Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
What is also clear however is that it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists. Simply saying that the word MUST mean what you think it means, without further examination is a pretty limited way of evaluating complex texts like the bible.
Poor understanding? If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'. Apart from that, I think you tend to put to much trust in authors of the books you read.
Besides, there are plenty of 'interpretation' issues that are not 'solved' by the concordance, infact it makes it worse. Let me give you an example:
For example, the Divine name YHVH has been said to mean " Self existant one". The superficial definition of it in the strongs give it that meaning as well, but with a little determination one can use this book to discover that it doesnt mean that at all. Hava, or HVH in hebrew, means to breath and/or to become. YHVH then means He is causing breath. However, if you digg even deeper you will see that YHVH also has within it AVAH which means to desire, or wish for, showing Gods ability to simply desire a thing to be. So with all this we can see that YHVH means He who causes to breath, or He who causes to become through breathing, or even He who manifests his desires through breath. Of course, breath being a symbol of life and the actual meaning of Spirit, Ruach, Breath, and not some Phantasmic force, but Gods own voice is creating.
There's a great difference between 'Self existant one' and 'He who manifests his desires through breath' (the latter NOT being a correct translation, but a interpretation instead, people tend to confuse that a LOT!) They are making linguistic jumps all over the place when it comes to claims about the 'true meaning of words'.
Still, when you read that Strong's concordance or Zondervan's concordance for all I care, you will no doubt find out about how bad the KJV actually has been translated by scholars back in the 16th century.
Quote:
"thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
Infact, if there would be NO other Gods, why would the Bible even mention this? I do see this as a 'proof' of a somewhat polytheïstic view. I think the remnants in the bible of words or sentences which seem to imply multiple Gods instead of just one God adds too this as well, although it may not directly proof it, we all know we'd have to encounter multiple Gods to prove anything anyways, which makes 'proving' a bit irrelevant in this case. Still, a conclusion which assumes polytheism (or remnants of that) is very legit based on not just that,
Cheers
|
