: Where are their gods, the rock in which they took refuge,

38: who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their libations? Let them rise up and help you, let them be your protection! {The next vers is the rteal kicker...}-Zarove

39: See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god beside me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand. {Note: Their is no god beside me"... fancy that... remember, the text is Polyheistic, yet here extols quiet clealry Monotheism.}-Zarove

40: For I lift up my hand to heaven, and swear: As I live forever,

41: when I whet my flashing sword, and my hand takes hold on judgment; I will take vengeance on my adversaries, and will repay those who hate me.

42: I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh-- with the blood of the slain and the captives, from the long- haired enemy. {Seems like those other gods are no shows...}-Zarove

43: Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people. {Let m giuess, he meant literal gods, right? Cant possibnely be metaphorical... the " No god beside me" was, right???}-Zarove

44: Moses came and recited all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he and Joshua son of Nun.

45: When Moses had finished reciting all these words to all Israel,

46: he said to them: "Take to heart all the words that I am giving in witness against you today; give them as a command to your children, so that they may diligently observe all the words of this law.

47: This is no trifling matter for you, but rather your very life; through it you may live long in the land that you are crossing over the Jordan to possess."

48: On that very day Yahweh addressed Moses as follows:

49: "Ascend this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, across from Jericho, and view the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites for a possession;

50: you shall die there on the mountain that you ascend and shall be gathered to your kin, as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his kin;

51: because both of you broke faith with me among the Israelites at the waters of Meribath-kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, by failing to maintain my holiness among the Israelites.

52: Although you may view the land from a distance, you shall not enter it--the land that I am giving to the Israelites."

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 24, 2004.

First of all, consistancy has never been the Bible's strong suit. It is not uncommon to find one verse immediately contradicted by another verse. Look at the two, conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis. Bible believers have spent their lives writing books trying to resolve these contradictions.

Since truth is my only agenda I have no need to try to twist Scripture one way or the other. Moses makes it quite clear in verses 8 and 9 that each God was assigned a particular nation, and that Jehovah was assigned Israel. The Bible repeatedly states that Jehovah is the God of Israel. That means that the Israelis have no other God but Jehovah. There is no other God for the Jews but Jehovah. And since Jehovah is the Jewish tribal God it is only natural that the Jews would claim that "my tribal God can beat up your tribal God."

It's interesting to note that even today Orthodox Jews reject the idea that Christians and Jews worship the same God.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.

First of all, consistancy has never been the Bible's strong suit.

{No your just lying. The Bible actually is consistant, and "Triuth seekers" like you relaly aren't interested in reality, just lame, useless arguemtns you hoist on others and claim their too blinded by their beleif to see it. well guess what? I use to think the Bible was filled with contradicitons and errors. Fairly liberal was I. Then I studied, and learned better. Sorry, not gonna cut it because you find stock arguments.}-Zarove

It is not uncommon to find one verse immediately contradicted by another verse.

{Tes iut is. I mean, lets face reality here. Deutoronomy, even by the JEPD theory, was auhtored BY SAA SINGLE PERSON, the deutoronomist, and the ewntire entry was penned about the same thing.

eve those " Two conflicting accounts of creation on Genesis" are said to be from two seperate auhtors, the elohimist and the Yajwist authors, that where later strung togather. Its not true, but lets go with it here.

As a truth seeker, or one so called, can you explain to me why the same author writign the same book in very few verses forgot he was Polytheistic? Is that rational to beleive? No, its not. Accpeting the Documentary Hupothesis for the sake of argument, the ONLY logical conclusion is yout " Much more clear" version isn't realy much more clear. You may not want to admit that your " Much clearer" rendering hat " Its relaly not that hard. Check into the Documentary Hypothasis, no one I know of advocates that Deutoronomy was penned by seperate people, therefore the wtire work was the authorship of a signle individual. This individual was either a Polytheist or a Monotheist, and the evidence states Monotheism. Justr because you want to pretend the bit where el gives his son Yahweh land and peolle makes more sence doesnt mean it does. Clearly your renderign makes less sence, and now your just tryign to justify it, this is why I left apologetics... too many "Freethinkers" and "Truthseekers" bending, distorting, and outright lying in ther pursuit of the "truth...}- Zarove

Look at the two, conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis.

{Again, their aren't two conflucting accunts of creation, and we have covered this. Chapter 2 is NOT a rehash of creation, rather, the events flow sequentially.}-Zarove

Bible believers have spent their lives writing books trying to resolve these contradictions.

{And idiotic atheists who want to attack the Bible have spend years writign books to discredit the Bible using lies and false arguments, such as " The gods" creatignt he heaven and the Earth, or el givign Yahweh land.

I still cant beleive you. I mean it.

You said the new renderign makles much more snece and the english versiosn available are all deeply flawed, then I show you how its not true, and how the new rendeign makes a whole hekc of a lot less sence and creates cotradicitons, and your excuse, and rest SSURED ITS AN EXCUSE NOT AN EXPLANATION, is that the Bible is not known for its consistancy!

You CREATED the inconsistancy by MISTRANSLATING the text!

