On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Leonard James]

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

Sounds very likely to me.

[Jack Knave]

Alien

You haven't replied to my #123.

[Alien]

...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

Why?

[Jack Knave]

...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.

You want context. Well my take on this is the phylogeny of the gods. That the monotheists' Gods have come from the polytheistic gods of the pagans and that what we have here is a residue from those times. I would suggest you look further a field than the chapter, Genesis and your myopic world of the Bible etc.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.

If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

Why?

Isn't one of the names of God, The One, or something like that? That is the symbolic significance of the number one. So in the trinity God is seen as being more than one in Itself? besides the HS and JC.

[Jack Knave]

Alien, I asked for a reply to #123. You have replied to #122. I need a reply to #123.

[Alien]

...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.

You want context. Well my take on this is the phylogeny of the gods. That the monotheists' Gods have come from the polytheistic gods of the pagans and that what we have here is a residue from those times.

And you evidence for this is what?

I would suggest you look further a field than the chapter, Genesis and your myopic world of the Bible etc.

Point me in the right direction then of some evidence which shows the Hebrews got their beliefs about God from polytheists. Thanks.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.

If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith.

Agreed.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

Why?

Isn't one of the names of God, The One, or something like that?

You tell me, mate. You keep coming up with stuff where I am still waiting to see some evidence.

That is the symbolic significance of the number one. So in the trinity God is seen as being more than one in Itself? besides the HS and JC.

What's that in English?

[Alien]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"

"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."

It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.

The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.

I await your presentation.

Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y

[Alien]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?

[Alien]

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

Sounds very likely to me.

Why? Do you like Christmas crackers as well?

[Alien]

Alien, I asked for a reply to #123. You have replied to #122. I need a reply to #123.

.... please.

[Hope]

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself.  What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead.  However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.

[Hope]

I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

For what, the fact that royals and their equivalents use what we now call the 'royal we'?  If anything, I'd suggest that they make sure that they use the most appropriate term in the English language for 'majesty'.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

Except that Hebrew words for God are the means by which we learn about the nature of God, and, as both Alien and I have pointed out, the terms 'us' and 'we' don't always indicate 'many of us'.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

and, in response to the italicised section, the use of the plural is often used to denote majesty and power.

Jack, you seem to completely ignore everything that Alien said in his post #118, even though you quote in your follow up post, and then ask the very questions he has given answers to in that post

[Hope]

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

Source? 

You might find this wiki page of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

On a quick skim, 30+ of the deities listed here are non-Jewish.

[Jack Knave]

...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.

You want context. Well my take on this is the phylogeny of the gods. That the monotheists' Gods have come from the polytheistic gods of the pagans and that what we have here is a residue from those times.

And you evidence for this is what?

I would suggest you look further a field than the chapter, Genesis and your myopic world of the Bible etc.

Point me in the right direction then of some evidence which shows the Hebrews got their beliefs about God from polytheists. Thanks.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.

If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith.

Agreed.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

Why?

Isn't one of the names of God, The One, or something like that?

You tell me, mate. You keep coming up with stuff where I am still waiting to see some evidence.

That is the symbolic significance of the number one. So in the trinity God is seen as being more than one in Itself? besides the HS and JC.

What's that in English?

My anecdotal evidence is that paganism, polytheism, is known to have come first before monotheism. The first inkling of this was with Akhenaten in Egypt (roughly 1300 BC) and Heraclitus mentioned that logically the gods would be rendered down to just one.   

As for your second question, who are the Hebrews? They didn't just form out of thin air did they, they had to have come from some where, or many places as groups joined to form bigger groups, going back in time way into prehistory. And all the books of the Bible were written after leaving Babylon - 530's BC...? (There was a programme on BBC4 just a few weeks ago on the ark mentioning clearly, with proof, that the flood story came from Babylon). These earlier groups, going into prehistory, would have been polytheists.

3) Your agreement. So you admit that Genesis makes a mockery of your idea of one God?

As for point 4 I read the Bible etc. and talked to others on this in my 20's so I'm relying on my memory here hoping others on this board will seal what I say with clarification. So God isn't referred to as The One in some of the books of the Bible?

[Jack Knave]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"

"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."

It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.

The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.

I await your presentation.

Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y

What WLC is talking about there is basically potential and this does not have to be personal. Anyway you would still have to explain where God came from - and where Its nature came from to have this 'freewill'; to not act and then act.

Your answer to this could be applied quite adequately to a non-personal agent. And there are loads of examples of impersonal forces in the universe that are in a state of potential, so having an agent as you describe for your argument but is non-personal is still a legitimate state of affairs. And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.

