Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,871,431 times
Reputation: 4559
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Whoppers, be patient my friend. I was once like Vizio and Omega. I did not hear then but I sure listened later, if you know what I mean. On forums, it is all about ego and Saving Face. Chances are, you are not struggling with the knowledge you have. They are. This is why you are likely to find testimonials of former fundamentalist Christians who will admit that they know they were kicking against the Pricks when it came to knowledge like this being presented, but they just had a hard time letting go and had to kick and scream as much as they could. I was one of them.
After 2 years of being on a forum like this back in about 1999 and being a Vizio like type Christian, a lightbulb moment hit me after years of debating with a few very knowledgeable persons and one day without any kind of plan or warning, my fingers actually typed the first doubt about the Jesus myth. The rest is history. I think Shiloh had a similar experience right here on city data.
And THIS is why some of us keep bringing up various issues. Who knows which one will be the one that makes the light bulb go on? Or which series of commentary.
Whoppers, be patient my friend. I was once like Vizio and Omega. I did not hear then but I sure listened later, if you know what I mean. On forums, it is all about ego and Saving Face. Chances are, you are not struggling with the knowledge you have. They are. This is why you are likely to find testimonials of former fundamentalist Christians who will admit that they know they were kicking against the Pricks when it came to knowledge like this being presented, but they just had a hard time letting go and had to kick and scream as much as they could. I was one of them.
After 2 years of being on a forum like this back in about 1999 and being a Vizio like type Christian, a lightbulb moment hit me after years of debating with a few very knowledgeable persons and one day without any kind of plan or warning, my fingers actually typed the first doubt about the Jesus myth. The rest is history. I think Shiloh had a similar experience right here on city data.
Yes, thanks for the confirmation of what we suspected. It isn't about God or the Bible but about fighting for their own Ego and Face. I suspect that, since the God they believe in is the opinions and views in their own brain turned into a super being that confirms their correctness through Inspiration, which meanst they cannot admit to being in error, no matter what evidence is presented.
I'm not even sure I want to engage with this new poster. It is like Eusebius but even more ...beyond reasoning. Making faith claims and dickering about commas and demanding evidence from us that he is wrong. it would involve is endless dickering and bickering about trivial and irrelevant details that probably not even theists, let alone the general browsers could have any interest in, never mind that the Old Eusebius, never mind the copy that had come lurching down the streets of Jerusalem, was never able to accept facts let alone the implications. This Mind seems to be no more open and I think for the sake of my time and brain cells, I'm out.
Start here with this forum post: On the Hebrew Word Elohim, then come back to us. The subject of elohim has been exhaustively covered on this forum already, and by an actual scholar trained in that very subject. Catch up! Then you might not be called "clueless" and "ignorant".
Here s a quote from your expert, "While we speculate regarding the etymological root of the word elohim, nobody knows for sure where the word comes from, and there's really little reason to be concerned about that".
Knowing the etymology of a word is not critical. Knowing the meaning is the only critical thing and all scholar agree that the word means God and is the plural of Eloah. Most agree that it is a majestic plural but think about when it was used. At that time there wa only God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It isn't clear when God created angels but it does matter. They have no ability to create anything.
It doesn't bother me when ignorant and rude people call me ignorant. It is like the playground in the third grade. It speaks much more of them than it does me.
It is amusing to me that some do not have the ability to discuss a subject without being rude. Usually it just reveals their true character and their lack of real knowledge on the subject.
And THIS is why some of us keep bringing up various issues. Who knows which one will be the one that makes the light bulb go on? Or which series of commentary.
Don't rise to it, mate. Where he loses in valid facts, he gains in challenging you to force him to accept them. I always found it best to leave it to others, because that's really what it is all about, and leaveing him shouting "I win" to an audience that knows he lost, is a bit of a hoot. Now back to the Elohim debate...if anyone even cares.
Whoppers, be patient my friend. I was once like Vizio and Omega. I did not hear then but I sure listened later, if you know what I mean. On forums, it is all about ego and Saving Face. Chances are, you are not struggling with the knowledge you have. They are. This is why you are likely to find testimonials of former fundamentalist Christians who will admit that they know they were kicking against the Pricks when it came to knowledge like this being presented, but they just had a hard time letting go and had to kick and scream as much as they could. I was one of them.
After 2 years of being on a forum like this back in about 1999 and being a Vizio like type Christian, a lightbulb moment hit me after years of debating with a few very knowledgeable persons and one day without any kind of plan or warning, my fingers actually typed the first doubt about the Jesus myth. The rest is history. I think Shiloh had a similar experience right here on city data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
And THIS is why some of us keep bringing up various issues. Who knows which one will be the one that makes the light bulb go on? Or which series of commentary.
Yes, you're right - both of you. I know. I forget. I lose patience more quickly lately. I suppose I'm torn. I wish some could just leap to where the interesting stuff is, not the old tired stuff heh heh! But there is a learning process. I was a Fundamentalist as well, but this was pre-internet (I'm an antique) and the opportunity to annoy people was limited by having to deal with them face to face! The internet... it makes giants of us all, in our own minds. Transponder, you point this out in your first paragraph here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yes, thanks for the confirmation of what we suspected. It isn't about God or the Bible but about fighting for their own Ego and Face. I suspect that, since the God they believe in is the opinions and views in their own brain turned into a super being that confirms their correctness through Inspiration, which meanst they cannot admit to being in error, no matter what evidence is presented.
I'm not even sure I want to engage with this new poster. It is like Eusebius but even more ...beyond reasoning. Making faith claims and dickering about commas and demanding evidence from us that he is wrong. it would involve is endless dickering and bickering about trivial and irrelevant details that probably not even theists, let alone the general browsers could have any interest in, never mind that the Old Eusebius, never mind the copy that had come lurching down the streets of Jerusalem, was never able to accept facts let alone the implications. This Mind seems to be no more open and I think for the sake of my time and brain cells, I'm out.
Yes, as I think I sensed: he is searching for a pulpit, not a forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Don't rise to it, mate. Where he loses in valid facts, he gains in challenging you to force him to accept them. I always found it best to leave it to others, because that's really what it is all about, and leaveing him shouting "I win" to an audience that knows he lost, is a bit of a hoot. Now back to the Elohim debate...if anyone even cares.
I am torn - see what Insane and Cupper pointed out. There is good in that. But there is also a power that you give to radical Fundamentalists when you acknowledge that any of their concerns are worth considering. They excused themselves from the ongoing religious/philosophical discourse that has been happening for hundreds of years, by their very creation little over a hundred years ago.
Here s a quote from your expert, "While we speculate regarding the etymological root of the word elohim, nobody knows for sure where the word comes from, and there's really little reason to be concerned about that".
Knowing the etymology of a word is not critical. Knowing the meaning is the only critical thing and all scholar agree that the word means God and is the plural of Eloah. Most agree that it is a majestic plural but think about when it was used.
Especially since the Hebrews WERE Canaanites, and indigenous to the area.
That is definitely the prevailing theory nowadays. The previous theories of a) peaceful semi-nomadic infiltration, b) violent conquest or c) internal revolution have given way to the current model of a peaceful internal origin. An excellent summary (as well as being pertinent to the overall subject) can be found in Robert K. Gnuse's chapter on "New Understandings of the Israelite Settlement Process" in No Other Gods - Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT 241, 1997 Sheffield). It's now 20 years old, but still an extremely valuable work. For those fond of M. Smith's works on Israelite Monotheism, Gnuse is also excellent.
There are very little markers to tell Israelites apart from Canaanites before 1200 BCE. The language and script was virtually the same, the material archaeological remains are the same, and even the religion is virtually the same (for a quick summary with an emphasis on the shared religious traits, see M. Smith: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, pp. 19-31, 2002, Eerdmans 2nd ed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
As such, the biblical stories were developed to present a history and a culture, one that made the Hebrews superior to the other Canaanites. Hence the Moses story, the Egypt one, and all the battles. No doubt, there were some internal battles with other Canaanites that the Hebrews broke off from, but not the ones that the bible presents.
Yes, there are some quite complex theories flying around on some of the internal relationships. Recently, Thomas Romer has lectured (and now published) on the possible Southern introduction of Yahweh to the Israelite tribes (of course expanding on previous scholars works). See The Invention of God (2015, Harvard). This has importance for the Egyptian and Mosaic traditions found in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
It's like having a Beaver and a Dene Tha'(Canadian native tribes) telling you the story of their history. The animosity exists even to today.
Yes, you're right - both of you. I know. I forget. I lose patience more quickly lately. I suppose I'm torn. I wish some could just leap to where the interesting stuff is, not the old tired stuff heh heh! But there is a learning process. I was a Fundamentalist as well, but this was pre-internet (I'm an antique) and the opportunity to annoy people was limited by having to deal with them face to face! The internet... it makes giants of us all, in our own minds. Transponder, you point this out in your first paragraph here:
Yes, as I think I sensed: he is searching for a pulpit, not a forum.
I am torn - see what Insane and Cupper pointed out. There is good in that. But there is also a power that you give to radical Fundamentalists when you acknowledge that any of their concerns are worth considering. They excused themselves from the ongoing religious/philosophical discourse that has been happening for hundreds of years, by their very creation little over a hundred years ago.
"Think of the children!"
"Choose your battles"
We have to think about what we are doing here or hoping to do. Eusebius was great at getting us to check everything and I learned so much. We were able to make better cases and whether he accepted the facts or not didn't matter.
If that's not happening (and Random Factors knows, I spent too much time trying to get the last word backchat ) then better maybe to do something else, here. Expose the ignorance of Creationist politicians. Right now that might be the best you can do for your country. Mine is already Done For.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,871,431 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
That is definitely the prevailing theory nowadays. The previous theories of a) peaceful semi-nomadic infiltration, b) violent conquest or c) internal revolution have given way to the current model of a peaceful internal origin. An excellent summary (as well as being pertinent to the overall subject) can be found in Robert K. Gnuse's chapter on "New Understandings of the Israelite Settlement Process" in No Other Gods - Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT 241, 1997 Sheffield). It's now 20 years old, but still an extremely valuable work. For those fond of M. Smith's works on Israelite Monotheism, Gnuse is also excellent.
There are very little markers to tell Israelites apart from Canaanites before 1200 BCE. The language and script was virtually the same, the material archaeological remains are the same, and even the religion is virtually the same (for a quick summary with an emphasis on the shared religious traits, see M. Smith: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, pp. 19-31, 2002, Eerdmans 2nd ed).
Yes, there are some quite complex theories flying around on some of the internal relationships. Recently, Thomas Romer has lectured (and now published) on the possible Southern introduction of Yahweh to the Israelite tribes (of course expanding on previous scholars works). See The Invention of God (2015, Harvard). This has importance for the Egyptian and Mosaic traditions found in the Bible.
Ah, that's a good example. Israel, Edom, Moab...
Thanks for the reply. I wish Edgar (Eusi or Omega or whatever handle he will have tomorrow) would do a little research and reading. He won't. These are great references.
See my note above in the entry from DDD. Before you set out to offer examples "proving" your view, make sure your view is at least built upon a foundation that acknowledges what we know about the term ʾĕlōhîm in the Bible and other cognate languages.
What do you think Elohim means that I do not understand. For Biblical purposes, all I need to understand is that it is a plural noun. Then it is necessary to know why God used a plural noun for one of His names. What does that teach us. IMO it points to the Trinity. If you don't accept that, that's fine with me. In a forum, everyone, gets to express what they believe and why their believe it.
[quote]As Insane pointed out, your reponse is not only theologically and ideologically suspect, but I would add that it is ignorant, since it ignores the basics. A theory built on shaky basics cannot sustain itself, except through special pleading. [quote]
Those are comments based on one thing. You think your view is right and mine is not. You have not offered any reasons why I am wrong. Same with Insane. Don't tell me my view is ignorant, show me. Otherwise all you are doing is pontificating. What basics am I ignoring? Why are they basics? What qualifies you to make such determinations? So far you have not impressed me as an expert in the subject of this discussion. Why should I take your word that my view is ignorant and yous is not?
What is your view? You have not mentioned that yet , but I need to know so I can evaluate it. The chances are I will disagree with your view, but I will tell you why. I may say it is wrong, but I will not call it ignorant and I will tell you why.
Quote:
Yes, indeed - the classic apologetic for the plural nature of ʾĕlōhîm! We've heard this a million times, and in that million times of repetition it hasn't gotten any more convincing, has it?
Maybe that is because he lacks understanding of the basics.
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-06-2016 at 10:44 AM..
Reason: Fixed another incorrect quote tag
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I think for the sake of my time and brain cells, I'm out.
Transponder, you point this out in your first paragraph here: 
) then better maybe to do something else, here. Expose the ignorance of Creationist politicians. Right now that might be the best you can do for your country. Mine is already Done For.
