More than one god in the Bible?

[Skeptical Greg]

.....

Now, in this controversy, we either side with the suspicious or with the non-suspicious via giving more credence to the pro-suspicious argument or to the pro-biblical non-suspicious argument. You obviously have chosen the former and I the latter.

Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/13

So, we move from the scholarly, authoritative, ' I studied Hebrew at Divinity college ' approach , that works just wonderfully from the pulpit , to the " I just believe. " stance, that is about all you have in an environment where fact checking takes place..


I do appreciate your articulate,composed and non-confrontational manner though.

Would that I handled and expressed myself as well as you do .. I sincerely mean that ..

 

[Radrook]

So, we move from the scholarly, authoritative, ' I studied Hebrew at Divinity college ' approach, that works just wonderfully from the pulpit, to the "I just believe. " stance, that is about all you have in an environment where fact checking takes place.


I do appreciate your articulate, composed and non-confrontational manner though.

Would that I handled and expressed myself as well as you do ? I sincerely mean that ..

First, thank you for the positive things said. No, I am not against checking facts. Neither are my beliefs based on blind faith despite justifiable evidence to the contrary. Just as you do, I believe in weighing both sides of an argument, examining the evidence presented pro and con, and then reaching a conclusion based on an objective evaluation. The problem is, however, that I have found many of the assertions made against the Bible unjustifiable or bogus. This casts doubts on the motives of those putting forth such ideas as undeniable truth. I have found many of the assertions made to be based on hasty conclusions motivated by wishful thinking. Historical anachronism accusations made due to ignorance of scriptural context which is right next to the text being accused of anachronisms. Strawman arguments created and attacked as if they were put forth by the writer.

Arguments based on archeological silence only later to be shown as totally false but accepted as true while the archeological record is silent--which constitutes fallacious reasoning. Wild unjustified generalizations based on a single word usage et-cetera. So when faced with such tactics what am I supposed to do-go along because those using such unethical unprofessional methods have a Ph.D.?


Let me provide an example:


Baseless premature Assumptions and Arguments From Silence

a. Assuming Bible claims of identical Philistine military and socio/econonic presence in Canaan during Abraham's
day as in David's day when no such claim is made.
= strawman.

b. Assuming absolutely no Philistine presence in Caanan possible during Abraham's or prior to main influx. = argument
from initial archeological silence disproved via subsequent archeological finds. Strawman as well.

c. Assuming writing had not yet been invented during Moses time =. argument from initial archeological silence
disproved via subsequent archeological finds.

d.. Assuming word usage indicates worship customs of user when such does not necessarily follow.

e.. Assuming there had been no camel domestication during Abraham's day in order to claim biblical
historical anachronism in order to dispute authorship Mosaic author authenticity. This argument from initial
archeological silence also proved false.


f. Assuming biblical claim of widespread camel presence and domestication based on the few mentions of camel usage described in order to accuse the Bible of containing historical anachronisms. = strawman and argument from silence disproved via subsequent archeological finds.

g. Assuming Abraham meant city gates in order to prove anachronism though the Hebrew word is also used in reference to camp entrances.

Exodus 32:26: "Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, 'Whoso is on Jehovah's side, (let him come) unto me.' And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him"

h. Assuming Abraham had no means of knowing about future kings of Israel and therefore no justifiable basis to write about kings of Israel. This despite previously clearly stated scriptural promises that kings would come from his loins.

"And I will bless her [Sarah], and moreover I will give thee a son of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her"

(Genesis 17:16, emp. added).

"I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee,
and kings shall come out of thy loins"(Genesis 35:11, emp. added).

Genesis 36:31 states: "
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel"

Motives for such anti-biblical claims? Take your pick:

1. Lazy sloppy research?
2. Ignorance of scripture?
3. Malicious misrepresentation?

BTW
The cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar were once taggged by skeptics as being fictitious until archeological finds mentioning them proved that assumption untrue.

Then Babylonian king Belshazzar mentioned in Daniel was assumed to be fictitious. As a matter of fact, a whole nation of people were assumed to be fictitious-the Hittites simply because, the Bible said otherwise it seems. Yet archeological finds proved the Bible true and the accusers false.


Actually, the real question is why men who are supposedly well-trained in objective critical thinking would unjustifiably assume lies in the first place. Have themselves exposed as having spread lies, and then resume their quest via the same unethical modus operandi.

To me that smacks of a fanatical dedication to besmirch at whatever cost via whatever method possible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Looks like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has quite a number of Bible passages where more than one god is mentioned.

 

[Nogbad]

BTW
The cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar were once taggged by skeptics as being fictitious until archeological finds mentioning them proved that assumption untrue.

Then Babylonian king Belshazzar mentioned in Daniel was assumed to be fictitious. As a matter of fact, a whole nation of people were assumed to be fictitious-the Hittites simply because, the Bible said otherwise it seems. Yet archeological finds proved the Bible true and the accusers false.


Actually, the real question is why men who are supposedly well-trained in objective critical thinking would unjustifiably assume lies in the first place. Have themselves exposed as having spread lies, and then resume their quest via the same unethical modus operandi.

To me that smacks of a fanatical dedication to besmirch at whatever cost via whatever method possible.

I am not sure that such negative views are widespread in the academic community, indeed until relatively recently all of the Bible was taken at face value.

That the Israelites existed is not disputed and therefore they would have interacted with the surrounding cultures. The Philistines, Egyptians, Babylonians, Asyrians and Hittites were all much larger and powerful. The interpretation put upon this interaction by the Israelites was purely from their own social and religious perspective. The fact that the Israelites only got a footnote in the writings of these other cultures was because Israel was rather small and not a threat. Consequently, it is perfectly reasonable to work on the basis that the names and places in the Bible are reasonably accurate - there is no reason why they should not be. That Sodom existed (as a village rather than what we would call a city) is not an issue the Biblical interpretation to its abandonment is another matter. Putting the religious lens the Israelites viewed events with to one side we can see the difficulties small nations had to contend with existing between the super powers of the day and it is a fascinating insight into late bronze age early iron age history.

 

[SimonD]

What I can't understand is that if God was so concerned about having everyone worship him and no other, that he didn't introduce himself to all the peoples of the world. Not just one small tribe out in desert.

You'd think that all the nations of the world would have known about 'their' creator. Why is everyone else 'wrong' and the Israelites 'right'?

 

[Radrook]

What I can't understand is that if God was so concerned about having everyone worship him and no other, that he didn't introduce himself to all the peoples of the world. Not just one small tribe out in desert.

You'd think that all the nations of the world would have known about 'their' creator. Why is everyone else 'wrong' and the Israelites 'right'?

He did introduce himself to all the people of the world via Christ and Christianity. But first there needed to be a demonstration of just how futile it is for mankind to try to gain eternal life [as Adam was created to have but lost] via works of law or based upon their own meager efforts. The law given to Israel served that purpose until a real provision for salvation would arrive.

BTW
It is not my intention to derail the thread into biblical doctrinal issues. I am merely responding to a question asked.

 

[SimonD]

He did introduce himself to all the people of the world via Christ and Christianity. But first there needed to be a demonstration of just how futile it is for mankind to try to gain eternal life [as Adam was created to have but lost] via works of law or based upon their own meager efforts. The law given to Israel served that purpose until a real provision for salvation would arrive.

Yes, but why take so long to do it? I mean, there was 'religion' before the Jews came about. All those generations which never had a chance to be 'saved'. Why didn't he show himself to all the nations? Why only one? And why such a weak tribe (for the time).

Seems somewhat inefficient...for an all powerful god

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I do appreciate your articulate,composed and non-confrontational manner though.

Don't worry, when you catch Radrook in his many lies or question what he passes off as "logic," he'll put you on his ignore list along with everyone else.

 

[Radrook]

I am not sure that such negative views are widespread in the academic community, indeed until relatively recently all of the Bible was taken at face value.

That the Israelites existed is not disputed and therefore they would have interacted with the surrounding cultures. The Philistines, Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Hittites were all much larger and powerful. The interpretation put upon this interaction by the Israelites was purely from their own social and religious perspective. The fact that the Israelites only got a footnote in the writings of these other cultures was because Israel was rather small and not a threat.

