Logicboy03:

What? Plaetton is married?

Yeahhhhhhhhhhh.

plaetton:


Yeahhhhhhhhhhh.

To be honest, I thought you were a very young guy.

I'm surprised!

Did you marry an atheist or a believer?

Mr_Anony:
the arguments look legit yes but they are not his arguments. They are copypaste. Beyond the information available to him on wikipedia etc, he really has nothing. I am challenging him to go further, he cannot but he is happy to paste more stuff.

He is like someone who sees the formula for solving quadratic equations and solved examples on wikipedia and he can speak with some authority as long as he only cites the solved examples he has seen. When challenged to go a step further by citing different quadratic problems, he is lost because he never really understood the equations in the first place.

It is quite insulting when someone who really doesn't know the bible tries to argue the bible armed with information from wikipedia.

The bolded is as silly as it can get.
What the F...(excuse my language) is there to know in the bible except by READING IT?
I, you, everyone gets to know the bible by READING it.
It is not a spiritual thing.

I, you, everyone quotes from google, wiki, etc, first, to show to all that the information being presented is not my personal opinion.

If I make a statement for example, that yahweh/El-Shaddai was worshipped along with other gods in Cannaan, without citing any source, you, especially you, would jump for my neck. Not so?
Therefore it is very necessary for me, you, and everyone else to cite google and wiki in order to show that our statements are not mere personal opinions or conjectures.

Stop being a hypocrite.

plaetton: [/b]

The bolded is as silly as it can get.
What the F...(excuse my language) is there to know in the bible except by READING IT?
I, you, everyone gets to know the bible by READING it.
It is not a spiritual thing.

I, you, everyone quotes from google, wiki, etc, first, to show to all that the information being presented is not my personal opinion.

If I make a staetment for example, that yahweh/El-Shaddai was worshipped along with other gods in Cannaan, without citing any source, you, especially you, would jump for my neck. Not so?
therefore it very necessary for me, you, and everyone else to cite google and wiki show that our statements are not mere personal opinions or conjectures.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Abeg, ask him what qualifies him as a bible scholar?

Anony the Arrogant hypo....

Logicboy03:



To be honest, I thought you were a very young guy.

I'm surprised!

Did you marry an atheist or a believer?

A believer, but she knew of my lack religious spirit right from the beginning.
She even found it very intruiging. My luck.


Finding a beautiful agnostic woman in Nigeria is very difficult , an athiest woman, almost imposible.

truthislight:

@ Anony

you had finish work here when you did ask plaeton to show from other write up a reference to Yahweh in their text to proof that other nations did know who Yahweh was.

What you are doing here is to "give him a ride"

Thank you very much sir.

plaetton:

He he he. Bravo Mr Anony.
unlike you, I am ever willing to concede and give credit when it is due. So you are right, deut.32:1-44 was a song according to the bible.
But the entire book of Deut. is not a song, we know where the song began and when it ended.
So good for you, and I humbly appologize.

But what was your point. Deut. 32:8-9 was a part of a song by moses and should therefore not be taken seriously and disregarded?
Is that your point?

It amuses me when you play these games. I have seen you do it so many times.
You come out for a debate and the first thing you do is to give your opponent an assignment to before you can marshal out your position.
I find them to be very childish games you can play with sunday school children, not with adults in a debate or discussion.

It seems that your M/O is to set a trap in the form of your silly games and if your opponent just happens to trip on it, then bingo, you claim victory?

It is almost as delusional as your blind faith religion.

Where is your argument? Where is the beef?

So I am not an expert in the Ugarith text.
So what? Did I claim so, and am I expected to be?
Do I need some kind of spiritual understanding or scriptural reasoning (lol) to understand the english translations?

A reasonable adult, first and foremost, argues from common sense, then whenever necessary, may quote or cite from other established sources to support his/her position.
Your job, as my opponent , is to showcase your common sense argument, and then, suppliment your argument by either repudiating my sources or citing your own superior ones.
Your apparent irritation and personal attack on me rather than make your own argument is a sure, but shameful way to say that you really have no arguments.
A debate is not a game where you begin to sulk like a child when your opponent refuses to play your game your way.

As I said earlier, the fact that it is a song is not the issue. It is what the song is about that matters. You have applied a particular type of interpretation to only two lines of the song. All I have asked is that you interpret the whole song in the light of your "new found knowledge" so that we can have a coherent reading.

If you say that the song refers to two persons instead of one then please show the two persons in the whole of the song. Don't just cut out two verses and make a claim. That is what I have asked you to do. Where you fail to do this, we will then write off your claim as nonsense. . . .and then move on.

plaetton: [/b]

The bolded is as silly as it can get.
What the F...(excuse my language) is there to know in the bible except by READING IT?
I, you, everyone gets to know the bible by READING it.
It is not a spiritual thing.

I, you, everyone quotes from google, wiki, etc, first, to show to all that the information being presented is not my personal opinion.

If I make a statement for example, that yahweh/El-Shaddai was worshipped along with other gods in Cannaan, without citing any source, you, especially you, would jump for my neck. Not so?
Therefore it is very necessary for me, you, and everyone else to cite google and wiki in order to show that our statements are not mere personal opinions or conjectures.

Stop being a hypocrite.

My point exactly!
The bible is so easy to read, why not read it? You have not read and understood the bible that you were criticizing. And worse still, you are not even willing to actually read it.

I even went a step further to post the whole of chapter 32 for you to read but you ignored it and kept arguing blindlywith me until I had to paste the text of verse 44 separately before you shut up.

I am not complaining that you use wikipedia, my grouse with you is your unwillingness to go further than wikipedia in the subject you set out to criticize. You have only shown willful ignorance.

Please attend to my task and let's move on to your subsequent "points"(that's if they even deserve to be called points)

Mr_Anony:
My point exactly!
The bible is so easy to read, why not read it? You have not read and understood the bible that you were criticizing. And worse still, you are not even willing to actually read it.

I even went a step further to post the whole of chapter 32 for you to read but you ignored it and kept arguing blindlywith me until I had to paste the text of verse 44 separately before you shut up.

I am not complaining that you use wikipedia, my grouse with you is your unwillingness to go further than wikipedia in the subject you set out to criticize. You have only shown willful ignorance.

Please attend to my task and let's move on to your subsequent "points"(that's if they even deserve to be called points)

Tasks? Silly.
You just dont get it.
keep waiting then for your sunday school children.
When you grow up, let me know.

I have fully and solidly proved ancient hebrew polytheism, without even addressing so many other points.
If your blind faith is blocking this revelation, well, what can little old me do for you?

plaetton:

A believer, but she knew of my lack religious spirit right from the beginning.
She even found it very intruiging. My luck.


Finding a beautiful agnostic woman in Nigeria is very difficult , an athiest woman, almost imposible.

Good for you!


I am happy you could find someone that accepted you for who you are!


That is all what atheist want. We just want to live our lives free from oppression like everyone else. I wouldnt be bashing religion if religion didnt bash me in the first place

Logicboy03:



Good for you!


I am happy you could find someone that accepted you for who you are!


That is all what atheist want. We just want to live our lives free from oppression like everyone else. I wouldnt be bashing religion if religion didnt bash me in the first place

Yes indeed.
Despite our heated debates on this forum, In real life I have never judged ,disrespected nor mistreated anyone on the basis of their religious belief.
I despise religion, especially those who feed fat on it. I see all as just human beings, majority of whom are just victims of the political or financial mechinations of a rapacious El-ite.

Interestingly, my wife's church members seem to have a bigger problem with me than she does.

plaetton:

Yes indeed.
Despite our heated debates on this forum, In real life I have never judged ,disrespected nor mistreated anyone on the basis of their religious belief.
I despise religion, especially those who feed fat on it. I see all as just human beings, majority of whom are just victims of the political or financial mechinations of a rapacious El-ite.

Interestingly, my wife's church members seem to have a bigger problem with me than she does.

lol......how do you then manage with the church members

Logicboy03:


lol......how do you then manage with the church members

After unsuccessfully trying to make me see the light(lol), they are now very scared of me.

I usually ask them some very simple questions and then they run like mad.
He he he.

plaetton:

After unsuccessfully trying to make me see the light(lol), they are now very scared of me.

I usually ask them some very simple questions and then they run like mad.
He he he.

Not surprised!

plaetton:

Your ability for mental gymnastics is simply amazing. You are giving me an assignment? .
For what purpose, to prove my points or yours? You are very funny.

You are, I assume,are a medium to high IQ individual. Do not pretend to be any less.

As usual, when the atheist is challenged with facts... he hides behind the debunked IQ myth.

plaetton: Stop calling deuteronomy a song for goodness sake. It is not a duet by Moses and Joshua. Which version of the bible are you getting these false notions from ?
It is a set of speeches said to have been delivered by moses to the Israelites before they reached their supposed promised land.

Do you read your bible?

deut 32:44

plaetton:

Tasks? Silly.
You just dont get it.
keep waiting then for your sunday school children.
When you grow up, let me know.

I have fully and solidly proved ancient hebrew polytheism, without even addressing so many other points.
If your blind faith is blocking this revelation, well, what can little old me do for you?

Lol, all you have done is make unfounded claims and call them proof. It's a shame really because I wanted to work with you on this one. Anyway, you are free to say and believe whatever you like.
If you are really interested in going further you can either go and actually read Deuteronomy 32 and apply your theory to it to see if it holds. . . or you can admit here that you had no point there anyway then we can write it off and move on to looking at your subsequent points.
Or you can lie to yourself some more. Whatever works for you really. I am not that concerned with the conclusions you draw.

plaetton: @Anony:
Jews, today still celebrate the feast of Tammuz.

Pls Don't take my word for it.
Let's see what google or wiki has to say about the feast of Tammuz.

Tammuz was a month in the Babylonian calendar, named for one of the main Babylonian gods, Tammuz (Sumerian: Dumuzid, "son of life".[1] Many different calendar systems have since adopted Tammuz to refer to a month in the summer season.

BINGO!

[size=13pt]I have proved my claims far beyond any reasonable doubts(emphasis on the word REASON)[/size].

pathetic. Really pathetic.

Before you gloat about proving your "claims" (thanks for using that word as it in know way applies to you being correct) beyond any reasonable doubt... perhaps you should read first.

There is NO jewish "feast of tammuz". It just does not exist period.

Rather the jews have a feast on the 17th day of the month of Tammuz (a name that simply refers to a month on the hebrew calender borrowed from the babylonian calender).
This feast is to commemorate (note celebrate) the first desctruction of the walls of the second temple during the roman occupation. Nothing to do with any babylonian god.

It should be noted that it is not uncommon for other civilizations to borrow calender names from each other - for example, we use the gregorian calender today does not mean we worship the gods associated with those names.

Perhaps you should try to be more educated about a point you wish to debate rather than making superficial claims and gloating around about your superior IQ.

davidylan:

pathetic. Really pathetic.

Before you gloat about proving your "claims" (thanks for using that word as it in know way applies to you being correct) beyond any reasonable doubt... perhaps you should read first.

There is NO jewish "feast of tammuz". It just does not exist period.

Rather the jews have a feast on the 17th day of the month of Tammuz (a name that simply refers to a month on the hebrew calender borrowed from the babylonian calender).
This feast is to commemorate (note celebrate) the first desctruction of the walls of the second temple during the roman occupation. Nothing to do with any babylonian god.

It should be noted that it is not uncommon for other civilizations to borrow calender names from each other - for example, we use the gregorian calender today does not mean we worship the gods associated with those names.

Perhaps you should try to be more educated about a point you wish to debate rather than making superficial claims and gloating around about your superior IQ.

Don't lie against me. I never made any claims about any IQ.
I was merely reminding Anony that he was much smarter than he was pretending to be.

The Bible records ancient Judah worshipping Tammuz.
“Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:14).

So again, according the bible, the women of Judah were worshipping, in the form of ritual mourning, the god Tammuz right in the gates of their Holy temple.

The fourth month of the Jewish calendar year is called Tammuz in Jewish tradition.
The name "Tammuz is of Babylonian/Summerian origin , as are all other months of the jewish calendar.

Beginning with the summerians, and later, the Babylonians marked the commencement of the decline of daylight hours with a six day funeral for Tammuz.
The hebrews adopted this funeral/celebration in the days of the first temple.

Therefore, ezekiel warned them of Yahweh's wrath for worshiping Tammuz.

Another proof of polytheism in ancient Israel.

It is Correct that the walls of the Jerusalem temple were breached during the month of Tamuzz, but the actual destruction was in the month of Av.

After their return from exile in Babylon, The Jewish sages or elders, used the annual feasts associated with mourning of Tammuz to commemorate their own misfortunes. It was appropriate and quite ironic. Continue the feast of Tamuzz in the same days in the same months as the Babylonians did, but use the period to mourn and reflect on our own misfortunes.
Brilliant or dumb?

Is it quite similar in the manner through which the early Roman Church usurped the pagan festivals of December 25th to institute the celebration of the birth of their own god-man.

The first thing that anyone reading the bible will notice in almost all the old testament books is the image of Yahweh/El-Shaddai, lord, creator and commander of the universe, weeping and sulking about being abandoned by the Children of Israel to worship other gods.

In view of this, how can anyone who reads the bible seriously claim that the Israelites were not polytheistic?

How?

plaetton:

Don't lie against me. I never made any claims about any IQ.
I was merely reminding Anony that he was much smarter than he was pretending to be.

The Bible records ancient Judah worshipping Tammuz.
“Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:14).

So again, according the bible, the women of Judah were worshipping, in the form of ritual mourning, the god Tammuz right in the gates of their Holy temple.

The fourth month of the Jewish calendar year is called Tammuz in Jewish tradition.
The name "Tammuz is of Babylonian/Summerian origin , as are all other months of the jewish calendar.

Beginning with the summerians, and later, the Babylonians marked the commencement of the decline of daylight hours with a six day funeral for Tammuz.
The hebrews adopted this funeral/celebration in the days of the first temple.

Therefore, ezekiel warned them of Yahweh's wrath for worshiping Tammuz.

Another proof of polytheism in ancient Israel.

It is Correct that the walls of the Jerusalem temple were breached during the month of Tamuzz, but the actual destruction was in the month of Av.

After their return from exile in Babylon, The Jewish sages or elders, used the annual feasts associated with mourning of Tammuz to commemorate their own misfortunes. It was appropriate and quite ironic. Continue the feast of Tamuzz in the same days in the same months as the Babylonians did, but use the period to mourn and reflect on our own misfortunes.
Brilliant or dumb?

Is it quite similar in the manner through which the early Roman Church usurped the pagan festivals of December 25th to institute the celebration of the birth of their own god-man.

shifting the goal posts when you are caught in a lie. This was your statement - Jews, today still celebrate the feast of Tammuz.

Pls Don't take my word for it.
Let's see what google or wiki has to say about the feast of Tammuz.

Nothing to do with sumerians or babylonians or what not. That was the statement i responded to. The rest of your response is completely off-tangent. Do the jews celebrate a feast of tammuz as you claimed TODAY? The answer is no. Best to admit an error than to try to weave a web around it to obfuscate others.

plaetton:
The Bible records ancient Judah worshipping Tammuz.
“Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:14).

So again, according the bible, the women of Judah were worshipping, in the form of ritual mourning, the god Tammuz right in the gates of their Holy temple.

We do know that at some point, certain of the jews strayed and worship other false gods - what has this to do with your claim that jews still celebrate the feast of tammuz today?

plaetton:
The fourth month of the Jewish calendar year is called Tammuz in Jewish tradition.
The name "Tammuz is of Babylonian/Summerian origin , as are all other months of the jewish calendar.

You seem to be desperately weaving and bobbing with no purpose. We've gone from weeping women to jewish calenders in less than 3 sentences?

Again this bears no real meaning... babylon was the dominant world power at some point and it stands to reason that many of its traditions would find its way into other cultures. An easy example... July is the name of our 7th month? At what point where we ever romans?

plaetton:
Beginning with the summerians, and later, the Babylonians marked the commencement of the decline of daylight hours with a six day funeral for Tammuz.
The hebrews adopted this funeral/celebration in the days of the first temple.

this is a desperate stretch here. You have made a claim that the entire hebrew race adopted the celebration of Tammuz (even though no such feast is celebrated among jews today) with no proof whatsoever? All on the basis of what the Summerians and babylonians did?

plaetton:
Therefore, ezekiel warned them of Yahweh's wrath for worshiping Tammuz.

You're stretching facts to a breaking point here... all in a bid to "win a pointless argument".
Ezekiel was seeing a vision (please read verse 2). We note the problem wasnt really Tammuz but that Israel had fallen into idolatry and strayed from God. If you read verse 16, you note that some were worshipping the god of the sun... does that mean the entire hebrew tribe adopted both worship of Tammuz and the sun worship at the same time?

plaetton:
Another proof of polytheism in ancient Israel.

Again this is not relevant to my statement that you quoted.

plaetton:
It is Correct that the walls of the Jerusalem temple were breached during the month of Tamuzz, but the actual destruction was in the month of Av.

You are trying way too hard to not have to be shown up for sheer ignorance. The jews chose to commemorate the date the walls were first breached on the 17th of Tammuz. Feel free to ask them why they ignored the eventual destruction of the walls in the month of Av.

plaetton:
After their return from exile in Babylon, The Jewish sages or elders, used the annual feasts associated with mourning of Tammuz to commemorate their own misfortunes. It was appropriate and quite ironic. Continue the feast of Tamuzz in the same days in the same months as the Babylonians did, but use the period to mourn and reflect on our own misfortunes.
Brilliant or dumb?

You seem seriously confused. The breach of the walls of the SECOND TEMPLE is what is commemorated by the jews.

1. The second temple was built AFTER the return from babylonian exile.

2. The walls of the second temple was breached by ROMANS (the babylonian empire was long gone by that time)

How on earth did you connect babylon to the breach of the walls of a temple reconstructed and expanded under Herod?

This is laughable. Did you read before responding?

plaetton:
Is it quite similar in the manner through which the early Roman Church usurped the pagan festivals of December 25th to institute the celebration of the birth of their own god-man.

you do not seem to know what you are saying. Anony made that very clear earlier.

^^^^
Simple question for you then. So what do they commemorate on the 17th of Tammuz, destruction of the first temple by the babylonians or destruction of the second temple by the Romans?

By the way, I have made my case to Anony.
I do not need to engage in all this back and forth foolishness with you.

Everyone on this knows that you do not come out to discuss or debate, you come into a thread with a foul air.
Anony, with all his mental gymastics, is very civil and respectful.
You do not measure up to that standard,so I am loathe to engage in any kind of meaningful protracted discussions with you.

plaetton: ^^^^
Simple question for you then. So what do they commemorate on the 17th of Tammuz, destruction of the first temple by the babylonians or destruction of the second temple by the Romans?

Roman conquest of the temple not the destruction of the first temple. Google is your friend.

plaetton:
By the way, I have made my case to Anony.
I do not need to engage in all this back and forth foolishness with you.

Everyone on this knows that you do not come out to discuss or debate, you come into a thread with a foul air.
Anony, with all his mental gymastics, is very civil and respectful.
You do not measure up to that standard,so I am loathe to engage in any kind of meaningful protracted discussions with you.

The above is silly and a dishonest means of raising smoke to avoid the fact that most of the time many of you come here to address issues you have zero ideas about.
I have addressed this matter with as much civility as is required for someone who out-rightly lies and is arrogant about it. Period. Feel free to have an opinion either way.

What is more absurd is the "everyone knows that you do not come out to discuss or debate" spin you put here. If anything... anony's posts have consistently pointed out your deliberate bobbing and weaving to avoid the issues you raised. Reading these 4 pages and anony has made the same complaint - you wasted everyone else's time because you did not come to "discuss or debate" but to use poorly understood rhetoric copied from perhaps a blog to slate the christian faith as is usual.

Perhaps it may do you well to look in the mirror when next you accuse others of what it is you are most guilty of. It is the guilty who run away crying "insults" where there are none.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 reads

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; 9 Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

We know from the Ugaritic (Ras Shamra) tablets that the Canaanite god El fathered 70 gods; this background informs about Deuteronomy 32:8-9.

Then I came across the article Ugarit and the Bible on theology.edu.

There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the “father of men”, “creator”, and “creator of the creation”. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8mn!).

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the “sons of god” are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal (familiar to all readers of the Bible), Asherah (also familiar to readers of the Bible), Yam (the god of the sea) and Mot (the god of death). What is of great interest here is that Yam is the Hebrew word for sea and Mot is the Hebrew word for death! Is this because the Hebrews also adopted these Canaanite ideas as well? Most likely they did.

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

Here is another very interesting piece from

In the Levantine pantheon, the Elohim are the 70 sons of El the Ancient of Days (Olam) assembled on the divine holy place, Mount Zephon (Jebel Aqra). This mountain, which lies in Syria, was regarded as a portal to its heavenly counterpart. The Elohim were originally ruled by El Elyon (God Most High), but He later hands His rule down to the god called Hadad who was known among the common people as "the master" ("Baal". Assembled on the holy mountain of heaven and ruled by one, the pantheon (Elohim) acts as one. The enemy of the Elohim is Yam ("the sea", a chaos monster slain by Baal. Each son was allocated to a specific people (e.g. Yahweh to Israel, Milcom to Moab etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Canaanite_religion

It seems the ancient Jews got the idea of their God from previous civilizations, the Canaanites and others, no wonder to preserve and do away with the other Gods, their God it was written told them to kill them all and take all that belongs to them. . . . . .

And this. . . . . .

Israel inherited polytheism from late first-millennium Canaan, and Canaanite religion in turn had its roots in the religion of second-millennium Ugarit. In the 2nd millennium, polytheism was expressed through the concepts of the divine council and the divine family, a single entity with four levels: the chief god and his wife (El and Asherah); the seventy divine children or "stars of El" (including Baal, Astarte, Anat, probably Resheph, as well as the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak); the head helper of the divine household, Kothar wa-Hasis; and the servants of the divine household, including the messenger-gods who would later appear as the "angels" of the Hebrew bible.

In the earliest stage Yahweh was one of the seventy children of El, each of whom was the patron deity of one of the seventy nations. This is illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint texts of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, in which El, as the head of the divine assembly, gives each member of the divine family a nation of his own, "according to the number of the divine sons": Israel is the portion of Yahweh. The later Masoretic text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed by the phrase, altered it to "according to the number of the children of Israel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#History_of_Yahweh-worship_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

This very much explains why YHWH is worried about his "chosen people" worshiping other Gods even though he claimed to be the only God.

He was jealous of his bro-Gods and he admits it in the commandments in Exodus 20.

mazaje: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 reads

When the Most High apportioned the nations, w[b]hen he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods[/b]; 9 Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

Kindly help us with the version from which you derived the above. thanks.

davidylan:

Kindly help us with the version from which you derived the above. thanks.

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (NRSV)

mazaje:

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (NRSV)

I'm not sure about this version... pretty much all the other versions agree that verse 8 refers to the nations that sprung up under Adam... not gods. There is no mention of such gods anywhere else, rather we have clear mention of demarcated peoples after the fall of Nimrod's building.

Jeremiah 32:29 -- The Babylonians who are attacking this city will come in and set it on fire; they will burn it down, along with the houses where the people[b] provoked me to anger by burning incense on the roofs to Baal and by pouring out drink offerings to other gods.[/b]

Ezekiel 8:13-14 -- Again, he said, "You will see them doing things that are even more detestable." 14 Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz.

Why would Yahweh, the supposed only true God, name other Gods by name and be so upset that his people are praying to them if they didn't exist? Why wouldn't he just prove to his people once and for all that Baal, Tammuz and the other Gods didn't exist at all?

Instead, he includes as part of his written laws that his people will worship no other Gods before him and that he is very jealous. He isn't talking about money or fame, he's talking about Baal, Tammuz, Zeus, etc.

Does he really believe there are other Gods out there?

Of course in reality, it is the authors of the OT that pen this and it is their view that their God may believe in them help them. Yet to many people the bible is divinely inspired. . . . . .

The final editors of the Hebrew canon were fervent monotheists, but a remnant of the polytheistic basis of the pre-Mosaic religion can still be detected. Albrecht Alt has shown that divine titles such as 'El Bet' el (Gen. 31:13; 35:7); 'El 'Olam (Gen. 21:33); and 'El Ro'i (Gen. 16:13); 'El 'Elyon (Gen. 14:18); and 'El Saddai (Gen. 17:1); all later taken to be one God (Yahweh) after Moses, were all originally separate gods worshipped by the early Hebrews.3 The Catholic scholar Bruce Vawter concurs with Alt. According to Vawter, none of the available English translations does justice to the original Hebrew of Genesis 31:13, which quite simply reads "I am the god Bethel" ('El Bet'el), who was a member of the Canaanite pantheon along with the rest of the above.4 The original meaning is therefore quite different from the traditional understanding: this god at Bethel is not the universal Lord who appeared at Bethel but just one god among many – a local deity of a specific place.

In the mutual swearing of Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:51f) it is clear that two distinct gods are referred to.5 The work of later editors is clearly evident in this passage. As Alt states: "Was it not plain paganism for the ancestor of Israel and one of his relations to swear by two different gods? This dangerous sentence had to be rendered harmless by an addition or alternation."6 In Judges 11:24 Jepthah recognizes the authority of the god Chemosh, at least for the Ammonites in their own land.

The popular notion that Moses was the original monotheist is a thesis that has very little support. As we shall soon see, Moses probably was not even a monotheist, but even if he was, there was monotheism in Egypt a generation before Moses, most likely under the heretic king Akhenaten of the 14th century B.C.E. In his insistence on the worship of Yahweh alone, Moses was a henotheist, i.e., he believed that Yahweh was the greatest among the gods, the king of gods.

The traditional belief that Yahweh revealed himself solely to Moses, and that no people except the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh, is also becoming more tenuous. Several scholars have pointed out evidence of Yahweh worship among several pre-Mosaic eastern cultures.7 For example, the controversial tablets at Ebla, dating back into the 3rd millennium B.C.E., speak of a god by the name of "Ya," who is linked to the Yahweh of Moses by some Ebla scholars.8

Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," does not deny the existence of other deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains that "there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from having anything to do with them."9 The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran. . . .

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

mazaje: Jeremiah 32:29 -- The Babylonians who are attacking this city will come in and set it on fire; they will burn it down, along with the houses where the people[b] provoked me to anger by burning incense on the roofs to Baal and by pouring out drink offerings to other gods.[/b]

Ezekiel 8:13-14 -- Again, he said, "You will see them doing things that are even more detestable." 14 Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz.

Why would Yahweh, the supposed only true God, name other Gods by name and be so upset that his people are praying to them if they didn't exist? Why wouldn't he just prove to his people once and for all that Baal, Tammuz and the other Gods didn't exist at all?

Instead, he includes as part of his written laws that his people will worship no other Gods before him and that he is very jealous. He isn't talking about money or fame, he's talking about Baal, Tammuz, Zeus, etc.

Does he really believe there are other Gods out there?

Of course in reality, it is the authors of the OT that pen this and it is their view that their God may believe in them help them. Yet to many people the bible is divinely inspired. . . . . .

At what point did yahweh or anony indicate that these gods did not exist?