More than one god of the Old Testament

Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said 'The man has become like one of US, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever'. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

This is an interesting verse.
Does this one and only god have company? Is he merely one of many gods?
Who are these other gods he speaks of, that know good and evil?

Does he fear that one of his creations, 'man' can actually be yet another threat or a rival if he is allowed to live forever? Be even more like 'US'?

So he punishes man for denying the ignorance of good and evil.
It seems this knowledge is a threat to this self proclaimed 'jealous god' who would wish to keep his subjects in 'blissful ignorance' and under his thumb.
After all knowledge is power.

www.wrestedscriptures.com...

The trinity and angels were the first to come to my mind, good point though.

Much earlier than your quote is Genesis 1:26.

And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

(emphasis added)

We had a debate about this at work. One guy said that it was a typo. I don't think anyone said that there was multiple gods or that God had company. We asked our christian co-worker wait it meant to him. He said that God was speaking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Like all discussions on religion this debate when on forever, until I told everyone to get back to work.

its called the trinity: father son holy spirit. This verse is hardly a smoking gun.


Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

Many students of the ancient religions in the Land of Canaan and the struggles of the Hebrew people, believe that the story of Abraham and Isaac is the way the writer had to explain the end of child sacrifice which may have - indeed probably - was practiced by the old time Hebrews. The writer for the God of Abraham was suggesting an offering of a ram or goat might work as well as the sacrifice of a child. A big improvement, I’d say.

Originally posted by donwhite

Many students of the ancient religions in the Land of Canaan and the struggles of the Hebrew people, believe that the story of Abraham and Isaac is the way the writer had to explain the end of child sacrifice which may have - indeed probably - was practiced by the old time Hebrews. The writer for the God of Abraham was suggesting an offering of a ram or goat might work as well as the sacrifice of a child. A big improvement, I’d say.

Only a blood thirsty evil god would demand sacrifices of any kind (human or animal) to be made in his honour or for his appeasement.

The jealous, vengeful, wrathful god spoken of in the Old testament switching from possible child/human sacrifice to animal sacrifice is an improvement, but why the need for such a sacrifice at all?

posted by point

posted by donwhite

“ . . the ancient religions in the Land of Canaan and Hebrew people . . the story of Abraham and Isaac is the end of child sacrifice practiced by the old time Hebrews. The God of Abraham was replacing a ram or goat in place of the sacrifice of a child.
[Edited by Don W]

Only a blood thirsty god demands sacrifices of a human or animal to be made in his honor or for his appeasement. The jealous, vengeful, wrathful god spoken of in the Old testament switching from possible child sacrifice to animal sacrifice is an improvement, but why the need for such a sacrifice at all? [Edited by Don W]

2 responses to your question, Mr. Point.

(1) Because early religionists had no written or permanent recording of the rituals and procedures, it was always possible to modify the ritual or commands to meet the needs of the contemporary population.

With the invention of writing, this became more and more difficult, as we can begin to see in 21st century Christianity where so many Fundamentalists attribute divine inspiration to the particular text they possess.

Religion, as everything, animal and the innate, evolves. Once we lock ourselves into a particular time frame, or written instructions, the religion becomes less and less useful. We owe a vote of gratitude to Gutenberg for being the person whose invention has begun the end of organized religion.

(2) Ancient people everywhere* seem to have been quite ready to offer a child to placate the local gods. Although the Meso-Americans seem to fit the human sacrifice pattern, it is interesting to me that the Native Americans living north of the Rio Grande did not seem to indulge that practice. *Neither am I acquainted with facts that the Aboriginal people of Australia practiced child sacrifice. I believe it is mentioned in the Holy Koran.

Its probably a carry over from older hebrew traditions and folklore that had more than one god.

Especially worthy of notice, I suspect, is that angelology used to be something of a cult. In the modern day, there are still groups of peopel, such as the Yezidis in northern iraq, that seem to have a religion that is a sort of angelology. So this verse might really be a reference to that.


I think that the trinity idea falls flat, that god, considered a monad by the jews, was using the plural, but that it escaped their attention. The christian answer is that its literally true, that god meant the father, son, and holy spirit, when he said Us. But I think what most people want is the original hebrew answer, since its an origianlly hebrew text.

And that despite that Christianity is a religion of peace.

Yeah, tell me more!

posted by Nygdan

I think that the trinity idea falls flat, that God, considered a monad by the Jews, was using the plural, but that it escaped their attention. The Christian answer is that it’s literally true, that God meant the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, when he said “us.” But I think what most people want is the original Hebrew answer, since its an originally Hebrew text. [Edited by Don W]

I think Christians by the 4th or 5th centuries had reverted to polytheism. Now, I don’t mean the ordinary man or woman in the pew, but I do mean the leaders of Christianity who had other objects to achieve and problems to consider. I think this was an accommodation to non-Christians who the Roman emperor wanted to include as an ally. Recall from history that all Christian theology had to have the Emperor’s approval until the 6th century. The Church worked for the state, and not the other way around. That was to come later. Much later.




[edit on 6/12/2006 by donwhite]

I'm not like a bible-study-guy so I may be wrong but I thought the Trinity referred to Jesus, God etc?

If it does then wasn't genesis a long LONG time before he was even born? And you could say that God knew he was coming etc, but why would God feel the need to say this to someone who wasn't even concieved (far off)?

I think this is going to get some pretty good responses. Good eye!

of course, one could also ask the question....

was it really God who said this, or just an advanced entity who thought they were a god.....

I don't think it was a typo....

Originally posted by dawnstar
of course, one could also ask the question....

was it really God who said this, or just an advanced entity who thought they were a god.....

I don't think it was a typo....

To go further, an advanced entity that new very well it was not the True God yet wanted the people to believe this falsehood for its own self aggrandizement.

It was even insanely jealous of the worship of man made idols as seen in Exodus 20:5.
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me"

Originally posted by point
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord Your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me"

Not to contribute something which could topple the foundations of life, but aren't alleged abductees often the children of abductees? Or their grandparents have had an experience?
And considering the emotional anguish they feel it sounds pretty much like "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and the fourth generation" to me.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
Not to contribute something which could topple the foundations of life, but aren't alleged abductees often the children of abductees? Or their grandparents have had an experience?
And considering the emotional anguish they feel it sounds pretty much like "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and the fourth generation" to me.

I wouldn't worry about it, the foundations were full of cracks anyway.

Alrighty then, so the not very nice tantrum throwing 'god' of the Old Testement could possibly have been one of many not very nice aliens who are currently known for abducting humans.
To a relatively less technologically advanced people, an alien could very well be thought of as a god.
Advanced technology could very well be the cause of many apparent 'miracles' in the eyes of less technological advanced folk.

"Obey me! lest I smite you with lightening from the heavens."
(Translation: zap you with a laser beam from my spaceship that is parked behind the second cloud on the left)

Precisely. Imagine you were a primitive human that had lived a certain way of life for generations.
Then I come along with a tank, blow up a few of your houses, and tell you that I am the Creator of everything you know and my tank is my chariot. I then drive away, and fly a plane upwards and over your head (breaking the sound barrier creating a sonic boom) and leaving you fearful.

Now would you be inclined to do as I say in order to prevent further damage to your society?

Originally posted by point

Originally posted by donwhite

Many students of the ancient religions in the Land of Canaan and the struggles of the Hebrew people, believe that the story of Abraham and Isaac is the way the writer had to explain the end of child sacrifice which may have - indeed probably - was practiced by the old time Hebrews. The writer for the God of Abraham was suggesting an offering of a ram or goat might work as well as the sacrifice of a child. A big improvement, I’d say.

Only a blood thirsty evil god would demand sacrifices of any kind (human or animal) to be made in his honour or for his appeasement.

The jealous, vengeful, wrathful god spoken of in the Old testament switching from possible child/human sacrifice to animal sacrifice is an improvement, but why the need for such a sacrifice at all?

This was not a Hateful god. Animals were such as money is today. Or for you animal raisers still like the Pure Bread Japanese Tosa's are prized today. And that is about the only animal that is pure bread that I can think of that is prized like animals used to be.

I think it would be very revealing to read the Old Testement with this view of its 'God' in mind.
There are better ways of engendering respect than to demand it under threats of punishment.
This insecure and overly emotional being posing as the ultimate supreme level of intelligence gives itself away by its unprofessional conduct.

posted by point

I think it would be very revealing to read the Old Testament with this view of its 'God' in mind. The insecure and overly emotional being posing as the ultimate supreme level of intelligence gives itself away by its unprofessional conduct.
[Edited by Don W]

I’m enjoying the back and forth you, Point, and JackofBlades are conducting. This is a digression, but I want you to include it into your thinking. Christians are constantly telling us what the OT means, despite 99% of them can’t read classical Hebrew, and often know almost none of Israelite history. The Jewish people wrote the Books and already “know” for the most part, what it means. Another example of a totalitarian complex suffered by Christianity and inflicted on inquirers of the truth.



[edit on 6/13/2006 by donwhite]

Ok first off, in the Old testament one of the most common Hebrew words that was translated to the word God in English was Elohim. Elohim if you look it up in a Hebrew-English Dictionary; I recommend Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon Elohim is a word in the plural state.

Secondly, There are many other words translated to the word God from Hebrew. Many scholars agree these different words are used to represent the differenant side of God. The power side, the mercy side etc. Not to mention we all have a polytheistic type of statement when we refer to the triad. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. I believe the bible is monotheistic and polytheistic and even matches up with the Hindu religion which is representated as only Polytheistic.

How so... I believe God can be broken down in to multiple sides as the bible does, same with Hinduism. It is still one God as a whole, but different parts are refered to separately so that it is easier to understand that side. Hinduism keeps in seperated, The Bible tries to merge them. Put the ideas together and you have the right idea.

I also have other believes when regarding to the God of the Old Testament, I won't get into it now, but I will recommend Michael Tsarion's work. Good luck with solving the mystery.

posted by BStoltman

Ok first off, the O.T. one of the most common Hebrew words translated to the English word God was Elohim. If you look it up in a Hebrew-English Dictionary; Elohim is a word in the plural state.

Secondly, There are many other words translated to the word God from Hebrew. Many scholars agree these different words are used to represent the different side of God. The power side, the mercy side etc..

I believe God can be broken down in to multiple sides as the Bible does, same with Hinduism. It is still one God as a whole, but different parts are referred to separately so it is easier to understand that side. Hinduism keeps it separated, The Bible tries to merge them. Put the ideas together and you have the right idea.

I have other beliefs regarding the God of the Old Testament, I won't get into now. Good luck with solving the mystery. [Edited by Don W]

Very interesting perspective, B/S, but as in King Agrippa, ‘almost you have persuaded me.’ The operative word being ‘almost.’ For me it is too much oriental to speak of the many ‘sides’ of God. Too much reminiscent of the Buddhist story of the blind men measuring the elephant for me. For a people - Orientals - who are a lot more nuanced in religion than my ancestors - Scots and English - that starts from a proposition I do not grant, that is, that God exists. I hold to the view that man created God. And not the other way round.

I prefer the group of scholars that say Genesis probably had at least three authors. That there are 2 distinct versions of the Creation because there were competing stories in the oral traditions in early Israelite culture and both were included in the first Holy Writings. In a similar vein, if ‘Genesis’ really means ‘origins’ then the Noah flood story (see Gilgamish) could also be a third story of beginnings. Apparently the early Jewish people were a lot more tolerant than their successors. This variety of stories is also evidence of an early difference between the competing Levitic and Aaronic priesthoods. Judea (Levy) and Samaria (Aaron).

Exclusivity and orthodoxy come later in religions. In Christianity, it is post Constantine. Even today's fundamentalists concede the book of Isaiah has at least 2 and maybe 3 authors. And so on. Secular scholars agree the Book of Luke is part of the same book as the Acts of the Apostles, originally one book but perhaps shared by a splintering group, as in King Solomon’s baby.

My bottom line is that Rome would not have executed an itinerant preacher whose theme was “God is love.” Ordinary miscreants were sentenced to 20 years at the oars. Crucifixion was reserved for rebels. The Jewish High Priest Caiaphas was an appointee of Rome, a genuine satrap and very unlikely to have even dreamed of tricking the Roman Prefect into doing his dirty work. Had Pilate found that out Caiaphas would have joined Jesus on his own cross.

The crucifixion story makes sense only if you put Jesus in the same line of dissenters as the earlier Maccabees and the later Simon bar Kochva. We don’t even know the names of the leaders of the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD which ended at Masada in 73 AD. But almost certainly not as Josephus is supposed to have recorded, with 900 Jewish defenders committing suicide. I say “supposed” because I am satisfied the writings of Josephus were composed or substantially altered in the 4th and 5th centuries of the Common Era.


[edit on 6/14/2006 by donwhite]