Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI believe that the "gods" are gods in a way similar to that in which false teeth are "teeth." They're not, really, but they look like teeth and they're used like teeth. It's convenient to call them "teeth," even if the one calling them teeth knows they aren't.
Ex.18:11
"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods."
Ex.23:24
"Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images."
Ex.23:32
"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods."
And others listed on the right at the SAB reference.
Of course, my view excludes a hyper-literalist reading, often preferred by skeptics and sometimes by Christians. Do you think it's a reasonable view?
9 edits
Originally posted by huntingbearYour analogy maintains an interesting but probably unintended characteristic of the original situation.
I believe that the "gods" are gods in a way similar to that in which false teeth are "teeth."
What makes the real teeth real and the false ones false? Essentially, it could be argued that it's because the real ones are yours and the false ones are foreign. Suppose I yanked out one of your real teeth and put it in my mouth? Would it then be a false tooth? I think it would be.
Similary, many view the Bible first as a collection of one people's account of their own view of their own god, as distinguished from foreign tribes and their gods. Of course from the Hebrew perspective, their god is the best -- who would worship an inferior god and believe that the god of a foreign tribe is superior?
From their perspecitve, I think they acknowledged that all people had gods they worshipped, just like we all have our own real teeth. I think they acknowledged that their god was no more real than that of any other tribe - I think they really did think of them all as being real gods. Of course, they did think theirs was the best - how could they think otherwise and still worship him over the others?
Similary, I don't dispute that you have real teeth in your mouth. But of course, I'd prefer to keep my own real teeth than substitute yours in for mine -- then I'd be worshiping a false god.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your analogy maintains an interesting but probably unintended characteristic of the original situation.
What makes the real teeth real and the false ones false? Essentially, it could be argued that it's because the real ones are yours and the false ones are foreign. Suppose I yanked out one of your real teeth and put it in my mouth? Would it t ...[text shortened]... keep my own real teeth than substitute yours in for mine -- then I'd be worshiping a false god.
..... and you could be making up nice and amusing stories about watchmakers and dentists ......
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI've heard the following mealy-mouthed explanation of that problematic Psalm:
For the three Exodus verses cited, yes, possibly.
I have trouble reconciling the Psalm with that view.
Ps.82:1
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods."
The assorted 'gods' are, in fact gods in any literal sense, but figurative. In
this case, the gods mentioned are powerful Jewish judges who exercised undue
authority. The reference to being 'sons of the Most High' is understood to be the
common reference to the chosen people of God, the children Israel who, although
judging and condeming as if they were gods, will die like all men (cf verses 6-7).
That Jewish judges were likened to gods is supported by the opening of Psalm 58
and, I have just discovered, St John 10:31-36, which reads:
The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him. Jesus answered them, 'I have shown
you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?'
The Jews answered him, 'We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy.
You, a man, are making yourself God.' Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your
law, "I said, 'You are gods?'" If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and
scripture cannot be set aside, can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated
and sent inot the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'
That judges had 'divine-like' authority is supported by Deuteronomy 1:17: 'In rendering
judgment, do not consider who a person is; give ear to the lowly and to the great alike,
fearing no man, for judgement is God's. Refer to me any case that is too hard and
I will hear it.' It is not clear to me exactly who is the referant of 'me' above, whether it
is Moses or God, but, either way, it is clear that the judges were held in extremely high
esteem.
That this justifies the interpretation of Psalm 82 -- that the author really meant 'like
gods' rather than 'gods' -- is not entirely a strong one, but it is what I have heard.
Here endeth the lesson. 😉
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleslol...the idea of weekly SAB studies really cracks me up for some reason.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html
According to the SAB, the God of Abraham frequently refers to himself as one god among many, particularly in Exodus. Is he mistaken in thinking that there are others in addition to himself?
Scribs continues to impress me with his level-headedness and his ability to mix insincerity with formality in just the right proportions.
regarding week 1 here: does this mean i should start saying "oh my godS!" instead of the more conventional?
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat insincerity do you observe here?
lol...the idea of weekly SAB studies really cracks me up for some reason.
Scribs continues to impress me with his level-headedness and his ability to mix insincerity with formality in just the right proportions.
regarding week 1 here: does this mean i should start saying "oh my godS!" instead of the more conventional?
Regarding your inquiry, if you're an RC (Right Columnist), then yes.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleswell, i should probably retract (and do hereby retract) what i said about your being insincere here because looking back at your posts thus far, you seem willing to promote a fair debate.
What insincerity do you observe here?
Regarding your inquiry, if you're an RC (Right Columnist), then yes.
i only meant that one could perceive your idea of weekly SA bible studies as having a clear agenda -- i think you probably know what i mean.
but to be clear: i am all for the SAB weekly studies, and i will try in the future to not clutter them up unless i have something substantive to say.
with that in mind: i think most of the references in the bible that refer to multiple gods fall into one of two categories:
1. they refer to man-made 'gods' which don't actually exist except in the minds of those who made them up.
2. many of the 'us' or 'we' references refer to people who have become part of heaven (army of angels, i guess). in this, i don't think the bible means to say they are gods, only that they are all beings on a higher spiritual plane.
in short, i am not convinced that the bible is contradictory on this subject of multiple gods.
(although if i were a fundamentalist, the SAB would be my worst nightmare i think)
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo the references to the God of Abraham fall in this category, or are those an exception? Does the Bible's text mean to say that gods of the tribes with which God's chosen people war exist only in the minds of those people, and that the God of Abraham is the only God that exists in a factual realm? I honestly don't get the impression that the text of Exodus attempts to convey that distinction.
with that in mind: i think most of the references in the bible that refer to multiple gods fall into one of two categories:
1. they refer to man-made 'gods' which don't actually exist except in the minds of those who made them up.
Originally posted by LemonJelloLemonJello: "..... his ability to mix insincerity with formality ....."
lol...the idea of weekly SAB studies really cracks me up for some reason.
Scribs continues to impress me with his level-headedness and his ability to mix insincerity with formality in just the right proportions.
regarding week 1 here: does this mean i should start saying "oh my godS!" instead of the more conventional?
Touché ! 😀
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf insincerity includes wanting to understand the Bible without first blindly accepting it as truth, or without a goal of eventually accepting it as truth, then you may call my SAB study insincere. I prefer to call it objective.
LemonJello: "..... his ability to mix insincerity with formality ....."
Touché ! 😀
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If insincerity includes wanting to understand the Bible without first blindly accepting it as truth, or without a goal of eventually accepting it as truth, then you may call my SAB study insincere. I prefer to call it objective.
Of course Doctor, my apologies ......
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesi need to do some more research to answer the bulk of your questions.
Do the references to the God of Abraham fall in this category, or are those an exception? Does the Bible's text mean to say that gods of the tribes with which God's chosen people war exist only in the minds of those people, and t ...[text shortened]... ssion that the text of Exodus attempts to convey that distinction.
but, for example, the SAB cites the quote "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." as evidence for the fact that the bible is saying there are multiple gods. i think this is ridiculous. rather than saying that there a whole bunch of gods running around, but 'God' is the only one you should worship, i think it's clear he is saying that for all these 'gods' that you worship you'll find they are powerless compared to me because they are all just figments of your imagination. and when he says that he will execute judment against 'all the gods' of egypt, i think he is just saying that he will demonstrate that he is the only true god, and the other 'gods' are just imaginary -- in the minds of the people.
i don't know -- these are my initial impressions. interestingly, i think the fundamentalist viewpoint is completely without merit. accordingly, when i try to put myself in the fundamentalist position and argue as such, i find it a pointless endeavor -- i always find it necessary to qualify with 'i think this is what it is saying' or 'i think it means this' or 'i'm not sure, but what i gather is...'.
still, i think the SAB is misleading at times.
i think part of the problem is how one defines whether or not a god exists. if a person worships a god that exists in their own mind, does that god 'exist'? i would say that this is not a sufficient condition for existence.