dg wrote:
I question the premise of being able to live the bible in every literal sense. Literalness is lost merely by translations from ancient hebrew to greek, latin, german and english.       
This is a very important point. I also lke that you used Russian as an example, because comparing how certain things are said in Russian compared to English also makes the case that language carries cultural notions with it.

For example, a Russian does not say "I have a headache." Why? Because the notion of 'owning pain' does not exist in Russian culture, so in Russian, the equivalent to 'I have a headache' is something like "A pain inhabits me and affects my head."

Patty wrote:
The Old Testament is very Monotheistic in it's general tone  
I tend to see it more as monolatry - that different gods exist, but Jews were meant to obey a specific one. Judaism recognizes other religions as equal to its own pertaining that certain rules are kept (I know there are 7 such rules, but I don't recall exactly what they are called at the moment). Often, in the OT, the deity the Hebrews worshiped was refered to as 'the God of Israel' somewhat specifically. There is also a passage where this God, after Adam ate from the tree of life, where he exclaims something to the effect that "He is one of us now."

That being said, was the Bible, as Darrell suggests, translated anywhere near adequately? If Historians are correct, Judaism was polytheistic early in its history, though defining it as polytheistic may be a false representation, or misinterpretation of what was actually monolatry.