And yes, mistranslated is correct here sicne your PH.D wsith an agenda seem's utterly incapable of properly renderign the Hebrew, and is using word ploys and games t veil the truth rather than reveal it. In short, hes lying and your propogatign it, and before you call me deceived, I remind you I will post the Hebrew and walk you step by step through it...Unlike you, I know Hebrew.These arugments have no impact on me now, except to anger me when fools like you take them up as evidence for your cause without seekign more diligenrly to study the matter.}-Zarove

Since truth is my only agenda I have no need to try to twist Scripture one way or the other.

{If truth where your agenda you woudl sign up for a hebrew 101 course and try to read it yourself rathe than take the word of som internet BNible hater, er, athets . Your agenda is to disprov the Bible, NOT t find truth. Your interest is in indign argumens that sound good that will make you seem intellegent for rejectign your faith, not in discovering anything at all aboiut hte truth. Ad no, I dont say this of al atheist, heck, I thoguht better of you initially, but now Im dissapointed by this prattle. You dotn seek truth, and you warped and distroted scripture on this thread, and when I showed you how the translation made less sence you blamed it on the Bibels inconsistancy, and NOT on the fault of your PH.D article writer.

Well guess what, a lot of PH.D's tranlate or help translate the Bible. the NIV had PH.D's on staff. The NRSV had PH/D's on staff. They all did actually that are major translations.

Why shoudl I ignore theur rendeirng and follow soemone who is obviously contradicting what I know the text says in raW FGORM?

Truth? I think not.}-Zarove

Moses makes it quite clear in verses 8 and 9 that each God was assigned a particular nation, and that Jehovah was assigned Israel.

{At leats accordign to yout " Much clearer" translation... the problem is that, when read in context, and when actually READ in a real translation and not your mutilated, self serving, lie of a translation, it doesnt.

8. When the most high divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Neither of those verses meniton " El", nor is any reference to other gods getting lands made. You have to alter the text to force it to read the way you claim it does.

Its only "Quiet clear" if we correct the Bikble form the origional Hebrew rather than translate it. If we do that, we can make Moses into Harrison Ford!

Its a lie to say thus, and a lie that is proven a lie.}-Zarove

The Bible repeatedly states that Jehovah is the God of Israel.

{It also repeately says he's the only god in existance...}-Zarove

That means that the Israelis have no other God but Jehovah. There is no other God for the Jews but Jehovah. And since Jehovah is the Jewish tribal God it is only natural that the Jews would claim that "my tribal God can beat up your tribal God."

{So how do you explain the clear Monotheism in Deutoronomy? If they wherejust claimign their god coudl beat up all the other gods, then why did the SAME CHAPTER in the SAME BOOK, by the SAME AUTHOR claim he was the only god in existance?

Again, please dotn blame it on Bible inconsistancy, the same author writing the same thought wont be that inconsistant.

You may want to lie and say Moses was clear that other gods had their lands, but you can only rest that assertion on a " Much better" translation that agrees with you over the countelss scholars who oppose.}-Zarove

It's interesting to note that even today Orthodox Jews reject the idea that Christians and Jews worship the same God.

{ Not all Orthodox jews do, and many Christaisn reject the notion that Muslims worship the same god, this does not, however, eman that those CHristaisn who beleive Islam wortships a diferent god, beleive that different god is a true god, but rather they think he i a false god.

Same difference. Tp those Jews you mention, Jesus, a mere man, is the god of the Christains, and an idol. To the christains who reject allah as the same god as the God of Abraham, they see him as an Idol, it doesnt relaly mean anything. Least of all does it proce Deutoronomy is inconsistant, nor that their is clear Polytheism and the other gods got natiosn of their own.

Intderestignly, these wher the Hebrews, soem where of the tribe Judah, but most wherent at this point, so its incorect to call the lot of them "Jews".}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 24, 2004.

'Owdeh Yahweh ktsidqow wa'azamraahsheem- Yahweh `Elyown.

This is the Hebrew for Psalm 7, verse 17.

elyown accordign to your source was another name for El...

The problem is, it doesnt work here, siunce its affixtd tot he name Yahweh...

Yahweh the highest, is a personal translation, or Yahweh most high.

elyown isnt a name at all, it means the highest, firts in rank, or Monarch.Its universally singular.

Just liek your elohim deal, the idea that Eloyn, another name for El, gave Yahweh his portion, is just so much fluff. Its not supported by linguistical evidence.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 25, 2004.

Well I read some and seized up, you guys don't get to tied up with the brain wave of things God loves us and that's the basis of all creation.

What makes you feel good and secure, it can only come from the ceator of all heaven and earth and admitting that we have a brain to be intellectual, it can only be a finite understanding of what is to come, the heart with the holy spirit is where it's at.

The source of all things is God himself who protects us from evil and gives us so much insiration even in the most darkest hours.

Sometimes the darkest hours are the most God lifting times, cause when our humanity suffers it's like being with Jesus on the cross, just a small glimpse of what Jesus suffered so we can live through Grace in these end times.

Let's face it Jesus rocks!!!

-- William Bowdler (wrb1331@aol.com), October 13, 2004.

Thats all very well and good and all but has nothign to do with linguistucs...

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 13, 2004.