The True name of the Father is El?

The True name of the Father is El / El Olam.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, and in Genesis the original meaning of the term "Elohim" wasn't the "Majestic Plural" of El, it meant the "Children of El" - aka the Gods of the Canaanite pantheon.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So what? The Bible attests to the worship of this pantheon.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The names matter

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok and?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not everyone knows this already? This is a history board and we're discussing where the God of Abrahamic mythology comes from?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Though I would normally disagree, imply that you're moronic, and tell you that, in fact, everyone does know this already, I am not going to do that ITT. My reasoning is as follows.

            Three years ago, a few months after I met my current wife, a Greek Orthodox woman who is by every metric, considerably more intelligent and autistic than most other women (though just as insufferable), I introduced her to Ugaritic literature and the Ba'al cycle. Her primary area of academic interest is early American colonial history, so she was relatively unfamiliar with the ANE. Nevertheless, one of my books on the topic engaged her enough that she made it halfway through.

            Of course, she soon encountered El, which she recognized as one of the Hebrew names for God from the Old Testament. When she first saw the name, she ran out of my study, pointed to it on the page, and worriedly asked: "Isn't that one of the names for God?", to which I replied, "Yes, but it's also the name of a deity who played an important role in several Near Eastern pantheons". She was visibly confused, but rushed off to continue reading.

            By the end of the day, her world was turned upside down, and that confusion turned into disgust. She was in a frenzy, murmuring things like 'Jesus is the son of a drunk demon', and 'Who am I really praying to?'. It was actually pretty sad, and she grappled with her faith for months, never fully recovering. This is good for me, as prayer is fricking boring, and she has rarely felt like going to church since.

            Point being, that you are right, not everyone knows about Canaanite or general ANE mythology, and how deeply the Old Testament is connected to that world. On the other hand, OP, I will say that most of us here on IQfy do. So, while I'll let this one slide, I hope that your next thread is more compelling than this one, and that it sheds light on some topic that most of us are unfamiliar with.

            >t. the most important contributor to this board

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was Orthodox too before I learned it. When I recognized the Jesus of the Bible was a deceiver and probably Ba’al, I realized that if I wanted to follow Yahweh I had to do it on His terms. Once you start learning these things you can’t go back, and these frickers WILL threaten you. Dishonorable lot of demons.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Could you give the name of the book/sauces?
            t. clueless IQfy rapefugee stumbling on IQfy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The book was Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon Parker. It can still be found in a reasonable price range on Amazon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ayy thanks

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you've destroyed both this woman's noble greek bloodline and her faith. please have a nice day.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He did a good thing israelite worshiper

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My misguided friend, I am profoundly white, by all measures. I am sorry for offending your delicate Christian sensibilities, but I believe that people should know as much history as possible, especially when it comes to their heritage and religion. If learning makes one abandon their faith, then their faith wasn't worth guarding to begin with.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >NOOOOOOO YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BROADEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINS OF MANKIND BY READING ANCIENT TEXTS
            >YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO LISTEN TO ME AND NOT YOUR LYING EARS

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neat story, but you are an insufferable homosexual for coming into a thread and b***hing about the topic. I hope your impending suicide is swift but painless.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I hope your impending suicide is swift but painless
            Why would I commit suicide over being in agreement with you, but finding the topic to be an old and tired one in the context of this board? Feels like projection to me, and there's no reason to be so sensitive about your thread. I'm sure you'll have many more opportunities to share information here that most of us already know about.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So, while I'll let this one slide, I hope that your next thread is more compelling than this one

            As embarrassed as I am to admit, this is new to me too. The majority of people who larp as christian on this website have no idea, I was counted among them. I've decided I am making my primary mission in life discovering the truth about the universe and God, and I feel like this was a critical first step into actual truth seeking

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was trying to sound as difficult as possible, mainly because we've had this thread with this image a few times over the past year. I'm not actually a b***h most of the time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >his is a history board and we're discussing where the God of Abrahamic mythology comes from?
            Did you read Genesis 1:1? Is says clearly where he came from.

          • 3 weeks ago
            DoctorGreen

            >Genesis 1:1
            that singular Elohim tho
            The Hebrew God is YHVH

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Jonah 1:9 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.
            Seems to be referencing the same exact God in Genesis 1
            >Genesis 1:1~10 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It attests in the form of suggesting the Hebrews errored and abandoned their original monotheism. In reality the opposite happened and they abandoned their polytheism over time.
        In other words the bible presents a historical fiction to conceal the fact that monotheism was an innovation rather than a return to tradition.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Originally they abandoned their monotheism, and then they abandoned their polytheism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that is what the bible claims but archeology nor the historical record from surrounding regions do not support this claim. In history if one source says one thing, but every other source says otherwise, including period sources, you usually go with everything else.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >surrounding regions
            Those were all polytheistic and they influenced the Israelites to adopt polytheism so that doesn't contradict the biblical narrative.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that isn't how it works, none of them wrote about this monotheistic state cropping up in Israel or Judah, and in fact we have no inscriptions from these states suggesting monotheism until far later than the biblical account suggests. So you have the bible saying one, but nothing supporting it, instead you have a lot of things not supporting it. This is not controversial except perhaps among conservative israelites and Christians. Even if you give the bible the benefit of the doubt on most issues, in this case there isn't a benefit of the doubt to give.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also the Bible doesn't really imply anything of "true" monotheism in the pre-Babylonian period, it just describes an exclusive covenant with the God of Israel that was for the majority of time in history disregarded.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But there isn't an absence of evidence, there is a lot of evidence that they were not monotheistic and no evidence besides the bible that they were.
            >it just describes an exclusive covenant with the God of Israel that was for the majority of time in history disregarded. All evidence besides the bible suggests their religion was just the normal Canaanite pantheon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Despite polytheism being the norm, monotheism could be found within and surrounding cult sites like Jerusalem and Gerizim, at least going back to Herod's reign. There is of course evidence for this outside of the Bible, even though it is scant when compared to the abundant evidence of polytheism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think most historians date the emergence of monotheism to around the time of the Babylonian exile, and not before the fall of the northern Kingdom.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is not a claim for which there is strong evidence, just a reasonable assumption based on the evidence available

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The "majestic plural" explanation for elohim is just apologetics.
      One of the last times someone seriously investigated the word was in the book
      Burnett, J. S. (1999). A reassessment of biblical Elohim. The Johns Hopkins University.

      I've been meaning to read this eventually but I can't find it online. So far I know that he describes elohim as a "concretized abstract plural". This is supposed to explain how it is used in a grammatically singular context.
      However, I'd like to see someone approach it from the perspective of a collective noun treated as grammatically singular.

      Make no mistake, elohim is plural. It's just frequently used with singular verbs which needs as explanation

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even you, who were so powerful and unstoppable in life,
    have been weakened just like us!
    All of your pomp and power and the music of your harps join you here
    where the dead abide,
    Where maggots squirm beneath you,
    where worms cover you like a blanket.
    My, how you’ve fallen from the heights of heaven!
    O morning star, son of the dawn!
    What a star you were, as you menaced and weakened the nations,
    but now you’ve been cut down, fallen to earth.
    Remember how you said to yourself,
    “I will ascend to heaven—reach higher and with more power—
    and set my throne high above God’s own stars?”
    Remember how you thought you could be a god, saying:
    “I will sit among them at the mount of assembly in the northern heights.
    I will rise above the highest clouds and
    make myself like the Most High”?
    Hah! Instead, you have sunk like a stone to where the dead abide.
    You’ve hit bottom of the bottommost pit.
    People peer down at you from above,
    and their curiosity overflows.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ever think about how "God" never gives a proper name in Abrahamism? In Judaism they had such a taboo against saying his name that they lost it, YHWH isn't the full thing ofc. And he's just Adonai/Lord or G-D. In Christianity he's just the Father. In Islam he's just The God (Allah) or the names of his attributes (the 99 Names).

    When you are performing an evocation, what is one essential thing you need in order to properly summon and bind the demon? His name.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      י = Y
      ה = ah
      ו = u
      ה =ah

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But Yahweh isn't God. He's just a son of the elohim (gods). If Christians had been transparent about the fact that it's about some entity called Yahweh instead of something abstract like “God” or “The Lord” potential converts would have noticed a foreign religion was being proselytized, and it would have been suspicious.

      The polytheist Israelites referred to the chief god of the pantheon as ʿelyôn “The Most High”, one of the epithets of El seen in Gen 14:20 as “ʾel ʿelyôn”.
      Deuteronomy 32:8-9
      >When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
      >when he divided mankind,
      >he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of elohim (gods).
      >For YHWH’s portion is his people,
      >Yaʿăqōb is the allotment of his inheritance.
      In other words, Yahweh was one of these recipients of an inheritance from the highest god and Yahweh is a son of the gods. If an ancient Greek were to ask an ancient Israelite if Israel was chosen by God, he would say no, Israel was inherited by Yahweh and Greece was inherited by Zeus.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He is God, but the ancient Israelites did consider him just a son of Elohim. This is attested to in the Bible and given as the reason that Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >He is God,
          A god. The Pentateuch doesn't call Yahweh God (proper noun)
          >but the ancient Israelites did consider him just a son of Elohim.
          This is why he isn't God.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This verse is a favorite of theologians and pastors, but this verbless clause after “Hear O Israel” only says
            >Yahweh our god—only Yahweh
            Or if you prefer
            >Yahweh [is] our god—only Yahweh.

