sooda
Veteran Member
I don't understand. I also don't understand the reference to Ur of the Chaldees.
-
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!
Why Abraham?
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
I don't understand. I also don't understand the reference to Ur of the Chaldees.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
"God" is typically a translation of Elohim, and Elohim is not mentioned in Genesis 15.
I don't know which reference to Ur of the Chaldees you mean.
sooda
Veteran Member
Well, there was no Ur of the Chaldeans at the time of Abraham so its a glaring anachronism.
I thought Elohim was used early in Genesis because it was a holdover from the Ugaritic texts.. Elohim was plural for the children of the Canaanite god El.
It never occurred to me that Judaism didn't evolve over time becoming monotheistic.
So according to you the Jews are not saved within they're own covenant, God made no such promise to Abraham and his descendants, and Paul is mistaken when he asserts the same. It would be most interesting to know what Jews believe concerning whether God made a covenant with Abraham.
sooda
Veteran Member
@ sojourner
Maybe we should look at the word Elohim.
Elohim | Hebrew god | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elohim
Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
There are many names of God. He is seen throughout (Gen. 15). You don't have to believe it, but you can't change it.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Possibly it's a wordplay on light of the devils [אור כשדימ], like Nimrod [נמרד] is a wordplay on Marduk [מרדכ].
In the Tanak there's ben (children) or Elohim. Probably the word had different connotations between those to contexts.
AFAIK the transition to monotheism happened during the Babylonian exile.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
There's a problem with the old covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-33).
"God" is ambiguous.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
That doesn't change the fact that there's no mention of Elohim in Genesis 15.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Which doesn't change the fact that there are many names of God and that God is found throughout (Gen. 15).
Good-Ole-Rebel
sooda
Veteran Member
Yes I agree so Elohim would have still been more closely related to the children of El.
What do you do with Ur of the Chaldees that didn't exist.. There is however Urfa near Haran which claims to be the birthplace of Abraham.
That's Canaanite turf.
sooda
Veteran Member
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The wordplay suggests that the name was associated with religious practice, maybe this practice moved from one location to another?
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, facts are not based on fallacies.