[Jack Knave]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?

An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.

[Jack Knave]

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself.  What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead.  However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.

So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?

[Jack Knave]

I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

For what, the fact that royals and their equivalents use what we now call the 'royal we'?  If anything, I'd suggest that they make sure that they use the most appropriate term in the English language for 'majesty'.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

Except that Hebrew words for God are the means by which we learn about the nature of God, and, as both Alien and I have pointed out, the terms 'us' and 'we' don't always indicate 'many of us'.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

and, in response to the italicised section, the use of the plural is often used to denote majesty and power.

Jack, you seem to completely ignore everything that Alien said in his post #118, even though you quote in your follow up post, and then ask the very questions he has given answers to in that post

You forget this is God speaking, not some Hebrew. Doesn't it know the difference between singular and plural? If there is only one of It then it would use the singular. By using the plural it is indicating that there is  more than one of It.

Alien's #118 is him pretending not to understand. I explained this at the time that I was paraphrasing.

[Jack Knave]

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

Source? 

You might find this wiki page of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

On a quick skim, 30+ of the deities listed here are non-Jewish.

I haven't looked at this but I don't think it would help. The idea was that five of the tribes that came together to form what would be the Jews etc. were powerful in their own right and wanted their monotheistic God to be in the Bible for the newly formed group. So it seems the various books/stories of these tribes were just lumped together to start what we know as the Bible.

[Alien]

...
My anecdotal evidence is that paganism, polytheism, is known to have come first before monotheism.

I thought you lot didn't go in for anecdotal evidence.

The first inkling of this was with Akhenaten in Egypt (roughly 1300 BC) and Heraclitus mentioned that logically the gods would be rendered down to just one. 

You've forgotten people like Abraham who were before then.

As for your second question, who are the Hebrews? They didn't just form out of thin air did they,

Er, no. No-one is claiming that.

they had to have come from some where, or many places as groups joined to form bigger groups, going back in time way into prehistory. And all the books of the Bible were written after leaving Babylon - 530's BC...? (There was a programme on BBC4 just a few weeks ago on the ark mentioning clearly, with proof, that the flood story came from Babylon).

Oh dear. Not that old chestnut again. You really ought to read a bit wider. The phrase "confirmation bias" comes to mind.

These earlier groups, going into prehistory, would have been polytheists.

That's not evidence; it's just repeating your claim.

3) Your agreement. So you admit that Genesis makes a mockery of your idea of one God?

Eh? Where did you get that idea from? What is "3)"?

As for point 4 I read the Bible etc. and talked to others on this in my 20's so I'm relying on my memory here hoping others on this board will seal what I say with clarification.

Eh? So it is something someone told you down the pub how long ago?

So God isn't referred to as The One in some of the books of the Bible?

"The One"? He is described as being one, e.g. in the Shema Deut 6 and this as quoted by Jesus.

What exactly is it that you are trying to say?

[Alien]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"

"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."

It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.

The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.

I await your presentation.

Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y

What WLC is talking about there is basically potential and this does not have to be personal. Anyway you would still have to explain where God came from

? Why? Why would he have to come from anywhere?

- and where Its nature came from to have this 'freewill'; to not act and then act.

Why? It is not necessary to explain an explanation for the explanation to be a good explanation. However, the idea is that God did not have a beginning.

Your answer to this could be applied quite adequately to a non-personal agent.

Why?

And there are loads of examples of impersonal forces in the universe that are in a state of potential, so having an agent as you describe for your argument but is non-personal is still a legitimate state of affairs.

So forces "in the universe" created the universe?

And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.

How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?

[Alien]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?

An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.

I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.

[Alien]

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself.  What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead.  However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.

So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?

Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.

[Alien]

I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

For what, the fact that royals and their equivalents use what we now call the 'royal we'?  If anything, I'd suggest that they make sure that they use the most appropriate term in the English language for 'majesty'.

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

Except that Hebrew words for God are the means by which we learn about the nature of God, and, as both Alien and I have pointed out, the terms 'us' and 'we' don't always indicate 'many of us'.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

and, in response to the italicised section, the use of the plural is often used to denote majesty and power.

Jack, you seem to completely ignore everything that Alien said in his post #118, even though you quote in your follow up post, and then ask the very questions he has given answers to in that post

You forget this is God speaking, not some Hebrew. Doesn't it know the difference between singular and plural? If there is only one of It then it would use the singular. By using the plural it is indicating that there is  more than one of It.

Alien's #118 is him pretending not to understand. I explained this at the time that I was paraphrasing.

Paraphasing? Misquoting actually.

[Anchorman]

#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.

'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.