• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Can Jehova's Witnesses Pronounce the Word Thursday?

nPeace

Veteran Member
The OP asserts that the rule is applied literally. In 2019 that's silly, so it's good to have fun with it.
The principle still applies in 2019, and JWs still live by that principle. They do not speak of modern day gods with any esteem.
One of those "gods" - actually a representation - is the nation's flag.

Also I was quite genuine when I said that if I were the only real god, it would be a matter of indifference to me for my followers to mention the names of imaginary gods.

The bible, of course, is expressly henotheistic throughout the Torah and up to the Babylonian Captivity. Only then does monotheism emerge. But if there's one real god and no others, that datum won't change anything for God (except, perhaps, [his] PR team).
I don't agree. I find from Genesis to Malachi - the entire Hebrew scriptures have the same agreement on the God required to be worshiped, and other gods - idol gods.
As I said, it was not about the mere mention of these gods. More was involved.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But I notice your grandfather (Elijah the Restorer) not only set up a city (Zion, Illinois) but there is actually a Muslim sect that claims he had a prayer duel with their leader, Hazrat Ahmad, the reincarnated Jesus Christ. My goodness, that’s what I call a “rich family history”!
I should quickly correct this. I didn't say that Dowie was my great grandfather. Rather my great grandfather took his whole family, including my grandfather as a boy of 11 to settle in Zion, Illinois in the spring of 1902, within the first year of the city's creation. It's an utterly fascinating piece of history that many are unaware of. I have a fair amount of information on it, and have traveled there a couple times doing family research.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The principle still applies in 2019, and JWs still live by that principle. They do not speak of modern day gods with any esteem.
One of those "gods" - actually a representation - is the nation's flag.
Then I take it they're like me in that they're unsure what a real god is.
I don't agree. I find from Genesis to Malachi - the entire Hebrew scriptures have the same agreement on the God required to be worshiped, and other gods - idol gods.
That's not how the early writings read eg

Exodus 15:11 Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?

Numbers 33:4 upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.

Judges 11:23-24 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.

Psalms 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

Psalms 86:8 There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine.

Psalms 95:3 For the Lord is a great god, and a great King above all gods.

Psalms 135:5 For I know that the Lord is great; and that our Lord is above all gods.
None of that is a claim that there's only one god. Instead it's straightforward henotheism ─ yes, there are other gods but they're not as important as ours.

As I said, monotheism comes later, around the time of the Captivity.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
The scripture verse says not only not to invoke but not to let the names of gods be found on the lips. Aka -- it doesn't matter how they are translated and whether they are being invoked. They are through silence to become unused words. In a church system which forbids Christmas trees it seems the pagan names for days of the week ought to be on the chopping block, too. Why aren't they? Think about how a Christmas tree -- a harmless decoration -- is forbidden for the reason that it could be somehow distantly related to an Asherah pole, but saying Wednesday and Thursday that's Ok despite the scripture quoted and the obvious connection between them and the gods Woden and Thor. This seems odd.
Ok, let's seriously deal with this. ( If you really think this is important.)

Do you think intent is important? Because if just saying the name of a false god is wrong, then we should expect to not find anywhere in Scripture where a person serving Jehovah said a false god's name, right?

Is that what we find? No. In Numbers 25:5 Moses says, "Baal of Peor", and there are no repercussions.
There are other Scriptures.

Dispute settled.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Then I take it they're like me in that they're unsure what a real god is.
That's not how the early writings read

That depends on what Bible you are reading from. I always like to consult the Tanach when reading Hebrew scripture as Jews should know how to interpret Hebrew....right?

Exodus 15:11 Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods?

Tanach reads...."Who is like You among the powerful, O Lord?

According to Strongs the word "gods" here is "el" meaning.....


  1. god, god-like one, mighty one
    1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
    2. angels
    3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
    4. God, the one true God, Jehovah
  2. mighty things in nature
  3. strength, power
A word with very broad meaning apparently. Context is needed.

Numbers 33:4 upon their gods also the Lord executed judgments.

Tanach reads...."And the Egyptians were busy burying because the Lord had struck down their firstborn and had wrought vengeance against their deities."

Each of the plagues was designed to humiliate one of Egypt's false gods.

Judges 11:23-24 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.

Tanach reads...."And now the Lord, the God of Israel, has driven out the Amorites from before His people Israel, and you want to possess it? Is it not that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess, that you may possess; and all that which the Lord our God has driven out from before us, that we shall possess."

The worship of Chemosh was evidently introduced into Israel during the reign of Solomon. Undoubtedly under the influence of his Moabite wives, Solomon built a high place to Chemosh “on the mountain that was in front of Jerusalem.” (1Kings 11:1, 7, 8, 33) During Josiah’s extensive religious reform, over three centuries later, this high place was made unfit for worship. (2 Kings 23:13)

Psalms 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

From the Tanach..."God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He will judge."

This is talking about human judges who had divine authority.

Psalms 86:8 There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine.

Tanach reads...."There is none like You among the godly, O Lord, neither is there any like Your works."

Psalms 95:3 For the Lord is a great god, and a great King above all gods.

Tanach reads..."For the Lord is a great God and a great King over all divine powers"

He is above every deity claiming divine power.

