Did God play peek-a-boo?

[Jehanne]

All translations, with few exceptions, are imperfect. For instance, the Middle English of Shakespeare's day, is somewhat to mostly intelligible to us, but even in modern English, the meaning and nuances of some Elizabethan expressions is simply lost to time. Ditto for the original Hebrew, the Greek of Septuagint and the Aramaic of Jesus' day. Any Old English text (of which there are only a handful of extant manuscripts) would be completely unintelligible to the modern ear.

And, so, with respect to the verses cited by the OP, no one can say for sure what the original authors intended or the subsequent redactions and edits that took place later. That the Hebrews worshipped multiple gods, at least early on, is certain with Yahweh becoming the dominant and only god that led to the rise of Jewish and Christian theism. If anything, we should read both the Old & New Testaments as being more suggestive of an author's intent giving greater weight to the historical and cultural context when the text was supposedly written than the literalness of the text. Ancient authors were simply not that exact in their writings.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All translations, with few exceptions, are imperfect.  For instance, the Middle English of Shakespeare's day, is somewhat to mostly intelligible to us, but even in modern English, the meaning and nuances of some Elizabethan expressions is simply lost to time.  Ditto for the original Hebrew, the Greek of Septuagint and the Aramaic of Jesus' day.  Any Old English text (of which there are only a handful of extant manuscripts) would be completely unintelligible to the modern ear.

And, so, with respect to the verses cited by the OP, no one can say for sure what the original authors intended or the subsequent redactions and edits that took place later.  That the Hebrews worshipped multiple gods, at least early on, is certain with Yahweh becoming the dominant and only god that led to the rise of Jewish and Christian theism.  If anything, we should read both the Old & New Testaments as being more suggestive of an author's intent giving greater weight to the historical and cultural context when the text was supposedly written than the literalness of the text.  Ancient authors were simply not that exact in their writings.

Shakespeare didn’t write in Middle English.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

All translations, with few exceptions, are imperfect.  For instance, the Middle English of Shakespeare's day, is somewhat to mostly intelligible to us, but even in modern English, the meaning and nuances of some Elizabethan expressions is simply lost to time.  Ditto for the original Hebrew, the Greek of Septuagint and the Aramaic of Jesus' day.  Any Old English text (of which there are only a handful of extant manuscripts) would be completely unintelligible to the modern ear.

And, so, with respect to the verses cited by the OP, no one can say for sure what the original authors intended or the subsequent redactions and edits that took place later.  That the Hebrews worshipped multiple gods, at least early on, is certain with Yahweh becoming the dominant and only god that led to the rise of Jewish and Christian theism.  If anything, we should read both the Old & New Testaments as being more suggestive of an author's intent giving greater weight to the historical and cultural context when the text was supposedly written than the literalness of the text.  Ancient authors were simply not that exact in their writings.

Notwithstanding all that, today a literal interpretation of the KJV is used in attempts to develop science curricula in publicly-funded schools and is used to inform American jurisprudence as high as the Supreme Court.  So a literal interpretation of the KJV is what I use to fight against it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All translations, with few exceptions, are imperfect.  For instance, the Middle English of Shakespeare's day, is somewhat to mostly intelligible to us, but even in modern English, the meaning and nuances of some Elizabethan expressions is simply lost to time.  Ditto for the original Hebrew, the Greek of Septuagint and the Aramaic of Jesus' day.  Any Old English text (of which there are only a handful of extant manuscripts) would be completely unintelligible to the modern ear.

And, so, with respect to the verses cited by the OP, no one can say for sure what the original authors intended or the subsequent redactions and edits that took place later.  That the Hebrews worshipped multiple gods, at least early on, is certain with Yahweh becoming the dominant and only god that led to the rise of Jewish and Christian theism.  If anything, we should read both the Old & New Testaments as being more suggestive of an author's intent giving greater weight to the historical and cultural context when the text was supposedly written than the literalness of the text.  Ancient authors were simply not that exact in their writings.

Notwithstanding all that, today a literal interpretation of the KJV is used in attempts to develop science curricula in publicly-funded schools and is used to inform American jurisprudence as high as the Supreme Court.  So a literal interpretation of the KJV is what I use to fight against it.

And how does a word appearing in the Bible but not in a dictionary help in that fight?

Boru

[Jehanne]

All translations, with few exceptions, are imperfect.  For instance, the Middle English of Shakespeare's day, is somewhat to mostly intelligible to us, but even in modern English, the meaning and nuances of some Elizabethan expressions is simply lost to time.  Ditto for the original Hebrew, the Greek of Septuagint and the Aramaic of Jesus' day.  Any Old English text (of which there are only a handful of extant manuscripts) would be completely unintelligible to the modern ear.

And, so, with respect to the verses cited by the OP, no one can say for sure what the original authors intended or the subsequent redactions and edits that took place later.  That the Hebrews worshipped multiple gods, at least early on, is certain with Yahweh becoming the dominant and only god that led to the rise of Jewish and Christian theism.  If anything, we should read both the Old & New Testaments as being more suggestive of an author's intent giving greater weight to the historical and cultural context when the text was supposedly written than the literalness of the text.  Ancient authors were simply not that exact in their writings.

Shakespeare didn’t write in Middle English.

Boru

I certainly considered that; Middle English, technically, ended in the year 1500 and Shakespeare would write a century or so later (he died in 1616). Early modern or Elizabethan English would, I concede, have been a more precise term. It's kind of like arguing over when the Middle Ages ended, whether in 1485 with the accession of the Tudors or with Columbus and the Age of Discovery a decade later, or, even later than that, per some scholars. The Great Vowel Shift had begun in the year 1400 only to end several centuries later, putting Shakespeare right in the middle. But, your point is well taken, Early Modern English it is, but, translations of Shakespeare's works into modern English are online. I don't care much for them, but they have helped me with some of the nuances of the Elizabethan age.

[LinuxGal]

I certainly considered that; Middle English, technically, ended in the year 1500 and Shakespeare would write a century or so later (he died in 1616).  Early moden or Elizabethan English would, I concede, have been a more precise term.  It's kind of like arguing over when the Middle Ages ended, whether in 1485 with the accession of the Tudors or with Columbus and the Age of Discovery a decade later, or, even later than that, per some scholars.  The Great Vowel Shift had begun in the year 1400 only to end several centuries later, putting Shakespeare right in the middle.  But, your point is well taken, Early Moden English it is, but, translations of Shakespeare's works into modern English are online.  I don't care much for them, but they have helped me with some of the nuances of the Elizabethan age.

I have prepared the text of the KJV here (https://badinage1.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/kjv.txt) with every book, chapter, and verse on each line, in such a way to greatly aid in searches (I use vim). This allows me to present the appearance of an atheist who has the entire Bible committed to a photographic memory. When apologetics hobbyists engage with me on social media they can only take a few minutes of THAT.

[Jehanne]

And, I am nearsighted, and, so, if my typing and/or spelling is bad, it's because it is difficult for me to see the text on my screen, and spellcheckers are neither infallible nor mind-readers.

[tjdisc]

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Which one is true?

God was addressing Adam - in effect He knew He was close to Adam and Adam could hear Him.  He was making Adam admit to his hiding by asking that question.

[Angrboda]

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Which one is true?

God was addressing Adam - in effect He knew He was close to Adam and Adam could hear Him.  He was making Adam admit to his hiding by asking that question.

Are you God?

[Gwaithmir]

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Which one is true?

God was addressing Adam - in effect He knew He was close to Adam and Adam could hear Him.  He was making Adam admit to his hiding by asking that question.

And your evidence for that interpretation is.......?????