Re: Open Debate Challenge

"Sorry but Hebrew didn't have the Royal We."

I didn't say that it did. I was making a generalized comparison to
English. As for early Hebrew theology being polytheistic, this would
have to be pre-Abrahamic theology. While the actual word "Elohim" does
appear, there is nothing aside from this plural form that implies
polytheism...in fact, had you read a little bit further, you would have
noticed that many other passages do not refer to G_d as "Elohim" or
"Adonai Elohim," but by a proper name, YHVH. This is, of course, a
major point for the multiple authorship theory, which I personally
agree with, but it also really throws a wrench into the whole
polytheism thing. Incidentally, we do know that by the time that the
original stories were finally written down shortly after the Babylonian
exile, Judaic theology was most certainly monotheistic. Given this,
why would they have left it as "Elohim," if they felt that it would
imply polytheism, a concept which is specifically prohibited under
Judaic law. If the Redactor had believed that "Elohim" had
polytheistic connotations, why wouldn't he or them simply amend it as
"Eloheinu," meaning "our G_d," or simply "El," which does appear
elsewhere?

The problem here is that you make the same mistake that many
creationists make. You look at one specific point of evidence, in this
case the tense of a single word, and use it to build up a case which
completely ignores any and all other evidence, all of which happens to
point to a completely different conclusion.

"I specifically mandated that no interpretive material be included, and
the notion that "..im" denotes divine plentitude is a Massoretic
addition, which follows the origin of the text of interest by at least
a
century, I think. "

Ok, so are you implying that Jews following the original text were
polytheistic, even though later points in that very same text, it
specifically says "I am the Lord your G_d, you shall have no other G_ds
before me?" And that it was only this later interpretation, in the 2nd
century BCE, that turned it into a monotheistic religion? I do hope
that I have misread your post, because such an assertion is hilariously
misguided. Wow.

Look, this is really a pointless and irrelevent side-topic to the
original posts, but I really just wanted to point out that even someone
who has only studied Hebrew for six years, which really isn't that long
when you consider how complicated a language it is, understands why
"Elohim" doesn't refer to polytheism. This is really almost at the
level of quotemining.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Open Debate Challenge
    ... > "Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ... > the early 2nd millennium BCE, we find that the Elohim are a family of ... but the Hebrew version references a family of deities. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Open Debate Challenge
    ... > both English and Hebrew, Greek being a transitory language in this case. ... > Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ... Elohim is plural - not a matter of opinion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Open Debate Challenge
    ... > Sorry but Hebrew didn't have the Royal We. ... > And angels were a much later addition to the heavenly cosmos. ... > many hints in scripture that Elohim meant gods plural. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Open Debate Challenge
    ... direct evidence that is immediately relevant. ... we find that the Elohim are a family of ... but the Hebrew version references a family of deities. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: limits of shirk, bahais and christianity... was Re: delivering wives in Bible texts
    ... would consider Christianity a form of polytheism or idolatry for its ... theology. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)