(156) Wed 30 Aug 95 7:53
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: God of gods 1
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:3b47 1f1e3ea0
Pages 2-4: summer 1991
YAHWEH, THE GOD OF GODS
Farrell Till
Many Bible fundamentalists believe that while the nations around them
wallowed in the mire of polytheism the Hebrews practiced a strict
monotheistic
religion. Their insight into the nature of the one true God Yahweh had
resulted, of course, from the personal relationships that Abraham and the
other Hebrew patriarchs had experienced with Yahweh, who had routinely re-
vealed himself to them in dreams, apparitions, and other manifestations.
It
makes good sermon material, but there's just one thing wrong with it. It
isn't true.
The early Hebrews believed in polytheism as much as the nations around
them. They thought of Chemosh, Molech, Milcom, Baal, Dagon, and the other
pagan gods as deities who were just as real as their own god Yahweh. They
just thought that Yahweh was greater and mightier than the others, a sort
of
supergod or, in other words, the God of gods (Josh. 22:22). Monotheism or
the belief that Yahweh was the only God was a late development in Jewish
theology.
The evidence for this is too clear to dispute. There is, first of all,
the
peculiar fact that the Hebrews, when not referring to him by his personal
name Yahweh, generally used a plural word (elohim) to designate their god.
Literally, it meant gods rather than god. In the original Hebrew,
therefore,
Genesis 1:1 is actually saying, "In the beginning gods created the heavens
and the earth." It seems strange that a people with a clear concept of
monotheism, as bibliolaters claim that the Hebrews had, would have used a
plural word in referring to the one and only true god. It would be
somewhat
like an English writer using men to refer to a man.
Bible writers did in fact often use the singular word el (god) in
obvious
reference to Yahweh. Genesis 21:23 states that "Abraham planted a tamarisk
tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of Yahweh, the Everlasting
El" (Bethel Translation). In Genesis 31:13, an "angel of God" (elohim) ap-
peared to Jacob in a dream and said, "I am the El of Bethel...." Other
instances when Yahweh Elohim was called El can be found in Genesis 35:1,3;
43:14; 46:3; 48:3; 49:25; Exodus 15:2; 20:5; 34:6 and numerous other
places.
It happened enough to indicate that Bible writers had some difficulty
deciding
whether to call their Yahweh elohim (gods) or el (god). To say the least,
this does not indicate a clear grasp of monotheistic concepts.
Bibliolaters will quickly protest that the Hebrews used the plural word
elohim when referring to their god Yahweh only to show awe and respect. It
was "the plural of dignity," they claim, a way of expressing the majesty
and
greatness of God. Some even think they see an early recognition of the
triune godhead in the plural term elohim. In Genesis 1:26, Elohim said,
"Let
us make man in our image, after our likeness," and after Adam and Eve had
sinned, Yahweh Elohim said, "Behold the man is become as one of us" (Gen.
3:22). What could these statements be, bibliolaters ask, except the three
persons in the one godhead talking?
In this article, I won't get involved in discussing the absurdities of
the
trinity doctrine except to say that the Hebrew usage of elohim to designate
their tribal god could very well have been a vestigial expression from
their
distinctly polytheistic days. One thing is sure: Old Testament writers
often
seemed confused about whether they intended the word elohim to mean their
god Yahweh or gods in a definite plural sense. When Yahweh alone was
meant, they usually referred to him as Elohim without the article ha (the),
and if Elohim (Yahweh) was the subject of the sentence, a singular verb was
used even though elohim was a plural noun. The creative god of Genesis 1,
1
for example, is called Elohim, without the article ha (the), some thirty
times.
In places like Exodus 12:12, however, where "the gods of Egypt" were
referred to, the same word elohim was used but with the article ha,
ha-elohim
(the gods). In Genesis 35:7, English translations state that Jacob built
an
altar at Bethel "because there God was revealed to him," but the Hebrew
text
literally states that the gods (ha-elohim) were revealed (niglu). The
addition
of the u sound to a Hebrew verb made it plural much in the same way that
the addition of an "s" to a verb in English makes it third-person singular,
so
in this case, the Bible was really saying that the gods were revealed to
Jacob, not God was revealed to him. If space permitted, I could cite many
examples like this where English translations have deceptively rendered ha-
elohim as God and its plural verbs as singulars. Most English readers have
not researched the Bible enough to be aware that these things have been
done; hence, they naively believe that the Hebrews had a consistently mono-
theistic concept of God all through their history when in reality
monotheism
was a late development in their theology.
