Thread: Did the OT recognize other gods?

I think it's interesting that when reading through the OT, it often appears to imply that other gods exist, or at least might exist. For example, you have constant commands to the Israelites along the lines of "you will worship no other gods before me," which seems to imply that there might indeed be other gods, but they aren't to be worshiped. There are also descriptions of the israelites getting into trouble for worshiping other gods, and it's never actually stated that these gods don't exist, that the israelites are foolishly worshiping nothing - merely that the isrealites were sinning by worshiping them.

In Exodus 15:11 it asks "Lord, who else is like you among the gods?" and then goes on to explain how nice Jehovah is. A plain reading of this would seem to be that the author is acknowledging that other gods exist, and praising Jehova as better than them. There are also various places where Jehovah is referred to as a "god of gods," which might be meant to be taken as metaphor or something, but again a plain reading of the text would take this to mean that other gods exist, but aren't as powerful as Jehovah.

Interestingly, the command "you will worship no other gods before me," literally doesn't even seem to forbid the israelites from worshiping other gods, so long as they put their loyalty to Jehovah first.

I agree.

As I wrote in another topic, I believe monotheism developed from polytheism, where people start to choose one god over another, etc.

An interesting question. I don't think this is what is implied in the old testament though. I think when God refers to other gods he is meaning "man-made" god.

Having said that, the bible does talk about demons and the devil so perhaps it is possible that the people were worshipping said demons as gods?

Originally Posted by sox

An interesting question. I don't think this is what is implied in the old testament though. I think when God refers to other gods he is meaning "man-made" god.

What is your reason for thinking that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wonder how you reached that conclusion. So far as I know, there aren't any places in the OT where it says that the other gods that various people worship are fictional. It does seem to explicitly say that people who worship statues are worshiping nothing, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by sox

An interesting question. I don't think this is what is implied in the old testament though. I think when God refers to other gods he is meaning "man-made" god.

What is your reason for thinking that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wonder how you reached that conclusion. So far as I know, there aren't any places in the OT where it says that the other gods that various people worship are fictional. It does seem to explicitly say that people who worship statues are worshiping nothing, but that's not exactly the same thing.

There are bits in the bible where God asserts that he is the only God.

For example:

Isaiah 43:10 "...understand that I alone am God, I have always been God; there can be no others"

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the Lord all powerful, the first and the last, the one and only God."

There are other similair comments in Isaiah.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by sox

An interesting question. I don't think this is what is implied in the old testament though. I think when God refers to other gods he is meaning "man-made" god.

What is your reason for thinking that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wonder how you reached that conclusion.

It is much like the issues of polygamy and slavery. The Bible is written in the context of specific cultures and practices, and thus it is unavoidable that the Bible should reflect this. But the Bible does not support the existence of other gods any more than it condones the practices of polygamy and slavery. But unlike these other two where it is difficult to find a clear and unambiguous condemnation of polygamy and slavery, the Bible very definitely and unambiguously condemns polytheism, supporting a belief in and worship of a single God only. On the one hand this has in fact been an indictment against the Bible for its condemnation of other relgions, on the other hand, this clearly marks the Bible as a being quite unambiguously a piece of religious literature rather than philosophical or ethical.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

So far as I know, there aren't any places in the OT where it says that the other gods that various people worship are fictional. It does seem to explicitly say that people who worship statues are worshiping nothing, but that's not exactly the same thing.

That does not really prove anything. It is a mistake to expect a piece of literature this old to use modern distinctions and categories and arguments. The OT does effectively the same thing when in every story the God of the Bible does things and these other gods and statues do nothing. It characterizes all other gods as idols and thus as gods made by human hands and it portrays those worshiping these idols as foolish and decadent.

In any case, the NT, in the discussion of food offered to idols, it IS made clear that these idols and thus other gods are in fact nothing.

Originally Posted by sox

There are bits in the bible where God asserts that he is the only God.

For example:

Isaiah 43:10 "...understand that I alone am God, I have always been God; there can be no others"

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the Lord all powerful, the first and the last, the one and only God."

There are other similair comments in Isaiah.

Out of curiosity, I looked at these in the original Hebrew to see if it was possible to extract a more refined or alternate meaning. Frustratingly, it appears to be almost impossible to determine what they specifically mean due to all the alternate definitions of Hebrew words.

In Isaiah 44:6, for example, the phrase "one and only" is not a literal translation. It actually says "'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides me." But the word that's normally translated as "besides" can mean either "other than" or "greater than." So it's not clear whether Jehovah is saying that no other gods exist, or merely that none of the other gods are as powerful as him.

Similarly, in Isaiah 43:10, the word that is translated to English as "god" in the phrase "I alone am God, I have always been God; there can be no others" is "el," which can mean either "god" or "supreme god". So again, it does not appear to be clear whether this passage is saying that no other gods exist, or merely that no god is more powerful than Jehovah.

On a side note, this has lead me to conclude that the idea of taking the bible literally is a joke, because it's not even clear what it literally means much of the time - in the original Hebrew, much of it seems to be inherently ambiguous.

