Elohim - Plurality in Genesis?

[Ben Trismegistus]

One of the other threads reminded me of this, and I'm interested in other's takes on the subject.

Judaism is considered the first monotheistic religion, but the truth may be a little more complicated than that. The English translation of Genesis starts, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth..." However, the Hebrew word used in place of "God" is not "Adonai" (the name of God elsewhere in the Torah) but "Elohim".

El = a god
Eloh = a goddess
im = masculine plural ending

Therefore, the word "Elohim" would appear to translate as "the gods and goddesses" or "the multi-faceted dual-gendered deific force". Later in Genesis, God is referred to with the pronouns "we" and "us", as in "Let us create Man in our image".

My theory about this is that when some of the books of the Torah were written, Judaism was not fully formed. At the time, Yahweh was just one of a number of gods worshipped by the Semites. Yahweh was just the one that ended up the winner. Even in Exodus, God says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Not no other gods period.

Thoughts?

[Tammy Sullivan]

I can't cite sources, cause I don't remember but I recall reading that for a long time in history birtths were twins...cain had one abel had one so on and so on....adam had one and lilith did too....

[WandererInGray]

*laughs* I LOVE it when stuff like this happens...makes me believe in the universal conscious.

I was just talking with my sis the other day and mentioned the very think Ben posted, however I couldn't think of the breakdown. I'll have to forward this link to her. :D

[Rain Gnosis]

This was brought up in another thread elsewhere awhile ago (and I don't remember where, but I remember because I was the one posting about it). I pointed out "before me" could mean Yahweh meant he must be the most important or first god, and amberlaine pointed out that the terminology referred not to another god standing before Yahweh, but *you* standing before Yahweh, and how you aren't to appear before Yahweh with another God in your heart.

That book by the Ciceros touches on Gnosticism and Christianity a bit, and I absolutely feel Elohim was meant to refer to the fact that there was One transcendent Divine expressed in various sub deities. Similarly you see the father, the son, and the holy ghost as three parts of One, or in Wicca many people see a transcendent Divine expressed in infinite immanent deities, or in Kemeticism there was one and many, and so on.

[Ben Trismegistus]

That book by the Ciceros touches on Gnosticism and Christianity a bit, and I absolutely feel Elohim was meant to refer to the fact that there was One transcendent Divine expressed in various sub deities. Similarly you see the father, the son, and the holy ghost as three parts of One, or in Wicca many people see a transcendent Divine expressed in infinite immanent deities, or in Kemeticism there was one and many, and so on.
I can see that viewpoint as well. And there's a lot in the Kabbalah to support the idea of one transcendant Divine expressed through a number of aspects. Each path and Sephiroth corresponds to an aspect of the Divine (if I remember correctly).

But I wonder how much of that may have been window dressing after the fact, since there's a lot of evidence to support that the five Books of Moses were written over a long period of time by several different people. So there's a lot of theological differences to reconcile.

[Mithrea]

:) I have no serious input here. I'm just enjoying reading it because in Theme One of the interdisciplinary class I teach, we compare various creation stories and my students were shocked to see "we" in there. Poor things. One of them ended up cussing me and running out the door the day we talked about evolution . . .

[WingedTigerChild]

Here's a cool link (http://www.sanfords.net/Pagan_Humor_and_Thoughts/Other_People.html) concerning this topic.

[Xentor]

In a Dutch book about Kabbala I read, part of the Zohar is cited. One of those parts explains that Elohim is made from two words:
MI (God's thought that started creation)
ELeH (the physical manifestation of God)
Together they form Elohim: the creator.

Just to state there's more ways to interpret the same word.

[Kadynas]

I'm not sure exactly which "edition" of the Bible it would be (I know it was well before the King James version though), but the one line in Genesis used to say "let /us/ make man in /our/ own image" even though nowhere else in Genesis did that version refer to a plural form of deity. There is also the version of the bible that suppposively states that the verse "Thall shalt not suffer a witch to live" was actually translated as poisoner instead of witch... It's been so long since I read about these that I'm sorry I have no references to point you to.
But it makes for an interesting question... Why did they (whoever they are) feel the need to create so many different versions of the same book? :)

[NightBathen]

I am no scholar by any means. But the king james version of the bible was the first translated into English. This bible that you read was therefore in latin, was it not?

One thought. Catholics and Baptists are of the same faith. But one has 4 extra books in their bible. Originally, all catholics spoke latin, or modern Italian. If there was only one version of the bible, How was it to be taught to the saxons? Someone had to translate it right?

[Kadynas]

Actually what I had read was from some historical website... can't remember what the name of it is anymore... :)
But what I meant by different versions was that there's the King James Version, NIV -New International Version, the Good News Bible and probably many more I've never heard of. :)

[NightBathen]

and they all kater to different religious sects was my point

[Equinox]

Hi Ben & All!

Yeah, I'd heard that point about the god in genesis meaning "he, she, together" from someone who read hebrew. I can't support it other than I've heard it too, which means little. However, the person to ask about this would be Heathen Dawn - he knows hebrew thoroughly, and is very familiar with Genesis. Heathen Dawn? Are you around?

For the side discussions that have started - there is a lot of relatively surprising information to learn with regard to the different translations. One good place to start is with the King James version. The KJV is pretty much just what is called the "textus recepticus" (the "received text").

http://www.skypoint.net/~waltzmn/TR.html

Erasmus put this together based on only a handful of old manuscripts (handwritten copies of the bible) all of which were not really that old - from the 12th century. The newer translations use older manuscripts, but all of them have many changes. Specifically, of the over 5,000 old manuscripts we have, no two of them are exactly alike, except for the smallest little scraps. Spelling errors are common, as are skipped words, skipped lines, skipped pages, added words, added text (to change the theology), words repeated twice in row, etc.

The people who argue that the KJV is the only right version to use (the KJV onlyists) will point out the problems above, but somehow pretend that the KJV doesn't suffer from these problems, even though the KJV uses manuscripts that aren't that old. Here is a page by a KJV onlyist who explains their point of view well. It's interesting to read this page knowing that the manuscripts that he holds up as good were made from older ones, like the ones he criticizes.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/why_use.htm

-Equinox

[Prudence Rose]

I'm not sure Judaism is the first monotheistic religion. Does anybody know when Amarna was constructed? That might give me an idea to whether the Egyptians had it first, or around the same time.

[Rain Gnosis]

Akhenaten was the Egyptian pharoah who tried to make Egyptian religion monotheistic, around 1379-1362 BC (dynasty 18). Aten being "the one and only God" didn't last beyond Akhenaten's reign - Tutankhamun restored the worship of the traditional gods by 1361 BC.

Source: Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, Rosalie David, Oxford University Press

[Rain Gnosis]

http://www.christianworld.freeserve.co.uk/page10.htm
http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/natofgod/godchar1.htm
http://ssocial.wits.ac.za/dannyza/anti/gen1.26.htm
http://www.facadenovel.com/Elohim.pdf
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/usandour.htm
http://www.4-11.org/books/god3fold/kga01.html

[Demeter]

I am no scholar by any means. But the king james version of the bible was the first translated into English. This bible that you read was therefore in latin, was it not?

One thought. Catholics and Baptists are of the same faith. But one has 4 extra books in their bible. Originally, all catholics spoke latin, or modern Italian. If there was only one version of the bible, How was it to be taught to the saxons? Someone had to translate it right?

The King James was not the first English bible. There were at least five or six other versions before that. The KJV was commissioned in order to have a single standard English version to be used by the Anglican church. The KJV is the earliest version that is commonly available, though - if only because the language of the earlier versions is even harder to read nowadays than the KJV is.

As far as teaching to the saxons (and others), the Latin Vulgate version was used, and the Saxons (and others) were expected to learn Latin in order to read it. "All" Catholics did not speak Latin - only the priests had to know it, and most educated men did as well, but the common folk had to depend on their priests to tell them what was in the Bible. And they did not "all" speak modern Italian - they spoke their native languages, and the priests and educated also used written Latin, and in some cases Greek - thus they could be understood by their counterparts in other countries. The translation of the Bible into languages so that everybody could read it was an integral part of the Protestant Reformation.

[Equinox]

Rain-

Thanks for providing needed info!

-Equinox

[ninurta2008]

Bereshit =In the beginning

bara elohim = elohim created (elohim is plural but bara is not, so elohim is strangely used as singular.)

hashamayim vat aretz
the heavens and the earth

So Elohim for some reason is often used in the bible as honorific, and not just to mean gods.

Thus in other areas like:

Bereshit 1:26 and elohim said, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall.......
1:27 ....elohim made man in his image , in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them.

Though thats poetic sounding, and not the KJV (which is unreliable for OT interpretation because the lack of hebrew and numerous translation errors), I used The Jewish Publication Societies translation, a hebrew dictionary (and classes), to read it. My Tanakh has both the hebrew and the english on it.

There is also other instances of pluralty:

Bereshit 3:22 And YHWH Elohim (an example of where Elohim is used in honorific, and not plural) said, Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad,what if he should stretch out his hand.......

(there is no word in the entire hebrew language for evil, everywhere you read in the KJV evil, it is a mistranslation of either bad or destruction.destructive, etc.....)

Bereshit 11:7 (YHWH was speaking since 11:6) Let us, then, go down and confound their speech.....

Yeah, its from the babel story,

Why does the bible mention more than one if there is one god? The belief that there is just one god, comes only from the later prophets (the texts written in later jewish history) and outside the bible. While the Old testament, over all is not monotheist, and they believe other gods exist, but that due to the jewish identity that you should only worship the god of Israel.

Don't believe me, I can go further lol. The bible is monolatry all the way until the texts that date to beyond the persian ruled Israel, because then it became monotheist.

[john.a]

I spoke with a priest about this once. His response was quite interesting. First, I'd like to make a few corrections to your post:

אלהיםor Elohim in the plural
אלוה or Eloh in the singular

None of these are grammatically feminine. The word for "goddess" was written differently.

In the Bible, the word Elohim, while morphologically plural (it is a plural form), acts as a singular entity because it, as a gramamatical subject triggers the verb to be conjugated in the third person, singular, masculine form. For example:

breshit bara elohim...
beginning create-3pers.singular.masculine.PERF God
"In the beginning, God created..."

Whereas if Elohim was truly plural, it would have been:

breshit baru elohim
beginning create-3pers.plural.masculine.PERF God

This isn't even an uncommon phenomenon. Several nouns in Hebrew can be plural in form but have a singular sense and meaning. The word for water, for example. Also, in several constructions, a word could be repeated in a kind of genitive plural construction to denote greatness, the most common example being: "...a king, kings of kings" which is translated to mean, "a king beyond all other kings."

In most cases in the Old Testament, when Elohim triggers a verb to be conjugated in its plural form, it doesn't refer to the God of Israel. Why would it ever appear though, for a monotheistic people?

Granted, the Jewish people were probably descended from a group of Canaanite who broke away somehow from the mainstream Canaanites. The Canaanites, being polytheistic and speaking a Semitic language - a language related to Hebrew, had a word that is related to the word Elohim which referred to their whole pantheon of Gods since their Gods were the family of their supreme god, El.

At one stage in early Judaism, it has been hypothesized that the Jews were henotheistic and in the Bible, there is much evidence for this. They believed in the existence of many Gods but thought theirs supreme or they were commanded to worship Him alone. This explains the formulation of the Ten Commandment's first Commandment. In the OT there are numerous references to God saying that He alone is to be worshipped because he is THEIR god specifically and not THE God of the Universe. It is through His mercy and His grace and His power that He has lead them out to Egypt and favoured them among all peoples. This was henotheism. In fact, all the OT prophets who scolded the people were each speaking out against a form of paganism that kept creeping up to threaten the covenant between the people of ancient Israel and their God and this underlying paganism that has descended from their Canaanite ancestors is portrayed in the OT almost as marital infidelity, a kind of betraying and turning away from God and his covenant the way one turns away from marriage vows.

As a side note it is interesting that the words, Elohim, El and Eloah are all related to the Arabic, Allah (ar-raHman, ar-raHeem) and Allat.

P.S.


Therefore, the word "Elohim" would appear to translate as "the gods and goddesses" or "the multi-faceted dual-gendered deific force".

Where does "the multi-faceted dual-gendered deific force" come from?

[Louisvillian]

My theory about this is that when some of the books of the Torah were written, Judaism was not fully formed.
Perhaps. I think it might just be a typo that carried over, even after they edited it following the full formation of Judaism. Either that, or it just meant the royal plural rather than an actual plural.


Even in Exodus, God says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Not no other gods period.That is just an English translation error. There are numerous other translations, notably "Thou shall have no strange gods", "Thou shall have but one god", etc.
The "before me" wording is just one of the idiosyncrasies of 17th century English.

[john.a]

Either that, or it just meant the royal plural rather than an actual plural.

The royal plural is something that exists in some European languages and is uncommon in the Semitic languages. Semitic pronouns tend to be pretty literal.


That is just an English translation error. There are numerous other translations, notably "Thou shall have no strange gods", "Thou shall have but one god", etc.
The "before me" wording is just one of the idiosyncrasies of 17th century English.

This doesn't explain the part about, "Let us make man in our image."

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I have spoken with more than one rabbi about this...

And , in gematria , and Obri / Hebrew encyclopedia...

Godwin's Cabbalistic Encyclopedia :

( page 98 ) : Eloah : Aleph , Lamed , Heh , or
Aleph , Lamed , Vav , Heh , is listed as Eloah...
36 , or 42 , values , respectively...

Now , when one goes to the value 36 , in gematria ,
( page 497 ) , they may find :

Elah = Goddess

Eloah = God

Which to Qabalalists , shows the androgynous nature
of the divine...and , the word Elohim :

( page 99 ) : Aleph , Lamed , Heh , Yod , Mem = 86 / 646 ,
one shall find :

Elohim :

A name of God ; the masculine plural , of a feminine noun ,
signifying the androgynous nature of God ( or an earlier
polytheism )...

So... I would perhaps state the priest did not know , nor want
to state the cabalists view of the word , as they have known it ,
since it was first used...

Male plural from a feminine singular...standing on it's own ,
without being altered in a sentence structure...it must be read
that way first...not in the sentence...:uhhuhuh:

[john.a]

Godwin's Cabbalistic Encyclopedia :

( page 98 ) : Eloah : Aleph , Lamed , Heh , or
Aleph , Lamed , Vav , Heh , is listed as Eloah...
36 , or 42 , values , respectively...

Now , when one goes to the value 36 , in gematria ,
( page 497 ) , they may find :

Elah = Goddess

Eloah = God

Which to Qabalalists , shows the androgynous nature
of the divine...

This doesn't MEAN anything. In Hebrew, only consonants are written. You said that there are two variants that can stand for God in Hebrew:

1. aleph, lamed, he
2. aleph, lamed, vav, he

The first one is written exactly the same way as the word Goddess:

3. aleph, lamed, he

Obviously, they're going to come up with the same number in numerology or gematria because they're written with the exact same consonants.


and , the word Elohim :

( page 99 ) : Aleph , Lamed , Heh , Yod , Mem = 86 / 646 ,
one shall find :

Elohim :

A name of God ; the masculine plural , of a feminine noun ,
signifying the androgynous nature of God ( or an earlier
polytheism )...

No. It is a masculine plural of a masculine singular. Ask any Hebrew speaker in Israel and they'd laugh if you told them that Eloah was feminine.


So... I would perhaps state the priest did not know , nor want
to state the cabalists view of the word , as they have known it ,
since it was first used...

Or, I could simply say that the priest does not know what gematria is nor is he very well-versed in Kabbalah or Cabala.


Male plural from a feminine singular...standing on it's own ,
without being altered in a sentence structure...it must be read
that way first...not in the sentence...:uhhuhuh:

No. It's morphologically a male plural from a morphologically male singular. It's syntactically singular. It's not "altered" by the sentence structure. Words can only be interpretable within context and within a sentence structure. Otherwise, they're just elements in a mental lexicon with hidden properties. It's when they interact with the syntax that we see their properties.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

As I said , John , I have spoken to rabbis , more than one...

VERY well versed in Qabalah...the spelling which means
"to recieve"...

Not a priest , John...rabbi...a teacher of the language...

And we spoke as equals...as they told me...

Do you think I am really not aware that "normally" , vowels
are not represented in Obri / Hebrew ?

You are not the only one who has done their homework...

We have just had different teachers...

I can see you have done hard work , academically , at the least...

I am glad for you...that does not make you right...

And though you may feel I am wrong...no , I am not...

So...I am more than happy to agree to disagree...at least now this
statement is in the thread , for others to pursue their own research
not only in academic , nor patriarchal influenced sources...

Wish you the best , on your path...:uhhuhuh:


This doesn't MEAN anything. In Hebrew, only consonants are written. You said that there are two variants that can stand for God in Hebrew:

1. aleph, lamed, he
2. aleph, lamed, vav, he

The first one is written exactly the same way as the word Goddess:

3. aleph, lamed, he

Obviously, they're going to come up with the same number in numerology or gematria because they're written with the exact same consonants.



No. It is a masculine plural of a masculine singular. Ask any Hebrew speaker in Israel and they'd laugh if you told them that Eloah was feminine.



Or, I could simply say that the priest does not know what gematria is nor is he very well-versed in Kabbalah or Cabala.



No. It's morphologically a male plural from a morphologically male singular. It's syntactically singular. It's not "altered" by the sentence structure. Words can only be interpretable within context and within a sentence structure. Otherwise, they're just elements in a mental lexicon with hidden properties. It's when they interact with the syntax that we see their properties.

[john.a]

As I said , John , I have spoken to rabbis , more than one...

However, on an internet forum where identity is anonymous, it's hard to argue by authority. I can just as easily say that I've telepathically communicated with the two Chief Rabbinate of Israel. At any rate, I highly doubt, given what you've claimed about Hebrew, that you've spoken to Rabbanim who're scholars in Biblical Hebrew and native speakers in Israeli Hebrew.

VERY well versed in Qabalah...the spelling which means
"to recieve"...

How does the Qabalah's etymology have any bearing on what the word for God, Gods, Goddess and Goddesses are in Hebrew?

And we spoke as equals...as they told me...

Yes. You've spoken as equals with like everyone. This has been established several times in several different topics. Again you don't have to convince me of your authority, spiritual or otherwise, on any given subject. On this forum, you and I speak as equals and on the internet, the people that we speak with are irrelevant because it can't be proved. I mentioned my priest not because I'm claiming an authority (who, on a pagan forum, would even consider a Catholic priest an authority?) but because I just wanted to mention that I did not discover this alone but was pushed by my priest, him knowing I was a linguist, to go learn for myself the peculiar bit of Hebrew behind this topic.

Do you think I am really not aware that "normally" , vowels
are not represented in Obri / Hebrew ?

No. But my post wasn't for you alone. It was to convince others who were reading. I'm not here to just argue with you. I'm also here to share my thoughts to anyone else who wants to check in on what we say to each other.

You are not the only one who has done their homework...

Yes. You do your homework too, supposedly. We've also established this in the past. You don't have to keep trying to convince me of your academic equality. On this forum, we're equals and our arguments win out by rigorous logic and academics not by statements about who's done homework and who's in contact with how many rabbanim.

I am glad for you...that does not make you right...

It does. When it's not about God or the universe and it's about a small grammatical concept that any native speaker can verify.

So...I am more than happy to agree to disagree...at least now this
statement is in the thread , for others to pursue their own research
not only in academic , nor patriarchal influenced sources...

