Conference taveng::bagels

    The word sometimes rendered "elohim" is a uniplural.  Sort of like
    the royal "we".

> Is the translation to a single G-d in deference to modern belief or does it
> represent the belief of the author at the time it was written? Is there
> anyone who can help me with an explanation?

This has been discussed elsewhere in Bagels, but to summarize: in Hebrew a
plural form is sometimes used to denote an abstraction. For example, "mayim"
(waters) means water in general as in "throw your bread upon the waters".
Furthermore the plural form is used in many languages in reference to the
nobility (the royal "we"). Languages have peculiarities that will forever seem
strange to those who don't speak the language. I always find it funny that
the Hebrew word for "father" (abbah) is a feminine form. You cannot conclude
from the form of the word that G-d is plural - trust the translator to have
interpreted the context better than you or I could (I really know very little
Hebrew).

During the Spanish Inquisition, a committee of scholarly Jews was summoned
to debate the premise that the Hebrew bible proves that G-d is a trinity.
The debate continued for a long time and ended in a tie despite the fact that
the judges were not exactly neutral. One telling argument from the Jewish side
was that the quotations used to prove G-d is a trinity could just as easily
prove the G-d is quaternary or any other number you choose.

Dave

    Mark Twain said that the only people who should refer to
    themselves as "we" are "royalty and people with tapeworms."

    That's "kings, editors, and people with tapeworm."

.2> This has been discussed elsewhere in Bagels, but to summarize: in Hebrew a
.2> plural form is sometimes used to denote an abstraction. For example, "mayim"
.2> (waters) means water in general ...

"Sometimes" is right.  "Avir" (air), which logically could fall into the
same category, is singular in form.  "Chaim" (life) also is plural, but
that doesn't mean that each of us gets more than one.  The word "pants"
has a plural form in both Hebrew and English; have you ever tried walking
around in one pant?

.2>                                                I always find it funny that
.2> the Hebrew word for "father" (abbah) is a feminine form.

Sorry, Dave.  "Abbah" is spelled aleph-bet-aleph, which is a masculine form.
If you want a strange example of gender in Hebrew, try to figure out why
a woman's breast is masculine, while most parts of the body (such as the
penis) are feminine.


I've always assumed that this sort of thing is done deliberately to make
life (lives?) more difficult for those of us who have to learn Hebew as
a second language.

    Getting slightly off the original topic, but following on to .2;
    
    "Sex" and "Gender" are two very different items.  Gender is an
    arbitrary division of WORDS into categories, typically labelled
    "masculine" and "feminine" and sometimes "neuter".  But those are
    merely convenient handles; they might as well be "red" and "blue"
    or "yin" and "yang"!
    
    Sex, on the other hand, is a characteristic of living beings.  Thus
    it is WRONG to say that a law, say, is "gender neutral" when you
    mean "sex neutral".  People use "gender" as a euphemism for "sex",
    but that's not to say that gender = sex!  (They just don't like
    that little "s-word", as if it were impolite.)
    
    English is not an engendered language, so the only vestiges of gender
    are in sex-related matters.  But other languages engender everything,
    and words with sex-related connections don't necessarily have the
    "obvious" gender. Which makes sense because gender isn't about sex,
    its about dividing words into arbitrary categories (for various
    reasons beyond this note).
    
    A few years back some really serious flames on this topic took place
    in the JOYOFLEX conference.  (Where the above position was not
    necessarily agreed to by everyone.)
          fred

.2>                                                I always find it funny that
.2> the Hebrew word for "father" (abbah) is a feminine form.

>Sorry, Dave.  "Abbah" is spelled aleph-bet-aleph, which is a masculine form.

I stand corrected. I am still confused by the plural form "Avot" which is
feminine plural, isn't it? (As in Pirket Avot).

Dave
(I am starting to enjoy being wrong. I learn a lot that way!)

re: -1

Yes Dave, the plural is Avot.  Some masculine terms take on feminine plurals,
don't ask, just do(:-).

David

        This question has been bothering me a bit lately.  

	Can any biblical scholar please give me a reference to any text
	that says that there *is* only one G_d?  I don't recall that He
	said so Himself.

        We have "...one G_d created us..", (Malachi 2:10) but that does not
        remove the possibility that there are others (who perhaps created
        life elsewhere in the universe).  There are very many references to
        "other gods", but nowhere, as far as I can see, does it say that
        these *do not exist*.  On the contrary, in Daniel 3:29, we find
        "...because there is no other god that can deliver after this
        sort.", which implies that there are other (though lesser) deities.

        It really is confusing.

	Delia

    According to _Issac_Asimov's_Guide_to_the_Bible_, the different
    documents (P, J, E, etc.) have different views of this question.
    
    The oldest view is that there are many deities, each connected to
    a particular people or place.  Later views downgrade the other
    deities while expanding the role of the Jewish one (e.g. by removing
    the ethnic component and the restriction to Palestine).
    
    There's on-going scholarly work on the various "Baalim" of the
    ancient Near East, but I don't follow it.
    
    		-John Bishop

I can think of two passages off the top of my head that are relevant.
Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) and the Ten Commandments. The Shema has been
recited as an article of faith for an awfully long time. We understand it
to mean there is only one G-d. The Ten Commandments direct us to worship
only one G-d.

I believe that the bible allows for the existence of "spiritual beings"
other than G-d (i.e. angels). However, none have any power over G-d.
If you accept this then the question of other gods becomes moot.

Contrast this concept with the pagan view of the universe. In the pagan
view the elements of the universe (represented by the multiple gods) were
at war with one another. Certain gods had powers over the elements that
they could use to defeat other gods at certain times. In other words,
might makes right.

Dave

Re: .9

Deut. 4:39
	
	Know therefore this day, and consider it in your heart, that
	that the L-rd is G-d in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath,
	there is none else.

Deut. 32:39

	See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with me...

Re: .10

>    The oldest view is that there are many deities, each connected to
>    a particular people or place.

Not in the Jewish Bible, anyway.

Jem

    Jem et al.,
    
    The Bible indicates that its believers *thought* that pagans thought
    that there were different deities associated with different places
    and peoples.  Actually, in some cases this would be about as correct
    as asserting that "E--m" and "Y--H" are different deities; i.e.,
    thoroughly incorrect.  In fact, some pagan religions didn't even
    believe in warring deities (although others did).
    
    (What a stunning revelation!  There is more than one all-purpose
    pagan religion! :-)
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .13
    
    Ann,
    
    Sure, I'll pick that nit ;-)
    
    Paganism aside, G-d *did* say that there were none beside Him and that
    we were to worship no false gods.
    
    I've understood "false gods" to mean things (whether wood or metal
    formed into an idol, stars/crystals, people, or angels/demons) that
    people have given the word "god" to when in fact, G-d Himself has said
    that He alone is G-d and there are none beside Him.
    
    IF G-d really is Creator of the universe (as the Bible says), then
    everything else is created, and not worthy of man's worship.
    
    Worship G-d and G-d alone.
    
    Just one man's opinion,
    
    Steve