Many Gods In Bible

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

You failed to address the question that the opening post asked, as the author himself made clear. I didn't accuse you then of dodging his question, but I do now, because you still haven't addressed his question as he meant it even after he clarified it for you.

I don't really find his question interesting. Demanding one try to shoe-horn ancient Judaism into modern Mormonism doesn't really blow my hair back.

I, on the other hand, have addressed your claim that the use of elohim for other beings besides Yahweh conflicts with evangelical theology.

Yes, but as I have shown, it was more apologetic revisionism than a sober and well-informed explication.

You wrote:

"Simply asserted" entails that no argument or reason was given. That is not the case. I have reasons for that conclusion.

And I showed that what you characterized as a "quibble" was actually an important issue that has been emphasized by several Evangelical authors as separating monotheists from polytheists. I characterized your statements as a mere assertion because your reasons were actually just assertions themselves--assertions that I quite definitively showed to be incorrect. Unless, of course, you would like to address the many quotations regarding angels as gods, and show that those authors are neither correct nor representative of Evangelicalism as a whole.

You wrote:

Oh no. You've contracted Hamblinitis. Hopefully it's just a mild case and you'll pull through somehow.

It's not the first time and it won't be the last.

Dan, perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word quibble.

Do you really think I don't understand the meaning of the word?

It is not necessary to quibble in order to object to a semantic quibble. To quibble means to pose an objection that is slight or trivial. Pointing out that someone's argument is quibbling is not itself quibbling.

I've forgotten exactly what the exact concern was that I labelled quibbling and I don't really feel like going to look it up just to rhetorically score a half a point.

You wrote:

You are making two questionable assumptions in your critique of evangelical theology. (1) You are assuming that the word gods has one and only one meaning, so that if someone asserts that angels are not gods (for example), using the term gods in a particular sense, then there can be no sense in which angels are gods.

In what sense would angels be "gods" according to the authors I cited?

(2) Behind your argument lies the assumption that the modern English word gods and the ancient Hebrew word elohim are coterminous in meaning.

I make absolutely no such assumption whatsoever, and I have completed almost 100 pages of a master's thesis from an Evangelical university that cover exactly that particular question if you'd like to compare it to your class notes from Near Eastern religion 101.

That is, if an ancient Hebrew writing 2500 or 3000 years ago refers to various supernatural beings as elohim, you assume that this means the same thing as a modern English writing referring to various supernatural beings as "gods."

When we're talking about English translations of the Hebrew Bible and the modern interpretation of the original sense of those translations, yes, there is supposed to be a moderate amount of semantic overlap. I will be greatly insulted on a personal level if you are actually trying to accuse me of thinking that the two words from the two languages are absolutely semantically identical in all usage. If you'd like to discuss the areas of semantic divergence, then let know. I'm more than happy to.

These assumptions need to be supported, not merely taken for granted. They are not self-evidently true. After all, the meanings of words change over time even within the same language, words have different meanings at the same time, and words taken from one language into another language often end up with somewhat different meanings. So a modern evangelical American Christian who says that angels are not gods is not necessarily contradicting an ancient Hebrew writer who uses the term elohim in reference to supernatural entities created by Yahweh.

But he would be contradicting another modern Evangelical American Christian who says "yes, angels are gods, but that doesn't undermine monotheism." Trying to hammer out semantic room for both of you to be right while making fundamentally contradictory statements isn't the way to go about this. Remember, assumptions have to be supported, and just identifying the fact that it's possible for a modern English speaker to mean something significantly different from an ancient Hebrew writer does not at all mean it's the case in each of these particular cases.

I'm sorry, but I'm missing the big theological point.

You've also dodged my call for references in order to accuse my point of being semantic rather than sufficiently theological.

[maklelan]

Your point seems to be that if evangelicals acknowledge the existence of beings that the OT calls elohim then they should not call themselves monotheists. How is that anything more than a semantic point?

I would consider it a quite significant theological point if modern Evangelical American Christians were not monotheists. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by trying to pretend that semantic points cannot be theological, and are therefore unimportant to you, especially after you've insists that when one Evangelical says "angels are not gods," it's possible he's using "gods" in a semantic sense fundamentally apart from the sense used by the other Evangelical who says "angels are gods."

Likewise, you wrote:

This is still a purely semantic issue.

Evidently the entire notion of monotheism is purely semantic, and thus not worthy of discussion.

Heiser is not arguing that categories supernatural beings exist other than ones acknowledged by other evangelicals.

Oh, he very much is.

He is not arguing that evangelicals need to change their theological beliefs about angels, demons, or other supernatural beings.

He very much is.

He is simply arguing the lexical point that the OT uses the word elohim in reference to supernatural beings. A lexical point is a semantic point. When evangelicals reject the notion that other supernatural beings are "gods," they are not rejecting some theological truth about them that Heiser says is taught in the OT.

Here is the concluding sentence of one of his early texts on the question:

It is my hope that scholars will be encouraged to re-evaluate their assumptions about the reality of divine plurality in Israel’s worldview and how to parse that reality in understanding Israelite religion.

This would appear to address a reality rather than mere semantic quibbles.

You wrote:

That's funny. I've taught non-academic evangelicals at conferences and in church settings for over 30 years and I've never once had anyone claim that my definition of monotheism was heretical.

How many times have you gone into this kind of detail about what exactly monotheism means, why angels and demons are actually gods, and why Deutero-Isaiah does not actually deny the existence of other gods?

And it isn't as if I haven't talked on the subject. I do a lot of teaching on the doctrine of God and specifically on the Trinity.

Which does not require a great deal of discussion of these issues, especially in a secular world where the meaning of monotheism is universally known and understood.

I stated that no evangelical thinks or claims that Isaiah 43:10 denies the existence of other supernatural beings. You replied:

No, I am not equivocating. Rather, you are simply ignoring my point. In your quotation here, Matt didn't say that God is the only supernatural being, or that no other beings can in some context be called elohim. He said that God is the only God in existence. And I agree with him. God is the only God. In this context God (big "G") has a more limited semantic field than the Hebrew elohim.

Not really. The word elohim is used in the Hebrew Bible with the sense of a proper noun. I earlier insisted that you were being sneaky by using that limited sense and you got upset with me for semantically quibbling. All of a sudden that difference is significant.

Again, Matt is not claiming that God is the only supernatural being!

You're equivocating again, and quite flagrantly. I've been quite clear about the difference between "supernatural being" and "divine being/deity/god." I've explained that you're using the more broad term only because it has some semantic space that allows you to use it where your theology would not allow "god." Slick would never say that God is not the only "deity," or not the only "god." He would only say "supernatural being" because he could find room in the semantic space for beings not considered gods. That's a dishonest way to approach my discussion of gods and monotheism. You're quite clearly playing semantic dodgeball, Rob, and you're refusing to leave the game despite being beaned numerous times now in front of everyone.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill and Dan,

As I said, I was being facetious. I understand that ancient idolaters believed that their idols represented actual supernatural entities. I have also offered a biblical explanation consistent with evangelical theology for references in the Hebrew Bible to Ashtoreth, et. al., as elohim: they were actually existing beings, all right, but they were demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev. 9:20). It's true that in pagan Greek usage a daimonion was not necessarily evil, but the term's usage in the LXX and in the NT is consistently pejorative.

Dan, I had pointed out that your initial post to this thread did not answer the question in the opening post. You replied:

I don't really find his question interesting. Demanding one try to shoe-horn ancient Judaism into modern Mormonism doesn't really blow my hair back.

Then as far as I'm concerned, you have taken this thread off topic.

You asked:

In what sense would angels be "gods" according to the authors I cited?

Very possibly in a sense that they wouldn't themselves use, which was my point. Angels might be described as "gods" in the sense that they are supernatural beings that some people (wrongly, from a biblical point of view) worship. Thus the World English Dictionary gives as one definition of god, "a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world." Merriam-Webster gives a similar definition: "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship." When evangelicals deny that angels or demons are "gods," they are making the theological and religious point that one should not worship them. They are not denying the existence of such supernatural beings. But one could call angels and demons "gods" in the sense of recognizing that they are supernatural beings that some people worship.

Dan wrote:

You've also dodged my call for references in order to accuse my point of being semantic rather than sufficiently theological.

I don't recall a call for references.

Finally, Dan, you wrote:

I've been quite clear about the difference between "supernatural being" and "divine being/deity/god." I've explained that you're using the more broad term only because it has some semantic space that allows you to use it where your theology would not allow "god."

As I have shown from two dictionaries, the English word gods can mean supernatural beings that are regarded (by some) as objects of worship. In this sense every evangelical agrees that there are many "gods," that is, many supernatural beings that some people worship. At the same time, evangelicals insist that there really is only one supernatural being that is properly the object of worship. This is what we mean by saying that there is only one God. This is what we mean by monotheism. And no, this isn't henotheism or monolatry. "Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped" (Wikipedia). "Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: μόνος (monos) = single, and λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity" (also Wikipedia). These are basically synonymous, although it is possible to assign distinct definitions to each term. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one being that is the proper object of worship by anyone. No other "gods" exist in the sense that there is only one proper object of worship.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill and Dan,

As I said, I was being facetious. I understand that ancient idolaters believed that their idols represented actual supernatural entities. I have also offered a biblical explanation consistent with evangelical theology for references in the Hebrew Bible to Ashtoreth, et. al., as elohim: they were actually existing beings, all right, but they were demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev. 9:20). It's true that in pagan Greek usage a daimonion was not necessarily evil, but the term's usage in the LXX and in the NT is consistently pejorative.

Dan, I had pointed out that your initial post to this thread did not answer the question in the opening post. You replied:

Then as far as I'm concerned, you have taken this thread off topic.

You asked:

Very possibly in a sense that they wouldn't themselves use, which was my point. Angels might be described as "gods" in the sense that they are supernatural beings that some people (wrongly, from a biblical point of view) worship. Thus the World English Dictionary gives as one definition of god, "a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world." Merriam-Webster gives a similar definition: "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship." When evangelicals deny that angels or demons are "gods," they are making the theological and religious point that one should not worship them. They are not denying the existence of such supernatural beings. But one could call angels and demons "gods" in the sense of recognizing that they are supernatural beings that some people worship.

Dan wrote:

I don't recall a call for references.

Finally, Dan, you wrote:

As I have shown from two dictionaries, the English word gods can mean supernatural beings that are regarded (by some) as objects of worship. In this sense every evangelical agrees that there are many "gods," that is, many supernatural beings that some people worship. At the same time, evangelicals insist that there really is only one supernatural being that is properly the object of worship. This is what we mean by saying that there is only one God. This is what we mean by monotheism. And no, this isn't henotheism or monolatry. "Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped" (Wikipedia). "Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: μόνος (monos) = single, and λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity" (also Wikipedia). These are basically synonymous, although it is possible to assign distinct definitions to each term. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one being that is the proper object of worship by anyone. No other "gods" exist in the sense that there is only one proper object of worship.

It doesn't matter what the English word god can mean. It matters what the Hebrew term elohim meant. Trying to define Hebrew elohim on the basic of 21st century English usage is problematic at best, and essentially equivocation. The Hebrew Bible consistently calls the pagan deities elohim, and clearly believed that the pagan deities really existed, and were consistently referred to as the sons of God.

[Bill Hamblin]

As I said, I was being facetious. I understand that ancient idolaters believed that their idols represented actual supernatural entities. I have also offered a biblical explanation consistent with evangelical theology for references in the Hebrew Bible to Ashtoreth, et. al., as elohim: they were actually existing beings, all right, but they were demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev. 9:20). It's true that in pagan Greek usage a daimonion was not necessarily evil, but the term's usage in the LXX and in the NT is consistently pejorative.

It is important to note that in the NT the most common word for pagan deities is demons, they are also called gods. 2 Cor 4:4, 1 Cor. 8:5. That is to say, Zeus was understood as a real being, and was a god. This precisely parallels the Israelite understanding.

[Bill Hamblin]

Here are my reflections on the broader topic:

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/who-are-the-sons-of-god/

[Freedom]

I don't really find his question interesting. Demanding one try to shoe-horn ancient Judaism into modern Mormonism doesn't really blow my hair back.

The problem with this argument is that ancient Judaism is or should be the same religion as modern mormonism. The nature of the eternal beings have not changed. Arguing for other real gods that were accepted by the divinely appointed prophets shows that either they or Joseph Smith were wrong. So back to the topic, is the modern LDS doctrine of the nature of God found in the bible, and if so where? The references that are being debated, in my opinion, do not answer the question other than to show that their view of God was not correct.

[Freedom]

It is important to note that in the NT the most common word for pagan deities is demons, they are also called gods. 2 Cor 4:4, 1 Cor. 8:5. That is to say, Zeus was understood as a real being, and was a god. This precisely parallels the Israelite understanding.

Then the verse that references gods many and lords many is not necessarily about the LDS doctrine of deification, but could be in reference to all these other gods that are not supposed to exist.

[Bill Hamblin]

Then the verse that references gods many and lords many is not necessarily about the LDS doctrine of deification, but could be in reference to all these other gods that are not supposed to exist.

Paul is talking about the pagan gods.

[Freedom]

Paul is talking about the pagan gods.

Then the many apologists need to be advised because I Cor 8:5 is a standard in supporting deification.

[Bill Hamblin]

Then the many apologists need to be advised because I Cor 8:5 is a standard in supporting deification.

There is ample NT and early Christian evidence for deification. This particular verse is not part of that. See the bibliography half way through this article.

http://mormonscriptu...2012/08/28/670/

Individual LDS apologists can and do make mistakes about things.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[stemelbow]

Well there is some interesting stuff coming about due to this thread, whether it's veered off from what the OP intended or not.

Anyway, post #60 by Freedom was interesting so I'll comment. Perhaps another parallel discuss will ensure. They both may be interesting, but I'd have to bow out for that to happen. So just questions mostly.

The problem with this argument

What argument? That wasn't arguing on his part, at least not in my meesely (spell? not the measles meeseley?) eyes.

is that ancient Judaism is or should be the same religion as modern mormonism.

I dont' get why you think this is a "should be"? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "same religion". in what way would you expect them to be teh same, precisely?

The nature of the eternal beings have not changed.

I think, thanks to the biblical account, among many other writings, the understanding of people have changed about these beings, though.

Arguing for other real gods that were accepted by the divinely appointed prophets shows that either they or Joseph Smith were wrong.

I'd say that's over simplistic. But I encourage the thoughts ongoing in this thread to continue to bear that characterization of mine out, all the more.

So back to the topic, is the modern LDS doctrine of the nature of God found in the bible, and if so where?

So, can I wager this question is far more loaded than it appears? What do you mean by "modern LDS doctrine"? what do you see as the nature of God in the Bible? and what do you expect in order for the answer to this question to be "yes"?

The references that are being debated, in my opinion, do not answer the question other than to show that their view of God was not correct.

I don't see how showing "their view of God was not correct" pertains to the question.

[Bill Hamblin]

The problem with this argument is that ancient Judaism is or should be the same religion as modern mormonism. The nature of the eternal beings have not changed. Arguing for other real gods that were accepted by the divinely appointed prophets shows that either they or Joseph Smith were wrong. So back to the topic, is the modern LDS doctrine of the nature of God found in the bible, and if so where? The references that are being debated, in my opinion, do not answer the question other than to show that their view of God was not correct.

I fundamentally disagree with your assumption here. There was no single ancient Judaism; there were many sects and interpretations, and still are. There were also many changes through time. God reveals himself to a people based on their culture, language, science, understanding etc. What is the point of having continuing revelation if everything is always the same.

At any rate, the fundamental reflection of ancient Israelite concepts of gods and the council of the gods can be seen in the Book of Abraham. That is a classic reflection of the things we have been discussing.

[stemelbow]

oh boy this is good:

I fundamentally disagree with your assumption here. There was no single ancient Judaism; there were many sects and interpretations, and still are. There were also many changes through time. God reveals himself to a people based on their culture, language, science, understanding etc. What is the point of having continuing revelation if everything is always the same.

Nailed it!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bill and Dan,

As I said, I was being facetious. I understand that ancient idolaters believed that their idols represented actual supernatural entities. I have also offered a biblical explanation consistent with evangelical theology for references in the Hebrew Bible to Ashtoreth, et. al.,

Well, I give Rob credit. Has is doing just that. He has, "Offered a biblical explanation consistent with evangelical theology". Edited October 11, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Freedom]

I fundamentally disagree with your assumption here. There was no single ancient Judaism; there were many sects and interpretations, and still are. There were also many changes through time. God reveals himself to a people based on their culture, language, science, understanding etc. What is the point of having continuing revelation if everything is always the same.

At any rate, the fundamental reflection of ancient Israelite concepts of gods and the council of the gods can be seen in the Book of Abraham. That is a classic reflection of the things we have been discussing.

So are you suggesting that Isaiah belonged to a different sect than, say Elisha? I can accept that there would have been different apostate sects, but there would have been one true priesthood lead religious tradition. I can also appreciate that, due to economics, it would not have been possible for God to reveal nearly as much as we have today. The nature of God, however, seems like a pretty fundamental teaching that he would drive home in order to differentiate from the other false teachings of god.

[Freedom]

I dont' get why you think this is a "should be"? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "same religion". in what way would you expect them to be teh same, precisely?

Same god, same priesthood, same ordinances, same religion. I don't think God would create different religions - different practices perhaps, but the same religion. The Book of Mormon shows that this is the case.

So, can I wager this question is far more loaded than it appears? What do you mean by "modern LDS doctrine"? what do you see as the nature of God in the Bible? and what do you expect in order for the answer to this question to be "yes"?

God has a body of flesh and bones, Jesus and the holy ghost are separate and distinct individuals, we can become like God ect. This is what would have been taught by the prophets in the Old Testament.

I don't see how showing "their view of God was not correct" pertains to the question.

If the prophets such as Moses, Isaiah, or Daniel did not understand the fundamental doctrine of the nature of God then I see this as a problem. I would suggest that they did understand the nature of God, and they taught it. If it is not apparent in the text, then this is due to textual corruption and not due to a different understanding.

[Lachoneus]

Paul is talking about the pagan gods.

"Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can." (Joseph Smith, 6 History of the Church 473-479 (16 June 1844))

[maklelan]

The problem with this argument is that ancient Judaism is or should be the same religion as modern mormonism.

Should it? You need go no further than two Mormons to find two different conceptualizations of Mormonism. Why would we think that going back 2500 years in time to an entirely different continent would not give us different conceptualizations from what we have today?

The nature of the eternal beings have not changed.

Has the way the religionists of each group have spoken about the eternal beings changed? You're assuming the biblical texts represent the purest and most orthodox presentation of true Jewish religion, which they simply do not. They are social and political rhetoric written by different groups influenced by different segments of the religious community and aimed at different goals.

Arguing for other real gods that were accepted by the divinely appointed prophets shows that either they or Joseph Smith were wrong. So back to the topic, is the modern LDS doctrine of the nature of God found in the bible, and if so where?

No, it is not.

The references that are being debated, in my opinion, do not answer the question other than to show that their view of God was not correct.

I prefer asking "what was their view," rather than "was their view correct?" There's a lot more to the answer that way.

[maklelan]

Bill and Dan,

As I said, I was being facetious. I understand that ancient idolaters believed that their idols represented actual supernatural entities. I have also offered a biblical explanation consistent with evangelical theology for references in the Hebrew Bible to Ashtoreth, et. al., as elohim: they were actually existing beings, all right, but they were demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev. 9:20). It's true that in pagan Greek usage a daimonion was not necessarily evil, but the term's usage in the LXX and in the NT is consistently pejorative.

Which means the adage is true, then, that a demon is just a god that you don't like.

Dan, I had pointed out that your initial post to this thread did not answer the question in the opening post. You replied:

Then as far as I'm concerned, you have taken this thread off topic.

So be it.

You asked:

Very possibly in a sense that they wouldn't themselves use, which was my point. Angels might be described as "gods" in the sense that they are supernatural beings that some people (wrongly, from a biblical point of view) worship. Thus the World English Dictionary gives as one definition of god, "a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world." Merriam-Webster gives a similar definition: "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship." When evangelicals deny that angels or demons are "gods," they are making the theological and religious point that one should not worship them. They are not denying the existence of such supernatural beings. But one could call angels and demons "gods" in the sense of recognizing that they are supernatural beings that some people worship.

But those dictionaries do not have other usages that would fit the quotations I've provided. Those are the only possible definitions to which those evangelicals could appeal (according to those dictionaries). Now, you and I both know dictionaries are often rather worthless in that they don't accurately portray usage as much as attempt to reduce usage down to the fewest possible necessary and sufficient features. Those definitions often have nothing at all to do with actual usage, and appealing to them is just meaningless. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines "furniture" in the following ways:

equipment that is necessary, useful, or desirable: as

a archaic : the trappings of a horse

b : movable articles used in readying an area (as a room or patio) for occupancy or use

If I wanted to insist my spoon was furniture, I need merely appeal to the dictionary definition. This would be absolutely ludicrous, however, as no one actually uses the word that way. The dictionary just can't find necessary and sufficient features that delimit the category accurately, and it can't just list all the things that are called furniture. Your ad hoc argument here is little different, since you obviously just retreated to a dictionary and tried to formulate a way to rationalize your claim from whatever definitions you happened to find. You had no idea what you were going to say until after you looked up the definitions, and you don't care at all that those definitions really have little to do with the word's actual usage (or that you've denied the authors I cited any dictionary definitions of the word). Lastly, you would be restricting the existence of that dictionary notion of "god" only to Israelite angels, since these same authors insist quite emphatically that the gods of the nations do not have any real existence. In other words, the only supernatural beings they would grant existence to would have to be Israelite supernatural beings. In other words, Israel has many, many gods (according to the salient usage of the term), while no one else has any at all. This, of course, also flatly contradicts the biblical witness.

Dan wrote:

I don't recall a call for references.

I asked you to point to five evangelical authors who acknowledge in print that demons are gods.

Finally, Dan, you wrote:

As I have shown from two dictionaries, the English word gods can mean supernatural beings that are regarded (by some) as objects of worship.

No, you just showed that a couple dictionaries reduce the word to that definition. You also forgot to make sure those dictionaries provided another usage that would fit the authors I cited.

In this sense every evangelical agrees that there are many "gods," that is, many supernatural beings that some people worship.

Then show me five evangelical authors who acknowledge this in print. Otherwise I'm forced to conclude (and I believe rightly so) that you're just manufacturing a semantic dodge and insisting it is orthodox evangelical doctrine.

At the same time, evangelicals insist that there really is only one supernatural being that is properly the object of worship. This is what we mean by saying that there is only one God. This is what we mean by monotheism.

So now monotheism doesn't have anything to do with creation, but only with the existence of one deity worthy of worship. Again, I must point out that you're only describing a form of henotheism.

And no, this isn't henotheism or monolatry. "Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped" (Wikipedia). "Monolatrism or monolatry (Greek: μόνος (monos) = single, and λατρεία (latreia) = worship) is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one deity" (also Wikipedia).

Wikipedia is the authority on evangelical doctrine now? I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it, and trying to insist on a single definition for these terms only betrays a staggering ignorance regarding their usage.

These are basically synonymous, although it is possible to assign distinct definitions to each term.

I suggest you take some time to investigate the history of these words. Mark Smith's God in Translation, 149-81, is a good start.

Monotheism is the belief that there is only one being that is the proper object of worship by anyone. No other "gods" exist in the sense that there is only one proper object of worship.

Not according to Merriam-Webster:

the doctrine or belief that there is but one God

Or Wikipedia, for that matter:

the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God.

Perhaps you can point to, oh, say, five publications wherein monotheism is directly and explicitly defined as the belief in only one proper object of worship.