evolution of judaism

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.

i didn't ask about sin. please stay on topic. this isn't about your religion. it's about a broad understanding of all religions and one or two in particular.

of a trinity yet to come? no. the trinity is an attempt by the modern church to comprehend and explain why elohim is plural.can we get back to the topic?

well it is used solely early on, because later god asks for them to use a specific name... of course i view that specific name as a joke... cause it's funny and moses was stupid...Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bibleyou can look up the meaning of the hebrew in each verse and it will tell you the tense and number or words as well. very good source but you have to put the work into it.

how do you then justify this?

quote:

---

Exd 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

---

and

quote:

---

Num 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
Num 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

---

are those not idols? in fact, in the book of kings, hezekiah tears the second one down as an idol.it turns out that this is a cheap way of getting at other nations. in no mesopotamian culter were idols worshipped. i'll repeat that: not one culture in the area worshipped idols. they were used to worship, but worship of gods not physical. in sumeria, the idols were of the people who owned them, and they would place them in temples to continually offer sacrifice to their gods.with the cherubim on the ark, god was said to sit on them. same with jeroboam's gold calves (and probably aaron's as well). the god was not pictures, but sat on top of the idol.it is unclear whether the author of say, kings, thought of ba'al as a real god in any sense of the word, but it is clear that accusations of idolatry was a way to disapprove of the northern kingdom of israel, which had broken off of judah.the impression from earlier writings does imply the existance of other gods. the phrase "sons of god" comes up numerous times, but can also be translated just as accurately as "family of gods." in modern christianity, this is read "angel." but there's a verse in psalms that says god made the number of nations according to number of this group of beings, as if one were to watch over each. but israel belongs to this god, yhvh.

you're both wrong. the idea of a three-in-one god is very old, supposedly. depending on what date you put on the qabala.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.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 10-08-2004 02:35 AM

"eloyhim" is the general term for god -- ANY god. the implication is not real or false, it's just a title, a word like god.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.so in english "the LORD" or "the LORD God" instead of "God"this might have been done so that you'd know which god they were talking about.

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?

Sure, it is a compendium of different oral traditions from different times that were shoehorned together. It's a patchwork quilt. Genesis 1 & 2 are from two different periods, Gen 1 being much younger than Gen 2 for example.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

You have to remember that the Bible, whether we are refering to what Christians call the Old Testament or the Jews the Tanakh is a fairly recent thing. It is not something that was written as a documant in chronological order. Rather they are compilations, an anthology. The individual stories were gathered together and not written by one author, Moses or any other single figure.I don't believe that and scholar believes that Moses wrote Genesis.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonChin

​

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.

---

Hello JasonChin,Actually, the (singular) verb precedes Elohim in the Hebrew syntax. Nonetheless, the technique you refer to is called the intensive form and it is one explanation that is offered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonChin

​

It was done with David and Moses too, but no one thinks it was refering to more than one David, or more than one Moses.

---

In Exodus 7:1, the Torah says, "And YHWH said to Moses, See, I have made you elohim to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet."However, I am unaware of any intensive usages of either "David" or "Moses" in the HB.Are you referring to extra-biblical references? Do you have citations for where the intensive forms of these names can be found?Amlodhi