Since the same groups of manuscripts are used every time the Bible is translated, no "changes" are possible. Different translations are possible, which is why most people use two or three during Bible study.
But, a slightly differing translation can have extreme consequences in the realm of understanding, and can in fact completely change the context of belief.
As a brief example:
KJV: In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth
NIV: In the beginning god created the heaven
s and the earth.
That has just one letter of difference and yet it can change the entire meaning of the whole sentence. Ok, i agree this isn't the best example there is, but it was the quickest to find
1) I have addressed this in another thread somewhere, but I'll repeat it here:
Elohim is considered a plural form of the singular Eloha "God" because of the M ending, but since the verb used with it is always singular, like bara "created" it does in fact indicate the One God.
Some people have laid claim to Elohim being like the word sheep, (in that it remains the same singular or plural)- of course this is faulty because sheep, (and other words of that nature), do not have a singular root, whereas Elohim does: 'Eloah'.
However, the reason the Hebrews use the word "Elohim" is that it is a holy word to them and they must not change that word that to a believer in one god must and can only mean "God."
So we must ask why they chose a plural word for the use of one god, and thus leave many grammatical errors in the bible. We see why when we look at the Sumerian texts which preceded and led to the original stories incorporated into the bible.
Elohim is widely considered to be a "loan word", taken from those previous cultures, (Sumer, Akkadia, Babylon), that all believed in multiple gods. When the hebrews adopted it they could not change its form, as it was holy, and the book load of grammar problems is the otucome.
Why "us"? - John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Is. 6:8 "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”
God (singular) speaks of Himself as Us (plural). It's not proof of the Trinity, but it's the only way it makes sense.
Now we move on to gods speech. Much that grammar errors would occur from a word taken from a different culture, wouldn't gods actual speech always be singular if he was only one god? The trinity is the easy excuse but it's not the only one that makes sense. If, as is readily apparent, the texts were handed down stories from older cultures the plurality in gods speech would be seen as being the fact the older cultures had multiple gods. Of course, it would be a sin i assume for anyone to study to see the bible as, in general, nothing more than a handed down story based on a completely different belief- but it is overwhelmingly hard to just ignore.
The inconsistencies within textual grammar would occur when changing a plural word to singular, but the speech of god is unchangeable and so has retained its plural behaviour.
Isaiah 6: I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted,
and the train of his robe(?) filled the temple. Above him were two seraphs... "..and my eyes have seen the king, the lord almighty." ...... Then i heard the voice of the lord saying: "whom shall i send? And who will go for us?"
This whole part bears no relevance to the 'multiple gods' case. It's quite apparent god's talking to his seraphs. (strange 6 winged things that remove Isaiahs sin of looking at god).
You might also want to elaborate on the john passage- i don't see how you relate that sentence to being an explanation for 'us'.
2)Because we are human. We still use heavens/sky as synonymns even today. The language also reflects the world view of the time (one way of dating a passage is to correlate its language with the period in which that language would have been used). Apart from that - on earth, everywhere is "up". Heaven is a conceptual construct for something we cannot really comprehend.
(except of course hell, which is down
). The evidence present strongly suggests heaven simply relating to space. Of course it all changes according to bible version...
And god said; "Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years; and let them be for lights in the fimament of heaven to give light upon the earth."
This is right at the very beginning of the book and quite simply shows heaven as being space. When we die, the lucky ones, get to spend eternity floating around in space.
According to this text Neil Armstrong has been lucky enough to walk in heaven while alive- which god knew would happen, (if you read about the tower of babel).
3) The same for God himself. We observe and describe what we perceive. Therefore God can be described as a "jealous" God, since it is just a way of describing how He feels about our relationship with Him and with false gods or idols.
Emotion and physical attributes are not the same. Furthermore it's not just what humans describe about him. god himself explains his emotions verbally.
Emotions aside there are many references to physical attributes- some subtle, some more 'head-on'. Even one of the passages you quoted: Isaiah 6-.
I will give the complete and total listing of all mentions of physical attributes when i have finished my whole analysis. There really is, thus far, very little to suggest god as being anything
other than physical.
Why else would God say we should follow no other god beside Him?
If god was a physical, perhaps even mortal, being among many he wouldn't want his subjects going off to worship the other gods. The more they worship other gods the less gold, silver, meat and fine cloth he receives through sacrifice.
