The Bible is blasphemous

[Justinian]

The very first time that the Bible mentions God, in Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth", doesn't seem all that remarkable. Yet in the original Hebrew, the word Elohim is used. Anyone who knows Hebrew knows that the im suffix is plural; Elohim is the plural of Eloah or simply El, meaning God. Therefore, Elohim literally means "the Gods". I take the following quote from a Christian website:

The word Elohim is the plural of El (or possibly of Eloah) and is the first name for God given in the Tanakh: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth”

However, it then goes on to say, as Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions:

The name Elohim is unique to Hebraic thinking: it occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language. The masculine plural ending does not mean “gods” when referring to the true God of Israel, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular (e.g., see Gen. 1:26). However, considering the Hashalush HaKadosh (Trinity), the form indeed allows for the plurality within the Godhead.

Here we encounter a major issue. The first is that it is ludicrous to say that because it is a plural word used with singular verbs, adjectives and pronouns, it is a singular word. If it was singular, the word El would have been used, or Adonai or Yahweh, as is used in all other areas of the Tanakh. There are many words that express a plurality, but are singular. You do not say "the Senate are meeting", "the council are in session", "the United Nations are a useless organism". You use the singular word is.

We encounter a greater problem: the site then mentions the Hashalush HaKadosh, or Trinity, which is presumably nothing more than the Trinity translated into Hebrew. The problem with this is there is no concept of a trinity in the Torah, Tanakh, or entire Old Testament. The Jewish religion does not accept the Trinity; does not accept Jesus as a deity; does not differentiate between God the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Trinity is only mentioned in the New Testament, when surprise surprise, someone comes along claiming to be God's son. Therefore, it is logically impossible that the word Elohim is referring to a Trinity, as all Christians attempt to explain it, because there was no concept of the Trinity. Why would the Jewish holy word refer to a wholly Christian concept?

Furthermore, the Hebrew god is mentioned frequently in the same breath as other Gods. Not only is it a commandment that you hold no other gods before God (which allows for the possibility of lesser observed gods, such as household gods, as long as you don't respect them more than Yahweh):

Psalm 82: God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods. "How long will you judge unjustly and favor the cause of the wicked? Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy. Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about in darkness, and all the world's foundations shake.I declare: "Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, Yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall."

Hmmm. So Yahweh is a better God, but, there are other gods who just happen to suck a little more. There are other references to Gods in the Bible, which you can look up yourself.

If the Bible is the holy word, why does it call God by different names, one of them plural? If Genesis was written all at the same time, why does it at once call God "the Gods", yet after creation, call him Yahweh or "God"? If the Bible is the holy word, and it mentions the existence of other Gods, those Gods must exist.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Wasn't early Judaism a semi polytheistic religion?

[MaximiIian]

Wasn't early Judaism a semi polytheistic religion?

Well, not Judaism per se.
But the religion of the ancient Hebrews, yes. It gradually became Judaism.
Initially, it was polytheistic, employing the usual Levantine pantheon, but then became very henotheistic, centring on El, the sun god and king of the gods. Gradually, henotheism turned into monism, and monism became monotheism. By the early iron age, it was solidly monotheistic.

I'd assume that the predominant forms of Nicene Christianity explain it as an indication of the Trinity. And Mormon Christianity have a very complex explanation. Judaism...I guess they just ignore it.
Though, as Justinian says, there are many other passing references to other divinities, deities, and what have you. :hmmm:

Glad I'm not a Abrahamist, and so I don't have to worry about this tricky problem.

[Ardruire Iacób]

I'm a Catholic, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. 'Tis the Trinity. Now the Jews and Muslims may have a tougher time of it.

[Justinian]

I'm a Catholic, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. 'Tis the Trinity. Now the Jews and Muslims may have a tougher time of it.

That's such a cop out. Your religion is based off Judaism. Genesis is part of your Bible, therefore it obviously effects you. Psalm 82 is obviously not the Trinity. It is questionable to say that Genesis is the Trinity, considering it is a Jewish text and Judaism rejects the Trinity, yet you consider the Torah holy.

Ok, so? The rest of the bible is clearly monotheistic. One must ignore the trivial and read the bible with caution, logic, and reason.

So you're saying that parts of the Bible aren't true, and that doesn't bother you at all? Either all of it is true or none of it is true. There can be no rejection of parts of the Bible. That's blasphemy. You, sir, are going to hell, just like me. If any part of the Bible is trivial (gee the whole poetic porn thing), all of it is trivial.

[Vladimir Lenin]

So you're saying that parts of the Bible aren't true, and that doesn't bother you at all? Either all of it is true or none of it is true. There can be no rejection of parts of the Bible. That's blasphemy. You, sir, are going to hell, just like me.

No it does not mean the entire Bible is'nt true, anymore than an error in a textbook makes the entire textbook false.

It's not blasphemy, it's Heresy according to trinitarian churches which take the bible as infallible.

[Justinian]

No it does not mean the entire Bible is'nt true, anymore than an error in a textbook makes the entire textbook false.

You're equating a textbook with the holy word of God? Knowledge changes but the infallible truth of God remains the same. According to all Christian doctrines, the Bible is infallible truth. Every word is truth, from the mouth of God. Am I not correct?

It's not blasphemy, it's Heresy according to trinitarian churches which take the bible as infallible.

Blasphemy, heresy, semantics.

[Vladimir Lenin]

You're equating a textbook with the holy word of God? Knowledge changes but the infallible truth of God remains the same. According to all Christian doctrines, the Bible is infallible truth. Every word is truth, from the mouth of God. Am I not correct?



Blasphemy, heresy, semantics.

"Bearing in mind that there are believed to be over 1,000 actual errors in the NT scriptures themselves, in excess of 20,000 translational errors in the early bibles, and the earliest manuscripts were the result of many redactions and transcripts, it is important to be presented with accurate translated transcripts of as much of the original texts as possible in the form that was intended."

-Arian Catholic Church

I'd say you're pretty incorrect.

[dqualk]

You're equating a textbook with the holy word of God? Knowledge changes but the infallible truth of God remains the same. According to all Christian doctrines, the Bible is infallible truth. Every word is truth, from the mouth of God. Am I not correct?



Blasphemy, heresy, semantics.

1. Textbook equation not best answer.

2. You are wrong and once more show us all that you do nto know Christian doctrine. Not all of the Bible is from the mouth of God go read it. Alot of it says and David said and Paul said and Peter said. lol Us orthodox(includes Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists etc.) Christians understand that the Bible points to Christ and that the influence of the writer is defiently in the text but we Christians know that God protects his word(scriptures) from any error that could be heresy. Not to say that heresy can not be produces by reading the Bible but that the Bible can always be taken in its proper understanding and like anyhting can be misused.

[meryre]

So you're saying that parts of the Bible aren't true, and that doesn't bother you at all? Either all of it is true or none of it is true. There can be no rejection of parts of the Bible. That's blasphemy. You, sir, are going to hell, just like me. If any part of the Bible is trivial (gee the whole poetic porn thing), all of it is trivial.

Good one. I concur. Take that Biblical literalists.

[Vladimir Lenin]

The very first time that the Bible mentions God, in Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth", doesn't seem all that remarkable. Yet in the original Hebrew, the word Elohim is used. Anyone who knows Hebrew knows that the im suffix is plural; Elohim is the plural of Eloah or simply El, meaning God. Therefore, Elohim literally means "the Gods". I take the following quote from a Christian website:



However, it then goes on to say, as Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions:


Here we encounter a major issue. The first is that it is ludicrous to say that because it is a plural word used with singular verbs, adjectives and pronouns, it is a singular word. If it was singular, the word El would have been used, or Adonai or Yahweh, as is used in all other areas of the Tanakh. There are many words that express a plurality, but are singular. You do not say "the Senate are meeting", "the council are in session", "the United Nations are a useless organism". You use the singular word is.

We encounter a greater problem: the site then mentions the Hashalush HaKadosh, or Trinity, which is presumably nothing more than the Trinity translated into Hebrew. The problem with this is there is no concept of a trinity in the Torah, Tanakh, or entire Old Testament. The Jewish religion does not accept the Trinity; does not accept Jesus as a deity; does not differentiate between God the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Trinity is only mentioned in the New Testament, when surprise surprise, someone comes along claiming to be God's son. Therefore, it is logically impossible that the word Elohim is referring to a Trinity, as all Christians attempt to explain it, because there was no concept of the Trinity. Why would the Jewish holy word refer to a wholly Christian concept?

Furthermore, the Hebrew god is mentioned frequently in the same breath as other Gods. Not only is it a commandment that you hold no other gods before God (which allows for the possibility of lesser observed gods, such as household gods, as long as you don't respect them more than Yahweh):

Psalm 82: God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods. "How long will you judge unjustly and favor the cause of the wicked? Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy. Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about in darkness, and all the world's foundations shake.I declare: "Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, Yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall."

Hmmm. So Yahweh is a better God, but, there are other gods who just happen to suck a little more. There are other references to Gods in the Bible, which you can look up yourself.

If the Bible is the holy word, why does it call God by different names, one of them plural? If Genesis was written all at the same time, why does it at once call God "the Gods", yet after creation, call him Yahweh or "God"? If the Bible is the holy word, and it mentions the existence of other Gods, those Gods must exist.

Ok, so? The rest of the bible is clearly monotheistic. One must ignore the trivial and read the bible with caution, logic, and reason.

[dqualk]

Ok, so? The rest of the bible is clearly monotheistic. One must ignore the trivial and read the bible with caution, logic, and reason.

I don't think the best way to understand what the Bible is saying here is to ignore it or accept any part of the Bible as trivial, for surely it is not, but rather to understand that all of creation and ESPECIALLY the scriptures point to Christ!

[Justinian]

So the original words were true, but the Bible isn't, because there are errors.

Congratulations, if you're a Christian, you just proved your holy book is a book of false statements (lies) and errors.

[Vladimir Lenin]

So the original words were true, but the Bible isn't, because there are errors.

Congratulations, if you're a Christian, you just proved your holy book is a book of false statements (lies) and errors.

No all it means is that you must be careful when reading, compare different translations and if discrepancies make sense, use your mind that the Lord God gave you, as well as pray to the Lord God to give you guidance.

[Justinian]

So I have to believe in it for it to be true, and it's not true if I don't believe in it?

That doesn't make any sense.

[Vladimir Lenin]

So I have to believe in it for it to be true, and it's not true if I don't believe in it?

That doesn't make any sense.

Alright I'll explain it again....

USE YOUR MIND TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE USING MULTIPLE TRANSLATIONS.

[gambit]

Alright I'll explain it again....

USE YOUR MIND TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE USING MULTIPLE TRANSLATIONS.

Sounds like a bad excuse.

"This seems right... but what about this part of the bible? Isn't that pretty contradictory?" "Well you can interpret it however you want, in different languages."

So the original language it was written in wasn't good enough? The bible wasn't "correct" until it was written in several more languages? What about the people who were around before it was rewritten many times? Are they just stuck with the wrong interpretation and they're screwed?

[Vladimir Lenin]

Sounds like a bad excuse.

"This seems right... but what about this part of the bible? Isn't that pretty contradictory?" "Well you can interpret it however you want, in different languages."

So the original language it was written in wasn't good enough? The bible wasn't "correct" until it was written in several more languages? What about the people who were around before it was rewritten many times? Are they just stuck with the wrong interpretation and they're screwed?

Not different languages, different translations into the English language.

Saying that I want the bible in several different languages so I can interpret it however I want makes me sound like a fundamentalist idiot.

Those people came to logical conclusions based on what they had, just because they did'nt have the resources we have today does'nt mean we ought to scorn those resources.

[gambit]

Not different languages, different translations into the English language.

Saying that I want the bible in several different languages makes me sound like a fundamentalist idiot.

My mistake, but still. The point remains in the air.

Those people came to logical conclusions based on what they had, just because they did'nt have the resources we have today does'nt mean we ought to scorn those resources.

Generally, no we shouldnt scorn them. But when your talking about a book that is supposedly telling us the only pathway to salvation and if we dont follow it's readings, we go to hell for eternity. I think the idea that people have to just conjure up their own conclusions and the book itself is open to interpretation.. well...

Saying "thats " doesn't quite sum it up for me.

[Justinian]

Alright I'll explain it again....

USE YOUR MIND TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE USING MULTIPLE TRANSLATIONS.

Thank you, the caps really drove your point home. I was being purposefully obtuse because you are not proving a single thing except that the Bible requires extensive interpretation to make any sense at all. The Bible contradicts itself. It is not what is true, it is the interpretations that is true?

Besides, Elohim means "the Gods". It always does. It always will. Sorry, but that's Hebrew. And other translations of Psalm 82 prove my point, anyway.

King James:
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.

New King James
od stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.

NIV:
1 God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the “gods”:
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;

WOW what amazingness, they added quotes which are not present in the original language!

How many do you expect me to go through? They prove my point.