How do you know hebrew?

Originally Posted by sox

How do you know hebrew?

I don't - but it's easy to find the original hebrew text online, and there are plenty of hebrew-to-english dictionaries online as well. Someone who actually knows the language (a rabbi?) might have a different take on it.

Ah. I reckon I'd read a study companion for the bible for ancient hebrew before i jumped to any conclusions

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But unlike these other two where it is difficult to find a clear and unambiguous condemnation of polygamy and slavery, the Bible very definitely and unambiguously condemns polytheism, supporting a belief in and worship of a single God only.

I agree that it clearly supports monotheism, but it wasn't clear to me whether the original message was that no other gods exist, or merely that no other gods are to be worshiped.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

I agree.

As I wrote in another topic, I believe monotheism developed from polytheism, where people start to choose one god over another, etc.

Many so-called 'monotheistic' religions recognize other god-like figures even if they are not called a 'god'. The bible doesn't call Moses. Abraham, etc. 'gods' but they have the role of gods. The same with Christianity...a zillion saints assume the role of lesser gods in the Christian pantheon. Satan could be called 'a god' along with all the other angels.

Today Catholics would would claim there is 'one god' but then pray to Mary or St. 'whoever'. The fundies see 'Satan' behind the evils of the world. Call these types of figures 'saints' or devils'...other religions callthem gods. Mostly semantics.

Actually, its more than semantics. In the Catholic version of Christianity the various saints are seen as extremely holy individuals who have attained a level of grace higher than that of most people, and therefore can be asked to help intercede for the prayer to God. Catholicism makes a clear difference between veneration of the saints, or honoring them, and worship due only too God.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Actually, its more than semantics. In the Catholic version of Christianity the various saints are seen as extremely holy individuals who have attained a level of grace higher than that of most people, and therefore can be asked to help intercede for the prayer to God. Catholicism makes a clear difference between veneration of the saints, or honoring them, and worship due only too God.

Sure the Catholic Church says that it does but it doesn't make them any less of god figures. One can call the Satan or Mary gods or not...they have the role of gods. It's irrelevent who gets the top billing. Gods are gods regardless of whether they get all the praise or not. Not all gods in most religions get worshipped...a lot of them are bad evil dudes.

This is the reason Christianity adopted so many of the rituals and beliefs of other cultures. There are spirits, witches and all types of hobgoblins who have powers and need appeasing.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Actually, its more than semantics. In the Catholic version of Christianity the various saints are seen as extremely holy individuals who have attained a level of grace higher than that of most people, and therefore can be asked to help intercede for the prayer to God. Catholicism makes a clear difference between veneration of the saints, or honoring them, and worship due only too God.

The relationship seems functionally the same as if they were minor, less powerful gods. If someone makes a statue of mary and then prays to her while kneeling in front of it with the expectation that it will make something happen, for practical purposes she is being treated as a god - even if the person who is worshiping her says that he isn't.

Perhaps the understanding lies in what exactly you mean by "god." It seems like you and Raptor Digits are saying anyone who holds any kind of spiritual authority or power can be considered a god, which if that is how you define "gods" then Martin Luther King could also be considered a god.

However, saying that Catholic venerate saints is the same as worshiping gods flies in the face of what these faiths themselves believe. Most Christian sects do not recognize the existence of any other divine being except for God, but to say they worship god would be like saying an atheist's religion is science, even though atheists believe that reality is only what can be empirically tested and proven to be true.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

However, saying that Catholic venerate saints is the same as worshiping gods flies in the face of what these faiths themselves believe.

I realize that the Catholics don't consider them to be gods, I'm just saying that the saints seem to fill the same role that minor gods play in polytheistic religions.

Polytheistic religions often have a lot of minor gods with a specific theme or domain that people can pray to. Catholics have Mary and all the saints, who they don't consider to be gods, but who they pray to in much the same way that polytheists pray to minor gods. Much like the minor gods of polytheists have themes, the Catholics like to assign their saints themes. So if you're having some specific type of problem, you can pray to the "patron saint" of whatever, rather than the "god" of whatever.

Most Christian sects do not recognize the existence of any other divine being except for God...

Well, that depends on how you define "divine being." I think you could reasonably argue that a supernatural being who can cause things to happen when you pray to it is a "divine being," and under that definition the saints would certainly qualify. If you define "divine being" as an all-powerful and all-knowing god, then of course for Catholics there would be only one being that would qualify.

...but to say they worship god would be like saying an atheist's religion is science, even though atheists believe that reality is only what can be empirically tested and proven to be true.

Again, it depends on how you define "worship" and "religion". Making a statue of something and then praying in front of it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of worship to me. I think that according to pretty much any definition of "worship" that you can find in a dictionary, the Catholics worship the saints. You could probably concoct some definition of "worship" under which that sort of behavior wouldn't qualify, but I suspect it would be a pretty strained definition that you would need to deliberately engineer to suit your purposes.

the old testament specifically refers to other gods only as idols, physical objects of wood gold and stone
see Yezehl kaufman's "the religion of Israel"