Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is plural. Trinity?

[music4two]

Does Elohiym being plural indicate the Trinity?

 

[k2svpete]

No, one way of translating it is 'mighty ones' and I believe it is a reference to angels. Throughout scripture we are given examples of people having entertained angels unaware etc. From this we can draw that humans and angels bear a physical likeness. Like God, humans are creative.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[elegance]

I actually believe that it is the Trinity! After all, Jesus descended upon the earth to us, but He was already with God! I don't believe it was angels because I don't think there is any support that Angels were made in the image of God -- but we were. And they may look like us, but no way did they take part in the creation of the world.

Also, "Elohim", as a plural form of "El" was doing the creating. Angels would not have done the creating, but the Trinity sure would! They are three in one: plural.

However, this is just my opinion!

Here's a great site to read:
w w w . d i r e c t . c a / t r i n i t y / e l o h i m

Sorry about the spaces! It won't let me post a link, so I had to improvise! Haha! C:

 

[music4two]

Hs anyone studdied Hebrew to see what the name Elohyim actually means?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Hs anyone studdied Hebrew to see what the name Elohyim actually means?

Yes.

elohim is the plural of the word el and literally means 'gods'. It is the same word that is used when the Old Testament talks about worshiping foreign gods. However, quite often in the Old Testament the plural term elohim is used to mean God (big 'g' as in the true God). While the term is plural in form, it is singular in idea and in Genesis 1 (and elsewhere) the verbs corresponding to elohim are singular (in this case the word meaning "he created" which is bara').

Because the verbs are singular, and the OT treats elohim as singular (see the Shema in Deut. 6 for instance) it really can't be a reference to the Trinity. I am not denying that the Trinity was present at creation (John 1 comes to mind) but Genesis 1 does not reference the Trinity.

one way of translating it is 'mighty ones' and I believe it is a reference to angels.

While one way of translating elohim is 'mighty ones' it is a more uncommon use of the word. Likewise, 'angels' is technically a valid way of translating elohim, but Hebrew has another word for angel or messenger (mal'ak). Granted, mal'ak has more of a connotation of divine messenger than what many of us think of as an angel today. All this to say that context is key when translating. In this case, Genesis 1 seems to be talking about the creator God of the Israelites. This coupled with the fact that elohim almost always means a divine being and very frequently, especially in the first five books of teh Bible, this word means God and the fact that the verb is singular which indicates that they were thinking of one god (as opposed to say many angels or mighty beings) I think that it is truest to the text to stick with a translation of 'God'.

Throughout scripture we are given examples of people having entertained angels unaware etc.

But in the Hebrew Bible the word for angel in these passages is usually (always?) mal'ak not elohim.

Also, "Elohim", as a plural form of "El" was doing the creating.

You are almost right. While el does mean god and elohim is the plural form, don't think of el as the one doing the action. elohim is doing the action. I am trying to figure out how to word what I am saying (pretty much pulled an all nighter last night ) While el means god, it is rare that this word is used to talk about the true God, virtually alwasy, unless the Divine Name YHWH (usually translated the LORD) is used, the word referring to God is elohim, not el. While I agree that the Trinity was involved, this text is not making that claim.

Here we go, I think I have a way of saying it. el is not the Father of the Trinity. That is to say that just because elohim is plural that doesn't mean that one el is one part of the Trinity. They just used the plural form out of respect. Do you see? Again, I need to emphasize the singular-ness of the verbs that are attached to elohim. They are not treating this as more than one agent just like when we say that God did something, we may know that we are talking about the Trinity, but we are treating it like one being. Same sort of idea. elohim is plural (probably out of respect) but it is treated like a singular idea, just like when we talk about God. The difference is that there is no indication that the idea of the Trinity had been revealed to the Hebrew people mainly for the very reasons that I have stated, God is always treated as one being.

As far as the website, Missler has a lot of good things to say. (oh, and here is the link for anyone interested). However, I think he is wrong in a few places.

The word used for God in Genesis 1:1 is "Elohim," which is a form of the word "El." In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can certainly be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the "im" ending imputes plurality. Therefore, "Elohim" is the plural from of the word "El."

It is interesting to note that each usage of this word throughout the Bible is grammatically incorrect. It is a plural noun used with singular verbs. According to Genesis 1:1, the Creator of the Universe, Elohim, exists as a plural being.

He is correct in his analysis of the grammar, but he doesn't quite understand the implications. Because the word elohim is treated like a singular noun the last sentence has to be incorrect. If elohim is treated as a singular noun it follows that they were thinking of it as a singular noun and therefore they were not thinking that "Elohim, exists as a plural being."

If this were not so then the word "El" or perhaps Yahweh would have been used.

Again, the reason that el is not used is that it (virtually) never is used. If they were using elohim in contrast to el then they would have followed the grammatical rules and pluralized the verbs to reflect the plurality of the word elohim. The reason that YHWH is not used is the same as elsewhere in the text, which is something that scholars debate about, a liberal view would say that the author of the passage was drawing upon a tradition that preferred to use elohim over the Divine Name while more conservative scholars would suggest that Moses was simply being stylistic and for whatever reason thought that the word elohim fit better with the poetic nature of Genesis 1.

Prior to the creation of man we find a conversation between God (Elohim) and an unidentified being ("let Us make man in Our image"). Who is this person with whom God is speaking?

This incorrectly assumes that plurality neccessarily indicates two. If the writer were trying to speak of two beings he would have used the dual form (elohaim) which would mean 'two els'.

This person, or intelligent being, has some attributes that we can glean from the text. First, the personage is able to speak with God "on His turf", that is, in the realm of timeless eternity.
Secondly, this being apparently has the same kind of creative ability as God ("Let US make"). This describes a cooperative effort between Elohim and the person with whom He is speaking.
Finally, the likeness or image of this being is comparable to God's ("In Our image, after Our likeness").
When confronted with this passage, modern rabbis often claim that God is speaking to the angels. However, this explanation fails to recognize a number of problems.
First, there is no indication in the Bible that angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels are made in the image of God. Finally, there is no indication that mankind was made in the image of angels either!

This argument presupposes his conclusion. For instance, he assumes that no where does the bible talk of angels creating, but where else would that fact be mentioned other than in Genesis 1 which he is trying to argue doesn't say that very thing? (note, I do not necessarily think that this is a reference to the angels, but I don't think that we can rule it out in this way). Furthermore, it may not say that angels are created in God's image, but it certainly does not deny it either and as someone above mentioned, when angels walk on earth in the Bible they often are mistaken for people and people are made in the image of God so it certainly is not unreasonable to think that they were made in the image of God.

"Man has become like one of US." To whom is the LORD talking?
Again in Genesis 11:7, God is discussing His solution to the whole earth having one language at the time of the Tower of Babel:
"Come, let US go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7 (NKJ).
The fact that the LORD (Yahweh) refers to Himself in these passages as "Us," is indeed a fascinating hint to the plurality of God.2

Again, I do not think that he has convincingly argued that these cannot refer to something like the whole host of heaven (something that we see in many passages of the Old Testament) as opposed to the Trinity (something that I would argue never appears in the OT but even those that think that it does would have to admit is significantly more rare than the heavenly court, i.e. God and all his messengers).

The plurality of the Creator seen in Genesis 1:1 has been dismissed by some as simply a description of God's plural majesty. However, the plurality of the Creator is also seen in a number of very provocative verses.

But why can't these verses be explained by the plurality of his majesty as well? He correctly identifies the theme of a plural creator throughout the text but he fails to provide reasons why this cannot be a majestic pluarilty. Instead, he seems to think that the plurality found in these other texts proves his point. Quite the opposite is true.

These verses present a remarkable paradox. The Bible clearly teaches that there is but one God and one Creator. Yet this one God is a plurality of more than one personage, each of which has the attributes of God and performs the works of God.

Again, he has not convincingly argued (from a linguistic standpoint) that the other interpretations (that of God and his angels or God in his majesty) cannot be true.

In this verse we are told that God is One. However, when we examine the word "echad," translated "one," we discover an interesting meaning. This word, "echad," comes from a Hebrew root which means "to unify" or "to collect together," a "united one."

This I simply do not believe to be true. The Brown Driver Briggs lexicon (a fantastic lexicon considered to be very authoritative) does not appear to mention this at all. echad means 'one'. It can also mean 'only' or even 'first' (as in the first of the month, or the first year). While he is correct in saying that it is used when two (or more )things are joined together, the word itself does not have that connotation. The same is true in English. You can say that we have all come together to join and create one forum but that does not mean that the word 'one' actually has the connotation of more than one thing being joined together. It simply means that it can be used that way. But just because it can be used like that does not mean that every time the word 'one' is used we should assume that it is a plurality being joined together. For instance, I have one refrigerator. That does not mean that my refrigerator is a combination of many refrigerators into one singular refrigerator just because the word 'one' can sometimes be used that way. In other words, just because echad sometimes is used as a joining of more than one thing into one does not mean that it always is used that way.

Therefore, this passage really should be translated to reflect that God is the only (echad) God or that God is one (echad).

Why "Holy, holy, holy?" This is just another hint of the plurality of God and the three in one seen throughout the Scripture.6,7

The "holy, holy, holy" has absolutely nothing to do with the plurality of the being. For one thing, this is poetry and so saying hagios (the Greek word for holy) once, simply might not have fit in with the form of the poem. Secondly, sometimes we just say things like that. If I were to say that my fiance is "pretty, pretty, pretty" that does not mean that I am engaged to three women. It is a figure of speech (that granted isn't used that often in English) to denote that she is really pretty. Likewise, God is extremely holy. Hence the angels sing that he is "Holy, Holy, Holy".

I hope this helps and I hope it makes sense (again, haven't slept in a while).

 

[Simonline]

Does Elohiym being plural indicate the Trinity?

In relation to the one and only God, YHWH (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13), yes.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

No, one way of translating it is 'mighty ones' and I believe it is a reference to angels. Throughout scripture we are given examples of people having entertained angels unaware etc. From this we can draw that humans and angels bear a physical likeness. Like God, humans are creative.

That's my take on it anyway.

Not true. Like God (Jn.4:24(a)) the elohim (i.e. 'spirit beings', not 'angels') are non-corporeal entities and thus do not exist as corporeal (i.e. with physical bodies). Furthermore, human creatures are declared to be made in the likeness of their Creator alone (Gen.1:26-27) and not in the likeness of their Creator and His created elohim ('spirit beings')?!

This is a classic case of reading your own theological presuppositions into the text (the very thing of which you hypocritically accuse me)?! Eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Hs anyone studdied Hebrew to see what the name Elohyim actually means?

Eloha (singular) elohim (plural) means 'spirit being(s)'. Non-corporeal entities that YHWH has created specifically and exclusively to do His bidding or act on His behalf (which is why they are called angels since the correct (non-theological) definition of an angel is 'one doing the bidding or acting on behalf of another' which is also why the Son/Word/Memre, prior to His incarnation as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, is also known as 'The Angel of the LORD').

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I actually believe that it is the Trinity! After all, Jesus descended upon the earth to us, but He was already with God! I don't believe it was angels because I don't think there is any support that Angels were made in the image of God -- but we were. And they may look like us, but no way did they take part in the creation of the world.

Also, "Elohim", as a plural form of "El" was doing the creating. Angels would not have done the creating, but the Trinity sure would! They are three in one: plural.

However, this is just my opinion!

Here's a great site to read:
w w w . d i r e c t . c a / t r i n i t y / e l o h i m

Sorry about the spaces! It won't let me post a link, so I had to improvise! Haha! C:

This is essentially correct.

Simonline.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

In relation to the one and only God, YHWH (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13), yes.

But why? see my last post and refute it.

Jn.4:24(a)) the elohim (i.e. 'spirit beings', not 'angels') are non-corporeal entities and thus do not exist as corporeal (i.e. with physical bodies).

John was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Furthermore, human creatures are declared to be made in the likeness of their Creator alone (Gen.1:26-27)

No, they are declared to be in the likeness of the one speaking, i.e. elohim, which means God (again, see my last post and if you disagree refute it).

and His created elohim ('spirit beings')

Again, elohim is God. That is what it means, that is what it has always been translated as. The Septuagint translates it as Theos (God). The Latin Vulgate translates it as Deus (God). Die Bibel (German) translates it as Gott (God). And to my knowledge, every English translation translates it as God.

Again, if you disagree, look at my above post in which I attempt to prove these things and attempt to refute them.

This is a classic case of reading your own theological presuppositions into the text (the very thing of which you hypocritically accuse me)?!

Who is accusing you of anything? This is your first post on this thread.

Eloha (singular) elohim (plural) means 'spirit being(s)'.

Please don't take this as an insult, but eloha is not really the singular form of elohim. el is the singular of elohim. Again, see my post above. You may be being confused because eloha is a proposed rootof el. Or because some have argued that eloha is a primitive singular form of elohim. But this is not confident at all and works under the assumption that el and elohim were originally separate words. Others propose that el was the earliest word from which the plural elohim came. Then eloha, a second singular form, was inferred.

But, even if these are true, they are proposed forms. That is eloha does not (to my knowledge at least) occur in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, it may be a singular form of elohim in a proto-Hebraic language, but by the time that the Hebrew Bible was written, el was the singular of elohim.

This is all rather technical, but the moral of the story is, as far as the Bible is concerned, we should consider el to be the singular of elohim.

Non-corporeal entities that YHWH has created specifically and exclusively to do His bidding or act on His behalf

I hate to just repeatedly say this, but see my above post. I have already pointed out some flaws in this view. As such, you cannot simply post this claim as if it is true, you need to refute my arguments against it.

(which is why they are called angels since the correct (non-theological) definition of an angel is 'one doing the bidding or acting on behalf of another' which is also why the Son/Word/Memre, prior to His incarnation as the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth, is also known as 'The Angel of the LORD').

But the word for angel is not elohim it is mal'ak. Once again, this is something that I went over in my above post.

 

[k2svpete]

BTF, a good amount of work there with your posts and I admit that I was working off what I could recall. I'll have to go and have a check now! I do not agree with the conclusion that this indicates support for trinitarianism however.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

BTF, a good amount of work there with your posts and I admit that I was working off what I could recall. I'll have to go and have a check now!

Thank you.

I do not agree with the conclusion that this indicates support for trinitarianism however.

I do not understand what you are saying. You do not like the support for trinitarianism in my post? Because honestly, my conclusions on this particular text could go either way. I don't believe Genesis 1 indicates the Trinity, but I believe in the Trinity because of other things (such as the Gospels).

 

[music4two]

Yes.

elohim is the plural of the word el and literally means 'gods'. It is the same word that is used when the Old Testament talks about worshiping foreign gods. However, quite often in the Old Testament the plural term elohim is used to mean God (big 'g' as in the true God). While the term is plural in form, it is singular in idea and in Genesis 1 (and elsewhere) the verbs corresponding to elohim are singular (in this case the word meaning "he created" which is bara').

Because the verbs are singular, and the OT treats elohim as singular (see the Shema in Deut. 6 for instance) it really can't be a reference to the Trinity. I am not denying that the Trinity was present at creation (John 1 comes to mind) but Genesis 1 does not reference the Trinity.



While one way of translating elohim is 'mighty ones' it is a more uncommon use of the word. Likewise, 'angels' is technically a valid way of translating elohim, but Hebrew has another word for angel or messenger (mal'ak). Granted, mal'ak has more of a connotation of divine messenger than what many of us think of as an angel today. All this to say that context is key when translating. In this case, Genesis 1 seems to be talking about the creator God of the Israelites. This coupled with the fact that elohim almost always means a divine being and very frequently, especially in the first five books of teh Bible, this word means God and the fact that the verb is singular which indicates that they were thinking of one god (as opposed to say many angels or mighty beings) I think that it is truest to the text to stick with a translation of 'God'.

But in the Hebrew Bible the word for angel in these passages is usually (always?) mal'ak not elohim.



You are almost right. While el does mean god and elohim is the plural form, don't think of el as the one doing the action. elohim is doing the action. I am trying to figure out how to word what I am saying (pretty much pulled an all nighter last night ) While el means god, it is rare that this word is used to talk about the true God, virtually alwasy, unless the Divine Name YHWH (usually translated the LORD) is used, the word referring to God is elohim, not el. While I agree that the Trinity was involved, this text is not making that claim.

Here we go, I think I have a way of saying it. el is not the Father of the Trinity. That is to say that just because elohim is plural that doesn't mean that one el is one part of the Trinity. They just used the plural form out of respect. Do you see? Again, I need to emphasize the singular-ness of the verbs that are attached to elohim. They are not treating this as more than one agent just like when we say that God did something, we may know that we are talking about the Trinity, but we are treating it like one being. Same sort of idea. elohim is plural (probably out of respect) but it is treated like a singular idea, just like when we talk about God. The difference is that there is no indication that the idea of the Trinity had been revealed to the Hebrew people mainly for the very reasons that I have stated, God is always treated as one being.

As far as the website, Missler has a lot of good things to say. (oh, and here is the link for anyone interested). However, I think he is wrong in a few places.



He is correct in his analysis of the grammar, but he doesn't quite understand the implications. Because the word elohim is treated like a singular noun the last sentence has to be incorrect. If elohim is treated as a singular noun it follows that they were thinking of it as a singular noun and therefore they were not thinking that "Elohim, exists as a plural being."

Again, the reason that el is not used is that it (virtually) never is used. If they were using elohim in contrast to el then they would have followed the grammatical rules and pluralized the verbs to reflect the plurality of the word elohim. The reason that YHWH is not used is the same as elsewhere in the text, which is something that scholars debate about, a liberal view would say that the author of the passage was drawing upon a tradition that preferred to use elohim over the Divine Name while more conservative scholars would suggest that Moses was simply being stylistic and for whatever reason thought that the word elohim fit better with the poetic nature of Genesis 1.

