No, they are not different translations, they are different gods, worshipped at different times by various regions of the Israel tribes. The newer King James version of the bible just translates them all as "God" because the modern revisionist/apologist viewpoint is that they are all just different names for the same deity. But if you actually know biblical history, they are actually different deities. The Elohim are the oldest, and these are the god(s) that appear in Genesis--which is why, for example, God refers to himself in the plural on one occassion and why he is so inconsistent with later chapters (ie walking around the garden, adam and eve physically hiding from him). Yahweh was a fiery "angry" god of later chaotic war-torn times, and most of the "venegeful god" stuff is a product of this god, who is symbolised by the volcano of course. Bel/Bal and the Adonai of course are another pantheon of gods. Judaism is a very fractured history with many tribes worshipping various gods and warring with each other, absorbing the different deities into each other and slowly building the perceived-monotheistic beliefs of later times.

As for Mary, yes, it is mostly Catholics that deify her, but she indeed is deified--i mean, when you PRAY to Mary, what else do you call it?? Catholics have long been in denial about this fact. Most religions have some sort of "goddess" myth though, and Mary fills the role nicely.

You still keep claiming that you are not bashing religious people, I guess you have failed to read your own posts.

I don't have a problem with religious people per se, because a lot of them are level headed. But those proposing the earth is flat or that it is under ten thousand years old, yes I'll bash them, not because they are religious but because thats just bloody stupid.

No where in the Bible will you find Mary deified.

I am aware of this. Sometimes, however, a mythology develops independently of its actual text or content.

Our "ignorance is doing you no harm, also you are extremely ignorant to religion. And example of that is that you said Christianity evolved from Platonism, this is entirely untrue.

Actually, it is quite, but actual archeology and history are pretty foreign to most people so most people don't know about the actual socio-political scene of Rome Circa 70 CE when Christianity was roughly created.

Also if we are so sure of the big bang theory and there is so much evidence, then how could there still be theist scientists?

In spite of your inability to understand this, pretty much every actual scientists believes in the big bang, and most of those are theists (out of the simple fact that most human beings are theists). How does that work? It just does, i guess. How does believing in the big bang immediately nullify god? It doesn't necessarily, because most theistic scientists don't believe in such a narrow, dogmatic religion-based god, and those that are christian don't take the Bible literally. They believe in "a god", not God (ie christ, etc.).

Sounds good to me. But I don't think we are so blissfully ignorant. You claim you do your own research and that you are well educated. I am not quite seeing this. The fact you gave the Jesus Seminar even a modicum of value shows you have no idea what it even was.

How does that show i have no idea what i am saying??? I really don't follow your logic here. The Jesus Seminars was a conference of scholars and experts on history. What are you talking about? Anyway, i wouldn't expect someone who believes Dinosaurs were roaming the Earth a few hundred thousand years ago to be agreeing with me.