Gabe, it is a fact that elohim can be gods.
Yes, I'm aware of that, Tony. Thanks.
Furthermore I checked out your Exd.22:28; Lev.24:15; Mat.26:59-66; Jhn 10:33 and Acts 6:13 above and none of them prove that words can have opposite meanings.
You misunderstood. The TKS did not site those verses as examples where a word can carry opposite meanings.
1Ki 21:10 and cause two men--sons of worthlessness--to sit over-against him, and they testify of him, saying, Thou hast blessed God and Melech; and they have brought him out, and stoned him, and he dieth.'
and two men--sons of worthlessness--come in, and sit over-against him, and the men of worthlessness testify of him, even Naboth, before the people, saying, `Naboth blessed God and Melech;' and they take him out to the outside of the city, and stone him with stones, and he dieth; (Young's Literal Translation)
You asked yourself why would they kill that guy for blessing God? They wouldn't have. But being a Jew, they would have killed the guy for blessing elohim (with a lowercase e and blessing Moloch (a false god)). They would not have killed him for blessing God. And they would have killed the guy if he blessed GOD AND BLESSED MOLOCH (the false god). So either way, barach is not curse
Clark's commentary states: "Moloch, Milcom, and Melech, in the language of different nations, all signify a king, and imply the sun, which was called the king of heaven; and consequently the addition of אדר adar, which signifies powerful, illustrious, to the one, and of ענה anah, which implies to return, to answer, to the other, means no more than the mighty or the oracular Moloch. And as the children were offered to him, it appears that he was the same with the Moloch of the Ammonites. See Univ. Hist. and Calmet. Mr. Locke is also of opinion that these two names were expressive of one and the same deity."
Tony, where are false gods mentioned in this context? Elohim
should have its usual meaning here.
The Bible is so against philosophy....
I do wonder what definition of "philosophy" you have in mind. Philosophy in itself is not bad, or to be avoided, Tonester. Indeed, Paul himself was a philosopher.
.... that by you saying that Plato influenced God's inspired word is so pathetic I hardly have words for your deception.
The New Testament is a revelation from God, not Plato.
Did I say that the NT is a revelation from Plato? No, I didn't. I merely acknowledged a fact that has been acknowledge for centuries, namely that Plato's philosophy (and that of other ancient Greek philosophers') had an influence on NT thought. For instance, John's treatment of the Logos is decidedly Greek, as anyone familiar with ancient Greek philosophy will tell you. If this is news to you, then you ought to get out more.
Paul always warned the church against the philosophers. Read 1 Corinthians 1,2 & 3 and see what Paul says about the wisdom of the wise such as Plato and Aristotle.
The "wisdom of the world" does not refer to philosophy in general, or science in general. You include all of Plato and Aritotle's philosophy in the category of the world's widsom, yet Christians throughout the ages have seen in them gems of God's wisdom.
Gabe, why don't you just take the next step and say Satanists influenced the Bible?
Tony, remember what I told you about people taking you seriously?
Besides, Plato never used aion nor aionion for eternal.
Tony, you know you don't want to go there. You refuse to address my points on this issue. Let's see how well you can dance.
In Timaeus 37d, Plato contrast time (chronos
), which moves according to number, with aion/aionios
, whch rests in unity. Do you acknowledge this? Do you acknowledge that this same thought was expressed by Philo (the Platonist) when he wrote in De Mundo 7, "but in eternity (aion) nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but it exists only" ? Don't evade this any more, Tony.
Again, the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived. I didn't make that rule up Gabe.
Again, this rule is broken routinely. Gorgeous was derived from its nounal root, gorge ("throat"). Gorgeous does not mean "pertaining to the throat". Sure, gorgeous now pertains to gorgeousness, but this is entirely irrelevant due to the fact that gorgeous is not derived from gorgeousness (in fact, its the other way around). Tony, do you get your kicks by making ridiculous assertions and then watching others invest time and energy refuting them?