Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is plural. Trinity?

[Simonline]

Wrong, you can't change the meaning of words to suit your theories.

Oh, so YHWH was wrong to use a plural word with reference to [your theory of] a singular Mono-Personal entity then (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13)?!

I have not changed the meaning of the word elohim. The plural word Elohim is used with reference to YHWH to show that even though He IS a Singular Entity, He is NOT a Mono-Personal One.

Simonline.

 

[emmauk007]

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.

 

[Simonline]

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.”

I will accept that elohim, with reference to YHWH, can denote the plenarity of Divine Nature but I will not accept that elohim, with reference to YHWH, denotes plurality of majesty (the royal 'we') because the Israelites NEVER used elohim of YHWH in that way (even though the surrounding nations often used it of their gods).

Elohim (spirit beings) is used of YHWH to denote the fact that although YHWH exists as a single Entity (which is why we refer to Him as 'He' and not 'They'), He also exists as Tri-Personal (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

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.”

This is not true and shows definite bias against the Judeo-Christian Scriptural evidence in support of the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH (which is why the term elohim is used of YHWH even when the verbs are singular (because YHWH is a single entity, albeit a Tri-Personal single entity).

’Elo·him′ means, not “persons,” but “gods.”

Not true. The Hebrew term elohim literally means 'spirit entities' [that are also, by extension, called 'gods' because they are invariably stronger and more powerful than men (the non-theological/non-religious 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)].

So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God.

Nonsense! Elohim, in reference to the single Spirit entity that is YHWH (Jn.4:24), reflects the fact that as well as existing as a single Spirit Entity, He also exists as Three distinct (but NOT separate) Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Were YHWH to exist as three separate persons then they would be three separate (and finite) gods (a tri-theism) and therefore would no longer be 'God' but the finite creatures of the One Who would be God over them?!

Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity.

This demonstrates that you do not understand the Reality that is the Trinity. YHWH is ONE Spirit Entity (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13; Jn.4:24) Who simultaneously Exists as Three distinct but NOT separate Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Were they separate then your argument would be valid but YHWH would NOT be God?!

But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods.

Those who don't, like you, don't truly understand the Trinitarian Nature of YHWH.

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.

Firstly, when referring to multiple 'gods', the plural term elohim is appropriate to denote the fact that reference is being made to more than one god?!

Secondly, as I have already said, the nations surrounding ancient Israel frequently referred to their own gods using the plurality of majesty (the royal 'we'), a practise that was not replicated by the ancient Israelites.

The use of elohim in Psalm 82 refers to YHWH delegating His authority to the Judges over the rest of Israel thus making them greater, more powerful, than those over whom they judged and then judging those judges for their abuse of that delegated authority and power. Again the reference is to the fact that YHWH had 'promoted' the ancient Israelite judges [plural] to the ranks of the 'elohim' (i.e. 'gods') by conferring upon them authority and power over their fellow Israelites (which they then abused).

The reference to Moses being 'as God' to Pharaoh (Ex.7:1) refers to YHWH delegating His Authority and Power to Moses over Pharaoh. The use of the term elohim with reference to YHWH denotes plenarity of Divinity and/or plurality of Persons.

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;

No, but it does, in its most basic sense, denote that there was more than one of them (i.e. false gods/humans) hence the use of the plural term elohim as a reference to those having authority and/or power over others.

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.

Something that you have clearly failed to do since the Scriptures are clear that whilst there is only ONE God, He Exists as Tri-Personal - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Obviously, you are approaching the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, not from a position of neutrality but from a position of seeking to impose your own (or someone else's) theological presuppositions upon the text?!

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

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.

 

[Simonline]

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.

And since when was Truth determined by secular scholars (Jn.1:1,14; 14:6; 17:17)?!

At least they have accepted rules of vocabulary and language to support their position.

I admit that the use of the plural term (elohim) for the singular Entity (YHWH) is highly irregular but that is because YHWH Himself, as a singular Entity, is unique in existing as Tri-Personal, hence the necessary exception to the grammatical rule (that was framed for the existence of mono-personal creatures, not the unique Tri-Personal Creator).

The Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH is not false simply because you don't want to accept it?!

I think you will also find the understanding of elohim to be 'mighty ones' more so than this 'spirit entities' you are rolling out.

Actually the Hebrew for 'mighty ones' is not elohim but gibborim. The elohim are, by definition, much stronger than human creatures and therefore were, by extension, also known as 'mighty ones' but the term elohim denotes their essential nature as spirit entities rather than their attributes as 'strong' or 'mighty' in relation to men.

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.

And it will never be convincing to anyone who is starting from the theological presupposition (contrary to all the Scriptural evidence) that YHWH is essentially Mono-Personal just like His finite human creatures (effectively re-making the Infinite Tri-Personal Creator in the finite mono-personal image of His creatures)?!

Simonline.

 

[The Gregorian]

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.

 

[k2svpete]

So painfully simple.

 

[Simonline]

I can't believe that the writer of Genesis 1 had any knowledge, whatever, of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The writer may not have done but the author certainly did (2Tim.3:16-17) unless, of course, the Pentateuch was actually written 'by the finger of God' (i.e. the Holy Spirit) in which case, yes, the writer, being Omniscient, did most certainly have infinite knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity?!

Because that's so agonisingly anachronistic it's painful.

Only for those who are in fundamental denial of the truth.

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.

Just because 'some have posited' does not mean that it is true?

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.)

Again, just because 'some have posited' doesn't make it true. Absolutely nowhere do the Scriptures explicitly declare, imply or even infer that humans are made in the likeness of anyone other than YHWH Himself (Gen.1:26-27)? The idea that humans are made in the likeness of angels as well as the Creator is only posited by those who are inimical to the truth.

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!

The fact that one may not be able to base an argument for the Eternal Logos on the first chapter of Genesis (though that's debatable) does not mean that the Eternal Logos is not true. Don't forget the true context for any single part of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is the entire corpus that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (including Jn.1:1 et al).

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.

That's not the point. As a result of the full revelation that is the entire corpus of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (i.e. Genesis to Revelation) we are now, with the advantage of hind-sight, in a position to be able to read the full revelation of the Nature and essence of YHWH as revealed through the entire corpus of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (especially on the basis of YHWH's revelation of Himself as being both Eternal (Isa.44:6; 48:12; Rev.1:17; 21:6; 22:13) and Immutable (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17)) back into the times when the people of those times had only a partial revelation/understanding.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

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.

So why do the Scriptures speak of a cherub/seraph (singular) as well as cherubim/seraphim (plural)?! Sorry but your argument just doesn't hold water (if you'll pardon the pun)?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

So painfully simple.

Shows how much you know (and, based upon your track record so far, you probably understand even less)?!

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

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.

 

[Simonline]

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.

Obviously you are ignoring anything and everything that I post by way of reasoned defense of my position (no-one is disputing that YHWH Exists as a single entity, only that He does NOT Exist as solely Mono-Personal) so I shall now return the favour by ignoring you until you return to the real world and start taking my posts seriously.

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

You see, I am in the real world sunshine. There is no reasoned defence of your position as it is, of itself, non-sensical.

 

[Simonline]

You see, I am in the real world sunshine. There is no reasoned defence of your position as it is, of itself, non-sensical.

Actually, you arbitrarily choose to believe, contrary to any and all evidence, that orthodox Judeo-Christianity is 'nonsensical' and therefore there can be no reasoned defence of such 'nonsense' (?!) On that basis what chance does anyone (including YHWH Himself) have of persuading you otherwise?! The fundamental issue here is neither the surfit nor paucity of any evidence but your inimical and intransigent will (and you wonder why I choose to ignore you)?! Truly, it is you who are living in your own reality, completely divorced from the only authentic reality in which the rest of us live.

Simonline.

 

[k2svpete]

So says the frog sitting in the pot.

 

[music4two]

So says the frog sitting in the pot.

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.

 

[k2svpete]

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.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head too. I've said my piece.

Indeed, I am surprised that you kept it going this long.

@music4two: I hope you are well.

 

[Simonline]

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.

Actually, since Pete is in total denial of reality, I'm the one who's casting pearls before swine here?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

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.

None of which bears any resemblance to reality whatsoever?!

Simonline.