Actually, Israel wasn't meant to be a threat to the Hittites, and Assyrians and Babylonians. They were meant to be a threat to the people inhabiting Canaan. The Hittites were far north
the Assyrians and Babylonians across a desert.

The Canaanites did perceive Israel as a threat and their opposition to their arrival is recorded in detail in 1st and 2nd Chronicles 1st and 2nd Kings. The kindred Moabites and Edomites were also very unfriendly and did not consider Israel as simply a harmless nonentity. The Philistines of course were the ones providing most of the opposition. Opposition does mean that a threat is perceived.

But they were eventually subdued under King David. But there is mention of Israel by non-Canaanite people such as the Egyptians and Assyrians and they were significant enough to warrant military campaigns in order to bring about subjugation.

Excerpt:

Israel Archaeology

Let's begin our look at Israel archaeology with the "Merneptah Stele" (also known as the Israel Stele), which is an upright stone slab measuring over seven feet tall that contains carved hieroglyphic text dating to approximately 1230 BC. This Egyptian monument describes the military victories of Pharaoh Merneptah and includes the earliest mention of "Israel" outside the Bible. Although the specific battles covered by the stele are not included in the Bible, the stele establishes outside evidence that the Israelites were already living as a people in ancient Canaan by 1230 BC. 1 In addition to the Stele, a large wall picture was discovered in the great Karnak Temple of Luxor (ancient Thebes), which shows battle scenes between the Egyptians and Israelites. These scenes have also been attributed to Pharaoh Merneptah and date to approximately 1209 BC. 2 The Karnak Temple also contains records of Pharaoh Shishak's military victories about 280 years later. Specifically, the "Shishak Relief" depicts Egypt's victory over King Rehoboam in about 925 BC, when Solomon's Temple in Judah was plundered. 3 This is the exact event mentioned in two books of the Old Testament. 4

Outside Egypt, we also discover a wealth of evidence for the early Israelites. The "Moabite Stone" (Mesha Stele) is a three-foot stone slab discovered near Dibon, east of the Dead Sea that describes the reign of Mesha, King of Moab, around 850 BC. 5 According to the Book of Genesis, the Moabites were neighbors of the Israelites. 6 This stele covers victories by King Omri and King Ahab of Israel against Moab, and Mesha's later victories on behalf of Moab against King Ahab's descendants. 7 The "Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser" is a seven-foot, four-sided pillar of basalt that describes the victories of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria, including defeats of Tyre, Sidon and "Jehu, Son of Omri." Dated to about 841 BC, the Obelisk (now in the British Museum) was discovered in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud and shows Israel's King Jehu kneeling before the Assyrian king in humble tribute.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/israel-archaeology.htm

Consequently, it is perfectly reasonable to work on the basis that the names and places in the Bible are reasonably accurate - there is no reason why they should not be. That Sodom existed (as a village rather than what we would call a city) is not an issue the Biblical interpretation to its abandonment is another matter. Putting the religious lens the Israelites viewed events with to one side we can see the difficulties small nations had to contend with existing between the super powers of the day and it is a fascinating insight into late bronze age early iron age history.

Your opinion of Sodom as a mere village brings to my mind king Solomon's words to a certain king who gave him twenty cities as a gift. Upon inspecting them Solomon said: "What sort of cities are these you have given me my brother?" LOL In any case, Sodom was protected by walls, and even had what appears to be a ziggurat. Perhaps that's why it was referred to as a city.

Excerpt:

On the western side of the Dead Sea lie the remains of two ashen cities, one at the base of Mt. Masada, and the other at the base of Mt. Sodom. In 1989, amateur archaeologist, Ron Wyatt was driving along the road past these sites. Although he had driven along this road perhaps thirty to forty times before, this time they suddenly looked like city walls and buildings. Pulling over to investigate further, Ron found that within these cities are building-like structures, all completely composed of ash. There are rooms that one can still enter today. He found interlinking streets, ziggurats and sphinx, all enclosed in traditional city walls, complete with buttresses.

Sodom Rediscovered
http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

Yes, of course we can view the events from a purely non-religious standpoint, explain away everything religiously said as superstition, outright lies, etcetera. That's exactly the modus operandi in vogue. One to which I do not subscribe not because I am superstitious but because for every suspicion and accusation I find a [to me] reasonable explanation to assume or definitely conclude otherwise. And again that's where we differ.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Yes, but why take so long to do it? I mean, there was 'religion' before the Jews came about. All those generations which never had a chance to be 'saved'. Why didn't he show himself to all the nations? Why only one? And why such a weak tribe (for the time).

Indeed. If JEEZ-us' message was so damn important that all of humanity had to hear it, why didn't he appear to everyone at once? Radrook's god is supposed to be omnipotent, surely he can pull off a the virgin birth of an all-powerful superman in every civilization to spread His divine word. It would certainly add to God's credibility and believability if every society had its own.... personal.... Jesus. (Reach out and TOUCH ME!)

Instead, we supposedly get one guy from the backwaters of the Roman Empire who has to posthumously rely on hand-me-down accounts from his believers to spread his message, followed in later centuries with conquest and torture.

Seems somewhat inefficient...for an all powerful god

The Lord doth work in mysterious, inefficient, illogical, and monstrously cruel ways.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by SimonD
Yes, but why take so long to do it?

Time is a subjective thing as Einstein pointed out and as the Apostle Peter pointed out as well:


2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That we have difficulties with his perception of time is understandable since we are finite and what might seem as a mere day to him might be equivalent to one thousand or even seven thousand of our own. God has a time table and does things in the order in which he deems most appropriate to his purpose.

Ecclesiastes 3:1
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

I mean, there was 'religion' before the Jews came about. All those generations which never had a chance to be 'saved'.

Those generations will be resurrected, told about God's salvation plan, and given a chance to choose. That's what resurrection day is for.

John 11:24
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Why didn't he show himself to all the nations? Why only one? And why such a weak tribe (for the time).

He promised in the Garden of Eden to provide a seed which would set things straight between mankind and himself. Genesis 3:15 The scriptures continually point out the lineage of that seed. Some of the identified progenitors were, Noah, Seth, then Abraham then Isaac, Then Jacob later called Israel. Then Judah one of his sons. Later David and finally through David's line the seed finally was provided in Jesus fulfilling the prophecy in Genesis 3: 15.

Why did God take so long? Because time was needed to demonstrate the futility of gaining salvation via works of law alone.
In order to do this he created a nation to demonstrate that crucial fact as an example.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Once that was deemed proven, then all was set for the next stage-the sending of the promised seed of Genesis 3: 15.

Indeed. If JEEZ-us' message was so damn important that all of humanity had to hear it, why didn't he appear to everyone at once?

Because the provision of salvation required certain preparatory stages as explained above.

BTW

Again I am not attempting to deviate the thread but only responding to questions:

BTW
The weakness or strength of Israel was not dependent on numbers or weapons but on their adherance to the Covenant as promised. Samson needed only a jawbone of an ass to gain victory.

 

[SimonD]

Time is a subjective thing as Einstein pointed out and as the Apostle Peter pointed out as well:

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That we have difficulties with his perception of time is understandable since we are finite and what might seem as a mere day to him might be equivalent to one thousand or even seven thousand of our own. God has a time table and does things in the order in which he deems most appropriate to his purpose.

Ecclesiastes 3:1
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

I find your comparison between someone who understood gravity and the effects that this has on time and space and a fisherman somewhat out of kilter; like comparing apples with oranges. However, that is for another thread.

Those generations will be resurrected, told about God's salvation plan, and given a chance to choose. That's what resurrection day is for.

John 11:24
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

He promised in the Garden of Eden to provide a seed which would set things straight between mankind and himself. Genesis 3:15 The scriptures continually point out the lineage of that seed. Some of the identified progenitors were, Noah, Seth, then Abraham then Isaac, Then Jacob later called Israel. Then Judah one of his sons. Later David and finally through David's line the seed finally was provided in Jesus fulfilling the prophecy in Genesis 3: 15.

So God doesn’t mind that you worship another God, if you haven’t heard of him? Sounds like a legal loop-hole to me. I always thought that ignorance of the law was no defence, if you break it.

You would think that if God created the world and all the nations in it, he would, from the start of time, let himself be known to everyone. Surely this goes along with the idea of ‘freedom of choice’. It’s not much a choice if you don’t have all the options.

Why did God take so long? Because time was needed to demonstrate the futility of gaining salvation via works of law alone.
In order to do this he created a nation to demonstrate that crucial fact as an example.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Once that was deemed proven, then all was set for the next stage-the sending of the promised seed of Genesis 3: 15.
Because the provision of salvation required certain preparatory stages as explained above.

So God was happy to have more then (and I’m going to guess here) about 99% of the worlds population to worship false Gods, while he bided his time to send his son (or himself, depending how you look at it). I guess we are still waiting, because the number of Christians doesn’t outnumber the number of people in all the other religions combined.

Again, sounds very inefficient, when you consider how efficient, everything else in ‘Gods’ universe works.

BTW
The weakness or strength of Israel was not dependent on numbers or weapons but on their adherance to the Covenant as promised. Samson needed only a jawbone of an ass to gain victory.

And got their a...s kicked so many other times. Where was their God during WWII?

 

[edge]

And got their a...s kicked so many other times. Where was their God during WWII?

You think that they where the only ones to die?
All nationalities and religions were persecuted and genocide was not limited to one group or the other.
You could say the same thing today about American solders and the people of countries they occupy.
What about since they have gotten their land back, their nation, no one has done that to them yet, and it states that in the end all their enemies will fall.

So God doesn’t mind that you worship another God, if you haven’t heard of him? Sounds like a legal loop-hole to me. I always thought that ignorance of the law was no defense, if you break it.

Consider yourself lucky it’s there.
Except that you have heard of him.
And it’s still your choice.

 

[SimonD]

You think that they where the only ones to die?
All nationalities and religions were persecuted and genocide was not limited to one group or the other.
You could say the same thing today about American solders and the people of countries they occupy.
What about since they have gotten their land back, their nation, no one has done that to them yet, and it states that in the end all their enemies will fall.

No, Radrook said that they were powerful, despite the lack of the size of their country and population. I was making a point that if we say they are powerful because they defeated an army, we must also include their losses.

Consider yourself lucky it’s there.
Except that you have heard of him.
And it’s still your choice.

As lucky as all the South American natives who where killed by the Christain Spanish

 

[edge]

As lucky as all the South American natives who where killed by the Christain Spanish

Have you seen the movie Apocalypto, Mel Gibson’s movie?

If you have you’ll get the jist if not, I can explain.

These are also things of the heart in other words who can read the heart and judge?
Not me.
There’s going to be a lot of explaining, Lucy!

 

[SimonD]

Have you seen the movie Apocalypto, Mel Gibson’s movie?

If you have you’ll get the jist if not, I can explain.

These are also things of the heart in other words who can read the heart and judge?
Not me.
There’s going to be a lot of explaining, Lucy!

Yes, I have seen the movie.

You want to compare the killing of 'few' (as a percentage) as bad, to the entire genocide of a people's as good?

 

[edge]

No, Radrook said that they were powerful, despite the lack of the size of their country and population. I was making a point that if we say they are powerful because they defeated an army, we must also include their losses.

From a belief mode I tend to look at the prophecies and the future as they are involved heavily in future events, heck that includes everything about that part of the world and our involvement there even now.
Notice how we are streached thin the U.S. Military?
We are in debt big time also.

 

[SimonD]

From a belief mode I tend to look at the prophecies and the future as they are involved heavily in future events, heck that includes everything about that part of the world and our involvement there even now.
Notice how we are streached thin the U.S. Military?
We are in debt big time also.

Empires rise and fall. They have done so for as long as they has been empires. Saying that the U.S.A will fall and another empire will rise in its place is like saying night will follow day. Nothing lasts for ever.

 

[edge]

Yes, I have seen the movie.

You want to compare the killing of 'few' (as a percentage) as bad, to the entire genocide of a people's as good?

They were conquering lesser tribes and sacrificing them alive to false Gods.
Doesn't make the Spanish right because greed entered in, but the underlying theme was quit dramatic.

Everyone is accountable.

 

[edge]

As Radrook stated, Ecclesiastes 3:1
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: