Comment on About the historical relationship of Islam to the United States by sonatime

Parent Post: About the historical relationship of Islam to the United States · In Reply To

sonatime · 5/22/2026, 12:56:14 AM · permalink

79 bumps

saarnok · 5/22/2026, 4:20:05 AM · permalink

76 bumps

sonatime · 5/22/2026, 6:04:38 AM · permalink

73 bumps

saarnok · 5/23/2026, 2:14:25 AM · permalink

70 bumps

sonatime · 5/23/2026, 2:56:20 AM · permalink

68 bumps

saarnok · 5/23/2026, 3:43:33 AM · permalink

66 bumps

sonatime · 5/23/2026, 8:01:44 AM · permalink

32 bumps

saarnok · 5/24/2026, 7:49:55 PM · permalink

30 bumps

sonatime · 5/25/2026, 1:35:25 AM · permalink

27 bumps

saarnok · 5/25/2026, 1:52:52 AM · permalink

24 bumps

sonatime · 5/26/2026, 1:06:55 AM · permalink

I have a real, innate interest and need for the Bible, that is true. But that doesn’t automatically make me dishonest. I’m not loyal to any denomination. If I had to pick where my personal “Christian schism” would begin, it would be after the Council of Nicaea, if not earlier. That’s why, even though I often use NIV and ESV translations, I’m very aware they replace God’s personal name (YHWH) with “LORD” — a name that appears in the Hebrew text approximately 6,828 times.  
  
The removal of God’s actual name makes it easier to impose a Trinity lens on the text. For example, read it with the name restored:  
“I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:2-3)  
  
I don’t find any examples where Jesus or the apostles speak or write of many gods. They constantly rely on and quote the Old Testament, affirming the strict monotheism found there.  
  
So when you accuse me of being “innately dishonest” or loyal to “The Truth” instead of facts, I think you’re missing the point. I’m not defending a creed. I’m reading the text as it stands and trying to understand it honestly in its own context.  
  
On the polytheism claim:  
  
Yes, elohim can refer to gods, angels, or human judges. But the text itself consistently presents YHWH as utterly unique, the only true Creator who demands exclusive worship. The commander in Joshua 5 is clearly portrayed as YHWH Himself (holy ground, Joshua worships, same language as the burning bush).  
  
The Elephantine papyri come from a later, distant Jewish military outpost in Egypt (5th–4th century BC), long after Solomon’s Temple. They show some syncretism, which the Bible itself repeatedly condemns. That doesn’t prove original polytheism, it proves that some Jews kept drifting into the very idolatry the prophets fought against.  
  
Here are the verses quoted from the NIV, with YHWH substituted where “LORD” (in all caps) represents the divine name YHWH in the Hebrew text:  
 
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2170/1779757615273-fc14d0a0917b745f.png)

21 bumps

saarnok · 5/26/2026, 2:00:10 AM · permalink

I really hope we can maintain a civil and friendly relationship though this, and if I'm honest with myself I'll concede that is perhaps as great or greater a disincentive to go down this path as any other.  
  
You don't get that I'm not faulting you for being dishonest.  
  
It's something you see as a character defect that I see as an innate process, a function of the dynamic at play here.  
  
I'll continually drag you back to facing the basic facts and you'll constantly attempt to evade those basic facts.  
  
That's just the way this works.  
  
As to the (new) insistence that the reference from Joshua is in reference to "God", you should remember that I stated you'd want this "both ways". Actual God when it suits your purpose and something else when it does not. You are demonstrating the reality of what I said.  
  
I really can't stress this enough: You are not responsible for your adherence to this idea. It has you, not the other way around.  
  
You can be adherent to the idea that you serve the Most High, the Creator without swearing fealty to the bibilical texts. In fact, if you follow the path I took, your interpretation of biblical texts will suddenly become rich and non-burdensome.  
  
As relates to the temple at Elephantine, you're simply not connecting the dots. They were not at odds with the Jerusalem temple. They weren't mavericks. They were entirely normal.  
  
Think about it. The Romans actually eliminated Judaism in roughly 70CE with no "backsliding" into polytheism in something like 2000 years.  
  
What survived that cataclysm endured more or less unchanged for effectively forever.  
  
The temple at Elephantine isn't an anomaly. It's representative of the pre-revolt state of Judaic culture.  
  
It's not possible for this to be representative of some offshoot of a vibrant controlling monotheistic culture.  
  
This is just nonsense and doesn't get you free of coming up with a rational explanation for why Nebuchadnezzar doesn't conquer Egypt as prophesied..  
  
You should bear in mind that all you ever needed to do was say: "I don't know." or some variant.  
  
Instead, as I could predict with perfect accuracy, you chose to avail yourself of the excuses of centuries of apologetics in a vain attempt to claim that your beliefs are actually the will of God.  
  
You have taken God's name in vain to buttress your own beliefs.  
  
And, it's innate. It's just what can be expected. It's not something I fault you for.  
  
But, it does speak to the reason that I consider the Bible to be God's word.

18 bumps

sonatime · 5/27/2026, 3:54:47 AM · permalink

16 bumps

saarnok · 5/28/2026, 12:09:53 AM · permalink

13 bumps

sonatime · 5/29/2026, 2:00:52 AM · permalink

10 bumps

saarnok · 5/29/2026, 4:14:15 AM · permalink

7 bumps

sonatime · 5/30/2026, 3:14:49 AM · permalink

4 bumps

saarnok · 5/31/2026, 5:16:20 PM · permalink

1 bump

sonatime · 5/23/2026, 4:38:22 AM · permalink

31 bumps

saarnok · 5/23/2026, 5:15:19 AM · permalink

28 bumps

sonatime · 5/23/2026, 7:38:23 AM · permalink

I was trying to speed through some points and explain why I think the Book of Enoch is worth referencing for context.  
  
The translation I quoted is the same R.H. Charles version from the Gutenberg link you posted.  
  
I mostly use the NIV and ESV.  
  
Genesis 6:1-4 is quite clear: “the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” This strongly implies lust and sexual immorality. Enoch simply expands on what Genesis already suggests.  
  
Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-6 also directly reference angels who “abandoned their proper dwelling” and sinned sexually, comparing their actions to Sodom and Gomorrah.  
  
You accuse me of eisegesis, yet you immediately offer your own highly speculative theory that the “sons of God” were humans mating with Neanderthals or Denisovans. There is zero textual or historical support in Genesis for that idea.  
  
Full verses:  
  
Jude 6-7 (NIV)  
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.  In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.  
  
Verse 6 speaks of angels who left their proper domain and are now imprisoned — widely understood as the fallen angels who sinned sexually with human women.  
Verse 7 compares their sin to Sodom and Gomorrah’s sexual immorality and perversion.  
  
2 Peter 2:4-6 (NIV)  
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;  if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;  if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly...

25 bumps

Signature