The Irrational Nature Of Atheism - An Explanation Of God, Gods And Goddesses

The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
The Irrational Nature Of Atheism - An Explanation Of God, Gods And Goddesses

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 wrote:
5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

Wikipedia wrote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]

Merriam Webster wrote:

Definition of GOD

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler See god defined for English-language learners »See god defined for kids »

Examples of GOD

  1. Does she believe in God?
  2. I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.
  3. the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
  4. a myth about the god of war
  5. an offering for the gods
  6. a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
  7. a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix

Atheists are a peculiar thinking people. If you try and define atheism they will angrily tell you that to be an atheist simply means that one doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods. If you tell them that you were once an atheist they will angrily tell you that you must not have been a "real" atheist. This has happened to me dozens of times.

If you tell an atheist that according to the Bible and a good modern dictionary a god can be anything or anyone they will say you are distorting definitions to suit your own paradigm and your are intellectually dishonest or disingenuous. The fact is, atheists tend to be extremely emotionally fixed upon their idealism, even more so than the religious, and they tend to be grossly ignorant of the Bible because they oppose modern day Christianity and to a lesser extent, any other theology.

This is my attempt to educate the atheists on what exactly a god, or deity is. God, Gods, Goddesses. The primary argument is that atheism is the disbelief of gods, it denies the existence of gods. The methodology consists of nothing more than the practical common usage of the word God, but no such distinction within the basic tenant of atheism is given, besides, the common usage of a word doesn't negate the other possible uses. The other defense is that the other gods are metaphorical. This is false, because all gods are equally metaphorical in application. The very root of the Hebrew and Greek words for gods indicates this. 

 

What Is A God

The Hebrew word El and variations of it are translated into the English word God. It means "Mighty; Strong."  The Greek word theos is the equivalent, and was used to translate El, Elohim, etc. in the Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew scriptures. When the Hebrew El appears with the definite article ha (ha El, literally meaning "the God&quotEye-wink in the Bible it was in reference strictly to Jehovah, but the various terms used without the definite article may be applied to Jehovah, to other gods, to men.

Isaiah 9:6 wrote:
For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God [Hebrew El Gibbohr], Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:6 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, who was a man, and is called a mighty God.

Psalm 82:1, 6 wrote:
God [Hebrew Elohim] is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods [Hebrew elohim] he judges: "I myself have said, 'You are gods [Hebrew elohim], And all of you are sons of the Most High.'"

Here Jehovah God calls the human judges of Israel, some of whom were faithful and some of whom were not, gods.

John 10:34, 35 wrote:
Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods [Greek theoi, Hebrew elohim]?'" If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,

Here Jesus is faced with the same sort of religiosity that the modern day atheist, under the influence of the modern day misguided theist, displays. A poor understanding and almost superstitious definition of what it means to be a god. He corrects them with their own sacred text, Psalm 82:1, 6, given above.

Exodus 4:16; 7:1 wrote:
And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God [Hebrew lelohim] to him. Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you God [Hebrew elohim] to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet."

Here again Jehovah God refers to a man, Moses, as an appointed God to Pharaoh and to Aaron. All of these verses of men being gods simply mean that they are mighty, strong. Because that is what the word god means. Anything or anyone who is attributed might or is venerated by another. So Jehovah was the God of Israel, meaning he was mighty to Israel, he was venerated by Israel. Dagon was the god [elohim] to the Philistines. (1 Samuel 5:7)

The problem is that atheists as well as most theists see this as some sort of metaphoric distinction, and that isn't the case. They see the one true God negating the others as false and that isn't necessarily so. Some gods of the nations were "valueless gods" in Jehovah's eyes and supposedly to the faithful Israelites, but that didn't mean that all of the other gods were false, or even that any of them were any less of a god in the eyes of the beholder, because that is what a God is. Something or someone with might or strength in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Why The Confusion?

Jeremiah 23:27 wrote:
They are thinking of making my people forget my name by means of their dreams that they keep relating each one to the other, just as their fathers forgot my name by means of Baal.

 

There is some confusion, though note that the above definition of a god from a modern dictionary is really in line with what I'm saying a god is. The confusion is caused by the superstitious removal of Jehovah God's name from the scriptures by the Sopherim. The Sopherim, or scribes, changed 134 passages in the Hebrew texts to read Adhonai [Generic term LORD] in place of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, Jehovah God's personal name. They did this in a superstitious attempt to prevent the common man from profaning the name. So when you see LORD in all upper case it is where the name has been removed.
 

Afterwards, the generic title of God became somewhat distorted into being applied exclusively to the God of Israel. The God of the Bible. This is the equivalent of saying you don't believe in man because Adam probably didn't exist. 

 




 

 

 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
ax wrote:I pointed out the

ax wrote:

 

I pointed out the contradiction in your statement. The two definitions you quoted conflict with one another.

And as I pointed out, you are wrong there, and besides I used their own definition from their own source in the particular case you refer to.

ax wrote:
To use the bible as a reference, all parties have to agree it is such, and for the sake of clarity and equality, I am not sure many could agree to include the Bible as a reference. There are many different versions of the Bible with varying translations and subjective interpretations.

I received no refutation or complaint regarding my Biblical reference, would you like to do that now?


ax wrote:
Why would I assume without certainty when I could surely know by simply asking you? I am presupposing of course that your answer will be honest.

Sure you are. When you have answered my question I will answer yours.

ax wrote:
You must first agree on the definition.

We agree on the definition. I used theirs, are you concurring with me by indicating an obvious problem with the definition itself?

ax wrote:
If you are a herald, who sent you?

Nice.
 

ax wrote:
Your definition of a word is not needed when the definition is already provided by credible sources.

You keep referring to definition, which at least indicates the possibility that you are paying attention, but which definition that I use causes the problem? The definition of atheism as the denial of the existence and disbelief in gods, i.e. deities, or that of gods / deities itself? It is the latter. Again, I used their own definition and sources.

ax wrote:
I see why you are confused. Not every word has an exact translation into every language. To understand this further, attempt to define a cell phone using Latin.

 

Don't be obtuse. If you wish to debate the definition of god, gods, and goddesses please do so and stop beating around the bush.


ax wrote:
You also seem to have difficulty with context. The context in which the word god(s) is used in the definition of atheism is not referring to "Hendrix". This is not assumed or "misapplied", it is common English grammar.

 

And of Moses? Jesus? Judges of Israel? Inanimate objects? They simply deny the majority of what gods are. Gods. Did I miss the asterisk following the word gods in the definition of atheism which leads to the disclaimer that only one God or one class of gods, the supernatural, are meant to have been implied? Because either the definition is wrong or it should be amended.


ax wrote:
I am hoping your denial is the result of angst towards atheism and seeing the logical response from another theist might help you drop this silly notion that you are clinging to as it is destroying your credibility.

And tell me, theist, the value of credibility to the adversaries of Jehovah God and Christ Jesus.

ax wrote:
However, it seems I am too late to help you withdraw.. I sadly inform you that your label may be permanent.

Every skeptical and atheist forum I have been to has had a resident theist who sucks up to them and is well liked. Is that you?

But the high priest and all those with him, the then existing sect of the Sadducees, rose and became filled with jealousy,  and they laid hands upon the apostles and put them in the public place of custody.  But during the night Jehovah's angel opened the doors of the prison, brought them out and said:  "Be on your way, and, having taken a stand in the temple, keep on speaking to the people all the sayings about this life."  After hearing this, they entered into the temple at daybreak and began to teach.


Now when the high priest and those with him arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin and all the assembly of older men of the sons of Israel, and they sent out to the jail to have them brought.  But when the officers got there they did not find them in the prison. So they returned and made report,  saying: "The jail we found locked with all security and the guards standing at the doors, but on opening up we found no one inside."  Well, when both the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they fell into a quandary over these matters as to what this would come to.  But a certain man arrived and reported to them: "Look! The men you put in the prison are in the temple, standing and teaching the people."  Then the captain went off with his officers and proceeded to bring them, but without violence, as they were afraid of being stoned by the people.


So they brought them and stood them in the Sanhedrin hall. And the high priest questioned them and said: "We positively ordered you not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us."  In answer Peter and the apostles said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men.  The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake.  God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler."


When they heard this, they felt deeply cut and were wanting to do away with them.  But a certain man rose in the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a Law teacher esteemed by all the people, and gave the command to put the men outside for a little while.  And he said to them: "Men of Israel, pay attention to yourselves as to what you intend to do respecting these men.  For instance, before these days Theudas rose, saying he himself was somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined his party. But he was done away with, and all those who were obeying him were dispersed and came to nothing.  After him Judas the Galilean rose in the days of the registration, and he drew off people after him. And yet that man perished, and all those who were obeying him were scattered abroad.  And so, under the present circumstances, I say to you, do not meddle with these men, but let them alone; (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown;  but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them) otherwise, you may perhaps be found fighters actually against God."  At this they gave heed to him, and they summoned the apostles, flogged them, and ordered them to stop speaking upon the basis of Jesus' name, and let them go.

These, therefore, went their way from before the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy to be dishonored in behalf of his name.  And every day in the temple and from house to house they continued without letup teaching and declaring the good news about the Christ, Jesus.
 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
@ The Theist

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:So are

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

Does that mean we are all also poop?

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Reassessment...

 By your numerous quotations, it is obvious that the definition of god that you choose for yourself is radically different from that which you try to foist upon us. You accept 'god' as the biblical entity, characterized and qualified by the writings you obviously hold as sacred. 

You are not merely childish, in creating an absurdist caricature of the atheist position, you are being deliberately disingenuous, a liar.

If you are not willing to deal with us in an honest, adult manner, why should we do so? Why should we feed you ego by responding at all?

 

LC >;-}>

 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:So are

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

He certainly seems to try to be selling that line of bullshit.

Believers never consider anything but black and white up and down either/or. How about the third option. Gods dont exist AND humans are not gods because no such thing exists.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

Does that mean we are all also poop?

Aw man, you blew my punch line... I was expecting him to say yes, then I was going to say "So does that mean we are also poop?"

lol


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

He certainly seems to try to be selling that line of bullshit.

Believers never consider anything but black and white up and down either/or. How about the third option. Gods dont exist AND humans are not gods because no such thing exists.

LOL. I believe that I am a god, not by those definitions though..


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:So are

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

No. Only that anyone could be a god.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

He certainly seems to try to be selling that line of bullshit.

Believers never consider anything but black and white up and down either/or. How about the third option. Gods dont exist AND humans are not gods because no such thing exists.

LOL. I believe that I am a god, not by those definitions though..

Just say "legend in my own mind", we all have those moments, I do too, but no one is a "god" even if they feel self important. I know you were joking, but I am being serious.

There is nothing wrong at all feeling dignity of self and having an ego, if humans didn't evolve to care about survival, well we wouldn't have evolved. It is when we project our own egos and desires on others, that is where our species gets itself in trouble.

I do think I am special, only in the sense of myself, my friends and co workers, but I am not special to evolution, or time or the future. Time gets all of us no matter what.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
                  

      The Theist stated in post #22 of his Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion thread that according to his sources a "god" can even be "the upper balcony in a theater".  Fine and dandy but....

                                                     does this look like the kind of "god" that atheists spend their time and effort debating about ?  I guess

                                                          The Theist didn't get the memo.....

 

                                                                                           

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Theist

The Theist wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So are you, by the definitions provided, saying that every one is a god?

No. Only that anyone could be a god.

Any human?


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 585
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I, myself, am a demigod

I, myself, am a demigod because most of the time, I do the normal human things and other times I seem to be omnipotent.  For example, I can close my right or left eye and make things seem closer than they are like when I'm lying on my side and looking at my pillow.  I can also...umm...wait, hang on...ehh...

 

Ok so, maybe my abilities are limited, but just you wait, I'll think of others and you'll see my power!!! *thunder cracks*   

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:And as I

The Theist wrote:

And as I pointed out, you are wrong there, and besides I used their own definition from their own source in the particular case you refer to.

The Theist wrote:

...deity[1] is a recognized preternatural or supernatural immortal being...

... a deity can be human...

A human by definition as an organism inevitably dies and cannot be a supernatural immortal being. In your counterargument you use the Bible as a reference to attempt to redefine the definition of a god. Can you offer counterargument without citing your specific iteration (and translation) of the Bible?

The Theist wrote:

I received no refutation or complaint regarding my Biblical reference, would you like to do that now?

See above.

The Theist wrote:

Sure you are. When you have answered my question I will answer yours.

What am I surely? I do not know why you are visiting this website. If I knew, I would not have asked you.

The Theist wrote:

We agree on the definition. I used theirs, are you concurring with me by indicating an obvious problem with the definition itself?

On the contrary, you do not seem to agree with anyone on the definition. I did not state or imply there is a problem with the definition.

The Theist wrote:

Nice.

What makes this nice?

The Theist wrote:

You keep referring to definition, which at least indicates the possibility that you are paying attention, but which definition that I use causes the problem? The definition of atheism as the denial of the existence and disbelief in gods, i.e. deities, or that of gods / deities itself? It is the latter. Again, I used their own definition and sources.

The problem is with your subjective re-definition of the word god or deity in the context of the definition of atheism.

The Theist wrote:

Don't be obtuse. If you wish to debate the definition of god, gods, and goddesses please do so and stop beating around the bush.

The definition can be found in a dictionary or encyclopedia, as others have referenced. If you wish to debate the meaning, you may want to consider a formal appeal to Wikipedia as well as Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, etc.

The Theist wrote:

And of Moses? Jesus? Judges of Israel? Inanimate objects? They simply deny the majority of what gods are. Gods. Did I miss the asterisk following the word gods in the definition of atheism which leads to the disclaimer that only one God or one class of gods, the supernatural, are meant to have been implied? Because either the definition is wrong or it should be amended.

You have reverted again to using the Bible as a reference.

The Theist wrote:

And tell me, theist, the value of credibility to the adversaries of Jehovah God and Christ Jesus.

