Summations Only

See previous post where I've quoted the verses that explain that the "gods" are devils, otherwise known as demons.

You would think that god guy would be better at explaining things and writing things clearly. According to what you are saying, what is written is a real clusterfuck. Is English really that hard?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Like I said you made it up.
You pull two quotes like they apply to all the unrelated ones.
Read Theodoric's post.

Sorry, it's standard understanding that those references clarify what the references to "gods" mean.It's also said in the NT, in 1 Corinthians 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

When I say "standard understanding" I mean at least within the circle of Protestant-Evangelical churches that came down from the Reformation, but it's probably also standard in the RC church as well; the fallen angels or demons or devils ARE the gods worshipped in all the natural human-invented religions of mankind.

Back when you were studying this stuff. Did they ever mention this? I mean the crap they make up to try and explain these contradictions is remarkable.
Is too bad the actual writers never knew these were contradictions so they could avoid putting them in.

Okay, I'm trying to follow this disingenuous stuff that Faith is saying.
Learned through esteemed "maker uppers".So far as I can follow the excuses run like this.
-When god says us (implying multi-gods)...he means trinity without ever saying Trinity.
-If "gods" occur in the bible after Leviticus then it's demon gods because of these pulled out quotes> Now what about stuff referring to gods, before the pulled out quotes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is stuff in Exodus> This occurs prior to Leviticus and the demon god excuse.
What kind of stuff do the " maker uppers" use to explain these or do these get ignored?

The arrogance of the ignorant is beyond comprehension these days. You come along and tell the people who revere the Bible and have interpreted it consistently for hundreds of years that they're wrong, you tell me I "made it up" and you just go on with your weird stuff no matter what.Now you are going on about how this or that occurred before or after something else which in your frame of reference is another "contradiction" I guess, but it really makes no sense. The gods of Egypt are also demon gods, why wouldn't they be? Scripture says God, the uncreated Creator God, is greater than all the lesser gods of the various nations, which are later in the Pentateuch explained to be demons. It's perfectly consistent, it takes a strange mentality to make something else of it. Scripture EXPLAINS the gods as demons later on in the text, but the explanation applies to ALL the gods wherever described.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

misguided and likely wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Excuse me????? The verses I put up are understood to explain the nature of the heathen "gods." What is your problem?

I don't have a problem. I read the wrong post. Unfortunately you read a message that I was in the midst of correcting.

Whew! That's a relief.

However well, or unwell sourced Faith's interpretation, it is pretty evident that she did not make it up. Faith did not invent the Trinity or demons.Surely you've heard most of this fundy stuff yourself prior to ever encountering Faith. What is the basis for your accusations that she is making stuff up?

I wasn't interpreting Golffly as saying that Faith personally made it up, just that she's promoting the made-up nonsense of fundamentalism. Golffly compares it to all the other religions that do exactly the same thing, believing unequivocally in stuff they've made up. Faith could no more convince a fundamentalist Muslim of her made up nonsense than he could convince her of his, because religious belief doesn't derive from evidence.--Percy

I was doing as Percy suggests, made up from Faith means some apologist made it up.
As Jar suggested early Jews ( like everyone else) were polytheists. I think to make up otherwise, in order to have it fit a preconceived conclusion is disingenuous.
With this type of thinking one could make up whatever they think, then make the book fit that. It doesn't really matter what the conclusion is, just make up stuff to fit that.
The same process is done with literal Muslims. Making the book fit the group think.
The lengths that must be undertaken to have obvious things say things the way the " make uppers" have decided is a remarkable feat in maintaing a delusion. It is no different than what apologist Muslims do or what is done with BoM to have it be the most true book ever written.
Other books share the unique quality when distorted thinking is applied.
If I was to play a game with the Quran, like what is done with the bible. Faith would be all over it as an obvious distortion. But condones it when done with the bible.