            In other words, this is a statement of monolatry for Israel. There's no purpose in saying an individual only consists of one person.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
            The other Gods are called false.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gods other than Yahweh are not universally called false. See Gen 14:20. This is a reference to Yahweh's father, not Yahweh.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            proof?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where Yahweh is a son of the gods (because he receives an inheritance) has ʿelyôn (The Most High) giving the inheritance. Because ʿelyôn is the giver of the inheritance and Yahweh the recipient, they are in a father-son relationship.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Deuteronomy 32
            I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
            Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
            4
            He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
            and all his ways are just.
            A faithful God who does no wrong,
            upright and just is he.

            5
            They are corrupt and not his children;
            to their shame they are a warped and crooked generation.
            6
            Is this the way you repay the Lord,
            you foolish and unwise people?
            Is he not your Father, your Creator,[a]
            who made you and formed you?

            It is the LORD is the Creator.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *It says the LORD is the Creator

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Is He not your Father—He who bought you? He made you, and establishes you.
            This is the relationship between Israel and Yahweh. The translation you chose isn't doing you any favors.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jeshurun[c] grew fat and kicked;
            filled with food, they became heavy and sleek.
            They abandoned the God who made them
            and rejected the Rock their Savior.
            16
            They made him jealous with their foreign gods
            and angered him with their detestable idols.
            17
            They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
            gods they had not known,
            gods that recently appeared,
            gods your ancestors did not fear.
            18
            You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
            you forgot the God who gave you birth.

            Then explain this

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm surprised you're staying in the same chapter.
            You understand these verses are subordinate to the context already established, right?
            Jeshurun is a poetic name for Israel.
            It literally says
            >They sacrificed to demons—not a* god.
            *Poetry often drops the definite article.
            Your verses are just about the disloyalty of Israel.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God
            You didn't address this
            >You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
            you forgot the God who gave you birth.
            or this
            I'll assume it's a concession

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry I got busy for a bit.

            >They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God
            >You didn't address this
            The text doesn't say false gods. It says demons (or something like that). I just addressed this with the last post.

            >You deserted the Rock, who fathered you;
            It literally says "begot". The translator was wary of describing Yahweh as giving birth like a woman.
            >you forgot the God who gave you birth.
            "gave you birth" isn't really accurate. It's more like "twisted/writhed in pain" (as in childbirth).
            Deut 32:6 just called Yahweh a "father" in relation to Israel. Now it contrasts with Yahweh in the role of a mother.

            >concession
            I don't see anything weird about these verses in that they don't contradict what we just discussed regarding Deut 32:8-9.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You said the Pentateuch does not call Him God, yet I clearly demonstrated that it does in the passage you quoted. You did not engage with that at all and instead chose to ignore it and talk about something completely irrelevant so I assume you have no argument

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yahweh isn't called "God" in these verses. It's not a proper noun which is used.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He is called the father, the mother, the creator, the true God all in the chapter you quoted and you ignored all those points because you have no refutation.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He isn't called the Creator in that chapter. Of course I'm going to ignore your "points" when you lazily pick a version which deliberately mistranslates your verses. I deal with the text, not your arbitrary translations.
            He is likened to a father and mother of Israel. This is because in the Pentateuch, he is the patron deity of Israel and not a universal god.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/32-6.htm

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If He’s not the universal god why does the Bible say otherwise?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He isn't called a universal god in the Pentateuch. The idea that Yahweh is God and not just a local patron deity was the result of creeping Yahwism which eventually overtook judaism and Christianity and suppressed the clear polytheistic references throughout the Bible by reinterpreting them. The Yahwist faction was engaged in editing the Pentateuch at a relatively late date in order to insert Yahweh into many places in Genesis where he wasn't originally present. We can see this in the differences between the Septuagint text and the Masoretic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know I’m just trolling. Mind sharing the source you just posted btw?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >written by a gnostic freemason
            yeah, that's not a real source

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No matter how hard you try, your orishas are not gods. They are a bunch of pricks condemned to hell trying to acquire slaves to take to hell with them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Huh?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your beloved pantheon are just Nephilim spirits.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nephilim is israeliteslop mythology. If all the nephilim (demigods) got wiped out after Noah’s (Utnapishtim) flood why were they still in Israel during the time of Exodus. You’re literally a golem lmfao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God cursed them to be evil spirits. They used to be physical beings and now they are unclean spirits pretending to be gods. And they weren't wiped out during the flood, God sent Gabri'el to make them turn against each other so they killed each other in battle.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have no canonical source for this, you’re just pulling it out of your ass. Are you even israeli? Then why defend these myths? I do believe that things like the nephilim existed and still do, but it’s not as clear cut as what is presented in the Torah or Deuteronomistic History.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And to Gabriel said the Lord, "Proceed against the bastards and the
            reprobates, and against the children of fornication and destroy the children of the
            Watchers from amongst men. Send them one against the other that they may
            destroy each other in battle, for length of days shall they not have. And no
            request that they make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf;
            for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five
            hundred years."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, so the Book of Enoch, pure fiction. Thanks for confirming that you believe whatever you pick up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The book is quoted by Jude.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            More goyslop

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I dont believe in new testament either but it proves people in that era were well aware of the book of Enoch.

            You're the one pulling beliefs out of your ass. Your pantheon are just a bunch of morons that got destroyed by God and now beg for statues and trap the souls of idiots who worship them as their slaves in hell.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also
            >And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be
            called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling.
            Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from
            men and from the Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be
            evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Your beloved pantheon
            Huh?
            Anyway, the Bible has a pantheon. For example, Heaven and Earth are among the gods listed.

            Genesis
            >(2:4 MT) These are the generations/lineage/family tree [תולדות] of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that Yahweh of the elohim worked land and skies.
            >(2:4 LXX) This [is] the book of origin/birth/descent of heaven and earth [βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς], when it originated in the day the god [ὁ θεὸς] made the heaven and the earth.
            (ὁ θεὸς = elohim. ὁ θεὸς ≠ Yahweh)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is what Yahweh says:

            Ask me about what is going to happen to my children!
            Are you going to give me orders concerning my handiwork?
            I made the earth and created humans on it.
            I stretched out the heavens with my own hands.
            I commanded all the stars to shine.
            I prepared Cyrus for my righteous purpose.
            I will make all his roads straight.
            He will build my city and let my exiles go free
            without any payment or any reward, says Yahweh Tsebaoth.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Isn’t that Trito-Isaiah and written in Babylon? God made it clear in Jeremiah that there were no prophets in Babylon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God made it clear in Jeremiah that there were no prophets in Babylon.
            Where?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jeremiah 29:8-9
            People will find ways to rationalize it, but it’s pretty clear God is saying that He sent no prophet amongst the israelites in Babylon. This would include Ezekiel.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even if that was true, there's still Genesis 17:1

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, they are stories. Beautiful stories of a God who has been faithful to the seed of Abraham, but they’re in the same tier as the Midrashim that developed around the Torah. That’s why they seem strange or out of place sometimes, but it’s to be for edification.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nephilim
            But those still exist today, we just call them wypipo

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Non-sequitur

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/32-17.htm
            He is called God in his verse

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The word is אֱלֹהַ (ʾĕlōha) which is possibly a misspelling of אֱלֹהַּ (ʾĕlōah). Alternatively, it could be a random Aramaism, and this is אל in the emphatic state which means “the god”. It is difficult to determine what the authors thought about this word in detail, because it only appears twice in the Pentateuch, both times here in this chapter. It's more common in other books like Job, but it is nowhere near as common as אֱלֹהִים (ʾĕlōhîm).

            ʾĕlōah is the singular of ʾĕlōhîm. ʾĕlōhîm is also not a proper noun, so the singular is not expected to be proper either. However, if you're reading the interlinear text of Deut 32:17, you may think "God" is a good gloss of this word, but Hebrew does not work according to English intuition.
            1) Poetry (this is the Song of Moses under discussion) and archaic texts tend to not use the definite article. This means we can interpret the verse as
            >They sacrifice to the demons, not [the/this/that] god
            Archaic texts may not make use of the definite article at all, similar to Ugaritic, so we have to insert them where we deem appropriate in an English translation.
            2) ʾĕlōah can be read as indefinite
            >They sacrifice to the demons, not a god
            The contrast here is between demons and the godly.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are imparting an english conception of demons unto the Hebrew, whereas in the hebrew it would be more like the false gods of the other nations.
            >The contrast here is between demons and the godly.
            Therefore the text is referring to Him as the true God.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Therefore the text is referring to Him as the true God.
            It's not. It doesn't say every god that isn't Yahweh is a "demon". It's just accusing Israelites of having sacrificed to demons.
            The whole theme here is that Yahweh is the god for Israel. They don't really care about anyone else in this text.
            In fact, you can easily read Deut 32:8-9 as an endorsement of the gods of different nations, because The Most High allotted the nations to different gods.
            Based on the table of 70 nations in Genesis, the Bible still acknowledges El and his 70 sons from the Ugaritic pantheon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's just accusing Israelites of having sacrificed to demons.
            What is the name of those demons?
            >In fact, you can easily read Deut 32:8-9 as an endorsement of the gods of different nations
            You can't in the context of the rest of the Bible.
            >the Bible still acknowledges El and his 70 sons from the Ugaritic pantheon
            It clearly indicates the other Gods as false.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The israelites really buck broke you goyim LMAO

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The israelites really buck broke you goyim LMAO
            Says the guy who took israeli texts at face value and built his whole world view around them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's just accusing Israelites of having sacrificed to demons.
            >What is the name of those demons?
            It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)

            >In fact, you can easily read Deut 32:8-9 as an endorsement of the gods of different nations
            >You can't in the context of the rest of the Bible.
            What do you mean? How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business? The Old Testament is very enthusiastic about enforcing the idea that Yahweh is the only god for Israel, but it has very little to say about anyone other than Israel. It never says Zeus is the wrong god for Greece.

