It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Read the bible and use your brain, it will clearly be shown that the bible is a story of ET intervention. You will realize this unless you are so selfishly afraid of going to hell, and the devil poking you with his pitchfork, that you will remain dedicated to your religious willful ignorance and deny the obvious truth.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by vaelamin
I think the term God is used as a metaphor in this case. Many people can have many different Gods. If you bow down and worship an Elvis statue then that is essentialy your God, although not A God. God is saying not to worship anything other than him. Alcohol, drugs, pornography, and any other vice, addictive or not can be considered one's God if their life revolves around such things.
Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by vaelamin
Personally i believe there is one true God... and many Entities masquerading as him...
As you can see within the pages of the bible, and many other religious texts as well
in the Greek Septuagint, Hebrew elohim with a plural verb, or with implied plural context, was rendered either angeloi ("angels") or pros to kriterion tou Theou ("before the judgement of God"). These passages then entered first the Latin Vulgate, then the English King James Version as "angels" and "judges", respectively. From this came the result that James Strong, for example, listed "angels" and "judges" as possible meanings for elohim with a plural verb in his Strong's Concordance, and the same is true of many other 17th-20th Century reference works. Both Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon list both angels and judges as possible alternative meanings of elohim with plural verbs and adjectives. However, the reliability of the Septuagint translation in this matter has been questioned by some. In the case of Gesenius, he lists the meaning without agreeing with it. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg published the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible text never uses elohim to refer to "angels", but that the Septuagint translators refused the references to "gods" in the verses they amended to "angels."
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by CaptainNemo
. . . There are 70 other gods to be exact . . .
Here's where I posted my list of the Gods of the Old Testament-
I have 42, while stretching the definition of "god" a little.
Who are the other 28 gods?
Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number 70 in Deuteronomy 32:8 - and have furnished powerful ammunition to textual scholars who argued against the "sons of Israel" reading in MT. Ugaritic mythology plainly states that the head of its pantheon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon, the "Most High") fathered 70 sons,10 thereby setting the number of the "sons of El" (Ugaritic, bn )il ). An unmistakable linguistic parallel with the Hebrew text underlying the LXX reading was thus discovered, one which prompted many scholars to accept the LXX reading on logical and philological grounds: God (El Elyon in Deut. 32:8) divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings who already existed from the time of creation.11 The coherence of this explanation notwithstanding, some commentators resist the LXX reading, at least in part because they fear that an acceptance of the Myhl) /Myl) ynb (bny )lym / )lhym ) readings (both of which may be translated “sons of gods”) somehow requires assent to the notion that Yahweh is the author of polytheism. This apprehension thus prompts text-critical defenses of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8, such as that of David L. Stevens.12 This author contends that the choice of MT in Deuteronomy 32:8 is based on a misunderstanding of both the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and text-critical methodology, prejudiced evaluation of non-MT texts, and an unfounded concern that departure from the MT reading results in “Israelite polytheism.” The primary goal of the present article is to show that understanding "sons of God" as the correct reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 in no way requires one to view Israelite religion as polytheistic. Toward that end, some selected comments on the text-critical issues are necessary.
"Let's get the academic stuff out of the way first. I have an M.A. and Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. My dissertation was entitled, "The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature" (English translation: the dissertation dealt with the presence of a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible and the binitarian nature of ancient Israelite religion and Judaism, a backdrop for the the belief in the deity of Christ in the New Testament). Before going to the UW-Madison, I also earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields, Ancient Syria-Palestine and Egyptology). I can do translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, among them Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Phoenician, Moabite, Ugaritic cuneiform, and Klingon (just kidding there). I have also studied Akkadian and Sumerian independently. All that but I have difficulty understanding my wife (she'd vouch for that).
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by vaelamin
'And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.' (Exodus 12:12)
Why would the Lord waste his time bringing judgement to statues?
Remember Pharoahs were considered gods too.edit on 21-2-2012 by saint4God because: (no reason given)
I was going to say that Baal-hermon was the same as Baal-Zaphon, but then I noticed that I had forgotten to add that to my list. Baal-meon is the name of a town of Reuben.
As far as I've gotten in the Old Testament, I can add 2 more to your list. Baal-hermon and Baal-meon (Chronicles 5).
Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by saint4God
It's clear. It is a possible corruption of his words. I do not believe that Jesus represents this God. This God is CLEARLY not benevolent and only cared about the people of Israel, because of this alliance.
Now either Jesus does not represent this God or Jesus is ONLY speaking for the people of Israel when he was alive and preaching.
I fail to understand how people who read the bible think it pertains to the people of the whole planet when it is clear it is directed only at the people of Israel.
edit on 21-2-2012 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)
Where there are wide and significant textual divergencies between MT and the LXX, many textual studies have shown that the Qumran witnesses demonstrate the reliability of the transmission of the Hebrew text underlying the LX
Originally posted by Deetermined
Here's an explanation for the "gods" in Psalm 82:1-6:
The most reasonable explanation is the view most widely held over the centuries. The “gods” referred to in Psalm 82:1 and 6 are the rulers of Israel, who have failed to carry out their responsibilities as God’s representatives in the ruling of the nation. Several lines of evidence support this interpretation: (1) The way elohim is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The term elohim almost always refers to the one and only God, the God of Israel (Deut. 4:35,39). It sometimes refers to the so-called “gods” of the heathen (e.g. Judg. 11:24; 1 Kings 18:24). The term also occasionally identifies “… rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power …” Several passages may use elohim in this sense:
Originally posted by Deetermined
Who was Ba'al?
Baʿal (Biblical Hebrew בעל, pronounced [ˈbaʕal], usually spelled Baal in English) is a Northwest Semitic title and honorific meaning "master" or "lord" that is used for various gods who were patrons of cities in the Levant and Asia Minor, cognate to Akkadian Bēlu. A Baalist or Baalite means a worshipper of Baal. "Baʿal" can refer to any god and even to human officials; in some texts it is used as a substitute for Hadad, a god of the rain, thunder, fertility and agriculture, and the lord of Heaven. Since only priests were allowed to utter his divine name, Hadad, Ba‛al was commonly used. Nevertheless, few if any Biblical uses of "Baʿal" refer to Hadad, the lord over the assembly of gods on the holy mount of Heaven, but rather refer to any number of local spirit-deities worshipped as cult images, each called baʿal and regarded in the Hebrew Bible in that context as a false god.
Plus, we all know from mythology, that there was a "god" created to explain everything that they couldn't understand, whether it was the God of Thunder, God of Fertility, etc. until they (not all) realized that there was one true God in control of everything.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.Job 1:6
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"
And what does your Bible say about "mythology" or imaginary gods? The contemporary view of mythology isn't based on the bible, actually it's completely contrary to it hahahaha. Obviously the ancient Isrealites didn't view these gods as imaginary. People were in the presence of gods back then, they KILLED people. They had to exercise their power because anything short of it and the people wouldn't have believed they were gods. If your going to argue the Bible argue it with the Bible.
I think Lucifer is the same as Satan. Lucifer is known as the morning star. Jesus or Yeshua is also called the morning star in revelations. Perhaps morning star was just a title and seeing as how Lucifer was God's favorite son but would fall, can we say that the title morning star was just recycled to Jesus ? Now Jesus is the new favorite son and asks his father to be born onto the Earth. Satan was the accuser and interceded or spoke on the behalf of God to the people of Earth like he did in job, kind of like Jesus right? I like this view, the idea of a binitarian power in heaven was traced all the way back to the second Jewish temple: