I'm only aware of one golden calf
the other two were created by jeroboam, in the book of kings. one was at beth-el, and i forget off hand where the other one was.
and of course it was a perversion of the religion, it was a reversion to the old pagan mentality, and it is clearly repudiated as false, because the true God is not a created being.
"reversion to the old pagan mentality."
muslims hold the same thing to be true: god is not a created being. the earlier polytheists had perverted the truth, and muhammed straightened them out. you have failed to demonstrate why these arguments are valid for you, but not for them. because
you believe the bible to be 100% accurate? that's faith, not fact. no matter how much you try, faith, religion is still faith.
You keep changing the subject. I am answering your accusations about Biblical religion, I am not addressing Islam,
because you fail to see how the two relate. you don't see that you're arguing against yourself. you've set up a huge double standard -- their arguments are wrong, but mine are right. nevermind that we're saying the same thing.
and you keep coming back to this as if I think Islam were a polytheism. It is not and I never said it was.
clearly, you think it is derived from polytheism. and clearly, the situation surrounding the birth of judaism is exactly the same.
I never SAID they worship the moon god. Good grief. Even if Allah DERIVED from the moon god I have NEVER said they NOW worship the moon god.
so, is allah the moon god, or not? if he's not, then you have to accept that the earlier moon god was a separate tradition -- or that the statement that the polytheist moon god was a perversion of the truth is just as valid as your statement that the biblical idolators perverted yahweh.
Yahweh was never a member of a pantheon, and all you have offered in support of this is some words that have a similar sound in other languages. You are going to have to do better than this.
*sigh* read the bible, faith. remember the book of job? yahweh gathers a council of ben-elohim? compare that to yah as a member of the iluhym in ugarit. it's a darned big coincidence, if you ask me.
especially since ugarit is
right next door. it's not like we're talking about people in australia here. these are people who interacted with the hebrews, and the akkadians/sumerians/babylonians/chaldees. they were a cultural center of the middle east.
imagine you're a teacher, and your proctoring and exam. two students turn in essays that sound remarkably similar. the only difference is that one is full of typoes. the two students sat next together. are you gonna let them away with "just because they sound alike doesn't mean we cheated!" or are you going to fail them? be honest, here.
You are a FIRST YEAR HEBREW STUDENT and you have your nerve!
second year.
What unbelievable arrogance. A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT Bible authorities explain the plural use of Elohim and I'm sure THEY know when the grammar warrants it.
if they do, they're lying to you. it's not arrogance. i'm right, and any hebrew third grader would be able to tell you that. often the genders and rabim of nouns are deceptive -- but you can tell easily by the number and gender of the adjective or verb.
in english, we conjugate verbs to their plural form when the subject looks plural. so we say stuff like "those scissors are sharp." really, there's only one scissors -- the word just looks plural. in hebrew, b'reishit bara elohim is the equivalent of saying "those scissors is sharp," only it makes perfect sense grammatically. we would know there's one scissors because of the verb. with elohim, we know when it's singular and when it's plural based on the verb and/or adjective.
you really can't keep arguing this point. it's just based on your opinion of religious authority, whom i have clearly demonstrated are in fact wrong. i don't care if they have years mroe experience in bible study than me, evidently they know next to nothing about hebrew.
Words fail me. I am not a Hebrew student but Hebrew EXPERTS over the centuries disagree with you.
maybe you should take some hebrew, then. and "hebrew experts?" what about the people who speak it? it's not exactly a dead language. but, hey, let's consult the experts:
You are quite a case, thinking you and you alone, with your few months of Hebrew, can judge the entire history of Biblical translation.
let's look at the history of biblical translation, shall we? here's a good set of them:
quote:
KJV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
NLT - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
NKJV - Gen 1:1 -In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
NASB - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
RSV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Webster - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Young - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
Darby - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
ASV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
HNV - Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the eretz.
Vulgate - Gen 1:1 - in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram
that's funny, i don't see one, singular, solitary plural "gods" in there anywhere. do you? have you ever seen a single translation that renders "elohim" as "gods" in the verse? can you find one, anywhere? even heretical bibles, and strange translations?
no?
that's because it's kindergarten hebrew grammar. the verb determines number and gender. i am not aware on any translation that has EVER rendered "elohim" as plural in this case, or any other where it refers to ha-shem. i'm sorry, faith, you lose. the history of biblical
translation agrees with me: elohim, when used to describe yahweh, is always singular.
what you're thinking of is
interpretation. that's different. they see the singular usage of a plural-
looking word to be evidence of the trinity (and/or other polytheistic beliefs). translation ≠ interpretation. be careful with interpretations: i can find you whole essays expounding on the shape of the letter yud. people read lots of fun stuff into the bible.
Why anyone should even have to answer to such adolescent arrogance is beyond me. But that's the democracy of the internet.
it's not arrogance. you're wrong. deal with it. you trust these
interpretations based on authority. you do not have enough skill in the language to tell they are wrong.
i do and i don't even have that much skill (which i am the first to admit).
No it is not polytheism. Are you a Mormon? A Jehovah's Witness? They think it is polytheism. They are wrong.
i'm a person with a brain in their skull. is jesus god? is yahweh god? is the holy spirit god? that's three gods. polytheism. that whole jesus = yahweh = the spirit is a bit, well, gnostic for my taste. it complicates the story. god sacrificed himself to himself to give us himself?
Where are you getting "watch over?" God has the tribes of Israel represent the nations and you are making this into something else that makes no sense.
it's not my fault you can't follow this. you can't seem to follow the hebrew grammar argument, either. look, this is simple:
the MOST HIGH god divides the nations.
one son of el to a nation.
israel's son of el is yahweh.
that's more or less the definition of henotheism. henotheism is the stepping-stone from polytheism. it means that we accept other gods exist, but we only only worship ours.
Didn't I just say "all these other" gods?
I understand there are millions of "gods." Hinduism alone has millions.
do you believe they exist? even if they're evil, that's henotheism.
You are going to have to spell out your case better than this. I can't read your mind. You seem to think if you merely state a name it carries some complex meaning known only to you.
for god's sake faith. god commands that the levites sacrifice a goat to another divine entity. you don't see that as a little bit weird? a little bit polytheist?
I have no idea what that is supposed to prove.
first, that "yah" is a very common way to refer to "yahweh."
No doubt they are reverting to a generic idol god.
generic? a calf is pretty specific. why do they KEEP using a calf? what is special about a calf? what
other traditions could possibly be influencing them to think of god as a calf?
it's not like it's a calf one time, and a goat another time, and a mule another time. no, it's a calf, and only a calf that is called the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob.
So what? Historically that idol god had nothing to do with the revelation of the character of the true God it may have vaguely tried to represent. Historically Abraham did not take that idol and make it the center of a religion of his invention. But that is what Mohammed did. (And again, I am not saying that Islam is NOW a polytheism. Sheesh.)
you keep saying "historically" instead of "i believe that..."
islam holds the same thing you do. that allah is NOT that idol, but the revelation of the true character of god (who is aniconic).
™ Version 4.2