            >the Bible still acknowledges El and his 70 sons from the Ugaritic pantheon
            >It clearly indicates the other Gods as false.
            You made this up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)
            Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            All the time
            >The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; Eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; Neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: So is every one that trusteth in them.
            Psalm 135
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            Isaiah 45:5
            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            Isaiah 43:10
            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            Deuteronomy 32:39
            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            Deuteronomy 4:35
            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            2 Samuel 7:22
            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            Isaiah 44:8
            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            Isaiah 46:9
            >It never says Zeus is the wrong god for Greece.
            >You made this up.
            It literally does and theres dozens of quotations like this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)
            >Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            >All the time
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            >Isaiah 45:5
            Mistranslated

            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            >Isaiah 43:10
            See Heiser 2008

            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            Mistranslated

            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            Mistranslated

            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            Mistranslated

            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            >Isaiah 44:8
            Mistranslated

            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            >Isaiah 46:9
            Mistranslated

            A lot of your verses use the exact same phrasing in Hebrew, so when the translation technique gets one wrong, it gets all the others wrong.
            Michael Heiser has already written about your verses, so I'm just going to link you to his paper.

            Heiser, M. S. (2008). Monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, or henotheism? Toward an assessment of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18(1), 1-30. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't name any demons. I accept your concession.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do I need to name demons?
            I don't think I need to be an expert on this obscure word Šēdîm which occurs TWICE in the Bible and was translated as δαιμονίοις (δαιμόνιον) in the Septuagint. What does this have to do with anything?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because it refers to false Gods and if you actually read the Bible you would know that from context.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it refers to false Gods
            And how do you know this?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Deuteronomy 32:16
            2 Kings 11:4-6

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think that other people can't open a PDF for some reason? Lmao. Heiser's publication is diametrically opposed to your position, and does not assert that any of those verses are mistranslated. You are patently moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Heiser's publication is diametrically opposed to your position,
            You didn't read
            >and does not assert that any of those verses are mistranslated.
            You didn't read
            >You are patently moronic.
            You have ADHD.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A. Though it is chiefly a work of apologetics, Heiser explicitly states that the OT does not adhere to popular notions of monotheism, that it acknowledges other deities, and even writes that "Yahweh was an Elohim".

            B. Show me where he says that the verses you mention here

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)
            >Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            >All the time
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            >Isaiah 45:5
            Mistranslated

            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            >Isaiah 43:10
            See Heiser 2008

            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            Mistranslated

            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            Mistranslated

            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            Mistranslated

            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            >Isaiah 44:8
            Mistranslated

            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            >Isaiah 46:9
            Mistranslated

            A lot of your verses use the exact same phrasing in Hebrew, so when the translation technique gets one wrong, it gets all the others wrong.
            Michael Heiser has already written about your verses, so I'm just going to link you to his paper.

            Heiser, M. S. (2008). Monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, or henotheism? Toward an assessment of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18(1), 1-30. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs

            are mistranslated. You won't be able to, because you are lying, and desperately grasping at straws.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If he doesn't use the exact word "mistranslated" I am lying
            You are simply unwilling to read the paper (probably because of ADHD). If you are impatient, all you have to do is Ctrl+f to skip around. A key part of his argument is right here where he explains the Hebrew has been mistranslated:
            >But what about the second half of the statements of Deut 4:35, 39? Must the phrasing be construed as a denial of the existence of all other gods except Yahweh? There are several difficulties with this understanding.

            >First, similar constructions are used in reference to Babylon and Moab in Isa 47:8, 10 and Nineveh in Zeph 2:15. In Isa 47:8, 10 Babylon says to her-self (“I am, and there is none else besides me”). The claim is not that she is the only city in the world but that she has no rival. Nineveh makes the identical claim in Zeph 2:15. In these instances, the constructions cannot constitute the denial of the existence of other cities and nations. The point being made is very obviously the concept of incomparability.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He is not claiming that any of this is mistranslation, you fool. He is putting forth an alternative interpretation. Interpretation is different from translation. Nowhere does he make the claim that the translation of the Hebrew words themselves is faulty. He is arguing that we are superimposing both popular notions of monotheism and biblical criticism onto how we read the Bible, which is ironic, because he is making ample use of the latter in an attempt to reconcile the former, with the indisputable reality of Ancient Near Eastern polytheism's presence in the Old Testament.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He is not claiming that any of this is mistranslation, you fool.
            That's exactly what it is.

            >He is putting forth an alternative interpretation.
            If the correct alternative interpretation is unintuitive as translated, the text has been mistranslated.

            >Nowhere does he make the claim that the translation of the Hebrew words themselves is faulty.
            >If he doesn't use these exact magic words he isn't doing what he's doing
            Autism

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That's exactly what it is.
            >No. It is not. See: [...]
            >
            >If the correct alternative interpretation is unintuitive as translated
            >But that's not his argument,
            He wouldn't have a paper to begin with if he didn't have to explain these unintuitive verses.

            >and that's not the case. Furthermore, you say that all of the verses here [...] (You) are "mistranslations", and that Heiser demonstrates this, when he does no such thing.
            That's what he did.
            >I am, and there is none else besides me
            This statement means something like
            >I am [the best], and there is nobody else who compares to me
            The way most versions have decided to translate this is necessarily a mistranslation because they do not convey in incomparability intuitively to English speakers.

            >Autism
            >And proud of it. This is the world's most popular autism support website.
            It would explain why you are too dumb to understand. You should stop trolling though.

            >if he didn't have to explain these unintuitive verses
            This is basically a strawman. He is not explaining "unintuitive verses", which would be subjective nonsense and child's play. He is - as explained here

            He is not claiming that any of this is mistranslation, you fool. He is putting forth an alternative interpretation. Interpretation is different from translation. Nowhere does he make the claim that the translation of the Hebrew words themselves is faulty. He is arguing that we are superimposing both popular notions of monotheism and biblical criticism onto how we read the Bible, which is ironic, because he is making ample use of the latter in an attempt to reconcile the former, with the indisputable reality of Ancient Near Eastern polytheism's presence in the Old Testament.

            and here

            [...]
            >That's exactly what it is.
            No. It is not. See: [...]

            >If the correct alternative interpretation is unintuitive as translated
            But that's not his argument, and that's not the case. Furthermore, you say that all of the verses here [...] are "mistranslations", and that Heiser demonstrates this, when he does no such thing. He has nary a problem with even the KJV, only expressing one point of contention in regard to whether 'eloah' should be treated as singular or plural (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:17), but many translations do treat it as singular, and it doesn't invalidate any of the other verses in the OT - or the entire trajectory of religious history - which demolish Heiser's thesis (as roundly addressed by other anons you were arguing with).

            >Autism
            And proud of it. This is the world's most popular autism support website.

            - Arguing that we are superimposing contemporary notions of monotheism and biblical criticism onto the Bible (which is ironic, as he makes ample use of the latter in attempting to reconcile the former, with the indisputable presence of ANE polytheism in the Old Testament).

            >The plain translations are really mistranslations because they don't imbue the original verses with the interpretation I prefer
            Is essentially what you are arguing, and it is borderline Orwellian doublespeak. Deviating from the plain meaning of the Hebrew (or the Greek), allows for egregious levels of literal mistranslation, and robs the reader of opportunities to exercise independent thought.

            Look, I empathize with you. I grew up very traditional and religious myself, but when you start examining religious texts impartially and comparatively - that is, when you look at texts without the colored lenses of the faith in which you were raised - there is no going back. Sacred texts from the Abrahamic faiths piggyback off one another, and more importantly, are built out from earlier traditions which were largely polytheistic (with some monolatry in the mix, of course).

            This is readily apparent in historical context, language, and narrative inconsistencies within the Bible and the Qur'an. Even Zoroastrianism piggybacks off pre-existing Indo-Iranian polytheistic cults (in fact, it does so more blatantly, with far less subterfuge than the Abrahamic faiths). This is not to say that you shouldn't believe in God, or a singular divine force by any name. I for one, prostrate myself before The Monad of Monads, who does not require me to retcon monotheism into periods and places where it wasn't being practiced. You should get to know Him too. Godspeed!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >plain translations
            >plain meaning of the Hebrew
            You think you can hide your dishonesty by framing an incorrect translation as "plain"?
            This is a transparent strawman. A translation which is incorrect is by no means plain.
            Heiser has demonstrated the Hebrew saying commonly mistranslated as “I am, and there is none else besides me” does not mean what it says in this English rendering. In order to be honest about what the original text says, we must faithfully render all euphemisms and idioms. Only then can we achieve the “plain meaning”.

            However, the situation isn't very complicated. What Heiser has pointed out shows that we could gloss one word, עוֹד, differently according to how it is used in Zeph 2:15 (comparable) and it would fix most of these translation problems. We cannot dictate how the language works. We can only describe it. Zeph 2:15 shows us how it works.

            >I grew up very traditional and religious myself
            I'm not religious.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You think you can hide your dishonesty by framing an incorrect translation as "plain"?
            Projection. That is exactly what you are proposing we do.

            >A translation which is incorrect
            You have yet to point out where any of the verses you mentioned are translated incorrectly:

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)
            >Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            >All the time
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            >Isaiah 45:5
            Mistranslated

            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            >Isaiah 43:10
            See Heiser 2008

            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            Mistranslated

            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            Mistranslated

            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            Mistranslated

            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            >Isaiah 44:8
            Mistranslated

            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            >Isaiah 46:9
            Mistranslated

            A lot of your verses use the exact same phrasing in Hebrew, so when the translation technique gets one wrong, it gets all the others wrong.
            Michael Heiser has already written about your verses, so I'm just going to link you to his paper.

            Heiser, M. S. (2008). Monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, or henotheism? Toward an assessment of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18(1), 1-30. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs

            Your argument is moot until you can do so.

            >In order to be honest about what the original text says, we must faithfully render
            Yes, and the best way to do that is by using the actual meaning of the words, not imposing preconceived notions of "Judeo-Christian" monotheism onto them.

            >we could gloss one word, עוֹד, differently according to how it is used in Zeph 2:15 and it would fix most of these translation problems
            You have no clue what you're talking about. Demonstrate what other verses it "fixes". You can start with the ones you mentioned here:

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)
            >Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            >All the time
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            >Isaiah 45:5
            Mistranslated

            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            >Isaiah 43:10
            See Heiser 2008

            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            Mistranslated

            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            Mistranslated

            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            Mistranslated

            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            >Isaiah 44:8
            Mistranslated

            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            >Isaiah 46:9
            Mistranslated

            A lot of your verses use the exact same phrasing in Hebrew, so when the translation technique gets one wrong, it gets all the others wrong.
            Michael Heiser has already written about your verses, so I'm just going to link you to his paper.

            Heiser, M. S. (2008). Monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, or henotheism? Toward an assessment of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18(1), 1-30. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, I've been busy, and I spoke a little too soon before giving עוֹד a careful analysis.

            The word עוֹד is related to the verb עוּד which means “repeat” or “do again”. In a related sense עוֹד expresses repetition and can mean “another” as in Gen 8:10:
            >He waited «another» seven days*…
            *In addition to the seven days he had already waited.
            What happens if we speak of “another New York”? We mean a town similar to, substituting for, or rivaling New York—a repetition of New York. What if we say “There is not another Yahweh.”? We mean he is unique and incomparable. In this way “another” becomes a euphemism in Hebrew for something comparable or a rival.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            >You, yourselves, have been shown [it], to know that He, YHWH, [is] the god [for whom there is] not another (עוֹד) besides him.
            Or similar to Heiser's idea:
            >He, YHWH [is] THE god*. [There is] not another (עוֹד) besides him.
            *The god par excellence
            So what this is really saying above is “[There is] not another [Yahweh]” or “[There is] not another [like him]”

            So we need a better glossing strategy for עוֹד in order to translate this effectively, or else we are failing to communicate how the language works for the English speaker. Either propose a sense that operates with an ellipsis “another …” in which we must fill in bracketed words like the above or we use a word to describe the euphemism like “comparable” which gives us “[There is] nothing comparable besides himself” (i.e., he is incomparable)

            Translations which don't make it intuitive for English speakers to read this statement of uniqueness are inherently mistranslations, because they mislead and obscure the natural senses of Hebrew words.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're still clinging on to something I'm never going to agree with (your usage of the term 'mistranslation'), and this perspective demands that one accept Heiser's position as exclusively authoritative (which it is not), but if you were more precise from the get go, I would have wasted a whole lot less time arguing with you.

            The fact is that Heiser's reading occupies a severely marginal space in Ancient Near Eastern studies, if one can even say that his apologia falls into this category. Hard evidence - along with rigorous textual analysis by scholars of biblical Hebrew - shows the worship of multiple deities to be the norm in ancient Israel (for example, see: https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/a-temple-built-for-two/ and https://www.academia.edu/1857268/Monotheism_and_Polytheism_in_Ancient_Israel_Appendix_from_The_Bodies_of_God_and_the_World_of_Ancient_Israel_ ). I don't want to do a link dump, so I chose an article written by one of the most respected scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies & ANE Archaeology (Dever), and a book by a similarly lauded scholar of Biblical Hebrew & ANE Studies (Sommer).

            Both of these are quite clear about the OT repeatedly admonishing Hebrews and other peoples for polytheistic beliefs and practices (not practicing demonology, as you assert), and that monotheism, or even monolatry / henotheism, was the exception to the rule (at best) for most of history in ancient Israel. They do not mince words, and they back up their analyses using both material support, and the Old Testament itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, you did it, you just owned that chud and proved that the Chuddle (chud Bible) is heckin transphobic and fake or something. Now you'll for sure become a beautiful women when you wake up tomorrow. Good job.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Transgenderism has far less of a basis in reality than the Bible, and it also requires one to accept a whole lot of absurd dogma. So no, I think that you trans people are just as gullible as dogmatic religious types.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Based.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you.

            You go xister! Tell that homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic, cis-het, xenophobic, nazi, white supremacist, alt-right, pissbaby chudcel that hate isn't welcome here.

            I'm guessing when the Bible condemned wickedness, you felt personally targeted?

            >NOOOOO you have to take my slide thread seriously!!!!

            You are now just copy-pasting an assortment of buzzwords without understanding them.

            A. I think that you trans people are just as gullible as dogmatic religious types (as stated here:

            https://i.imgur.com/lYspmXm.png

            Transgenderism has far less of a basis in reality than the Bible, and it also requires one to accept a whole lot of absurd dogma. So no, I think that you trans people are just as gullible as dogmatic religious types.

            ). Clearly, you felt targeted by that statement, and are in full meltdown mode.

            B. This is not one the better threads we could have, but it's certainly not a slide thread. Remember, this is IQfy, it's not /lgbt/, IQfy, /misc/, /b/, or /reddit/.

            So you're just mad that you typed out all this nonsense in this thread, and linked a whole bunch of articles made by insincere, paid-off scholars, only to be rightfully laughed at? Do you think a sincere person would engage in something like this seriously? But you're paid to post, so it must not phase you much either way beyond the hysteric fits that come over you.

            Oh, you're the moron who kept trying to prove that the OT is ackshually condemning the Hebrews for worshipping demons, not other Gods. So you start spamming troony shit, and now schizo shit, because you can't handle being wrong. Just accept that you're moronic and move on with your life. It is no one's responsibility but your own.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You go xister! Tell that homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic, cis-het, xenophobic, nazi, white supremacist, alt-right, pissbaby chudcel that hate isn't welcome here.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re obsessed with trannies. Repent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm guessing when the Bible condemned wickedness, you felt personally targeted?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, it’s based. You wouldn’t understand that though. Do you watch porn Christcuck? That’s not how you love your neighbor.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you're just mad that you typed out all this nonsense in this thread, and linked a whole bunch of articles made by insincere, paid-off scholars, only to be rightfully laughed at? Do you think a sincere person would engage in something like this seriously? But you're paid to post, so it must not phase you much either way beyond the hysteric fits that come over you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >NOOOOO you have to take my slide thread seriously!!!!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, what a worthless response with a bunch of irrelevant information. You're blowing smoke because you don't know how to deal with the arguments presented. No amount of evidence changes your mind and you get hung up on trivial details (like an actual autist). All you had to do was quietly read the paper to yourself or just stop talking if you didn't care to read it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You lost. Your little hissy fit doesn't change that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I lost nothing. I just proved to you the verses are mistranslated and you had NOTHING to say about it. You cannot gloss עוד the way the traditional translations do without being severely misleading. Zeph 2:15 is proof of this.

            You don't have a leg to stand on because you do not argue from a position of linguistic evidence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't have a leg to stand on because you do not argue from a position of linguistic evidence.
            lolololol you are actually moronic

            See:

            I'll make it real easy for you.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C004.htm#V35

            Deuteronomy 32:39
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C032.htm#V39

            2 Samuel 7:22
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B10C007.htm#V22

            Isaiah 43:10
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C043.htm#V10

            Isaiah 44:8
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C044.htm#V8

            Isaiah 45:5
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C045.htm#V5

            Isaiah 46:9
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C046.htm#V9

            Show how the translations are "incorrect", or offer your alternative translation.

            אין = None
            עוד = Other
            אין עוד = None other

            How else would you propose we translate אין עוד and what do any of the myriad translations presented at those links get wrong?

            While you undertake this futile effort, maybe it will sink in that you don't actually understand what Heiser was doing (as repeatedly evidenced by your stubborn clinging to this notion of "mistranslation"). Heiser is focused on how we process the words, not the words themselves (excepting a verse or two - not from this batch - where he discusses whether a term should be read as singular or plural). It has nothing to do with translation, and everything to do with perception and interpretation. He is proposing a different way of understanding the text, not a different way of translating it, and certainly not that the translations are wrong.

