evolution of judaism

Want more disturbing? How about the fact that throughout the creation story, God refers to himself as many people (I.E. "Let US create man in OUR own image").....and that the word that's inaccurately translated "God" in the English translations of the Bible, and the word which is used throughout the creation story, is "Elohim", which is the plural of "El". "El" literally means "the mighty one", but would be more accurately translated into English as "god". Conversly, "Elohim" would be more accurately translated as "godS", plural.But I wouldn't think much of it if I were you. In fact, I view it as a reaffirmation of the concept of the Trinity.

No, you misunderstand me.........throughout the creation story, every time you see "God", it's actually a mistranslated version of "Elohim" and should be translated as "gods".For instance, it should read "In the begining, the gods created the heavens and the Earth." "And the gods said, 'Let Us make man in Our own image."But I agree that it's just a reference to the Trinity.

It is not a reference to the Trinty. The concept of a trinity is not in the old testament.<<Right, which would make it prophecy.

Actually, the particular passage you quote doesn't show that. If you loko at it in the original Hebrew, while 'Elohim' is plural, the verb after it is in singular format. This is a technique in Hebrew that
magnifies the importance of the noun. It was done with David and Moeses too, but no one thinks it was refering to more than one David, or more than one Moses.>>That's interesting. Do you know of a site where I can get some info on that? I was under the impression that "Elohim" was exclusively used very early in the Bible.

of a trinity yet to come?>>Uh, yeah, it would have to be yet to come in order to be prophecy, wouldn't it?<>

​

Why would the church try to explain it when none of the other Judaic religions felt the need to? Not to mention that the Catholics didn't even support the reading of the OT in Hebrew and, therefore, they had no need to attempt to explain it.

however, you're both also wrong for another reason.lets analyze these sentances:"i like my pants. they are blue jeans"how many am i talking about? one, or more than one? "pants" is written like a plural, but is singular. we even use a plural pronoun for them. same with "scissors.""eloyhim" is like "pants" or "scissors" in english.>>I doubt you have any evidence to back this, especially when considering that "elohim" is CLEARLY used in other parts of the Bible in reference to a multiplicity of pagan gods.

when seen by itself, refering to the god of israel, the text is probably later tradition. earlier texts refered to god BY NAME, or by name AND title.>>GENISIS is later tradition?

Wouldn't most of Genisis have to be much older than the rest of the OT for the pretense that Moses wrote it to be maintained?

That's why I said PRETENSE.........obviously, Genisis couldn't have been written too long after Moses' death or there couldn't have been a pretense that Moses wrote it. Correct?

Actually, I didn't say that stuff, I just quoted it in my post.

[qt]genesis 1 is apparently much newere than genesis 2. (look at how god is referred to in genesis 1 and 2)[/qt]That's pretty flimsy evidence for arguing that Genisis wasn't written all at once.........but I'm not even gonna argue that point right now. [qt]the torah (and some of the the nevi'im) has been identified as coming from five different traditions, the j document (or "yahwist) because it refers to god by name, the e document, were god is called "el" and variants, the d document (most deutoronomy. this document was found, according to the bible, during the reign of hezekiah), the h document (mostly leviticus, concerned with ritual cleanliness), and the p document (where we get most of the genealogies).[/qt]But couldn't it be explained that it's the torah which influenced these traditions, not vice versa? [qt]incorrect. there is no pretense that moses wrote it.[/qt]I think practically any Christian would tell you different. [qt]stories such as genesis 1, the tower of babel (babylon), and noah's flood are all babylonian.[/qt]Noah's flood was also Sumarian..........and is found in the Hindu Vedas..........as well as practically every culture in the world. It could have as easily originated from the Judaic tradition as any of the others.

Actually, the stories from Genesis probably date hundreds to even thousands of years before Moses. They seem to have been based on oral traditions that likely even predate the Hebrews themselves. >>Yes, they'd obviously have to in order to have the pretense of auntheticity.........same reason for why they couldn't post-date Moses by too much.

anyone who knows how to look at stylistic differences and inconsistencies can tell this. did the same person write the psalms as wrote job? how can you tell?>>That's like saying that Shakespeare didn't write Much Ado About Nothing because it's a comedy and most of his plays were tradgedies.that's nice. please show me the book, chapter, and verse in the torah where moses claims authorship.>>Tradition ascribes authorship to him. Traditional attribution of authorship doesn't change.1. noah's and gilgamesh's flood bear strickingly similar specifics>>So does the account in the Vedas.flood legends are common, sure, but this one reads like a plaigarized english paper.>>And why are you so sure that it wasn't the Judaic version that exitsed first?2. gilgamesh predates the earliest claimed date for genesis by about 500 years.>>As someone mentioned previously, oral tradition.........BTW, the Vedas probably predate them both.This message has been edited by JasonChin, 10-09-2004 02:57 AM

A right asserted with or without foundation>>This is the sense in which I use the word "pretense".

You do realize that a common tactic until just recently was to write a treatise and attribute it to one of the earlier authors, such as Plato, Aristotle or other ancient sages?>>That's not entirely accurate........because, while this is true, there was no pretense that the aforementioned ancient sages actually wrote them.........it was just named after them in tribute.