Rationalism is irreligious.

The Theist wrote:

Every skeptical and atheist forum I have been to has had a resident theist who sucks up to them and is well liked. Is that you?

I attempt to treat everyone equally. Bigotry will not earn you respect.

The Theist wrote:

(Bible reference?)

No need to expend energy sharing long passages such as these since we cannot agree to use the Bible as a reference.

There are other more interesting topics you can debate.. We all of course have seperate interests, but are the semantics in question truly this compelling to you?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Brian37

The Theist wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Thanks for the petty condescending attitude.

No, "atheist" cannot mean anything. It is merely ONE position, particularly  the "off" position on the issue of god/s, so it cannot be anything.

If you want to call that stupid, we could care less, we aren't the ones claiming non material magical super brains with no location and a magic wand. THAT is what I would define as "stupid". Just like I would think if you are 40 years old and really still believe in the Easter Bunny.

 

If you would listen to me you might get what I'm trying to say. I didn't say atheist can mean anything, I said atheism is the disbelief in god or gods. It isn't well understood that a god is what can be anything. In the Bible sticks, stones, literal persons, and even ones own belly are called gods. Those are real things that can't be questioned as existing. They are every bit gods as the one true God of the Bible. This is really simple stuff.

Oh, and I never ever believed in the Easter bunny or Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. Not even as a very young child. I was fortunate not to have been taught those fables. Even very young I was taught that those things were make believe for fun, and that is how I thought of them.

Cut the crap. Brian doesn't put the label "theist" as a label under someone who isn't trying to peddle a superstition. "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny" doesn't change the fact that you are here peddling a superstition.

I am glad you don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but even Jefferson was wise enough to see the connection of the absurdity of virgin birth claims. "Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter" Thomas Jefferson. I merely go further than he did and equate ALL GOD CLAIMS as being as real as the Easter Bunny.

It is you that needs the help, and you are resisting our help because your ego wont let you go of your pet claim.

Now try understanding WHY you reject the superstitions of others, it is that simple. When you do that, and I hope you do, you will understand why we are getting pissed at your bad use of logic.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Juvenile

The Theist wrote:

Juvenile Narcissist wrote:

I was really hoping you would answer my question. Crying that atheism sounds stupid when held up to the context of an uncommonly used definition of god is a pretty vacuous objection. So far, the only reason I've seen you give for us to change the rules of language is so that you can call people stupid. Not high on my list of good reasons, but if that makes you feel good and allows you to get up in the morning, have at it. I think I'll stick with concise speech when little to no confusion is present. 

I don't know what you want from me. You all seem to bristle at what I am saying like I'm suggesting the administration of a suppository to your paradigm when all I'm simply saying is that the definition of atheism is misleading as far as it's apparent understanding of the simple terms translated as gods. I'm not saying this information is a full frontal lobotomy for atheists or that it is impossible to be an atheist now, or God must exist so convert your heathen asses - I'm just saying that your definition is fucking stupid and demonstrates how unformed you are. You need to rise above the traditional Christian superstitions. Educate yourself. Hell at the least you could then stop bitching at me and refute my claims.

Willfully remaining ignorant because it doesn't jive with what you want to believe, is exactly as you say, stupid.

 

 

 

Willfully ignorant of what? The other definitions of the word god? We're not. They just aren't important when referring to a god or gods within the context of atheism. No one is being mislead, and there is no misunderstanding, so there's no need to validate your ridiculous objection. 

 

What claims have you made that need refuting? 

 

And people are bristling because you're caustic, not because anything you've said so far holds water. 

 

Oh, fuck, caustic has more than one meaning. I bet you're gonna call me stupid, because you're not physically corrosive. 

Rill


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:This is my

The Theist wrote:

This is my attempt to educate the atheists on what exactly a god, or deity is. God, Gods, Goddesses. The primary argument is that atheism is the disbelief of gods, it denies the existence of gods. The methodology consists of nothing more than the practical common usage of the word God, but no such distinction within the basic tenant of atheism is given, besides, the common usage of a word doesn't negate the other possible uses. The other defense is that the other gods are metaphorical. This is false, because all gods are equally metaphorical in application. The very root of the Hebrew and Greek words for gods indicates this. 

 

What Is A God

The Hebrew word El and variations of it are translated into the English word God. It means "Mighty; Strong."  The Greek word theos is the equivalent, and was used to translate El, Elohim, etc. in the Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew scriptures. When the Hebrew El appears with the definite article ha (ha El, literally meaning "the God&quotEye-wink in the Bible it was in reference strictly to Jehovah, but the various terms used without the definite article may be applied to Jehovah, to other gods, to men.

 

I guess that whole Socrates thing was a real blunder. Dude.. We just meant you're not Strong.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs