another boring numerological reference (86)

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

Thought of this on my way to Amvets today. The term "ELOHIM"---is 
a plural form of the Hebrew word for Diety, in part indicating a Hebrew 
layer that is polytheistic, one of the levels of Semitic culture that got 
86'd by later monothiests. 

For what it's worth, there are many Deities in Against the Day.

By the way Mike: What does the "GR" stand for here?

tp://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_86.asp

           mikebailey:
           wigged-out qabbalists down the ages have
           grooved to the notion of numbers having meanings 
           of great social and political import;

           [GR]   The Number 86 - Elohim

           IS ELOHIM PLURAL?

           One will frequently read statements to the effect 
           that the Hebrew word elohim is plural, as can be 
           seen from the ending -im. The complete thought 
           behind this claim is that this plural form is a sufficient 
           indication that there is plurality in the Godhead. 
           With this plurality firmly in place, some conclude that 
           the biblical references to a Father and to a Son are 
           God's way of corroborating that God is a family of 
           divine beings headed by the Father.

           Let us ask the relevant questions. First, is the form 
           elohim plural? So long as the question is about the form, 
           the answer is that indeed it is. . . .

http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/elohimp.htm

           The Holy Bible is a misleading authority in regards to the 
           ancient Hebrew gods or elohim.  They are mentioned 
           therein around 2,000 times, but nearly all translators 
           and biblical commentators—for nearly 2,000 
           years—have mistakenly, or intentionally, chosen, in almost 
           every instance, to convert them into a singular “God” or 
           combination of so-called “divine names” that implies that 
           one Hebrew god rules the universe.  You can verify the 
           plurality of the Hebrew god by checking any Strong’s 
           Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, or The Criticism 
           and the Verdict of the Monuments where Oxford professor 
           of Assyriology A. H. Sayce also verified their plurality.  
           In his learned and courageous declaration, he openly 
           maintained:
 
                Elohim is a plural noun, and its employment in the Old 
           Testament as a singular has given rise to a large amount 
           of learned discussion, and, it must also be added, of a 
           learned want of common sense. Grammarians have been 
           in the habit of evading the difficulty by describing it as a 
           “pluralis majestatis,” “a plural of majesty,” or something 
           similar, as if a term in common use which was 
           grammatically a plural could ever have come to be treated 
           as a singular, unless this singular had once been a plural. 
           We can construe the word “means” with a singular verb, 
           but nevertheless there was once a time when “means” was 
           a plural noun.
 
              We may take it for granted, therefore, that if the Hebrew 
           word Elohim had not once signified the plural “gods,” it 
           would never have been given a plural form, and the best proof 
           of this is the fact that in several passages of the Old Testament 
           the word is still used in a plural sense. Indeed there are one or 
           two passages, as for example Gen. i. 26, where the word, although 
           referring to the God of Israel, is yet employed with a plural verb, 
           much to the bewilderment of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian 
           commentators who followed them.  It is strange how preconceived 
           theories will cause the best scholars to close their eyes to obvious 
           facts.
 
              The Israelites were a Semitic people, and their history down to 
           the age of the Exile is the history of a perpetual tendency toward 
           polytheism. Priest and prophet might exhort and denounce, and 
           kings might attempt to reform, but the mass of the people 
           remained wedded to a belief in many gods. Even the most 
           devoted adherents of the supreme God of Israel sometimes 
           admitted that he was but supreme among other gods, and 
           David himself, the friend of seers and prophets, complains 
           that he had been driven out of “the inheritance of Yahveh” 
           and told to go and “serve other gods” (1 Sam. xxvi. 19). 
           What can be plainer than the existence of a persistent 
           polytheism among the bulk of the people, and the inevitable 
           traces of polytheism that were left upon the language and 
           possibly the thoughts of the enlightened few?

http://einhornpress.com/gods.aspx