It's a cop-out to say that any source that disagrees with you is loaded with "patriarchal influenced" bias. I hope you and people have realised that every time we start countering each other's arguments that we stray off-topic for the simple reason that your arguments devolve into something about how much of an equal you are to certain spiritual leaders and how you are privy to knowledge none of us know. It becomes more about you and how you're right and we're all just deluded by our patriarchy on almost every topic conceivable. That's a cop-out.

So there. I said it. It might've been kinda mean. It definitely was hypocritical of me to speak like this when I claim a Catholic background but it's out. And like you said, hopefully people will think for themselves when they read this.

The truth only yields itself to those who are willing to be its slaves, at its service, continuously seeking it out.

Peace out.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

As I only mentioned the rabbis John , due to you mentioning the
priest...I say the same to you...

As Qabalah , is the key to all esoteric teachings behind the
Obri / Hebrew language , not the exoteric veil , it is most
important , to all sacred writings...otherwise , as rabbis have said...

Woe be to one , who sees only the outer covering...

As I do not care to "win" , by logic , or academic method...blaggghh

As I am by far , not the only one on this site , nor in the world , who
has seen certain traditions changed , or covered up by patriarchal
views , nor dared to state this viewpoint...

As I have far better things to do , after I state this , like go have fun...

As I would rather state my credentials from the university of life ,
with those elders I have interacted with , than some academic
institution...

And , as I only posted in the first place , to offer a counterpoint ,
as I know it , from studying , and practicing gematria , and Qabalah ,
up to 16+ hrs a day , for 14 years , when you corrected Ninurta , in
the beginning... my agreeing with Ninurta's statement :

ON TOPIC : Elohim : male plural , from feminine singular root...

Signifying an androgynous God...

I stand wholeheartedly by that statement...

As I say...I can agree to disagree...can you ?


As I said , John , I have spoken to rabbis , more than one...

However, on an internet forum where identity is anonymous, it's hard to argue by authority. I can just as easily say that I've telepathically communicated with the two Chief Rabbinate of Israel. At any rate, I highly doubt, given what you've claimed about Hebrew, that you've spoken to Rabbanim who're scholars in Biblical Hebrew and native speakers in Israeli Hebrew.

VERY well versed in Qabalah...the spelling which means
"to recieve"...

How does the Qabalah's etymology have any bearing on what the word for God, Gods, Goddess and Goddesses are in Hebrew?

And we spoke as equals...as they told me...

Yes. You've spoken as equals with like everyone. This has been established several times in several different topics. Again you don't have to convince me of your authority, spiritual or otherwise, on any given subject. On this forum, you and I speak as equals and on the internet, the people that we speak with are irrelevant because it can't be proved. I mentioned my priest not because I'm claiming an authority (who, on a pagan forum, would even consider a Catholic priest an authority?) but because I just wanted to mention that I did not discover this alone but was pushed by my priest, him knowing I was a linguist, to go learn for myself the peculiar bit of Hebrew behind this topic.

Do you think I am really not aware that "normally" , vowels
are not represented in Obri / Hebrew ?

No. But my post wasn't for you alone. It was to convince others who were reading. I'm not here to just argue with you. I'm also here to share my thoughts to anyone else who wants to check in on what we say to each other.

You are not the only one who has done their homework...

Yes. You do your homework too, supposedly. We've also established this in the past. You don't have to keep trying to convince me of your academic equality. On this forum, we're equals and our arguments win out by rigorous logic and academics not by statements about who's done homework and who's in contact with how many rabbanim.

I am glad for you...that does not make you right...

It does. When it's not about God or the universe and it's about a small grammatical concept that any native speaker can verify.

So...I am more than happy to agree to disagree...at least now this
statement is in the thread , for others to pursue their own research
not only in academic , nor patriarchal influenced sources...

It's a cop-out to say that any source that disagrees with you is loaded with "patriarchal influenced" bias. I hope you and people have realised that every time we start countering each other's arguments that we stray off-topic for the simple reason that your arguments devolve into something about how much of an equal you are to certain spiritual leaders and how you are privy to knowledge none of us know. It becomes more about you and how you're right and we're all just deluded by our patriarchy on almost every topic conceivable. That's a cop-out.

So there. I said it. It might've been kinda mean. It definitely was hypocritical of me to speak like this when I claim a Catholic background but it's out. And like you said, hopefully people will think for themselves when they read this.

The truth only yields itself to those who are willing to be its slaves, at its service, continuously seeking it out.

Peace out.

[ninurta2008]

I think it might just be a typo that carried over, even after they edited it following the full formation of Judaism. Either that, or it just meant the royal plural rather than an actual plural.

Depending on what you mean by royal plural, that one is (or may not be) correct. But Elohim is intentional even when plural is mentioned. The original authors weren't monotheists, they were monolatrists, or one god worshippers. They believed other gods existed.



That is just an English translation error. There are numerous other translations, notably "Thou shall have no strange gods", "Thou shall have but one god", etc.

haha.....you are right, most translations have so many errors and misinterpretations from the original text. Thats why I only read the jewish old testament and rely on hebrew lessons.


The "before me" wording is just one of the idiosyncrasies of 17th century English.
QTF!!!!!

[Louisvillian]

They believed other gods existed.
In the Bronze Age, sure. But by the Iron Age, when the Torah was being written, Judaism was solidly monotheistic. I'd chance a guess that they retained the plural in "Elohim" just a result of them respecting the words of their ancestors, not out of some hidden conviction towards polytheism.

[ninurta2008]

In the Bronze Age, sure. But by the Iron Age, when the Torah was being written, Judaism was solidly monotheistic. I'd chance a guess that they retained the plural in "Elohim" just a result of them respecting the words of their ancestors, not out of some hidden conviction towards polytheism.

The entire OT/Tanakh was written in he Iron Age, didn't know if thats what you meant.

I never said they worshipped many gods, I said they were monolatrous, or worship one god though others exist. I never said they had a hidden conviction towards anything.

Only the texts written later than the persian occupation, such as Deuteronomy, the prophets (with exceptions for some), kings, and a bunch of other, they usually don't come out and say how many gods there are.

As for Elohim, it has nothing to do with their ancestors beyond the fact that it means "gods/God" in hebrew.

The name Elohim is used for more than just "God" or even the hebrew divine, or even canaanite gods.

The Tanakh's oldest parts may not say how many gods are exactly, but they do say there is more than one:

Exodus 12:12 ........................and I will mete out punishments to all of the gods of Egypt, for I am the LORD (YHWH)

Exodus 18:11 ......................Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods

Numbers 33:4 ........... whereby the LORD executed judgement on their gods,

Judges 11:24 ........... Do you not hold what Chemosh your god gives you to posses? So will we hold onto everything that YHWH (the LORD) your god gives you to possess?

Psalms 82:1 God stands in the divine assembly; among the gods he pronounces judgement.

Psalms 97:7 All gods bow down to him.

[Louisvillian]

I never said they worshipped many gods, I said they were monolatrous, or worship one god though others exist.
...which is what polytheism is. Belief in the existence of multiple gods. Judaism is not polytheistic, it is clearly and emphatically monotheistic. Regardless of the Tanakh's use of the word "Elohim".

[ninurta2008]

...which is what polytheism is. Belief in the existence of multiple gods. Judaism is not polytheistic, it is clearly and emphatically monotheistic. Regardless of the Tanakh's use of the word "Elohim".
It was based on what the Tanakh said, and not based on the word Elohim. If you read hebrew, which I wish more people could read, the difference between Gods and God in hebrew is obvious. and in reference to the jewish god, its usually obvious when the text is talking about Gods or God.

Also, I am aware that Judaism as it today stands (with the exception of those that believe in Shekhina) are pure monotheists. That doesn't say anything about the bible. If you don't want to rely on what the Tanakh itself says, then you just can't be convinced by the evidence.