This incorrectly assumes that plurality neccessarily indicates two. If the writer were trying to speak of two beings he would have used the dual form (elohaim) which would mean 'two els'.

This argument presupposes his conclusion. For instance, he assumes that no where does the bible talk of angels creating, but where else would that fact be mentioned other than in Genesis 1 which he is trying to argue doesn't say that very thing? (note, I do not necessarily think that this is a reference to the angels, but I don't think that we can rule it out in this way). Furthermore, it may not say that angels are created in God's image, but it certainly does not deny it either and as someone above mentioned, when angels walk on earth in the Bible they often are mistaken for people and people are made in the image of God so it certainly is not unreasonable to think that they were made in the image of God.


Again, I do not think that he has convincingly argued that these cannot refer to something like the whole host of heaven (something that we see in many passages of the Old Testament) as opposed to the Trinity (something that I would argue never appears in the OT but even those that think that it does would have to admit is significantly more rare than the heavenly court, i.e. God and all his messengers).

But why can't these verses be explained by the plurality of his majesty as well? He correctly identifies the theme of a plural creator throughout the text but he fails to provide reasons why this cannot be a majestic pluarilty. Instead, he seems to think that the plurality found in these other texts proves his point. Quite the opposite is true.

Again, he has not convincingly argued (from a linguistic standpoint) that the other interpretations (that of God and his angels or God in his majesty) cannot be true.



This I simply do not believe to be true. The Brown Driver Briggs lexicon (a fantastic lexicon considered to be very authoritative) does not appear to mention this at all. echad means 'one'. It can also mean 'only' or even 'first' (as in the first of the month, or the first year). While he is correct in saying that it is used when two (or more )things are joined together, the word itself does not have that connotation. The same is true in English. You can say that we have all come together to join and create one forum but that does not mean that the word 'one' actually has the connotation of more than one thing being joined together. It simply means that it can be used that way. But just because it can be used like that does not mean that every time the word 'one' is used we should assume that it is a plurality being joined together. For instance, I have one refrigerator. That does not mean that my refrigerator is a combination of many refrigerators into one singular refrigerator just because the word 'one' can sometimes be used that way. In other words, just because echad sometimes is used as a joining of more than one thing into one does not mean that it always is used that way.

Therefore, this passage really should be translated to reflect that God is the only (echad) God or that God is one (echad).

The "holy, holy, holy" has absolutely nothing to do with the plurality of the being. For one thing, this is poetry and so saying hagios (the Greek word for holy) once, simply might not have fit in with the form of the poem. Secondly, sometimes we just say things like that. If I were to say that my fiance is "pretty, pretty, pretty" that does not mean that I am engaged to three women. It is a figure of speech (that granted isn't used that often in English) to denote that she is really pretty. Likewise, God is extremely holy. Hence the angels sing that he is "Holy, Holy, Holy".

I hope this helps and I hope it makes sense (again, haven't slept in a while).

Excelent - I could not have said it better. In Hebrew grammer the use of a plural can be used to indicate the magnificance of an object or person. They could indicate a mighty singular tree as "trees".
Jeff Benner of the ancient Hebrew research center says essentially the same thing.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Excelent - I could not have said it better. In Hebrew grammer the use of a plural can be used to indicate the magnificance of an object or person. They could indicate a mighty singular tree as "trees".
Jeff Benner of the ancient Hebrew research center says essentially the same thing.

Thank you very much.

 

[Simonline]

But why? see my last post and refute it.

Because the entire corpus of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures declare that whilst there is only ONE God that ONE God exists as THREE distinct (but NOT separate) Persons - Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit, that's why

John was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

I beg to differ. The Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and then quickly translated into Greek so that they would travel much further than just the borders of Israel. We know this because the gospel accounts contain Hebrew idioms that make perfect sense in Hebrew (according to Hebrew culture) whilst making no sense in Greek and even less sense in English [see: Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jnr http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Difficult-Words-Jesus-Perspective/dp/156043550X ].

No, they are declared to be in the likeness of the one speaking, i.e. elohim, which means God (again, see my last post and if you disagree refute it).

Talk about being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse?!

I do disagree so, once again, I shall refute it.

The ONE who is speaking is their ONE AND ONLY (Isa.43:10-13) Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH (which explains both how and why the THREE Persons of the ONE Tri-Personal Divine Creator are communicating with each other during the Creation process).

Except with reference to the ONE Spirit Entity (Jn.4:24(a)) YHWH (Isa.43:10-13 [precisely because He Exists as Infinitely Tri-Personal rather than finitely mono-Personal like His creatures], the term 'elohim' means 'spirit beings' [plural] and refers to the myriad finite spirit entities that YHWH has created to do His bidding (act on His behalf) which is why they are also called 'angels' [How many times must I repeat myself?]

Again, elohim is God. That is what it means, that is what it has always been translated as.

I'll say again. Not true. The term 'elohim' means 'spirit beings' (i.e. entities composed entirely of spirit without any corporeality) and refers (collectively) to the myriad of finite spirit entities that have been created by YHWH to do His bidding, which is why they are also called 'angels'. The term Elohim is also applied to YHWH (as the exception rather than the rule) precisely because YHWH, Who is also non-corporeal (Jn.4:24(a)), Exists as Tri-Personal [i.e. plurality of Persons] rather than Mono-Personal [i.e. singularity of Person] even though He is still only ONE GOD. The evidence is clear for those who are willing to see and accept it?!

The Septuagint translates it as Theos (God).

And how does the LXX (the Greek translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament)) translate 'elohim' when it is used with reference to the angels ('mighty ones') as distinct from YHWH Himself?!

The Latin Vulgate translates it as Deus (God). Die Bibel (German) translates it as Gott (God). And to my knowledge, every English translation translates it as God.

Same question - How do all these different translations translate 'elohim' when it is used with reference to the angels (a.k.a. 'mighty ones') as distinct from YHWH Himself?!

Again, if you disagree, look at my above post in which I attempt to prove these things and attempt to refute them.

I do most definitely disagree and I am stating my case for why I disagree and the onus is on you to ligitimately refute my counter argument?

Who is accusing you of anything? This is your first post on this thread.

You are correct. On this point I withdraw my allegation and apologize unreservedly. I had got my wires crossed and believed you to be someone else.

Please don't take this as an insult, but eloha is not really the singular form of elohim. el is the singular of elohim. Again, see my post above.

I don't take it as an insult at all but I am not convinced.

You may be being confused because eloha is a proposed rootof el. Or because some have argued that eloha is a primitive singular form of elohim. But this is not confident at all and works under the assumption that el and elohim were originally separate words. Others propose that el was the earliest word from which the plural elohim came. Then eloha, a second singular form, was inferred.

But, even if these are true, they are proposed forms. That is eloha does not (to my knowledge at least) occur in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, it may be a singular form of elohim in a proto-Hebraic language, but by the time that the Hebrew Bible was written, el was the singular of elohim.

I don't think this semantic debate is integral to the main argument so can we skip it please? Whether the singular is el or eloha makes little, if any difference?

This is all rather technical, but the moral of the story is, as far as the Bible is concerned, we should consider el to be the singular of elohim.

If you say so (I can live with that).

The important point is that elohim does not mean 'god/God', it means 'spirit beings' and the reason why those spirit beings are called 'god/God' is because they have authority and/or power over men (which is why they are also called 'mighty ones') and that is the correct [non-religious/non-theological] definition of the term 'god'. The degree to which the one has authority and/or power over the other is the degree to which the one is 'god' over the other (hence YHWH (having absolute authority and power over all others) is distinguished from all other gods (at least in the English-speaking world) with the use of the capital 'G').

I hate to just repeatedly say this, but see my above post. I have already pointed out some flaws in this view. As such, you cannot simply post this claim as if it is true, you need to refute my arguments against it.

Then I will take a look at your earlier post (even though, because of its length, it will take me a considerable amount of time to respond to it and I fear I will be repeating much of what I have already written)?

But the word for angel is not elohim it is mal'ak. Once again, this is something that I went over in my above post.

I am aware that the word for angel is mal'ak rather than elohim, thank you but elohim has to do with nature (what those creatures are according to essence) whereas mal'ak (angel) has to do with their role or why they exist (i.e. to do YHWH's bidding or act on His behalf) so there is no conflict between elohim and mal'ak since they refer to distinct and different aspects of their existence. The myriad of non-corporeal creatures that YHWH has created are both elohim (spirit beings) and mal'ak (angels).

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

Thank you.



I do not understand what you are saying. You do not like the support for trinitarianism in my post? Because honestly, my conclusions on this particular text could go either way. I don't believe Genesis 1 indicates the Trinity, but I believe in the Trinity because of other things (such as the Gospels).

Sorry about the confusion. Yes, great work with the acknowledgement of the plural nature of the noun 'elohym' but that this refers to a singular entity, God. This is supported immediately after Gen 1:26 in verse 27. Further verses such as the declaration in Deut that the LORD God is one God and similar about seven times in Is ch. 45 all point to the singularness of one God, the Father.

The declaration by me that I do not find support for a trinitarian idea in Gen was directed to the general reader and those who have declared their belief that it does.

One question I have for you, and anyone else who would care to ask it is - Why would Jesus have supported the scriptures and the tenants therein, chief among which is the singular nature of God as the Father and saviour of Israel, yet somehow be equated with being a part of a triune Godhead that is not supported in the OT. Jesus and the apostles taught from the OT and we have numerous scriptures in both the OT and NT that explicitally declare that God is the sovereign LORD and that Jesus is His son. 1 Cor 8 is a good one to read on this distinction.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Because the entire corpus of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures declare that whilst there is only ONE God that ONE God exists as THREE distinct (but NOT separate) Persons - Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit, that's why

But my post attempts to prove that the Old Testament specifically does not do this. It is fine that you believe that, but you have to adress my arguments against it. Simply reasserting does not convince me of anything.

I beg to differ. The Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and then quickly translated into Greek so that they would travel much further than just the borders of Israel.

This is untrue. Hebrew wasn't even commonly spoken in the Holy Land at the time. Aramaic was.

We know this because the gospel accounts contain Hebrew idioms that make perfect sense in Hebrew (according to Hebrew culture) whilst making no sense in Greek and even less sense in English [see: Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard Jnr http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandin.../dp/156043550X ].

No, they contain Aramaic idioms and sometimes Aramaic transliterations such as Mark 15:34 in which Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1 (or 22:2 in the English version of the OT) in Aramaic which is then transliterated into Greek (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?). Had he been speaking Hebrew he would have said "eli, eli lamach 'atzavtani". Jesus was speaking Aramaic because that was the common tongue at the time. The very fact that Mark transliterated this particularl passage and then offered a Greek translation (15:34b) suggests that the Gospel was not originally written in Aramaic (or Hebrew) because had it been, he simply would have translated the passage into Greek, not transliterated and translated it.

Talk about being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse?!

Come on now, I am trying to have a cordial conversation here.

The ONE who is speaking is their ONE AND ONLY (Isa.43:10-13) Eternal, Immutable and Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH (which explains both how and why the THREE Persons of the ONE Tri-Personal Divine Creator are communicating with each other during the Creation process).

I do not deny the Trinity.

the term 'elohim' means 'spirit beings' [plural] and refers to the myriad finite spirit entities that YHWH has created to do His bidding (act on His behalf) which is why they are also called 'angels'

I have offered a lexicon that refutes this. I have actually cited sources other than myself in an attempt to disprove this. You are simply stating it. Why should I believe you and not the copius amount of reading that I have done on this subjec from a wide variety of scholars?

[How many times must I repeat myself?]

Well, this was only the second time, so I wouldn't get that worried about it. To avoid having to repeat it again, try offering proof, not just claiming it to be true.

I'll say again. Not true. The term 'elohim' means 'spirit beings' (i.e. entities composed entirely of spirit without any corporeality) and refers (collectively) to the myriad of finite spirit entities that have been created by YHWH to do His bidding, which is why they are also called 'angels'.

Again, prove it. I am not saying that you cannot possibly be correct, but I have offered evidence for that which I believe, you simply claim your ideas to be true. Besides, even if you are correct and elohim should be translated as 'spirit being' you cannot deny that it has historically been translated as God (which is what I said and what you said was "Not true".

And how does the LXX (the Greek translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament)) translate 'elohim' when it is used with reference to the angels ('mighty ones') as distinct from YHWH Himself?!

Show me an instance in the OT where elohim refers to angels and I will tell you how the LXX translates it.

Same question - How do all these different translations translate 'elohim' when it is used with reference to the angels (a.k.a. 'mighty ones') as distinct from YHWH Himself?!

Again, my argument is that elohim means God. I cited the LXX and the Vulgate showing that they translate it as God. Your question is 'but when it doesn't mean God, how do they translate it?' My response is, they don't... because it means God.

I do most definitely disagree and I am stating my case for why I disagree and the onus is on you to ligitimately refute my counter argument?

When I told you to refute it, you hadn't referenced my claims, so no, it was your responsibility to refute my claims. Now it is my responsibility to refute that which you claim. Which is what I am doing right now.

You are correct. On this point I withdraw my allegation and apologize unreservedly. I had got my wires crossed and believed you to be someone else.

Ok, I forgive you, but I think that this is a good time to bring this up. You are being a little less than cordial even in this very post that you apologize in. I am trying to have a healthy debate with you. Obviously we disagree, but I would hope we can maintain some level of decency. Instead, you accuse me of being deliberately obtuse etc.

I don't take it as an insult at all but I am not convinced.

ok.

I don't think this semantic debate is integral to the main argument so can we skip it please? Whether the singular is el or eloha makes little, if any difference?

All it does is work to establish whose credibility is better on matters of Hebrew. We can skip it and let it be known that it was unresolved and as such neither of our credibilities go up or down on this account.

The important point is that elohim does not mean 'god/God', it means 'spirit beings' and the reason why those spirit beings are called 'god/God' is because they have authority and/or power over men (which is why they are also called 'mighty ones') and that is the correct [non-religious/non-theological] definition of the term 'god'. The degree to which the one has authority and/or power over the other is the degree to which the one is 'god' over the other (hence YHWH (having absolute authority and power over all others) is distinguished from all other gods (at least in the English-speaking world) with the use of the capital 'G').

Again, I have quoted from a lexicon that is considered very authoritative in an attempt to prove otherwise. You are simply reafirming this.You need to provide some reason as to why I should believe what you have to say over everything that I have read (which is an awful lot seeing as Biblical interpretation is more than a hobby of mine it is a career).

Then I will take a look at your earlier post (even though, because of its length, it will take me a considerable amount of time to respond to it and I fear I will be repeating much of what I have already written)?

Fair enough.

I am aware that the word for angel is mal'ak rather than elohim, thank you but elohim has to do with nature (what those creatures are according to essence) whereas mal'ak (angel) has to do with their role or why they exist (i.e. to do YHWH's bidding or act on His behalf) so there is no conflict between elohim and mal'ak since they refer to distinct and different aspects of their existence. The myriad of non-corporeal creatures that YHWH has created are both elohim (spirit beings) and mal'ak (angels).

Oh, I see what you are saying. I still disagree (because of everything in my original post and other things that I will include as they come up) but at least I understand from where you are coming.

This is supported immediately after Gen 1:26 in verse 27.

Indeed. Very good point.

Further verses such as the declaration in Deut that the LORD God is one God and similar about seven times in Is ch. 45 all point to the singularness of one God, the Father.

Yes, except that the God of the OT should not be identified to closely with God the Father (see below).

The declaration by me that I do not find support for a trinitarian idea in Gen was directed to the general reader and those who have declared their belief that it does.

Oh, I see. That clears up my confusion.

One question I have for you, and anyone else who would care to ask it is - Why would Jesus have supported the scriptures and the tenants therein, chief among which is the singular nature of God as the Father and saviour of Israel, yet somehow be equated with being a part of a triune Godhead that is not supported in the OT. Jesus and the apostles taught from the OT and we have numerous scriptures in both the OT and NT that explicitally declare that God is the sovereign LORD and that Jesus is His son. 1 Cor 8 is a good one to read on this distinction.

Because the One God of the OT is not the Father, it is YHWH with whom Jesus is identified with (See John and the Pauline corpus). The OT talks of elohim (which is not a name) and YHWH (which is a name) and these two things are the same being, i.e. God or the LORD.

The NT adds into the mix three other titles (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). All of these are YHWH/elohim in the sense that the Trinity makes up YHWH/elohim. But none of them are identified in the OT specifically. That is, when YHWH/elohim acts in the OT we cannot say that it is the Father acting in this story, or the Son in that, or the Holy Spirit in this one. That is because YHWH isn't the Father specifically and YHWH isn't the son specifically. Neither is YHWH the Spirit specifically. So while the Father is YHWH and Jesus is identified with YHWH and the Holy Spirit is also YHWH, none of them are YHWH to the exclusion of the others. In other words, because they all sit in what is called Hypostatic Union, they all are YHWH but none detracts from the YHWH-ness of the others.

The Old Testament does support the singularness of God. And so does the New Testament. Both espouse a belief in the One True God YHWH. But the New TEstament reveals to us that this One God, while only being one, has three persons in it. As such, there is One YHWH who is one of substance with three persons.

As to the 1 Corithians passage, Paul is not saying that there is one Father and one Son that are separated from each other as two separate gods. He is saying that there is one Father and one Son, both of whom are the one true god YHWH, but they are the one true god YHWH together (with the Holy Spirit whcih he does not mention in this passage for whatever reason). In fact, when Paul says that Jesus is Lord (in this very passage) he is probably meaning YHWH (the word that he is using for Lord is the same word (kurios) that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT that Paul would have been using) uses for YHWH. See N. T. Wright for more on this connection). Furthermore, everyone would have known that God was YHWH, so far from separating God and Jesus out as two separate entities, this passage affirms that they are both YHWH.

I hope this clears something up. If I only confused people more, I am sorry. It should be noted that my specialty is the Old Testament, specifically the Torah (first five books) which is why I joined this thread in the first place. While I understand the theology behind what I wrote in this post, I am not at all confident that I expressed it well enough to make my point

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

So, I was doing more reading. Where elohim does not mean God (or god, or gods etc.) it is usually because it is in a longer phrase. So in Genesis 23:6 the phrase neshi' elohim is (sometimes) translated as "mighty prince" (where neshi' is translated as 'prince'). However, it should be noted that the JPS translates this as "elect of God" which maintains elohim meaning God.

Also, for the sake of honesty. I did find a few places where the word eloha does appear (Dt 32:17, 2 K 17:31 and a few others) but it doesn't appear to be the singular of elohim it appears to be another plural form. It does appear to be quite rare appearing most often in Job (41 times) and only in a few other places (with a total of about 60 in the whole Bible). It should also be noted that the Hebrew in Job represents an odd form of the language so it should come as no surprise that something strange should appear there most often.

Anyway, I know that we had decided not to bring this up again, Simonline, but I figured because I discovered that I was at least partially wrong, it was only fair to bring it up.

 

[k2svpete]

BTF, you do such good work with the start of things but I cannot understand how you manage to draw towards the trinitarian doctrine with the basis of the OT expressions of oneness.

God is very clear with the expressions of oneness while any attempts to justify a triune godhead is only done through inference or reading something into what is already there, plainly stated. I do not understand how the conclusion could be drawn that the God of the OT (who is the same as the God of the NT) could be called anything but the God, Father and Saviour of the Israelites.

The passage from Corinthians is quite clear in how it is written, distinguishing God as the Father and Jesus as his son. Two seperate beings. The acknowledged oneness of God in the OT holds true throughout scripture. If Jesus and the Apostles came preaching something else, they would have been preaching a different gospel to that contained in the scripture and would have been rightly labelled as blasphemers.

 

[Simonline]

elohim is the plural of the word el and literally means 'gods'.

No, it doesn't. It means 'spirit being' (i.e that which exists within the non-corporeal realm but not within the corporeal realm) and those elohim are also called 'gods' because they also have authority and/or power over humans (the non-religious/non-theological definition of a 'god' being 'one having authority and/or power over another' and the degree to which the one has authority and/or power over the other is the degree to which the one is 'god' over the other, YHWH being 'God' in the absolute sense precisely because He has absolute authority and power over all others). Spirit being (entity) is the first link in the chain, 'god' is the second link in the chain. The term 'elohim' refers to the first link in the chain not the second.

It is the same word that is used when the Old Testament talks about worshiping foreign gods.

i.e. foreign 'spirit beings' that are worshipped as 'gods' by the nations surrounding Israel because they have power (but no ligitimate authority) over men.

However, quite often in the Old Testament the plural term elohim is used to mean God (big 'g' as in the true God).

But it is used as the exception rather than the rule because YHWH is a single spirit entity existing as Tri-Personal (i.e. plurality of Persons) hence the plural term 'elohim' with reference to a single entity (i.e. YHWH).

While the term is plural in form, it is singular in idea and in Genesis 1 (and elsewhere) the verbs corresponding to elohim are singular (in this case the word meaning "he created" which is bara').

That's because YHWH is a single Spirit Entity and not a Tri-theistic committee made up of three finite 'gods' (which would be metaphysically absurd). Elohim is plural in form precisely because the ONE God simultaneously exists as THREE Persons - Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit. Even though this reality is not explicitly revealed to men until much later, the fact that YHWH also reveals Himself to be both Eternal (Isa.44:6; 48:12) and Immutable (Mal.3:6) tells us that God is both Eternally and Immutably Tri-Personal (even whilst He chooses not to reveal the fact to men).

Because the verbs are singular, and the OT treats elohim as singular (see the Shema in Deut. 6 for instance) it really can't be a reference to the Trinity.

Nonsense. The Scriptures treat 'elohim' as plural every time, whether in relation to the myriad of finite spirit beings that YHWH has created to do His bidding or in relation to the ONE Infinite Spirit Being [i.e. YHWH] Who simultaneously Exists as a plurality of Persons [i.e. Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit] otherwise the Scriptures would simply use El to refer to YHWH as a Single Mono-Personal Entity, which, grammatically speaking, would be so much easier than using elohim to refer to YHWH as 'ONE God' (Isa.43:10-13)?!

I am not denying that the Trinity was present at creation (John 1 comes to mind) but Genesis 1 does not reference the Trinity.

I disagree (otherwise the Genesis text is nothing more than grammatical nonsense). The text of Genesis, whilst not explicitly refering to the Trinitarian Nature of YHWH (because YHWH's revelation of Himself, throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, is progressive) does definitely hint at it by the use of the plural term elohim with reference to the singular Spirit Entity YHWH.

While one way of translating elohim is 'mighty ones' it is a more uncommon use of the word.

But the reason why the elohim ('spirit beings') are also called 'mighty ones' is because they have authority and/or power over the corporeal creation (which is why they are also called 'gods')

Likewise, 'angels' is technically a valid way of translating elohim, but Hebrew has another word for angel or messenger (mal'ak).

This is only true of the Son and the Spirit in relation to the Father, the Spirit in relation to the Son and the finite creatures created by YHWH specifically to do His bidding. It is never true of the Father because the Father does not exist to do anyone else's bidding (which is the correct definition of an 'angel').

Granted, mal'ak has more of a connotation of divine messenger than what many of us think of as an angel today.

Personally, I do not like the use of the term 'messenger' in relation to the elohim because it is far too restrictive. The elohim do far more for YHWH than just deliver Divine messages. The term mal'ak means 'angel' (i.e. 'one who does the bidding or acts on behalf of (including (as in the case of the Son/Word/Memre) 'deputizes for') another') and has a much greater/wider meaning than simply 'Divine Messenger'.

All this to say that context is key when translating.

Indeed it is (including the wider context)?

In this case, Genesis 1 seems to be talking about the creator God of the Israelites.