Psalms 135:5 For I know that the Lord is great; and that our Lord is above all gods.

Tanach reads...."For I know that God is great, and our Lord is more than all powers."
None of that is a claim that there's only one god. Instead it's straightforward henotheism ─ yes, there are other gods but they're not as important as ours.

The gods of the nations are not real. They are inventions of the adversary trying to steal worship away from the only true God. Whatever worship Jehovah rejects, goes to him by default.

As I said, monotheism comes later, around the time of the Captivity.

Who told you that? Does it ever occur to people why Israel was sent into captivity in the first place? They fell to worshipping false gods. Only after their release did they return to true worship. But true to form, it didn't last.

There is one story in the Bible instead of bits taken out of context.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok, let's seriously deal with this. ( If you really think this is important.)

Do you think intent is important? Because if just saying the name of a false god is wrong, then we should expect to not find anywhere in Scripture where a person serving Jehovah said a false god's name, right?

Is that what we find? No. In Numbers 25:5 Moses says, "Baal of Peor", and there are no repercussions.
There are other Scriptures.

Dispute settled.
It seems that this term 'Baal of Peor' specifically avoids using the god's name. It appears that Peor is a place and that Baal denotes that it is a god but without specifying a name -- as if the author has gone out of their way to avoid giving us a name.

You have a point though that we should expect not to find names of gods anywhere in scripture, but we do: Chemosh that 'Detestable god of Moab'. I wonder though if its really the name of a god then why does the Strongs say that it derives from the Hebrew for 'Subduer' ? It could very easily be the case that this word is an insult directed as the god of Moab, replacing its name with 'Subdoer' and not the repetition of a gods name at all.

I note also that none of the names of the gods of the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans are mentioned except in Acts 19 in which Paul gives an account of a violent protest by supporters of the goddess Artemis. It makes me wonder why they would be shouting the name in opposition to Judaism? It seems like a strange response. Could it be that the Jews always refused to speak the name of Artemis? For some reason these goddess model makers felt the presence of speaking Jews could actually put their jobs at risk. One would assume that there could be some kind of history behind that.

Three other possible names of gods in the Bible are: Dagon, Ashtar, and just the term 'Baal' by itself. I cannot directly provide alibi's for all of them at this time, but they are questionable, too. They may not be proper names of gods. Archeological digs in the original Philistine cities have turned up the names of a couple of goddesses not mentioned in the Bible and have not turned up any god named Dagon. Why would Dagon (fish of fertility) be mentioned and not them?

So you see there is not such a strong argument that you should carelessly pronounce the days of the week, since by doing so you uphold the memory of the gods. Possibly. Its an interesting mental exercise if nothing else and reason enough to consider "Maybe the commandment really means what it says?"
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Tanach reads...."Who is like You among the powerful, O Lord?

According to Strongs the word "gods" here is "el" meaning.....

  1. god, god-like one, mighty one
    1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
    2. angels
    3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
    4. God, the one true God, Jehovah
  2. mighty things in nature
  3. strength, power
A word with very broad meaning apparently. Context is needed.​
The context in all of these is God among his peers, the other gods. And these henotheistic ideas are precisely what don't recur after the Captivity. Instead we find a monogod who necessarily says eg,

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.
because there's now no other possible source for them.
Each of the plagues was designed to humiliate one of Egypt's false gods.​
Then by whose power were Pharaoh's magicians able to turn the Nile water into blood and then turn it back again, a trick Moses and Aaron were only able to match with Yahweh's help?
The worship of Chemosh was evidently introduced into Israel during the reign of Solomon.​
And the recognition of Chemosh as a god looking after his tribe just as Yahweh looks after his, is plainly expressed and straightforward. And this outlook is consistent with the other examples.
Who told you that?
The parts of the bible I've been quoting. And of course the Decalogue, Thou shalt have no other gods before me and not, Ain't no other gods, folks.
Does it ever occur to people why Israel was sent into captivity in the first place? They fell to worshipping false gods.
Where before the Captivity are other gods, as a general principle, declared to be false? I'm not aware of any such declaration ─ only later.

Incidentally, I seem to remember that in the past you've mentioned that the bible is seamlessly consistent ─ forgive me if my recollection is faulty. I find that view wholly unsupported by the evidence, wholly discordant with the documents of the bible, an artificial ex post facto invention intended to make the bible say what the particular reader wants it to say, at the expense of what it actually says.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The context in all of these is God among his peers, the other gods. And these henotheistic ideas are precisely what don't recur after the Captivity. Instead we find a monogod who necessarily says e.g.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.
because there's now no other possible source for them.

Peers? what peers? Did you ignore the definition Strongs gave?

According to them the word "god" is "el" meaning.....
  1. god, god-like one, mighty one
    1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
    2. angels
    3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
    4. God, the one true God, Jehovah
  2. mighty things in nature
  3. strength, power
This is a word with a very broad meaning. Context is needed. There is no context in any of the scripture you quoted. I attempted to give you some but you didn't want to know. Your choice.

According to the scholars, these "gods" can even be human. That kind of fights with your argument. The Creator has no peers. There are no gods of his equal with whom he is in competition.

But perhaps a little excursion back to Genesis might clear things up. How many gods are Creators? When God said "Let US make man in OUR image" who do you think he was talking to?

How many gods did Adam and his wife have to deal with? How many gods did Elijah have? What about Noah? How many gods caused the flood...as opposed to the ones who merited it?

As far as I am aware....there were no other real gods in existence apart from Jehovah.....there were others who qualified to have the term applied to them...angels, men of rank, heroes......even the devil is called a god. In Eden, but he was the pretender who wanted to compete with the Creator for worship. He got the woman to disobey her God and thus separated her and then her husband from the true God and into the hands of a false one.

Prior to the flood I don't recall any mention of other gods apart from satan that wanted worship. Nimrod jumped into that spot when his mother deified him and made him into a god. The false gods began to multiply after that as the notion spread when the tower builders took it with them all over the world. False gods popped up everywhere, but on reflection, they appear to be the same gods, with different names in different cultures.

The "sons of the true God" who were active in Noah's day were no doubt featured in future mythology.

Then by whose power were Pharaoh's magicians able to turn the Nile water into blood and then turn it back again, a trick Moses and Aaron were only able to match with Yahweh's help?

As far as I know, the only other "god" who has that kind of power is satan. Magic is his domain. The priests in Egypt practiced magic.

And the recognition of Chemosh as a god looking after his tribe just as Yahweh looks after his, is plainly expressed and straightforward. And this outlook is consistent with the other examples.

Chemosh was the god of the Moabites. Solomon in his older years had many foreign wives who turned him away from true worship. Israel's spiritual health was in direct correlation with the spiritual health of their leaders. When the leaders fell to worshipping false gods, they generally took the people with them. God punished them for it.

The parts of the bible I've been quoting. And of course the Decalogue, Thou shalt have no other gods before me and not, Ain't no other gods, folks.

It means not to practice false worship. Not putting a false god in place of Jehovah in one's affections or worship. The fact that they are not real is irrelevant. They are real to those who worship them.

Where before the Captivity are other gods, as a general principle, declared to be false? I'm not aware of any such declaration ─ only later.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12 was a warning to Israel not to adopt the false religious practices of the Canaanite nations on entry to the Promised Land.

When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations. 10 There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, 11 anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."


Spiritistic religious practices were detestable to the true God and was the reason why he needed to evict those people from the land. Their god was the devil. (No matter what they called him.)

Incidentally, I seem to remember that in the past you've mentioned that the bible is seamlessly consistent ─ forgive me if my recollection is faulty. I find that view wholly unsupported by the evidence, wholly discordant with the documents of the bible, an artificial ex post facto invention intended to make the bible say what the particular reader wants it to say, at the expense of what it actually says.

Unfortunately you seem to have fallen into the trap of making assumptions about the Bible's consistency with false evidence and misinterpreted verses plucked at random. Your whole post is nonsense to me.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Well for one thing, saying the day Thursday theres nothing wrong in that, As Thursday day is only the name pend on a day

But however if I was to hold Thursday day up as to worship the pagan god, Now there would be a wrong.

Let's for say, take the month of July, which is name after Julius Caesar of Rome, Now should we abandon July all because it named after Julius Caesar which he worship pagan gods of Rome.

Here are some examples of how other Months got their names.
Now should all these Months be abanned all because these months were named after people who worship pagan gods?

"The Romans named June after Juno, the queen of the gods and patroness of marriage and weddings. July: July was named after Julius Caesar in 44 B.C. Previously, July was called “Quintilis," which is Latin for “fifth."August: August was named after Augustus Caesar in 8 B.C. "

Now I suppose that these Months should all be abanned all because these people worship pagan gods.

It's not the month, but in how people hold the month, just the same with Thursday.

Look in the book of Exodus 20:3-5, That we find here God saying in
Verse 3--"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

And then in Verse 4--"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

Notice here God saying not to make any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above.

So are we not to have any pictures or statues, no of course not, we can have all these things. So long as we don't bow down and worship them.

Notice what God is saying in
Verse 5--"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"

Therefore just because a day or month maybe named after someone or something, has no bearing on how people hold it.
Are people to worship the image of a picture or statues, of course not, they are only pictures and statues.

But if people would worship them, then there lays the wrong.

So just because the day Thursday maybe named after a pagan god. There's nothing wrong, but if people were to worship the day Thursday, then there lays the wrong.

Thursday is nothing more than having a picture or statues. Which means nothing, unless people up hold Thursday in the worshipping the pagan god.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Peers? what peers? Did you ignore the definition Strongs gave?
Since I don't speak Hebrew, I'm content to be guided by the choice of words made by the translators of the KJV, the RSV (my usual) and the other translations I'm aware of.
According to the scholars, these "gods" can even be human. That kind of fights with your argument.
But when the chips are down, when you have to use your scholarship to render the bible in good and accurate English, the meaning you choose is 'god' ─ or you do if you're translating the reputable versions.
The Creator has no peers. There are no gods of his equal with whom he is in competition.
As I said before, that's the post-Captivity version. Before then, everyone knew that every tribe had its god, and the earlier parts of the bible reflect this.
But perhaps a little excursion back to Genesis might clear things up. How many gods are Creators? When God said "Let US make man in OUR image" who do you think he was talking to?
According to the footnote to Genesis 1:26 in my Oxford Annotated RSV, "The plural us, our probably refers to the divine beings who compose god's heavenly court." The Tanakh elsewhere refers to them as the 'sons of God' but does not confuse them with gods.
How many gods did Adam and his wife have to deal with? How many gods did Elijah have? What about Noah? How many gods caused the flood...as opposed to the ones who merited it?
How many tribes did Adam and Eve belong to? That many gods. And Elijah. And Noah. But it's freely acknowledged in eg the Judges passage that each tribe has its separate God.
As far as I am aware....there were no other real gods in existence apart from Jehovah....
I gave you some quotes. Chemosh, for example.
Prior to the flood I don't recall any mention of other gods apart from satan that wanted worship.
As a biblical point, it's correct that Yahweh is the god of the mythical period from the point of view of the writers of the Torah. From an historical view, the story of Noah is copied, with slight adaptations, from the Mesopotamian Semites' tale of Gilgamesh from Babylon, who got it from Akkad, who got it from the non-Semitic Sumerians. We have it written on clay tablets from the decades either side of 2000 BCE, and we also have personal seals bearing images of the Sumerian Noah from at least 500 years before that. Yahweh, as you know, doesn't appear in history till around 1500 BCE.
As far as I know, the only other "god" who has that kind of power is satan. Magic is his domain. The priests in Egypt practiced magic.
Now you're being cute ─ it's merely magic if the Egyptian magicians do it, but it's something more noble when Moses and Aaron do it? Pshaw! Magic is magic whether done by Amun or Pharaoh's magicians or Yahweh or Simon Magus or Gandalf or Dumbledore.

Nor does the story mention Satan. And the argument is made that in the Tanakh Satan is simply a counselor at Yahweh's court, an opposer who tests opinions. He's certainly an associate of Yahweh in Job, not an enemy, for instance.
Chemosh was the god of the Moabites.
And recognized as a god in Judges, as we've seen.
It means not to practice false worship. Not putting a false god in place of Jehovah in one's affections or worship. The fact that they are not real is irrelevant. They are real to those who worship them.
Just like Yahweh. And in their henotheistic society, explicitly so.
When you have entered into the land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the detestable practices of those nations. 10 There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practicing magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, 11 anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable practices Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."
That's mere self-justification. My god doesn't like what you do, so we're taking your land, slaughtering your people, raping the young women and refreshing our stock of slaves.

High Bronze Age morality!
Unfortunately you seem to have fallen into the trap of making assumptions about the Bible's consistency with false evidence and misinterpreted verses plucked at random.
The bible is not a magic book, or set of books. It's a collection of historical documents, and to be read as such. It's a wanton insult to each of the authors, and to history generally, to try to superimpose your own views on the text merely because you find it inconvenient.
Your whole post is nonsense to me.
Then I suggest, with the utmost courtesy, that you brush up on real ancient history, and see where the bible fits into that.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Since I don't speak Hebrew, I'm content to be guided by the choice of words made by the translators of the KJV, the RSV (my usual) and the other translations I'm aware of.

Strongs is a recognized scholarly work. Argue with them, not me.

But when the chips are down, when you have to use your scholarship to render the bible in good and accurate English, the meaning you choose is 'god' ─ or you do if you're translating the reputable versions.

The reputable versions? KJV? Refer to Strongs...they do KJV as well. But its still "el" and it still has the same definition. Are you a Hebrew scholar?

As I said before, that's the post-Captivity version. Before then, everyone knew that every tribe had its god, and the earlier parts of the bible reflect this.

Show us please where in the earlier part of the Bible, it shows that every tribe of Israel had its god before the post captivity period.
You do understand why Israel went into captivity in the first place I assume?

According to the footnote to Genesis 1:26 in my Oxford Annotated RSV, "The plural us, our probably refers to the divine beings who compose god's heavenly court." The Tanakh elsewhere refers to them as the 'sons of God' but does not confuse them with gods.

It refers to God (the Creator) and his firstborn son who teamed up in the creative process. (Colossians 1:15-17) The son is the agency through whom the creation was fashioned. God provided the materials and the son did the work alongside his Father. (Proverbs 8:30-31)

How many tribes did Adam and Eve belong to? That many gods. And Elijah. And Noah.

Yep...just one true God. There were no others....except one pretender.

But it's freely acknowledged in eg the Judges passage that each tribe has its separate God.

No it isn't. 1 Kings 11:7..."Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon." (KJV) Moab and Ammon were not part of Israel...but you knew that, right? Other nations had their gods, Israel had Yahweh.....the one who said to have "no other gods but him".

I gave you some quotes. Chemosh, for example.

Chemosh was the god of Moab. Moab and Ammon were enemies of Israel.

Naming the gods didn't make them real. Elijah took on the Baal prophets and proved to them that their god was a figment of their imagination.

.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
As a biblical point, it's correct that Yahweh is the god of the mythical period from the point of view of the writers of the Torah. From an historical view, the story of Noah is copied, with slight adaptations, from the Mesopotamian Semites' tale of Gilgamesh from Babylon, who got it from Akkad, who got it from the non-Semitic Sumerians. We have it written on clay tablets from the decades either side of 2000 BCE, and we also have personal seals bearing images of the Sumerian Noah from at least 500 years before that. Yahweh, as you know, doesn't appear in history till around 1500 BCE.

You do understand that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that the material he presented went all the way back to creation.

A brief review of some of the world’s mythologies will serve to indicate some common features, many of which can be traced back to Babylon, the Mesopotamian cradle of most religions. There are common threads, whether in the facts of creation, or in accounts about a period when demigods and giants occupied the land and a deluge destroyed the wicked, or in the basic religious concepts of sun-worship and an immortal soul.

From a Biblical viewpoint, these common threads are explainable when we recall that after the Flood, mankind spread out from Babel in Mesopotamia more than 4,200 years ago. Although they separated, forming families and tribes with different languages, they started off with the same basic understanding of prior history and religious concepts. (Genesis 11:1-9) Over the centuries, this understanding became distorted and adorned in each culture, resulting in many of the fictions, legends, and myths that have come down to us today. But these myths, divorced from Bible truth, failed to bring mankind nearer to the true God. Look where it took you....?

Now you're being cute ─ it's merely magic if the Egyptian magicians do it, but it's something more noble when Moses and Aaron do it?

There is nothing cute about it. God's power cannot be compared to any other. If there are any powerful creatures in existence, then God gave them their power. Jesus did not have any power until God granted it. Spirit creatures have a certain level of power but to say that the magic practiced by an inferior creature is in any way comparable to God's power is ludicrous. God does not authorize the use of such power unless it is accord with his will.

Nor does the story mention Satan. And the argument is made that in the Tanakh Satan is simply a counselor at Yahweh's court, an opposer who tests opinions. He's certainly an associate of Yahweh in Job, not an enemy, for instance.

Satan is the adversary. He is identified in Revelation as "the original serpent" who derailed God's purpose in Eden. The one Jesus called "the father of the lie."
A counselor in Yahweh's court...?...what a joke. Did he tell you that?
In Job he is not an agent of the true God, but an enemy challenging the integrity of the most righteous man in existence.

And recognized as a god in Judges, as we've seen.
Nonsense.

That's mere self-justification. My god doesn't like what you do, so we're taking your land, slaughtering your people, raping the young women and refreshing our stock of slaves.

High Bronze Age morality!

More nonsense.

The bible is not a magic book, or set of books. It's a collection of historical documents, and to be read as such. It's a wanton insult to each of the authors, and to history generally, to try to superimpose your own views on the text merely because you find it inconvenient.

You can judge it any way you wish.....it doesn't make your assessment accurate. I could say exactly the same thing about you....are you not superimposing your own view to support your beliefs?

Then I suggest, with the utmost courtesy, that you brush up on real ancient history, and see where the bible fits into that.

I have studied the Bible in depth for 46 years and your views are so off the mark that I don't know where on earth you came by them. They bear no resemblance to the Bible's account of things at all
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Strongs is a recognized scholarly work. Argue with them, not me.
Strong is one expert, and it's not my argument that he's wrong in the range of definitions he gives. My argument is that the translators of the bible, that's to say a great many experts, agree that the word in context should be translated 'god'.
Are you a Hebrew scholar?
As I said before, I don't speak Hebrew and am content to be advised by those who have expertise in the language.
Show us please where in the earlier part of the Bible, it shows that every tribe of Israel had its god before the post captivity period.
When it speaks of other tribes and their gods, of course. Chemosh is yet again one example. This is where you need to be more familiar with real history too,
You do understand why Israel went into captivity in the first place I assume?
Yes.
The politics of the day saw the expansion of Babylonian power; and under Nebuchadnezzar II the Babylonian army and its allies upset the balance of power among the countries east of the Mediterranean by crushing the Egyptian army and its allies at the Battle of Carchemish.
Israel was militarily isolated and fell to Nebuchadnezzar. That's to say, the big armies of Marduk overran the smaller armies of Yahweh, requiring the faithful to devise reasons for their defeat ─ they must have displeased their god and [he] must have been so annoyed that [he] let Marduk have them. The Tanakh reflects the manner in which this played out.
It refers to God (the Creator) and his firstborn son who teamed up in the creative process. (Colossians 1:15-17) The son is the agency through whom the creation was fashioned.
If you check, you'll find that's a gnostic idea ─ the remote god, pure spirit, and the demiurge, his agent, who made the (impure) material world and so has a foot in both camps. It's not the only gnostic notion of Paul's.

However, Paul's views of the Tanakh don't alter what the Tanakh says, and don't alter what we know from history and archaeology. At the time of the Captivity, there was a desire for a liberator / deliverer / savior who'd restore Israel to independence, a messiah; and there's the Suffering Servant image in Isaiah, which represents Israel in travail. To suggest that Jesus is represented in those stories is simple anachrony wholly unsupported by the text.
Yep...just one true God. There were no others....except one pretender.
The rules about true gods were the same then as now ─ whether or not there are many gods, there's only one true god, namely mine.
Chemosh was the god of Moab. Moab and Ammon were enemies of Israel.
Tribal politics, tribal gods, as I said.
Naming the gods didn't make them real. Elijah took on the Baal prophets and proved to them that their god was a figment of their imagination.
That's as true of Yahweh as it is of Marduk or Baal or Amun.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Strong is one expert, and it's not my argument that he's wrong in the range of definitions he gives. My argument is that the translators of the bible, that's to say a great many experts, agree that the word in context should be translated 'god'.

Context determines how any word should be translated. Since the same word is used elsewhere in scripture to describe beings that are not God (Yahweh) and the word "god" is a word with a broad meaning, we cannot always translate it to mean something that is worshipped. If it applies to angels as well as human judges, then it must be understood accordingly. Context is the determiner.

As I said before, I don't speak Hebrew and am content to be advised by those who have expertise in the language.
When it speaks of other tribes and their gods, of course. Chemosh is yet again one example. This is where you need to be more familiar with real history too

Can you rely on those who have demonstrated bias in the way they render their texts? Trinitarian bias is particularly evident in many translations. This is why we need to check credible sources to see what the full spectrum of these words can mean to the readers. We today can do our own research....but it must be thorough because there is a lot of misinformation out there.

The politics of the day saw the expansion of Babylonian power; and under Nebuchadnezzar II the Babylonian army and its allies upset the balance of power among the countries east of the Mediterranean by crushing the Egyptian army and its allies at the Battle of Carchemish.
Israel was militarily isolated and fell to Nebuchadnezzar. That's to say, the big armies of Marduk overran the smaller armies of Yahweh, requiring the faithful to devise reasons for their defeat ─ they must have displeased their god and [he] must have been so annoyed that [he] let Marduk have them. The Tanakh reflects the manner in which this played out.

What is the Bible's explanation?
It was foretold at 1 Kings 14:14-16...
"The Lord will soon choose a new king of Israel, who will destroy Jeroboam’s family. And I mean very soon. The people of Israel have made the Lord angry by setting up sacred poles for worshiping the goddess Asherah. So the Lord will punish them until they shake like grass in a stream. He will take them out of the land he gave to their ancestors, then scatter them as far away as the Euphrates River. Jeroboam sinned and caused the Israelites to sin. Now the Lord will desert Israel." (CEV)

Turning to the worship of false gods resulted in Yahweh punishing his people by allowing them to be taken from their land to a far away place on the Euphrates River. The river that protected Babylon was used to overthrow her. It was all prophesied....and it took place just as God said it would.

If you check, you'll find that's a gnostic idea ─ the remote god, pure spirit, and the demiurge, his agent, who made the (impure) material world and so has a foot in both camps. It's not the only gnostic notion of Paul's.

In whose opinion?

However, Paul's views of the Tanakh don't alter what the Tanakh says, and don't alter what we know from history and archaeology.

That depends on the historian and the archeologist. The Bible does not disagree with accurate history. Many historians have claimed that the Bible is in error, only to be corrected by later archeological finds.

At the time of the Captivity, there was a desire for a liberator / deliverer / savior who'd restore Israel to independence, a messiah; and there's the Suffering Servant image in Isaiah, which represents Israel in travail. To suggest that Jesus is represented in those stories is simple anachrony wholly unsupported by the text.

The Hebrews were in captivity for 70 years....the average human lifespan....so God made sure that those who defected from true worship, never made it back to the Promised Land. Their liberator was Cyrus the Persian, who was named in a prophesy concering Israel's liberation and repatriation.

It was also written that a humble and faithful remnant would suffer along with the rebels in captivity. Daniel and his companions who withstood tests in Babylon are among them. Cyrus overthrew Babylon as it was foretold, by damming up the waters of the Euphrates river and walking into an unprotected city through unlocked gates, without a great deal of trouble. He facilitated the return of that remnant to rebuild the city and to reestablish true worship.

I don't know where you glean your information, but it is highly inaccurate.

The rules about true gods were the same then as now ─ whether or not there are many gods, there's only one true god, namely mine.
Tribal politics, tribal gods, as I said.
That's as true of Yahweh as it is of Marduk or Baal or Amun.

I think your assessment is also highly inaccurate, but you are entitled to believe whatever you wish.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If it applies to angels as well as human judges, then it must be understood accordingly. Context is the determiner.
You're saying you resent that a great many people who have expertise that neither you nor I have are disagreeing with you.
Can you rely on those who have demonstrated bias in the way they render their texts? Trinitarian bias is particularly evident in many translations.
Yes, I've noticed that the KJV translates from the Greek, not so much to affirm, as to avoid disagreeing with, the Trinity notion. I forget the two examples, but I remember remarking them. And I suspect that's set a tone for later translators.

That doesn't make you right about the appropriate word to translate 'el' though. History tells us Canaan had a henotheist culture, and Yahweh first appears in history as a member of the Canaan pantheon, just as the text suggests ─ it's as a member of that pantheon that he doesn't want any gods before him (given precedence over him).
What is the Bible's explanation?
It was foretold at 1 Kings 14:14-16...
"The Lord will soon choose a new king of Israel, who will destroy Jeroboam’s family. And I mean very soon. The people of Israel have made the Lord angry by setting up sacred poles for worshiping the goddess Asherah. So the Lord will punish them until they shake like grass in a stream. He will take them out of the land he gave to their ancestors, then scatter them as far away as the Euphrates River. Jeroboam sinned and caused the Israelites to sin. Now the Lord will desert Israel." (CEV)
Just as Martin Gardner observed about ESP, evidence of a successful prophecy (in the bible or anywhere else) is overwhelming evidence of retrofitted fraud. Prophecy in the bible is a political tool. If you want magic, you won't find it in reality.
Turning to the worship of false gods resulted in Yahweh punishing his people by allowing them to be taken from their land to a far away place on the Euphrates River.
Come now! Even you can see the actual situation. The tribe believes their covenant with their god includes a promise of protection. Instead, their army's been wiped out and their land conquered by the far greater military power of the Babylonians. You're the priest. Do you state the truth?: Oops, what I told you about our god doesn't work against very big armies! Or do you say what's recorded in the Tanakh ─ It can't be God's fault, so it must be yours!
That depends on the historian and the archeologist. The Bible does not disagree with accurate history. Many historians have claimed that the Bible is in error, only to be corrected by later archeological finds.
And the bible has made many claims only to be corrected by modern learning. The authors of the bible thought the earth was flat and immovably fixed, over it was the hard firmament to which the heavenly bodies were attached, all going round and round the earth, and if they came loose, they'd fall to earth. (You can read their cosmology in their own words on >this link<.) Genesis says plants existed on earth before the sun existed, birds existed before land animals, that if you follow the Tigris and the Euphrates to their common source you'll be in Eden, on and on. It says there was an historical Moses, but the evidence is becoming clearer that there was neither an Egyptian captivity nor a Moses. It says there was an historical Jesus, but there's no clincher either way for that claim ─ despite what the admirable Bart Ehrman says.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
It seems that this term 'Baal of Peor' specifically avoids using the god's name. It appears that Peor is a place and that Baal denotes that it is a god but without specifying a name -- as if the author has gone out of their way to avoid giving us a name.

You have a point though that we should expect not to find names of gods anywhere in scripture, but we do: Chemosh that 'Detestable god of Moab'. I wonder though if its really the name of a god then why does the Strongs say that it derives from the Hebrew for 'Subduer' ? It could very easily be the case that this word is an insult directed as the god of Moab, replacing its name with 'Subdoer' and not the repetition of a gods name at all.

I note also that none of the names of the gods of the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans are mentioned except in Acts 19 in which Paul gives an account of a violent protest by supporters of the goddess Artemis. It makes me wonder why they would be shouting the name in opposition to Judaism? It seems like a strange response. Could it be that the Jews always refused to speak the name of Artemis? For some reason these goddess model makers felt the presence of speaking Jews could actually put their jobs at risk. One would assume that there could be some kind of history behind that.

Three other possible names of gods in the Bible are: Dagon, Ashtar, and just the term 'Baal' by itself. I cannot directly provide alibi's for all of them at this time, but they are questionable, too. They may not be proper names of gods. Archeological digs in the original Philistine cities have turned up the names of a couple of goddesses not mentioned in the Bible and have not turned up any god named Dagon. Why would Dagon (fish of fertility) be mentioned and not them?

So you see there is not such a strong argument that you should carelessly pronounce the days of the week, since by doing so you uphold the memory of the gods. Possibly. Its an interesting mental exercise if nothing else and reason enough to consider "Maybe the commandment really means what it says?"
As I said, there are other Scriptures:

Numbers 21:29...Chemosh, the Moabite God, is specifically mentioned....

Judges 11:24...Jephthah says "Chemosh"....

Leviticus 18:1-2...Jehovah tells Moses, "Speak to Israel and say: (Molech is specifically mentioned)"

Leviticus 20...same as above.

1 Kings 18:21...Elijah says "Baal"....

Let's quit beating a dead horse.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You're saying you resent that a great many people who have expertise that neither you nor I have are disagreeing with you.

No, I'm saying that I allow the Bible to explain itself....not relying solely on men to form my opinions. I find that the Bible does a better job quite frankly.

Yes, I've noticed that the KJV translates from the Greek, not so much to affirm, as to avoid disagreeing with, the Trinity notion. I forget the two examples, but I remember remarking them. And I suspect that's set a tone for later translators.

That doesn't make you right about the appropriate word to translate 'el' though. History tells us Canaan had a henotheist culture, and Yahweh first appears in history as a member of the Canaan pantheon, just as the text suggests ─ it's as a member of that pantheon that he doesn't want any gods before him (given precedence over him).

So you trust the people who translated the Bible but you have found that they failed to translate some of the original texts correctly because they wanted to promote the trinity ....? :facepalm:

How about John 1:1 and John 1:18? The KJV is inconsistent in its translation there. It says "God" in verse 1 but "son" in verse 18. So if it was consistent in translating " theos" as son in verse 18, then verse one should read...."In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was the son". Instead The Word is "God" in verse 1 and "son" in verse 18. I wonder why?

Just as Martin Gardner observed about ESP, evidence of a successful prophecy (in the bible or anywhere else) is overwhelming evidence of retrofitted fraud. Prophecy in the bible is a political tool. If you want magic, you won't find it in reality.

That old chestnut....
indifferent0018.gif
Instead of crediting the prophesy, make out that it was written after the event. It wasn't. That is how the nay-sayers discredit the Bible. You are free to join them.

We are living in the outworking of prophesy right now.....you'll know how it all ends, I can just about guarantee it.