There are many passages in the Old Testament that indicate belief that
the pagan deities were real gods. Jephthah said in his message to the king
of the Ammonites during a dispute over territory the Israelites had taken
on
their way out of Egypt, "Will you not possess that which Chemosh your
elohim
gives you to possess? So whomever Yahweh our Elohim has dispossessed from
before us, them will we possess" (Judges 11:24, BB). Since there were no
capital letters in Hebrew to show the distinction the translators
arbitrarily
made in capitalizing elohim as it referred to Yahweh, it is obvious that
Jepht-
hah considered Chemosh of the Ammonites to be elohim in the same sense that
Yahweh was the elohim of Israel. He was contending that Yahweh, his elo-
him, had given the Israelites certain territories just as Chemosh, the
elohim
of the Ammonites, had given them certain lands and that the two nations
should therefore be content with the arrangements of their respective gods.
Furthermore, we have to wonder at this point if Jephthah intended elohim as
a "plural of dignity" when he applied it to the singular deity Chemosh. If
not, why not? If it expressed dignity and respect when applied to Yahweh,
then why would it not mean the same when applied to another deity? So if
there is any merit at all to the plural-of- dignity argument, we have in
this
passage a clear indication that Chemosh was considered a real god who de-
served respect.
Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49
Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
* WR 1.31 # 398 * Women must be in the mood, men just in the room.
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 835 837 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 10 25
SEEN-BY: 280/31 45 115 135 333 378 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 201 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 752 943
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(157) Wed 30 Aug 95 7:55
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: God of gods 2
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:3a07 1f1e3ee0
That pagan gods should indeed be respected was often indicated in the
Old Testament. Exodus 22:28 says, "Thou shalt not revile the gods (ha-elo-
him), nor curse the ruler of thy people" (KJV). Despite the inclusion of
the
article ha, as shown in the parentheses, most translations have tried to
hide
the fact that gods in general were probably intended by rendering ha-elohim
God (singular) with a capital "G" and no article. Deliberate deceptions of
translation like this have kept English readers from seeing many things
that
would be damaging to traditional Judeo-Christian doctrines, in this case an
apparent polytheistic concept in early Hebrew history.
Leviticus 24:10-23 tells the story of the son of an Israelite-Egyptian
marriage who had been heard blaspheming "the Name" during a fight. The
man was put in ward until what should be done to him "might be declared to
them at the mouth of Yahweh" (v:12). Upon inquiring, Moses was told by
Yahweh to have the congregation stone the man to death. "And you shall
speak to the children of Israel, saying," Yahweh declared, "Whoever curses
his Elohim shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemes the name of Yahweh,
he shall surely be put to death" (vv:15-16). The capitalization of elohim
in
this passage was a purely arbitrary interpretation of the Bethel
translators,
because there were no capital letters in Hebrew, so the word could just as
well have been translated gods: "Whoever curses
his gods shall bear his sin...."
Is there any reason to believe that the plural concept of gods was
intend-
ed in the statement? There very definitely is. Two distinct offenses seem
to
2
have been under consideration: (1) whoever curses his gods shall bear his
sin, but (2) he that blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to
death. In other words, cursing one's gods was just considered a sinful
offense, but cursing the name of Yahweh was an offense punishable by death.
The text implies that the man who was charged in this case wasn't a Hebrew.
Although his mother was an "Israelitish woman," his father was Egyptian.
That he possibly believed in Egyptian gods was suggested in the last half
of
verse 16 when Yahweh said that "as well the sojourner, as the home-
born,when he blasphemes the name of Yah-weh, (he) shall be put to death."
This man may have been a sojourner (foreigner), but notice was being served
by his execution that a more serious penalty would be extracted for
blasphem-
ing Yahweh than for cursing other gods. So whatever dubious value this
fanciful little tale might have, it at least seems to be saying that the
Hebrews
thought pagan gods were real. If not, why would they have considered it
sinful to curse gods that didn't even exist?
Passages in the Old Testament that show an early Hebrew belief in
polythe-
ism are too numerous to examine in detail. I can cite only a few random
ones. After the Israelites had crossed the Red Sea, for example, they sang
a
hymn of praise to Yahweh in which they said, "Who is like unto you, O
Yahweh, among the elohim (gods)?" (Ex. 15:11). So obviously was the word
elohim intended in this verse to convey the concept of gods in general that
even the biased Bethel translators have printed it with a lowercase "e,"
but
unless the Hebrews who sang these words believed that other gods existed,
it
would have made no sense at all for them to ask who among the gods was like
unto their god Yahweh. In Psalm 95:3, it was declared that "Yahweh is a
great El (god) and a great King above all elohim (gods)." But how could
this psalmist have believed Yahweh was greater than other gods unless he
believed that other gods existed to compare Yahweh to? Psalm 86:8 de-
clared, "There is none like you among the elohim, O Yahweh." However, if
the psalmist thought that Yahweh was the only god, his words of praise were
completely meaningless. It would be as if someone said of the Eiffel
Tower,
"There are no Eiffel Towers like unto the Eiffel Tower." To say, however,
that there are no towers like unto the Eiffel Tower grants clear
recognition
that other towers exist, and so it was when the Hebrews said that there
were
no gods like their god Yahweh. They were clearly indicating their belief
that
other gods existed.
Even as late as Solomon, belief in the reality of pagan gods still
persist-
ed. In declaring his plans to build a temple to Yahweh, Solomon said,
"Great
is our God above all gods" (2 Chron. 2:5). How could he have thought his
god was greater than the other gods unless he believed other gods existed?
Since in this case Solomon himself eventually resorted to idolatry (1 Kings
11:4-8), he very obviously believed pagan gods were real. In this respect,
Solomon wasn't at all unusual. Throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh was
compared to other gods in ways that showed a belief in the realness of the
others. He was called "God of gods and Lord of Lords, a great God" (Deut.
10:17), but how could he have been God of gods unless other gods existed?
The same comparison was made in Joshua 22:22 and Psalm 136:2-3. To the
Hebrews, Yahweh was simply "God of gods," the greatest and mightiest of
many existing gods. To deny this is to make all the words of Yahwistic
praise like those just quoted completely meaningless.
Fundamentalists will of course point out that many Bible passages
clearly
teach that Yahweh was the one and only God. At the dedication of the
temple, Solomon said to the people that "Yahweh is God, and there is none
else" (1 Kings 8:60). (This was the same Solomon who shortly afterwards
worshipped other gods, so we have to wonder just how strongly he believed
what he said.) Moses also said that "Yahweh is God; there is no other be-
side him" (Deut. 4:35). So no one will dispute that the Bible in many
places
says that there is only one God, but trying to disprove that polytheism was
believed by some Bible characters and writers by just quoting passages that
clearly teach monotheism is to miss the point entirely. The contention of
The
3
Skeptical Review is that, contrary to what fundamentalists preach from
their
pulpits, the Bible is an inconsistent, contradictory book. The conflicting
polytheistic-monotheistic views of its writers is just one example of its
incon-
sistency and contradiction, so bibliolaters can't satisfactorily explain
the
problem by simply referring to the passages that appear to teach
monotheism.
Pitting scripture against scripture in this way only confirms the premise
on
which this publication was founded: there are obvious contradictions in the
Bible. To satisfactorily resolve this matter, they will have to show that
the
passages I have presented and explicated in this article don't really teach
polytheistic concepts.
I don't think they can do that. In Exodus 12:12, Yahweh said that on
the night of the Passover he would execute judgment "against all the gods
of
Egypt." But how can judgment be executed against something that doesn't
even exist? This is what bibliolaters must explain, because whoever wrote
Exodus 12:12 clearly believed that the gods of Egypt were real gods.
********************************
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to The Skeptical
Review can be obtained by writing to P. O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717.
Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49
Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
* WR 1.31 # 398 * ÉØ»ÈؼÉØTÈA¼GØLÈI¼NØEÈؼFØRÈO¼MØ»ÈH¼EØLÈLؼÉØ»Èؼ
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 835 837 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 10 25
SEEN-BY: 280/31 45 115 135 333 378 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 201 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 752 943
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(158) Wed 30 Aug 95 8:30
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: Real gods justice
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:01d6 1f1e43c0
Fundis defend the Hebrews slaughter of the Canaanites as a judgement of
god. Yet Babble evidence indicates that if a god was in fact involved, he
was using the booty as a bribe for allegiance to him:
Deu 6:10 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee
into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to
Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
Deu 6:11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and
wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which
thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
Deu 6:12 Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth
out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear
by his name.
In any case, for a god to be involved, he would have to exist. In
researching Hebrew ideas about their god of gods, I came accross this from
_The Sheptical Review_ Pages 7-11: winter 1993.
SUFFER, LITTLE CHILDREN by Farrell Till
It nicely illistrates the non evidence for a god's "judgement" of the
Canaanites:
"When it became clear that they [the Canaanites] were past redemption,"
Lavender said in another of his points, "their destruction occurred." Fur-
thermore, he said in still another point, "The justice of God demands
punish-
ment for sin." So we wonder if this is why God was constantly sending the
Israelites into bondage after they displaced the Canaanites (Judges 3:7-8;
4:1-3; 6:1-6; 10:7-8; 13:1). Was God, in keeping with his perfect justice,
just punishing them for their sins? If so, did he ultimately destroy the
national identity of Israel and send them into Babylonian captivity because
"it had become clear that they were past redemption"? If so again, then
why did the inscrutable Yahweh destroy the Canaanites in the first place
only to fill their land with a people equally as wicked?
This last question poses a serious problem for Mr. Lavender's position
that I will address later, but first let's notice that another of his
points
was that one would have to be "equal with God" before he could accuse God
of wrong in the Canaanite massacres. This is a variation of the old God's-
ways-are-higher-than-our-ways argument, which is a catch-all dodge that
inerrantists use whenever their arguments make no sense. A major flaw in
Lavender's application of it is the obvious fact that it assumes without
proof
that God was actually involved in the Israelite conquest of Canaan. A more
probable interpretation of this aspect of Hebrew history is that they
merely
thought that their god Yahweh was directing their conquest of the land.
Even today nations have a tendency to think that God is on their side in
time
of war. That belief was even more prevalent in biblical times. Each nation
had its god(s) that the people thought rewarded them with victory when they
were "good" and punished them when they were "bad."
The Moabite stone, for example, contains an inscription in which the
Moabite king Mesha of 2 Kings 3 told of victories that he had won through
his
god Chemosh who "saved me from all the kings and let me see my desire
upon my adversaries." Later in the inscription, Mesha said about a victory
his forces had won over Israel, "But Chemosh drove him [the king of Israel]
out before me." Pavement slabs in the temple of Urta at Nimud contained an
inscription by the Assyrian king Assur-Nasir-Pal in which he described the
massacre of 600 warriors and 3,000 captives he had taken in battle "at the
command of the great gods" (Crane Brinton, A History of Western Morals, p.
48).
If one were to ask Mr. Lavender if he believes that king Mesha had actu-
ally been led to victory by the god Chemosh or that the "great gods" had
led
Assur-Nasir-Pal in his conquests, he would no doubt openly scoff at the
notion of a pagan god leading an army to victory. How then does he account
for the undeniable fact that inscriptions left behind by these kings
clearly do
say that their gods were responsible for their victories? His answer would
probably involve some application of Occam's razor. Chemosh didn't really
lead king Mesha to victory. Mesha just superstitiously believed that it had
happened this way. The "great gods" were not really behind the conquests
of Assur-Nasir-Pal. He just thought that they were.
The rule of Occam's razor says that when there are two or more explana-
tions for a phenomenon, the least incredible one is probably the right one.
To apply this principle to the claims of the pagan kings Mesha and Assur-
Nasir-Pal, two possibilities exist: (1) They won their victories through
the
intervention of their gods, or (2) they won their victories by means of
supe-
rior military forces and tactics and merely thought that their gods had led
them to win. Of these two explanations, the second one is obviously the
less
incredible and, therefore, the one rational people would choose to explain
the
military successes of Mesha and Assur-Nasir-Pal.
If I were to ask Mr. Lavender to make a choice in the matter--and I am
asking him to do that--I suspect he would choose the second one. If so,
why
can he not apply the same common-sense reasoning to the biblical claims
that
Yahweh led the Israelites to victory in their battles? King Mesha was a
Moabite neighbor to the Israelites and was contemporary to Ahab and Jeho-
shaphat. Now when the Bible says that "Yahweh was with Jehoshaphat" and
"established the kingdom in his hand" (2 Chron. 17:3,5), inerrantists like
Mr. Lavender unhesitatingly declare their belief that this was absolutely
true,
yet they scoff at a Moabite inscription that says the god Chemosh was with
Jehoshaphat's neighbor, king Mesha, and established his kingdom. Why?
What is the consistency in such positions as these? If the rule of Occam's
razor makes it unlikely that a primitive war-god was leading Mesha to
victory,
why wouldn't the same rule make it just as unlikely that the god Yahweh was
helping Mesha's neighbor Jehoshaphat, just a few miles away, to "establish"
his kingdom?
This way of looking at the situation certainly plays havoc with Mr.
Laven-
der's points that were based on the assumption that God directed the
Canaan-
ite massacres. If God had had nothing to do with these atrocities, as the
rule of Occam's razor clearly indicates, then one doesn't have to be "equal
with God" in order to accuse God of wrong in the matter. In fact, the ra-
tional person accuses God of nothing, because he is sensible enough to
realize
that "God" was in no way involved in the incidents. The stories simply
evolved in a primitive, barbaric society that believed God was on its side.
Larry Sites JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49
Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
* WR 1.31 # 398 * "Noachian Deluge"? "Ignorance inundation" is more accurat
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 835 837 890 943 1326 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 10 25
SEEN-BY: 280/31 45 115 135 333 378 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 202/212 201 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 752 943