Following your lead...nonsense! Like the Trinitarian Nature of YHWH, the Israelites don't come into the picture until much later?! You can't eat your cake and have it, if Genesis does not refer to YHWH in relation to His plurality of Persons (each of whom are both Eternal and Immutable) then it certainly does not refer to YHWH in relation to the Israelites (all of whom are neither Eternal nor Immutable)?!

Genesis 1 is speaking of YHWH in His capacity as the sole Creator of the Creation as something that exists objectively and independently of Himself (i.e. the Creation is not part of, nor an extension of, YHWH Himself).

This coupled with the fact that elohim almost always means a divine being and very frequently, especially in the first five books of the Bible, this word means God and the fact that the verb is singular which indicates that they were thinking of one god (as opposed to say many angels or mighty beings) I think that it is truest to the text to stick with a translation of 'God'.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. Only in relation to YHWH does Elohim mean 'Divine Being'. No finite creature (including the Messiah) is Divine. Only YHWH Himself [Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit] is Divine.

Again, whilst the elohim are called 'gods' because they have authority and power over the corporeal creation, the term elohim does not, of itself, mean 'God', it simply means 'spirit being'.

Whilst, in relation to YHWH, the verb is always singular because YHWH is a single Spirit Being, YHWH also exists as a plurality of Persons which is why Genesis uses elohim [plural] rather than el [singular] in relation to YHWH (a hint at the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH).

But in the Hebrew Bible the word for angel in these passages is usually (always?) mal'ak not elohim.

That's because elohim denotes the essential nature of the creatures (i.e. 'spirit beings') whilst mal'ak denotes their raison d'etre (i.e. 'angels' - doing the bidding/acting on behalf of YHWH). This is why the Son/Word/Memre, during the period of the Old Testament, was known as 'the Angel of the LORD', a role He continues, even whilst incarnate (Jn.4:34; 6:38).

You are almost right. While el does mean god and elohim is the plural form, don't think of el as the one doing the action. elohim is doing the action.

Again, el/elohim do not mean 'god' they mean 'spirit being', el being the singular form (because YHWH is only ONE Spirit Being (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13)) and elohim being the plural form (because YHWH as ONE Spirit Being also simultaneously Exists as a plurality of Persons [Father, Son/Word/Memre and Holy Spirit]) YHWH can be thought of as either El (ONE (non-corporeal) Spirit Being (Jn.4:24)) or Elohim (THREE (non-corporeal) Persons) since both are correct. It is the ONE, Tri-Personal YHWH Who is doing the action.

I am trying to figure out how to word what I am saying (pretty much pulled an all nighter last night ) While el means god, it is rare that this word is used to talk about the true God, virtually always, unless the Divine Name YHWH (usually translated the LORD) is used, the word referring to God is elohim, not el. While I agree that the Trinity was involved, this text is not making that claim.

Excuse me?! The text IS (by implication) making that claim by virtue of the fact that it uses Elohim with reference to YHWH (to denote His plurality of Persons) rather than El (to denote His singularity of Essence)?!

The reason why the term Elohim is more widely used of YHWH rather than El is to distinguish Him as Tri-Personal from all the other finite created elohim that exist only as mono-personal.

Here we go, I think I have a way of saying it. el is not the Father of the Trinity. That is to say that just because elohim is plural that doesn't mean that one el is one part of the Trinity. They just used the plural form out of respect. Do you see? Again, I need to emphasize the singular-ness of the verbs that are attached to elohim.

The term El with reference to YHWH denotes the fact that YHWH Exists as a Single Entity even whilst He also Exists as a plurality of Persons (which is why the text refers to YHWH as Elohim (plural) rather than El (singular)). The textual use of Elohim is not simply a mark of respect. It is to denote that YHWH Exists as a plurality of Persons and thus to distinguish Him (not 'Them') from all the other finite created elohim (spirit beings) that all exist as mono-personal.

They are not treating this as more than one agent just like when we say that God did something, we may know that we are talking about the Trinity, but we are treating it like one being.

Not 'like one Being' but 'as one Being' for that is what YHWH is - a single non-corporeal Entity.

Same sort of idea. elohim is plural (probably out of respect) but it is treated like a singular idea, just like when we talk about God.

Elohim is used of YHWH, not out of mere respect but to denote the fact that He Exists as a plurality of Persons and the verbs in relation to Him are singular to denote the fact that YHWH is a single Spirit Being (Isa.43:10-13; Jn.4:24) - i.e. One Single Entity simultaneously existing as Tri-Personal.

The difference is that there is no indication that the idea of the Trinity had been revealed to the Hebrew people mainly for the very reasons that I have stated, God is always treated as one being.

That's because YHWH's revelation of Himself to Mankind was progressive throughout the entire Judeo-Christian Scriptures but the indications of the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH were always there from the begining once those who had eventually received the full revelation learned how to re read the text and recognize them. YHWH is treated as a single Entity throughout the Scriptures because that is exactly what He is (Deut.6:4 being the foundation of all Judeo-Christian theology).

As far as the website, Missler has a lot of good things to say. (oh, and here is the link for anyone interested). However, I think he is wrong in a few places.

We think that you're wrong in more than a few places too?

He is correct in his analysis of the grammar, but he doesn't quite understand the implications. Because the word elohim is treated like a singular noun the last sentence has to be incorrect.

Except that the word elohim is never treated as a singular noun?! In relation to YHWH elohim is denoting His plurality of Persons not His singularity of essence (His singularity of essence being denoted through the singularity of the verbs used with reference to YHWH). Thus Chuck Missler's last sentence is not in error. Clearly, it is you rather than Chuck Missler who is in error here?!

If elohim is treated as a singular noun it follows that they were thinking of it as a singular noun and therefore they were not thinking that "Elohim, exists as a plural being."

But Elohim is NOT treated as a singular noun and whilst Moses and the Israelites may not have cottoned on to the plurality of YHWH's Persons, YHWH was Omnisciently aware of the Nature of His own Existence as Tri-Personal (which is why He lead Moses to use the verb echad rather than yachiyd at Deut.6:4 (much to Maimonides' consternation)).

continued...