Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Wrong, you can't change the meaning of words to suit your theories.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ’eloh′ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ’elo·him′ (gods) and ’elo·heh′ (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as “God.” Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: “The fanciful idea that [’elo·him′] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of ’elo·him′: “It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute.” To illustrate this, the title ’elo·him′ appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: “[’Elo·him′] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.”
’Elo·him′ means, not “persons,” but “gods.”
So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God.
Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity.
But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods.
The Bible also uses the words ’elo·him′ and ’elo·heh′ when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to “Dagon their god [’elo·heh′].” (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called “a god [’elo·him′].” (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” [’elo·him′] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Exodus 4:16; 7:1.
Obviously, using the titles ’elo·him′ and ’elo·heh′ for false gods, and even humans, did not imply that each was a plurality of gods;
neither does applying ’elo·him′ or ’elo·heh′ to Jehovah mean that he is more than one person, especially when we consider the testimony of the rest of the Bible on this subject.
Oh c'mon now Simon. You've got scholars, who would appear to be secular and therefore not having a vested interest telling you that this trinitarian party line of elohim is wrong.
At least they have accepted rules of vocabulary and language to support their position.
I think you will also find the understanding of elohim to be 'mighty ones' more so than this 'spirit entities' you are rolling out.
Look at the consistency of the use of the language, as presented in Emmas post, contrasted with the concepts and vaiations you are pushing in order to support your position. It is not convincing.
I can't believe that the writer of Genesis 1 had any knowledge, whatever, of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Because that's so agonisingly anachronistic it's painful.
Depending on the date of writing, it could refer to any number of things. Some have posited a parallel with other ANE etiological myths (See Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth, for example.) and seen the plural to refer to a pantheon of deities.
Others have posited argument that it could refer to angelic hosts / the 'heavenly court' that seems to appear in a lot of Jewish writings (See Is. 6, for example.)
I don't even think that there's a strong argument for a pre-extant Logos here, as the fusion between Hellenistic thought and Judaism didn't really flower until Philo - and even that was around 0AD!
It's been retrospectively read to include Trinitarian theology by some modern churches, and one could argue that divine inspiration does allude to it, but there's no credible argument to suggest that the writer of the Gen 1 account has anything to do with modern theology, or the theology of the Early Church.
Elohim isn't strictly "plural." Most spiritual beings are like fish.
One cherubim, two cherubim. One fish two fish. One Seraphim two seraphim. One tuna two tuna. One Elohim, two Elohim. One salmon two salmon.
... works with deer as well. Elk, antilope, moose. All can be used as any number, not specifying plural or singular.
Oh really Simon? You chose to justify an entire doctrine on a poorly understood (by you) handful of verses and then seek to apply that to several other scriptures in order to justify your belief. To look at any one of those other verses in context and come up with something different to your conclusion is derided and met with cries of 'but John 1:1 ...... '
You sir, have clearly demonstarted an obtuse nature and lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of God and a denial of the consistency of God from Genesis to Revelation. He is the same, unchanging as is His nature, love and laws. You chose to ignore clear statements such as Deut and Mark 'The LORD your God is one God' and there there are no other beside Him. Clear. Simple. Unambiguous.
Yet you seek to muddy this simple statement with your bile and men's wisdom which is as foolishness to God.
You see, I am in the real world sunshine. There is no reasoned defence of your position as it is, of itself, non-sensical.
So says the frog sitting in the pot.
k2svpete said:I think you may have hit the nail on the head too. I've said my piece.
How you doing pete? I have been in the hospital for a couple of weeks. Glad to see you keep up the good fight although You may be casting your pearls before swine.
Take care.
Not to bad mate, hope you're feeling better after the hospital stay.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head too. I've said my piece.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?