            You're still clinging on to something I'm never going to agree with (your usage of the term 'mistranslation'), and this perspective demands that one accept Heiser's position as exclusively authoritative (which it is not), but if you were more precise from the get go, I would have wasted a whole lot less time arguing with you.

            The fact is that Heiser's reading occupies a severely marginal space in Ancient Near Eastern studies, if one can even say that his apologia falls into this category. Hard evidence - along with rigorous textual analysis by scholars of biblical Hebrew - shows the worship of multiple deities to be the norm in ancient Israel (for example, see: https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/a-temple-built-for-two/ and https://www.academia.edu/1857268/Monotheism_and_Polytheism_in_Ancient_Israel_Appendix_from_The_Bodies_of_God_and_the_World_of_Ancient_Israel_ ). I don't want to do a link dump, so I chose an article written by one of the most respected scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies & ANE Archaeology (Dever), and a book by a similarly lauded scholar of Biblical Hebrew & ANE Studies (Sommer).

            Both of these are quite clear about the OT repeatedly admonishing Hebrews and other peoples for polytheistic beliefs and practices (not practicing demonology, as you assert), and that monotheism, or even monolatry / henotheism, was the exception to the rule (at best) for most of history in ancient Israel. They do not mince words, and they back up their analyses using both material support, and the Old Testament itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            An apologetics article that hinges on a selective reading and preconceived notions of monotheism is not evidence.

            I lost nothing. I just proved to you the verses are mistranslated and you had NOTHING to say about it. You cannot gloss עוד the way the traditional translations do without being severely misleading. Zeph 2:15 is proof of this.

            You don't have a leg to stand on because you do not argue from a position of linguistic evidence.

            >I just proved to you the verses are mistranslated
            Yet you did not, and they are not.
            I proved that to you repeatedly.
            See:

            >You think you can hide your dishonesty by framing an incorrect translation as "plain"?
            Projection. That is exactly what you are proposing we do.

            >A translation which is incorrect
            You have yet to point out where any of the verses you mentioned are translated incorrectly: [...] Your argument is moot until you can do so.

            >In order to be honest about what the original text says, we must faithfully render
            Yes, and the best way to do that is by using the actual meaning of the words, not imposing preconceived notions of "Judeo-Christian" monotheism onto them.

            >we could gloss one word, עוֹד, differently according to how it is used in Zeph 2:15 and it would fix most of these translation problems
            You have no clue what you're talking about. Demonstrate what other verses it "fixes". You can start with the ones you mentioned here: [...]

            I'll make it real easy for you.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C004.htm#V35

            Deuteronomy 32:39
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C032.htm#V39

            2 Samuel 7:22
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B10C007.htm#V22

            Isaiah 43:10
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C043.htm#V10

            Isaiah 44:8
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C044.htm#V8

            Isaiah 45:5
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C045.htm#V5

            Isaiah 46:9
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C046.htm#V9

            Show how the translations are "incorrect", or offer your alternative translation.

            אין = None
            עוד = Other
            אין עוד = None other

            How else would you propose we translate אין עוד and what do any of the myriad translations presented at those links get wrong?

            While you undertake this futile effort, maybe it will sink in that you don't actually understand what Heiser was doing (as repeatedly evidenced by your stubborn clinging to this notion of "mistranslation"). Heiser is focused on how we process the words, not the words themselves (excepting a verse or two - not from this batch - where he discusses whether a term should be read as singular or plural). It has nothing to do with translation, and everything to do with perception and interpretation. He is proposing a different way of understanding the text, not a different way of translating it, and certainly not that the translations are wrong.

            >you had NOTHING to say about it
            Because you failed to prove anything.

            >You cannot gloss עוד the way the traditional translations do without being severely misleading
            According to you and no one else.

            >Zeph 2:15 is proof of this
            You can't even articulate what you're trying to prove any more, but no, it's not proof of anything really, except that people can apply arbitrary criteria to a text. Again, see:

            >You think you can hide your dishonesty by framing an incorrect translation as "plain"?
            Projection. That is exactly what you are proposing we do.

            >A translation which is incorrect
            You have yet to point out where any of the verses you mentioned are translated incorrectly: [...] Your argument is moot until you can do so.

            >In order to be honest about what the original text says, we must faithfully render
            Yes, and the best way to do that is by using the actual meaning of the words, not imposing preconceived notions of "Judeo-Christian" monotheism onto them.

            >we could gloss one word, עוֹד, differently according to how it is used in Zeph 2:15 and it would fix most of these translation problems
            You have no clue what you're talking about. Demonstrate what other verses it "fixes". You can start with the ones you mentioned here: [...]

            I'll make it real easy for you.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C004.htm#V35

            Deuteronomy 32:39
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C032.htm#V39

            2 Samuel 7:22
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B10C007.htm#V22

            Isaiah 43:10
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C043.htm#V10

            Isaiah 44:8
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C044.htm#V8

            Isaiah 45:5
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C045.htm#V5

            Isaiah 46:9
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C046.htm#V9

            Show how the translations are "incorrect", or offer your alternative translation.

            אין = None
            עוד = Other
            אין עוד = None other

            How else would you propose we translate אין עוד and what do any of the myriad translations presented at those links get wrong?

            While you undertake this futile effort, maybe it will sink in that you don't actually understand what Heiser was doing (as repeatedly evidenced by your stubborn clinging to this notion of "mistranslation"). Heiser is focused on how we process the words, not the words themselves (excepting a verse or two - not from this batch - where he discusses whether a term should be read as singular or plural). It has nothing to do with translation, and everything to do with perception and interpretation. He is proposing a different way of understanding the text, not a different way of translating it, and certainly not that the translations are wrong.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >According to you and no one else
            The sources I used are
            Zeph 2:15
            Gen 8:10
            Brown-Driver-Briggs
            The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
            Heiser's paper

            You need someone else to back my arguments because you aren't intelligent enough to evaluate them on your own. This means you need to call it a day and let it go.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The sources I used are
            >Heiser's paper
            FTFY

            The other sources are in his paper, and you're actually citing concordances (which doesn't lend any heft to your half-baked arguments in defense of what you think Heiser is saying), meaning that you can't even read and understand the language yourself. Unlike you, I don't need a concordance, because I can. BTW, Heiser's argument regarding the batch of verses you have routinely been unable to address, has nothing to do with the word עוד on its own, you moron. It is concerned with the contextual implications of the phrase אין עוד.

            >You need someone else to back my arguments
            No, though it would be neat if you could make one coherent argument that doesn't completely rely on your inability to understand Heiser's apologetics screed.

            >you aren't intelligent enough to evaluate them on your own
            Projection. You couldn't defend your statements (they're not really arguments), as evidenced by your inability to address this:

            I'll make it real easy for you.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C004.htm#V35

            Deuteronomy 32:39
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C032.htm#V39

            2 Samuel 7:22
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B10C007.htm#V22

            Isaiah 43:10
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C043.htm#V10

            Isaiah 44:8
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C044.htm#V8

            Isaiah 45:5
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C045.htm#V5

            Isaiah 46:9
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C046.htm#V9

            Show how the translations are "incorrect", or offer your alternative translation.

            אין = None
            עוד = Other
            אין עוד = None other

            How else would you propose we translate אין עוד and what do any of the myriad translations presented at those links get wrong?

            While you undertake this futile effort, maybe it will sink in that you don't actually understand what Heiser was doing (as repeatedly evidenced by your stubborn clinging to this notion of "mistranslation"). Heiser is focused on how we process the words, not the words themselves (excepting a verse or two - not from this batch - where he discusses whether a term should be read as singular or plural). It has nothing to do with translation, and everything to do with perception and interpretation. He is proposing a different way of understanding the text, not a different way of translating it, and certainly not that the translations are wrong.

            And your childish refusal to even glance at serious presentations of evidence for polytheism in the OT and historic ancient Israel, here:

            You're still clinging on to something I'm never going to agree with (your usage of the term 'mistranslation'), and this perspective demands that one accept Heiser's position as exclusively authoritative (which it is not), but if you were more precise from the get go, I would have wasted a whole lot less time arguing with you.

            The fact is that Heiser's reading occupies a severely marginal space in Ancient Near Eastern studies, if one can even say that his apologia falls into this category. Hard evidence - along with rigorous textual analysis by scholars of biblical Hebrew - shows the worship of multiple deities to be the norm in ancient Israel (for example, see: https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/a-temple-built-for-two/ and https://www.academia.edu/1857268/Monotheism_and_Polytheism_in_Ancient_Israel_Appendix_from_The_Bodies_of_God_and_the_World_of_Ancient_Israel_ ). I don't want to do a link dump, so I chose an article written by one of the most respected scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies & ANE Archaeology (Dever), and a book by a similarly lauded scholar of Biblical Hebrew & ANE Studies (Sommer).

            Both of these are quite clear about the OT repeatedly admonishing Hebrews and other peoples for polytheistic beliefs and practices (not practicing demonology, as you assert), and that monotheism, or even monolatry / henotheism, was the exception to the rule (at best) for most of history in ancient Israel. They do not mince words, and they back up their analyses using both material support, and the Old Testament itself.

            My sources?
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            >Isaiah 43:10
            >Isaiah 44:8
            >Isaiah 45:5
            >Isaiah 46:9
            >J. Hurt, HTML Bible. [Online]. Available: https://www.htmlbible.com/.
            >B. D. Sommer, The bodies of god and the world of ancient Israel Benjamin D. Sommer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
            >W. G. Dever, “A temple built for two,” The BAS Library. Available: https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/a-temple-built-for-two/.
            LMAO. I can take up space by listing what I've referenced too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I like how you typed all that but didn't actually present a counter argument.
            I didn't make an argument about what Heiser's precise argument is. I pointed to what we can learn from the paper. I just used it as a stepping stone and to give you reading material.

            Why do I need to glance at presentations of evidence for polytheism in the OT and ancient Israel? I never said they weren't polytheists. This is just weird.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I never said they weren't polytheists.
            Then why do you keep citing Heiser's paper, the thrust of which is 'Well, Elohim isn't exactly singular or plural, and the Israelites weren't exactly monotheists, but they definitely believed in something closer to that than to polytheism'? It doesn't seem like you read your sole reference at all, and are just ctrl-f'ing through the whole thing.

            >a counter argument
            Why don't you formulate an argument in the first place? You don't understand the Hebrew, you make errors in your treatment of it, and despite that, you insist that certain verses are "mistranslated". You base that assertion entirely on one paper, which you don't appear to understand either. There's really nothing else to say on the topic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I never said they weren't polytheists.
            >Then why do you keep citing Heiser's paper, the thrust of which is 'Well, Elohim isn't exactly singular or plural, and the Israelites weren't exactly monotheists, but they definitely believed in something closer to that than to polytheism'? It doesn't seem like you read your sole reference at all, and are just ctrl-f'ing through the whole thing.
            What's wrong? I can't just use his paper for one little thing without you thinking I endorse everything he says?

            >a counter argument
            >Why don't you formulate an argument in the first place?
            Already done. I explained what עוד means as much as necessary for our purposes and showed how it is used in context. You can't use עוד with a negation to declare there is no other member of the class just mentioned in existence but rather to declare there is no other member of the class like the member just mentioned.
            Zeph 2:15 and Isa 47:8,10 have cities declare that “there is no other” (naively translated) but they aren't claiming no other cities exist! This is just how the word works. Naive English translations do not do עוד justice.

            >You don't understand the Hebrew,
            If I don't understand it well enough for our purposes, you haven't shown me something I don't understand.

            >you make errors in your treatment of it,
            What errors? Do you have something relevant to point out or is this about the demons again?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't use עוד with a negation to declare there is no other member of the class just mentioned in existence, but rather to declare there is no other member of the class like the member just mentioned. This is just how the word works. Naive English translations do not do עוד justice.
            You certainly can use עוד in this way, hence אין עוד. What Heiser believes is that the intended meaning - again, of the whole phrase, not the single word עוד - can be lost in translation for most readers, especially when it appears in verses that are emphasizing the uniqueness of God. What you are describing is not a rule of Hebrew, nor a limitation of the word עוד, but merely a conjecture that Heiser makes.

            He suggests that אין עוד should be read as exclaiming incomparability, as opposed to exclusivity, and puts forth the same suggestion with other verses that use different Hebrew terminology (e.g. forms of לבד) to express similar ideas. This is a central component of his thesis.

            This also exemplifies two of the ways in which you are wrong (conflating Heiser's ideas of ideal interpretation with rules of Hebrew grammar, and mistakenly assigning undue importance to the word עוד). This is made all the more clear by the fact that Heiser argues his position on the topic in question against the opposing views of other scholars in triangulation.

            >What errors?
            I just explained some that I explained a few times before.

            >is this about the demons again?
            You and another anon were cyclically harping on שדים before I slipped in. I referenced the back-and-forth earlier, though am not concerned with it (unless you were the one claiming that all other deities mentioned in the OT should be classified as שדים, which is a whole other bag of worms).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't use עוד with a negation to declare there is no other member of the class just mentioned in existence,
            >You certainly can use עוד in this way,
            Then post evidence which contradicts the meaning in context of Zeph 2:15.

            >What Heiser believes is that the intended meaning - again, of the whole phrase, not the single word עוד -
            Why are you harping on this?
            Is there some reason I have to be arguing the exact same thing as him?

            >What you are describing is not a rule of Hebrew, nor a limitation of the word עוד, but merely a conjecture that Heiser makes.
            I have described how עוד is used in context and explained how this agrees with and builds upon its recorded meanings in dictionaries. A description of how the word is used in practice is a "rule" of Hebrew.

            >He suggests that אין עוד should be read as exclaiming incomparability, as opposed to exclusivity, and puts forth the same suggestion with other verses that use different Hebrew terminology (e.g. forms of לבד) to express similar ideas. This is a central component of his thesis.
            Good for him.

            >This also exemplifies two of the ways in which you are wrong (conflating Heiser's ideas of ideal interpretation with rules of Hebrew grammar,
            I only care so much about what he says inasmuch as it is useful to help me formulate my own analysis.

            >and mistakenly assigning undue importance to the word עוד).
            Merely denying its importance isn't an argument.

            The core meaning of עוד is that of repetition. Branching out of this is the meaning of another and sameness. In this way it refers to another of the same thing just mentioned again
            >There's not another-the-same (עוד) besides him.

            Zeph 2:15
            >…I am [it/the best] and [there's] not another the same [as me]…

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Then post evidence which contradicts the meaning...
            It is his proposed interpretation. If you read the paper, you'd see that he presents opinions that disagree with his own, starting on page 6.

            >I have described how עוד is used in context and explained...
            You have copy-pasted and attempted to paraphrase selected information from a well-known concordance, and from a research paper, written from the perspective of an Evangelical Christian who is attempting to minimize the presence of polytheism in the OT, through a novel application of methods used in biblical criticism. You have confused his subjective reading with an impartial exposition on Hebrew grammar.

            >A description of how the word is used in practice is a "rule" of Hebrew
            No, it is absolutely not a rule. Describing it as such is based on your inability to understand one research paper.

            >Why are you harping on this?
            Chiefly, because you are wrong. I'm a native Hebrew speaker who, unfortunately, studied Biblical Hebrew at an American University later on in life. Arguing with you is similar to how the waitress at a Japanese restaurant felt that one time I attempted to order in Japanese. Since you don't know Hebrew, and can't even read the characters on your own, communicating with you on the topic is like sustaining a multitude of paper-cuts on the same small region of skin. Since you don't have a background in the language, you are struggling to understand his arguments, and the argument you have formulated lacks a basis in reality, as I thoroughly explained here:

            >You can't use עוד with a negation to declare there is no other member of the class just mentioned in existence, but rather to declare there is no other member of the class like the member just mentioned. This is just how the word works. Naive English translations do not do עוד justice.
            You certainly can use עוד in this way, hence אין עוד. What Heiser believes is that the intended meaning - again, of the whole phrase, not the single word עוד - can be lost in translation for most readers, especially when it appears in verses that are emphasizing the uniqueness of God. What you are describing is not a rule of Hebrew, nor a limitation of the word עוד, but merely a conjecture that Heiser makes.

            He suggests that אין עוד should be read as exclaiming incomparability, as opposed to exclusivity, and puts forth the same suggestion with other verses that use different Hebrew terminology (e.g. forms of לבד) to express similar ideas. This is a central component of his thesis.

            This also exemplifies two of the ways in which you are wrong (conflating Heiser's ideas of ideal interpretation with rules of Hebrew grammar, and mistakenly assigning undue importance to the word עוד). This is made all the more clear by the fact that Heiser argues his position on the topic in question against the opposing views of other scholars in triangulation.

            >What errors?
            I just explained some that I explained a few times before.

            >is this about the demons again?
            You and another anon were cyclically harping on שדים before I slipped in. I referenced the back-and-forth earlier, though am not concerned with it (unless you were the one claiming that all other deities mentioned in the OT should be classified as שדים, which is a whole other bag of worms).

            Look, you have no clue what you're arguing about, and do not understand the language. Just as how I have spared unsuspecting Japanese women the torture of dealing with my extremely limited command of Japanese, I encourage you to spare others the torture of dealing with your extremely limited understanding of Hebrew (which appears to consist of this paper that you can't seem to follow, and looking up words in BDB).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every post you make is full of hot air. You clearly do not want to deal with my arguments to any degree because YOU HAVE NO REBUTTAL. All you have is denial.

            >Then post evidence which contradicts the meaning...
            Evidence means take a sample from the language's historical corpus (e.g., the Old Testament) and demonstrate an example where עוד contradicts the meaning I have assigned to it “another the same”

            >A description of how the word is used in practice is a "rule" of Hebrew
            >No, it is absolutely not a rule.
            If it's not a correct descriptive rule for how the word is used in practice, you should be able rebut the claim with evidence from the historical corpus of biblical Hebrew.

            >Chiefly, because you are wrong.
            Not an argument.

            >I'm a native Hebrew speaker who,
            It would explain why you are so confident you are correct yet have nothing to show for it, but this sort of statement either betrays you do NOT know Hebrew or you are so ill-informed you are operating under the delusion that you can rely on modern Hebrew intuition to inform your reading of a dead language. I don't pretend to be an expert in Anglo-Saxon because I know English.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Zeph 2:15
            זֹאת הָעִיר הָעַלִּיזָה, הַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת לָבֶטַח, הָאֹמְרָה בִּלְבָבָהּ, *אֲנִי וְאַפְסִי עוֹד*; אֵיךְ הָיְתָה לְשַׁמָּה, מַרְבֵּץ לַחַיָּה--כֹּל עוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ, יִשְׁרֹק יָנִיעַ יָדוֹ.

            Your proposed translation for the text between the asterisks is:
            >I am [it/the best] and [there's] not another the same [as me]
            "It/the best" is not the implied or literal meaning of any of those words. The rest is not terrible, but there's no need to use brackets with me. Let's drill it down.

            Word for word:
            >אֲנִי וְאַפְסִי עוֹד
            Literally:
            >I am | and there is nothing | other
            Or
            >I am | and there is none | more

            Fluidly, minding the possessive form of אפס:
            >I am, and there is nothing other than me.
            >I am, and there is no more than me.

            Simplified, with inferred meaning:
            >I am, and there is no other but me.
            >I am, and there are no more like me.

            Based on Heiser's reading:
            >I am, and there is nothing else that compares to me.

            Based on Heiser's reading, simplified:
            >I am, and there is nothing else like me.

            Dead simple:
            >There is nothing but me.
            >There is nothing like me.
            ^These concisely convey the two stances which Heiser attempts to reconcile in his paper.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every post you make is full of hot air. You clearly do not want to deal with my arguments to any degree because YOU HAVE NO REBUTTAL. All you have is denial.

            >Then post evidence which contradicts the meaning...
            Evidence means take a sample from the language's historical corpus (e.g., the Old Testament) and demonstrate an example where עוד contradicts the meaning I have assigned to it “another the same”

            >A description of how the word is used in practice is a "rule" of Hebrew
            >No, it is absolutely not a rule.
            If it's not a correct descriptive rule for how the word is used in practice, you should be able rebut the claim with evidence from the historical corpus of biblical Hebrew.

            >Chiefly, because you are wrong.
            Not an argument.

            >I'm a native Hebrew speaker who,
            It would explain why you are so confident you are correct yet have nothing to show for it, but this sort of statement either betrays you do NOT know Hebrew or you are so ill-informed you are operating under the delusion that you can rely on modern Hebrew intuition to inform your reading of a dead language. I don't pretend to be an expert in Anglo-Saxon because I know English.

            >You can't use עוד with a negation to declare there is no other member of the class. This is just how the word works.
            >example where עוד contradicts the meaning I have assigned to it
            The meaning you have assigned to it seems to have shifted over the course of this thread. Curious.

            Anyway, this is easy:
            >1Kings 8:60
            Literally no other God, full stop. End transmission.

            >2Kings 4:6
            Literally no other vessels can be found.

            >Jeremiah 48:1
            Literally no more prayers for Moab.

            All of which directly challenge Heiser's understanding of the verses listed here:

            I'll make it real easy for you.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C004.htm#V35

            Deuteronomy 32:39
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C032.htm#V39

            2 Samuel 7:22
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B10C007.htm#V22

            Isaiah 43:10
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C043.htm#V10

            Isaiah 44:8
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C044.htm#V8

            Isaiah 45:5
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C045.htm#V5

            Isaiah 46:9
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C046.htm#V9

            Show how the translations are "incorrect", or offer your alternative translation.

            אין = None
            עוד = Other
            אין עוד = None other

            How else would you propose we translate אין עוד and what do any of the myriad translations presented at those links get wrong?

            While you undertake this futile effort, maybe it will sink in that you don't actually understand what Heiser was doing (as repeatedly evidenced by your stubborn clinging to this notion of "mistranslation"). Heiser is focused on how we process the words, not the words themselves (excepting a verse or two - not from this batch - where he discusses whether a term should be read as singular or plural). It has nothing to do with translation, and everything to do with perception and interpretation. He is proposing a different way of understanding the text, not a different way of translating it, and certainly not that the translations are wrong.

            (meaning that - as he acknowledges throughout his own fricking paper - that his reading does not magically invalidate other readings). So you can add those verses to the list as well. Again, as repeatedly explained, what you have stated is not a rule; You do not understand the language, and you do not understand the paper that inspired your incorrect assumptions.

            Less outstanding examples:
            >Gen 31:14
            >Gen 45:28
            Here it simply means 'continued to' or 'still'.

            >Exo 14:13
            >Exo 36:6
            Here it is used in a context that means 'no more', or 'never again'.

            >Gen 8:21
            >Gen 9:11
            >Gen 38:4
            >Exo 2:3
            >Exo 10:29
            >Exo 11:1
            In all of these cases it simply means 'another', or 'again', with no dependency. It is not restricted to 'another the same', or 'another of the same'.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll make it real easy for you.

            Deuteronomy 4:35
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C004.htm#V35

            Deuteronomy 32:39
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B05C032.htm#V39

            2 Samuel 7:22
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B10C007.htm#V22

            Isaiah 43:10
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C043.htm#V10

            Isaiah 44:8
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C044.htm#V8

            Isaiah 45:5
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C045.htm#V5

            Isaiah 46:9
            https://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B23C046.htm#V9

            Show how the translations are "incorrect", or offer your alternative translation.

            אין = None
            עוד = Other
            אין עוד = None other

            How else would you propose we translate אין עוד and what do any of the myriad translations presented at those links get wrong?

            While you undertake this futile effort, maybe it will sink in that you don't actually understand what Heiser was doing (as repeatedly evidenced by your stubborn clinging to this notion of "mistranslation"). Heiser is focused on how we process the words, not the words themselves (excepting a verse or two - not from this batch - where he discusses whether a term should be read as singular or plural). It has nothing to do with translation, and everything to do with perception and interpretation. He is proposing a different way of understanding the text, not a different way of translating it, and certainly not that the translations are wrong.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He is not claiming that any of this is mistranslation, you fool.
            That's exactly what it is.

            >He is putting forth an alternative interpretation.
            If the correct alternative interpretation is unintuitive as translated, the text has been mistranslated.

            >Nowhere does he make the claim that the translation of the Hebrew words themselves is faulty.
            >If he doesn't use these exact magic words he isn't doing what he's doing
            Autism

            >That's exactly what it is.
            No. It is not. See:

            He is not claiming that any of this is mistranslation, you fool. He is putting forth an alternative interpretation. Interpretation is different from translation. Nowhere does he make the claim that the translation of the Hebrew words themselves is faulty. He is arguing that we are superimposing both popular notions of monotheism and biblical criticism onto how we read the Bible, which is ironic, because he is making ample use of the latter in an attempt to reconcile the former, with the indisputable reality of Ancient Near Eastern polytheism's presence in the Old Testament.

            >If the correct alternative interpretation is unintuitive as translated
            But that's not his argument, and that's not the case. Furthermore, you say that all of the verses here

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)
            >Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            >All the time
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            >Isaiah 45:5
            Mistranslated

            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            >Isaiah 43:10
            See Heiser 2008

            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            Mistranslated

            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            Mistranslated

            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            Mistranslated

            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            >Isaiah 44:8
            Mistranslated

            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            >Isaiah 46:9
            Mistranslated

            A lot of your verses use the exact same phrasing in Hebrew, so when the translation technique gets one wrong, it gets all the others wrong.
            Michael Heiser has already written about your verses, so I'm just going to link you to his paper.

            Heiser, M. S. (2008). Monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, or henotheism? Toward an assessment of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18(1), 1-30. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs

            are "mistranslations", and that Heiser demonstrates this, when he does no such thing. He has nary a problem with even the KJV, only expressing one point of contention in regard to whether 'eloah' should be treated as singular or plural (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:17), but many translations do treat it as singular, and it doesn't invalidate any of the other verses in the OT - or the entire trajectory of religious history - which demolish Heiser's thesis (as roundly addressed by other anons you were arguing with).

            >Autism
            And proud of it. This is the world's most popular autism support website.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That's exactly what it is.
            >No. It is not. See:

            He is not claiming that any of this is mistranslation, you fool. He is putting forth an alternative interpretation. Interpretation is different from translation. Nowhere does he make the claim that the translation of the Hebrew words themselves is faulty. He is arguing that we are superimposing both popular notions of monotheism and biblical criticism onto how we read the Bible, which is ironic, because he is making ample use of the latter in an attempt to reconcile the former, with the indisputable reality of Ancient Near Eastern polytheism's presence in the Old Testament.


            >
            >If the correct alternative interpretation is unintuitive as translated
            >But that's not his argument,
            He wouldn't have a paper to begin with if he didn't have to explain these unintuitive verses.

            >and that's not the case. Furthermore, you say that all of the verses here

            >It doesn't clarify. The word is שֵּׁדִים (Šēdîm)


            >Give me the name of any demons who are in the Bible
            >How often does the rest of the Bible stick its nose in another nation's business?
            >All the time
            >I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
            >Isaiah 45:5
            Mistranslated

            >“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
            >Isaiah 43:10
            See Heiser 2008

            >“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
            >Deuteronomy 32:39
            Mistranslated

            >To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
            >Deuteronomy 4:35
            Mistranslated

            >Therefore you are great, O Lord God. For there is none like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
            >2 Samuel 7:22
            Mistranslated

            >Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
            >Isaiah 44:8
            Mistranslated

            >Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
            >Isaiah 46:9
            Mistranslated

            A lot of your verses use the exact same phrasing in Hebrew, so when the translation technique gets one wrong, it gets all the others wrong.
            Michael Heiser has already written about your verses, so I'm just going to link you to his paper.

            Heiser, M. S. (2008). Monotheism, polytheism, monolatry, or henotheism? Toward an assessment of divine plurality in the Hebrew Bible. Bulletin for Biblical Research, 18(1), 1-30. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=lts_fac_pubs (You) are "mistranslations", and that Heiser demonstrates this, when he does no such thing.
            That's what he did.
            >I am, and there is none else besides me
            This statement means something like
            >I am [the best], and there is nobody else who compares to me
            The way most versions have decided to translate this is necessarily a mistranslation because they do not convey in incomparability intuitively to English speakers.

            >Autism
            >And proud of it. This is the world's most popular autism support website.
            It would explain why you are too dumb to understand. You should stop trolling though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fallen Spirit marries a woman called Asherah, she thinks he is god so she must be the queen of heaven, she gives birth to Baal who she claims is the physical incarnation of god, she then marries Baal and gives birth to the 70 demons of the pantheon.
            >The mother of all demons.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Great that proves my point that the demons are false gods as Asherah is named in 1 Kings 11:4-6

            Deuteronomy 32:16
            2 Kings 11:4-6

            *1 Kings 11:4-6
            I proved my point. Goodbye

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In my language the chief of the old Pantheon's name became the word for god. Why is something like this unthinkable for the Israelites? Yeah they used the names of the old gods to refer to the Biblical God. So what?

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >But archaeologists say…
    Don’t give a frick, everyone knows the Middle East was full of demon worshipping ignorants until the Prophets smashed that shit.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    El = israeli deity (but late become god)
    Eloh = god
    Elohim = gods
    Yahweh = son of the israeli deity El
    Deus = Zeus

    >The Holy Quran turned out to be right - like always - when it sayed that israelites too calimed that the God has son just like the christians did
    (israeli: El -> Yahweh) = (christian: Zeus -> Jesus)

    thank Allah for being a muslim and never trust a word from a judo-christian liar everagain!

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >When Abram was 99 years old, Yahweh appeared to him. He said to Abram, “I am El Shadday. Live in my presence with integrity.

      >Then Elohim appeared once more to Jacob after he came back from Paddan Aram, and he blessed him. Elohim said to him, “Your name is Jacob. You will no longer be called Jacob, but your name will be Israel.” So he named him Israel. Elohim also said to him, “I am El Shadday. Be fertile, and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from you. I will give you the land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac. I will also give this land to your descendants.”

      >Elohim spoke to Moses, “I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh. I even made a promise to give them Canaan, the land where they lived as foreigners.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yahweh o Yahovah o Yahuah

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Hebrew letter "ו" can either be W or V or U.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, let me get this straight.
    Of all ancient Semitic religions, it's the Caananite patheon with their godhead El, that get's emulated by neighboring nations like Israel where they have different primary gods for each?

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is just a part of why I can't take Christianity seriously
    I think the clearest example for me is the fact that Hebrew is a Canaanite language
    The Hebrews were indigenous to Canaan, they weren't immigrants
    The israelites are the true indigenous population of Palestine and yet the Bible is clearly false

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The israelites are the true indigenous population of Palestine and yet the Bible is clearly false
      You mean Samaritans

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Oh, you're the moron who kept trying to prove that
    nope, I just keep seeing this slide thread get bumped up to the top of the page, and decided to trigger whoever the op was, to much amusement.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The True name of the Father is El
    Bible says something else on that one.

    El is just God. Allah is God.... isn't an entirely untrue statement. But which god?
    By what name does he go?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > By what name does he go?

      "The namelesssssss one...."

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The "we are one" brigade : "God is undefined..."

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > "we are one" brigade
          Ah yes : But which one?

          "We are one (individual)"
          OR
          "We are one (unity)"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > "We are one (individual)"
            Would be incorrect.
            Plural != Singular.
            Besides, they are speaking for others, and not themselves.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        י = Y
        ה = AH
        ו = U
        ה = AH

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          These are all consonants. This is reinforced by archaic spelling rules which don't have mater lectionis.
          (There are vowels, but they are beside those consonants)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Letters from the Hebrew alphabet are not 1:1 with English ones. You cannot simply say this letter is that letter and that letter is this letter.

            What matters is how they are pronounced. י is pronounced like Y and ה is pronounced AH because we know יה is YAH. ו so the second ה must also be AH. And since ו is pronounced sometimes W or V or U it must either be Yahwah, Yahvah (Yahovah) or Yahuah.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Letters from the Hebrew alphabet are not 1:1 with English ones.
            I never said they were
            >You cannot simply say this letter is that letter and that letter is this letter.
            The phonemes are /j/ /h/ /w/ /h/

            >What matters is how they are pronounced. י is pronounced like Y and ה is pronounced AH
            The ה ⟨h⟩ only signifies /h/

            >because we know יה is YAH.ו
            You apparently don't understand how the Hebrew alphabet works. The vowel ⟨a⟩ is not written in יה but it is spoken. Archaic spelling conventions do not use mater lectionis.

            >so the second ה must also be AH.
            The ה in itself is only a consonant unless later spelling conventions are used.

            >And since ו is pronounced sometimes W or V or U it must either be Yahwah, Yahvah (Yahovah) or Yahuah.
            It can only be a consonant. IQfy comes later, so it needs to be /w/ or perhaps /wʰ/

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The vowel ⟨a⟩ is not written in יה but it is spoken.
            So it sounds like AH when you speak it? That's what I said.
            >It can only be a consonant. IQfy comes later, so it needs to be /w/ or perhaps /wʰ/
            So how is the name pronounced?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The vowel ⟨a⟩ is not written in יה but it is spoken.
            >So it sounds like AH when you speak it? That's what I said.
            Please use IPA in // when describing a pronunciation and put romanization of Hebrew in () in left-to-right order in order to be clear about what you're saying.

            >It can only be a consonant. IQfy comes later, so it needs to be /w/ or perhaps /wʰ/
            >So how is the name pronounced?
            The four consonants just mentioned in order plus some vowels.
            /jah(?)w?h(?)/
            ? = unknown vowel
            (?) = optional unknown vowel
            Unlike English phonology, it is possible for /h/ to be word final or syllable final

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ה can be a matter lectionis for eh, for example שדה sadeh and ארבה arbeh.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or Yahweh?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. I'm not the anon you're arguing with btw.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually, it’s Dyeus Ph2ter.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    >You can't use עוד with a negation to declare there is no other member of the class. This is just how the word works.
    >example where עוד contradicts the meaning I have assigned to it
    The meaning you have assigned to it seems to have shifted over the course of this thread. Curious.

    Anyway, this is easy:
    >1Kings 8:60
    Literally no other God, full stop. End transmission.

    >2Kings 4:6
    Literally no other vessels can be found.

    >Jeremiah 48:1
    Literally no more prayers for Moab.

    All of which directly challenge Heiser's understanding of the verses listed here: [...] (meaning that - as he acknowledges throughout his own fricking paper - that his reading does not magically invalidate other readings). So you can add those verses to the list as well. Again, as repeatedly explained, what you have stated is not a rule; You do not understand the language, and you do not understand the paper that inspired your incorrect assumptions.

    Less outstanding examples:
    >Gen 31:14
    >Gen 45:28
    Here it simply means 'continued to' or 'still'.

    >Exo 14:13
    >Exo 36:6
    Here it is used in a context that means 'no more', or 'never again'.

    >Gen 8:21
    >Gen 9:11
    >Gen 38:4
    >Exo 2:3
    >Exo 10:29
    >Exo 11:1
    In all of these cases it simply means 'another', or 'again', with no dependency. It is not restricted to 'another the same', or 'another of the same'.

    I've been busy today, and despite many interruptions, I've been trying to squeeze in as much time as possible to respond to your post out of respect for the effort you put in.
    You've shown good examples, and they help inform us how the word is used in practice. You've helped us get to the heart of the matter.

    I was attempting to reevaluate the word עוד under the premise that it would resolve an apparent "contradiction" between common translations and the meaning of statements in context. I concede that it is not עוד in particular that is the problem but the idiomatic expressions as a whole. I was prepared to defend my previous position, and I had typed up a longer, different post, but then I saw Psalm 86:8,10
    >There is none like You among the gods, O Lord,
    >And like Your works there are none.
    >…
    >For You [are] great, and doing wonders,
    >You [are] God alone.
    There is no apparent contradiction for the author of these verses. Other gods exist, yet Yahweh is so godly, they do not live up to the title in comparison. That no other god exists is hyperbole, but this is not necessarily intuitive for an English speaker with monotheistic cultural expectations.

    Are verses with similar language mistranslated then? Sort of. The literal meaning was conveyed, but if such figures of speech exist, and the translator fails to communicate this somehow, at least by a footnote, the message as it was understood by the authors and early readers is lost.

    You've done a good job persevering in the face of my stubbornness. Thank you, and my apologies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *