Polytheism proven wrong

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I have always had trouble with creation EX NIHILO -- I see nowhere in the Bible that God created out of nothing -- certainly not Man. In the opening of Genesis there was darkness -- there was water -- not NOTHING NOTHING

I have also been intrigued that the "creation" is a "re-creation" -- after the earth BECAME formless and void...

And that Man was to REPLENISH the earth -- I guess it had to have been previously plenished.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have always had trouble with creation EX NIHILO -- I see nowhere in the Bible that God created out of nothing -- certainly not Man. In the opening of Genesis there was darkness -- there was water -- not NOTHING NOTHING

I have also been intrigued that the "creation" is a "re-creation" -- after the earth BECAME formless and void...

And that Man was to REPLENISH the earth -- I guess it had to have been previously plenished.
Again you can post citations on this, but I will have to wait till I am at my desk for awhile to pull up my documents.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The basic definition of 'bara' is: to shape, fashion, or create.

There is no indication in this definition that 'create' means 'out of nothing'. Since the 4th century it has been drilled into our heads from Greek philosophers, and scholars of religion. But it has not always been so. (of course this is history and should not be spoken of in this OP, but since you went outside the bounds of logic, so must I)

In the definition of 'bara', there is a quick notation that the definition is to shape, fashion, or create (and then it adds that 'create' is only used when God does something), and then gives examples in Genesis.

Well one of the examples is that God created man, both male and female created he them. But God did not create man 'out of nothing'. God created man out of the dust of the earth. So if a point was being made that when God creates, He creates things out of nothing, this example is a poor one.

Besides if God has the knowledge to create things out of nothing, or has the nature to create things out of nothing, are you the one that is going to stand up and tell God He cannot give this knowledge or nature to someone else?

I have always had trouble with creation EX NIHILO -- I see nowhere in the Bible that God created out of nothing -- certainly not Man. In the opening of Genesis there was darkness -- there was water -- not NOTHING NOTHING

I have also been intrigued that the "creation" is a "re-creation" -- after the earth BECAME formless and void...

And that Man was to REPLENISH the earth -- I guess it had to have been previously plenished.

so far as I search (please be patient) I found one occasion of bara


" Matter not Eternal
The OT and the NT, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bārā’, as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The NT seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent—that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God’s own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets He 11:3."


Lindsay, J. (1915). Creation. In J. Orr, J. L. Nuelsen, E. Y. Mullins, & M. O. Evans (Eds.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Vol. 1–5, p. 738). Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company.


here is another commentary:

"The Hebrew word for create is bara, which means “to make something out of that which does not exist previously.” In other words, God made everything from nothing. It wasn t that He refashioned material that already existed, but rather that He started “from scratch” when He spoke the worlds into existence. "

-John courson Bible application commentary

so in the context of genesis, yes bara would mean creation from nothing.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
so far as I search (please be patient) I found one occasion of bara


" Matter not Eternal
The OT and the NT, in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. We cannot say that the origin of matter is excluded from the Genesis account of creation, and this quite apart from the use of bārā’, as admitting of material and means in creation. But it seems unwise to build upon Genesis passages that afford no more than a basis which has proved exegetically insecure. The NT seems to favor the derivation of matter from the non-existent—that is to say, the time-worlds were due to the effluent Divine Word or originative Will, rather than to being built out of God’s own invisible essence. So the best exegesis interprets He 11:3."


Lindsay, J. (1915). Creation. In J. Orr, J. L. Nuelsen, E. Y. Mullins, & M. O. Evans (Eds.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Vol. 1–5, p. 738). Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company.


here is another commentary:

"The Hebrew word for create is bara, which means “to make something out of that which does not exist previously.” In other words, God made everything from nothing. It wasn t that He refashioned material that already existed, but rather that He started “from scratch” when He spoke the worlds into existence. "

-John courson Bible application commentary

so in the context of genesis, yes bara would mean creation from nothing.
The Greeks have anciently held that the gods created the universe from existing material. For centuries this was the way it was.

Before Philo, a Jew living in the time of Christ, there was no explicit theory of creation out of nothing ever postulated by Jewish or Greek traditions.
Philo was the bridge between 'pre-existing material', and 'out of nothing' doctrines, by speculating that God always had in His mind the existence of the world and it's majesty. But God could not create anything that did not approach His perfect Self. Therefore, His Logos used as a model for the formation of the visable world, the pre-existing, unformed matter that was created in the mind of God. Opening the door for the doctrine of 'out of nothing'.

200 years later, religious scholars who are acquainted with Philo take his thoughts further, and to make their God more powerful than the Hebrew God and the Greek gods, they pronounced that God created ex nihilo.

The first creative power God expressed was to say, 'Let there be light'. But by that time the earth was in a formless glob, and there was water, and at least 2 other persons existed along with God. So Moses understood that God did not create things 'out of nothing'. The elements are eternal.

Yahweh made man out of the dust of the ground, so man was not made
'out of nothing'. The only thing that can be created 'out of nothing', is 'nothing'.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I have always had trouble with creation EX NIHILO -- I see nowhere in the Bible that God created out of nothing -- certainly not Man. In the opening of Genesis there was darkness -- there was water -- not NOTHING NOTHING

I have also been intrigued that the "creation" is a "re-creation" -- after the earth BECAME formless and void...

And that Man was to REPLENISH the earth -- I guess it had to have been previously plenished.
You and me both have a problem with EX NIHILO. You are on to something as you talk about replenish the earth. Interesting.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
i agree there is a big difference. the bible even mentions other gods, but only one Most High.

The term God or god doesn't have an etymological origin to it, in Germanic it is a term for Ghut, and proto-Germanic from Guthan. Hence, we don't see an origin as it is used similarly in older Babylon and Sumerian languages. Most high is generally an El term in wide sparsity concerning the Israelite's and other polytheistic cultures.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
"Male and female created He them"

Eve was made from Adam's rib

a rib is not "nothing"

'creation from nothing' is a man-made myth, and not biblical

You are incorrect, El does reference Most High in Israelite mythology. However, the creation epic of Adam and Eve is much later writ in the book of Genesis about 1700 bce or so.

Concerning El the Moody institute conducted a study on the use of Elohim as being masculine and not necessarily plural, we see the Elohim in some circumstances as plural, but it can be used in connotation as singular.

However El (Elohim) can be used as the Most High for reference.

El often bears the title, “Bull” (CAT 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22; 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, III 16, 17, 19, 21; 1.3 IV 54, V 10, 35; 1.4 I 4, II 10, III 31, IV 39, 47; 1.6 IV 10, VI 26, 26; cf. 1.128.7). In this connection, the personal name ’iltr, “El is Bull,” may be noted (4.607.32).37 Baal is presented as a bull-calf (1.5 V 17–21; 1.10 II–III, esp. III 33–37; cf. 1.11; see more later), and here we may note P. The characterization of the bull as the storm-god’s “attribute animal” in Syrian glyptic.

In this connection, the bull or bull-calf mentioned in the Bible may reflect the iconography associated with El and Baal. El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22).

Monotheism appears clearly in biblical texts dating to the sixth century, and it is possible to push back this date by a century depending on how the point is argued; in either case, monotheism seems to represent an inner-Israelite development over hundreds of years, not a feature known from Israel’s inception. While Polytheism, in contrast, is represented by many different bodies of texts from ancient Mesopotamian cities such as Assur and Babylon; many sites in Syria including the Bronze Age cities of Ebla, Ugarit, Mari, and Emar; and finally, early Israel itself as well as its Iron Age neighbors. The timing of the emergence of Israelite monotheism in the late Iron Age fits what has been called the “Axial Age” by the philosopher Karl Jaspers and his followers, a period in world history (ca. 800–200) that “witnessed the emergence of revolutionary new understandings of human understanding,” including the awareness of “the separation between transcendent and mundane spheres of reality.” This periodization of intellectual and spiritual horizons represents a broad generalization, but it illustrates how the religious worldview of early, pre-monotheistic Israel (ca. 1200–800) shares as much, if not more, with the religious outlook expressed in the texts from Ugarit (ca. 1350–1150) than with later Israel (ca. 800–200) and the monotheistic faith it eventually produced.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
The very definition of God, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere at once.....refutes it. If there was more than one God they would neither be everywhere at once, as they would share their real estate.

Then why your God needs messengers if he is everywhere ?
There is no proper equivalent of Sanskrit word Ishwara. I will give you a rough analogy -

Ishwar = God of Christianity minus the concept of Trinity minus the necessity to surrender to Jesus

Ishwar = Allah of Islam minus the necessity to accept Muhammad as final Prophet.

Now as for Gods , well the actual word is devatas . Devata refers to entities that are useful for us. But nowhere it is mentioned in Vedas that we should worship these entities. However we worship them to seek knowledge . Devata literally means one who gives / provides. Think of them as highly elevated intelligent aliens who live on a much higher plane of existence .

They would also share knowledge and neither would have all knowledge of all actions because some actions would be unique to both and without knowledge of each other.

>would share
>would have
>would be

Devta literally means one who shares / gives / provides knowledge . I have explained this already.

By the very definition of God...there is only one God. The great shema, Jews had it right. If there was more than one God, none of them would truly by definition, be God.

How are you so sure that God has no idols? Did God come and tell you? When,where? Do you have any video recording of the meeting? Or any other proof. I am sure you can’t answer above.Let us assume for a while that you are one of those rare cases who met God and verified His “non-idolness”. Did He then make you an Authorized Agent to snatch peace and happiness from lives of those who worship His idols? Can you show the exclusive Authorization Certificate that God gave you?


note: this is not a history, or Bible debate, it's solely based on logic. So please keep all posts on topic of logic, and not on the bible or on history.

Yeah lets talk some logic uwu. I will be quoting from revelation . However I can provide moar to prove that your God has a body .
"And when he had taken the book, the four beast and four and twenty elders ell down before the Lamb, having everyone of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of saints." (5:8.)

I wonder when Christ was not in heaven whom did these four beasts and twenty-four elders, etc., worship by burning incense and lighting lamps and offering food (eatable) performing arti.*Now the you condemn idol-worship, whilst your heaven is the veritable home of idolatry.

Arti is ceremony performed by idolators in adoration with a lamp.

Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple." (7:15.)


Is not this the crudest form of Idolatry. Does not it show that the Biblical God is localized and embodied like a man? It seems that the Christian God does not at all sleep during the night because had it not beeso, He would not have been worshiped during the night, or if He did sleep His sleep must have been very much disturbed during the night but if he worked day and night He must be very tired.


"And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer: and there was a given unto him much incense. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightenings, and earthquake." (8:3 - 5.)

Now even in (the Christian heaven) there is an altar, incense is burnt, lamps lighted, eatables offered, and trumpets sounded before the altar. Is their heaven in any way less ostentatious than a temple of idol worshippers? If anything, there is more pomp and show there.


"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angle stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein." (11:1.)

Let alone the earthly temples, even in the heaven of the Christians, temples of God are built and measured. Their teachings are illogical as their heaven. Take for instance the Lord's supper. In it the Christians eat bread and drink wine imagining them to be Christ's flesh and blood. Again, to keep images of the Cross in the Church is nothing short of Idol-worship.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Proud Pagan

Active Member
Oct 31, 2017
51
13
29
New Delhi
✟1,101.00
Country
India
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
In Relationship
IF God is powerful enough to create everything. Then He must have created the other Gods.


There are different planes of existence . And then english is indeed a funny where you could just add S to make it Gods . However , in Sanskrit One true God is called Ishwara . And there are various lokas that exist on much higher planes . The sanskrit term for these gods is devatas which means those who can give / provide . They are not Ishwara . They are just extremely elevated beings in both knowledge and power .

And thus those other Gods would be devoid of being the ultimate creator. And not be thus as powerful

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. (Genesis 1:1-2.)

What do you call the beginning?
 
Upvote 0