What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

[Greg1234]

Understand that alhim

Elohim

Sure, these gods were mortal.They need to perform or perish

like mere men. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

.They are NOT secure.All the more Reason to suspect yahweh could be one of those smaller gods

Lord

Lol.Yahweh had no role to play it seems.Jews were driven out of Israel by various people contrary to Yahweh's promise that the Land is Theirs forever.

Ownership

 

[GrayAngel]

Seems the Psalms doesn't make any distinction between real and unreal gods.The word in hebrew is the same.

1. I dove in the water, taking refuge in the safe cage below. There I saw it circle me. The man eating shark.

2. I entered the restaurant, looking for the man with the rose. There I saw him, sitting at the table in the back. The man eating shark.

Is the man eating the shark, or does the shark eat men? The same words have different meaning. The context changes the meaning.

From the context of this verse you've selected, the context is clear. What you're doing is the equivalent of trying to claim that the second sentence above describes a shark that is sitting at the table.

Understand that alhim the hebrew word never means King or Kings.

Sure, these gods were mortal.They need to perform or perish.They are NOT secure.All the more Reason to suspect yahweh could be one of those smaller gods since jealousy comes out of insecurity.

1. Gods are never mortal. Dionysus, the son of Zeus, was torn to pieces and eaten by the Olympians. But Zeus took the heart and was able to give Dionysus a second birth. This is the main perk to being a god: you cannot die. But the fact that these "gods" will die "like any other ruler" tells you they're not genuine deities. Only the God is described as being everlasting.

2. God's jealousy is not a sign of insecurity. Jealousy is the emotion reaction to having something that belongs to you taken away. It's similar to righteous anger. Neither of which cloud God's judgement or make Him weak.

3. You're assuming that God is counseling these "gods" for His own benefit. Did you ever consider it might have been the other way around? No one is smarter than God. God already knows everything. But we council with God through prayer for our own benefit.

Lol.Yahweh had no role to play it seems.Jews were driven out of Israel by various people contrary to Yahweh's promise that the Land is Theirs forever. The Jews had to Buy the Land and declare it as a nation and had to Live under constant threat of suicide Bombers.

God never promised that Israel wouldn't have problems. In fact, there's an entire book where God is telling one man how He will use Israel's enemies to conquer and humble the Jews. Yet, Israel still stands. Even after the mighty Egyptian and Roman empires crumbled, humble little Israel still stands. No one can kill them. They've always been there, and they will remain there until the end-times.

No difference in what i quoted and what you brought here.

Why do you think the ineptness was NOT shared By Yahweh?, especially since he promises them the land.

Judges 1:1-2

1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who of us is to go up first to fight against the Canaanites?” 2 The LORD answered, “Judah shall go up; I have given the land into their hands.

There's a big difference between what your version says and what mine says.

Yours puts the blame on God, as if He is too weak to defeat the iron chariots. Mine put the ineptitude on Judah.

Yours implies that God was unable to defeat the iron chariots, implying that He was too weak. Mine puts the ineptitude on Judah, and it implies that God didn't want Judah to fight that battle.

It reminds me of Paul, who wanted to go to Asia to spread the Gospel, but God prevented him. God doesn't just provide victory, He also provides roadblocks to lead us in the right direction.

i see that you have removed the genesis verse i quoted.Perhaps i was incorrect in assuming that Jews were given promise to rule Egypt.

Let us see the verse again.

genesis/15-18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto your descendants have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

So, where is this Land?.

It does not look to me like a promise that Israel would own the land of Egypt. Looking at the maps, it seems to be referring the the area on the other side of the "river of Egypt" as as a dividing line. Also, there is some disagreement as to what the "river of Egypt" is actually referring to.

This was Israel after the reign of King David.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Actually, the historicity of David is debatable. Going solely by archaeological evidence, there's virtually no material dating from David's time (or even close to it) that would substantiate the Biblical account.

 

[GrayAngel]

Actually, the historicity of David is debatable. Going solely by archaeological evidence, there's virtually no material dating from David's time (or even close to it) that would substantiate the Biblical account.

If you want to debate the historical accuracy of the Bible, that's a different discussion. Rationalt has trying to argue from a Biblical standpoint, attempting to prove that the Hebrews did not believe in one all-powerful god, but in multiple gods. Going on the Bible alone, we see that God's every prediction comes true. He is never wrong.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Going on the Bible alone, we see that God's every prediction comes true. He is never wrong.

Which predictions are these?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrayAngel]

Which predictions are these?


eudaimonia,

Mark

You want a list?

Leviticus 26:44 says that Israel would never be completely destroyed. It's still there.

Daniel 9:24-26 predicts the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, also speaking of the "Anointed One" would be "cut off" beforehand. This was fulfilled at about 70 AD. The city has been rebuilt, but the temple is still in ruins. Jesus would later repeat this prophecy, which is one of the reasons He was on trial.

Nahum prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed (1:9, 3:19) and wouldn't be able to recover. It also predicts that their men would scatter and run instead of fight (3:17), and that they would be drunk at the time (1:10). All of this occurred in 612 BC.

Ezekiel 29:15 predicted that Egypt would become weak and would no longer rule over nations.

Ezekiel also wrote that the Jews would take vengeance on Edom (25:14). This prophecy was written somewhere between 593 and 571 BC, and it came true around 100 BC.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Leviticus 26:44 says that Israel would never be completely destroyed. It's still there.

Daniel 9:24-26 predicts the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, also speaking of the "Anointed One" would be "cut off" beforehand. This was fulfilled at about 70 AD. The city has been rebuilt, but the temple is still in ruins. Jesus would later repeat this prophecy, which is one of the reasons He was on trial.

Nahum prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed (1:9, 3:19) and wouldn't be able to recover. It also predicts that their men would scatter and run instead of fight (3:17), and that they would be drunk at the time (1:10). All of this occurred in 612 BC.

Ezekiel 29:15 predicted that Egypt would become weak and would no longer rule over nations.

Ezekiel also wrote that the Jews would take vengeance on Edom (25:14). This prophecy was written somewhere between 593 and 571 BC, and it came true around 100 BC.

And that's every single prediction made by God?

 

[GrayAngel]

And that's every single prediction made by God?

Not all of them. I've got other things to do, you know... Google it. -_-

 

[Eudaimonist]

Leviticus 26:44 says that Israel would never be completely destroyed. It's still there.

It isn't "still" there. It was reestablished in 1948. Israel was completely destroyed.

Tell me, if Israel were to be destroyed again as a nation, would you regard the prophesy as false?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrayAngel]

It isn't "still" there. It was reestablished in 1948. Israel was completely destroyed.

Tell me, if Israel were to be destroyed again as a nation, would you regard the prophesy as false?


eudaimonia,

Mark

If it was reestablished, that means that it wasn't destroyed completely. If the same thing happened again, the prophecy would still be true.

It may not, however, guarantee the safety of Israel in the end-times. I'm still not sure what's supposed to happen, just that Israel would be surrounded by enemies on all sides.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If it was reestablished, that means that it wasn't destroyed completely.

Er... no?
If somebody was to re-name Italy the Roman Empire, that still wouldn't mean that the Empire was never destroyed and Rome never sacked by Vandals and Goths. It'd just mean that it was re-established.

If the same thing happened again, the prophecy would still be true.

How could it ever be wrong, then, even potentially? Apparently, even utter destruction doesn't qualify as "being destroyed completely".

 

[GrayAngel]

Er... no?
If somebody was to re-name Italy the Roman Empire, that still wouldn't mean that the Empire was never destroyed and Rome never sacked by Vandals and Goths. It'd just mean that it was re-established.


How could it ever be wrong, then, even potentially? Apparently, even utter destruction doesn't qualify as "being destroyed completely".

Remember that Daniel said that the city would be destroyed? If you put both together you get: God will let harm come onto the city, but Israel will always recover.

Of course, it is possible that Jerusalem could have been destroyed and never come back. There are countless nations that have been dissolved or annihilated and never recovered. But the fact that Israel is around today is a fulfillment of scripture.

Try approaching the Bible, as you often do, as a fictional work. In the book, Israel endured a lot, and at the end of the story, it was still standing. Would you say that God was wrong? If so, that makes Him omnipotent, not a weak god.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If so, that makes Him omnipotent, not a weak god.

No, it only makes Him as strong as the nation builders in forties who knew of the prophesy and had decided to help it along.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrayAngel]

No, it only makes Him as strong as the nation builders in forties who knew of the prophesy and had decided to help it along.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So Nineveh decided to help along the prophecy by getting themselves drunk, then begging their enemies to destroy them with fire as they ran away?

Prophecies don't come true because people help them along. Abraham thought he could when he slept with his maidservant, but the son produced was not the son God promised him. Prophecy is destiny. You can't make it wrong, even if you tried.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So Nineveh decided to help along the prophecy by getting themselves drunk, then begging their enemies to destroy them with fire as they ran away?

Has it occurred to you that these narratives might have been written down after the event "prophecied" therein?

Kinda like the way the gospels seized upon the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple only after the event had already taken place?

 

[GrayAngel]

Has it occurred to you that these narratives might have been written down after the event "prophecied" therein?

Kinda like the way the gospels seized upon the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple only after the event had already taken place?

Considering how the question is of the perceptions belonging to the Hebrews of God, whether or not the prophecy was written after the fact is irrelevant. However, many of these prophecies were written hundreds of years before their fulfillment, such as the one that predicted the Jews would have revenge against Edom. At the time, Israel was under the rule of Babylon, and the prophecy didn't come true until nearly six hundred years after, after they were free.

 

[Rationalt]

Yours puts the blame on God, as if He is too weak to defeat the iron chariots. Mine put the ineptitude on Judah.

Yours implies that God was unable to defeat the iron chariots, implying that He was too weak. Mine puts the ineptitude on Judah, and it implies that God didn't want Judah to fight that battle.

The first two verses of Judges say yahweh instructs Judah to fight for occupying cananites lands since he Gave them.It is funny you studiously remove the verses and give your own interpretation.

It does not look to me like a promise that Israel would own the land of Egypt. Looking at the maps, it seems to be referring the the area on the other side of the "river of Egypt" as as a dividing line. Also, there is some disagreement as to what the "river of Egypt" is actually referring to.

This was Israel after the reign of King David.

The Possesion is forever says Yahweh.

Exodus 32:13 ...and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Inherit it forever; That is the key promise.

Now, tell me what are those promised lands.Let us start with Palestine.

 

[Tobias]

Not to mention, that there is a big difference between when David conquered neighboring countries and made them pay tribute (as per the map); and the original requirement that ALL of the Canaanites had to be killed so that those who are the descendants of Abraham could live in the land. For boarders to actually be considered the land of Israel, wouldn't all the former inhabitants have to be completely eradicated?