Come now! Even you can see the actual situation. The tribe believes their covenant with their god includes a promise of protection. Instead, their army's been wiped out and their land conquered by the far greater military power of the Babylonians. You're the priest. Do you state the truth?: Oops, what I told you about our god doesn't work against very big armies! Or do you say what's recorded in the Tanakh ─ It can't be God's fault, so it must be yours!

You really don't have a clue about Israel's history from the Bible's perspective, do you? Why were they in captivity in the first place? God deserted them for their continued disobedience and excursions into false worship. He only kept them in existence because of his promise to Abraham. After he fulfilled that promise to produce the Messiah, he let them go. (Matthew 23:37-39)

And the bible has made many claims only to be corrected by modern learning.

Examples please. I see that you are not big on backing up what you say. That makes it your opinion and its worth the same as anybody else's...not much. :rolleyes:

The authors of the bible thought the earth was flat and immovably fixed, over it was the hard firmament to which the heavenly bodies were attached, all going round and round the earth, and if they came loose, they'd fall to earth. (You can read their cosmology in their own words on >this link<.)

Its your own link....so what is it supposed to prove? That they had a long way to go before they learned enough to invent science? Seriously? The Bible is not a science textbook, but when it touches on matters of science, it is surprisingly accurate.

Isaiah knew that the earth was a "circle"....a word in Hebrew that can also mean a sphere. (Isaiah 40:22)

Job 26:7 says that God "hangs the earth upon nothing", so how did he know that was even possible?

Solomon spoke about the water cycle long before precipitation was understood. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

The writer of Genesis knew that the earth was at first "formless and waste" and covered with water in the beginning. How could he know that? He enumerated the chain of events that led to the creation of sentient creatures, each with a habitat and food supply prepared in advance.

Genesis says plants existed on earth before the sun existed, birds existed before land animals, that if you follow the Tigris and the Euphrates to their common source you'll be in Eden, on and on.

Genesis does not say that plants existed before the sun.
It says marine creatures and "flying creatures" were the first sentient lifeforms to appear on the scene. There are a lot of creatures who fly that are not birds. Genesis 1 is the creation events in sequence, Chapter 2 is a historical summary, not necessarily in order.

The entire universe was created in one almighty cosmic event. (Genesis 1:1) The first thing to appear was "light". Can you read? The light came before the plants, enough for photosynthesis to occur...and the sun moon and stars were made more visible later as cloud layers were cleared away. (Job 38:9)

It says there was an historical Moses, but the evidence is becoming clearer that there was neither an Egyptian captivity nor a Moses. It says there was an historical Jesus, but there's no clincher either way for that claim ─ despite what the admirable Bart Ehrman says.

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you wish. But surely you can't rely on Egypt to accurately record anything in their history that made them or their Pharaoh god look bad? They were notorious for recording only their successes.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
And the bible has made many claims only to be corrected by modern learning. The authors of the bible thought the earth was flat and immovably fixed, over it was the hard firmament to which the heavenly bodies were attached, all going round and round the earth, and if they came loose, they'd fall to earth. (You can read their cosmology in their own words on >this link<.) Genesis says plants existed on earth before the sun existed, birds existed before land animals, that if you follow the Tigris and the Euphrates to their common source you'll be in Eden, on and on. It says there was an historical Moses, but the evidence is becoming clearer that there was neither an Egyptian captivity nor a Moses. It says there was an historical Jesus, but there's no clincher either way for that claim ─ despite what the admirable Bart Ehrman says.

Wow! Almost every thing you said in this paragraph is wrong! For instance: '' Sun created after plants"? Do you think Isaac Newton believed this, or did he not know that plants needed Sun? Or maybe he just understood it correctly, in the way that agrees with science?

Or do you apparently think Newton was an idiot?

Where do you really think the light, mentioned on Day 1, came from? Are you aware that the Hebrew word for "light" on Day 1, is different than that used for "light" on Day 4?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wow! Almost every thing you said in this paragraph is wrong! For instance: '' Sun created after plants"? Do you think Isaac Newton believed this, or did he not know that plants needed Sun? Or maybe he just understood it correctly, in the way that agrees with science?
You appear not to know what your book says.

Genesis 1 says

11 And God said, 'Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed [...]' and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kind, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed [...] And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night [...] 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 and God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament to give light to the earth. 18 [...] And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.​

If you want to tell me that this was simply the understanding of the day and place where the story was written, I'll agree with you. But don't pretend it says anything but what it says: there were plants on earth before the sun existed.
Where do you really think the light, mentioned on Day 1, came from?
Not from the sun. It doesn't exist till Day 4, as the text explicitly states.
Are you aware that the Hebrew word for "light" on Day 1, is different than that used for "light" on Day 4?
Since I don't speak Hebrew, I leave those matters to the translators, who have formidable expertise in Hebrew. And they very solidly agree with what I quoted above.

Tell me, why would you expect the authors of the bible to know modern science? Why would you expect them to write anything other than what they wrote?

I keep asking that question yet not once has anyone answered it.

As for the earth being flat and fixed and central and the sky being hard with the stars &c affixed to it, I assume you've read your bible and already know what it says about their cosmology (as I set out >here<)? As history will tell you, that's what they thought in those days.
 
Last edited:
Top