Hebrews

[-Nikolai-]

Exodus 7:1

א. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱ־לֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ:

1. The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker.

Do you really think that G-d was making Moses into a triune-god, many gods, or a deity of any kind?

אֱ־לֹהִים (Elohim) does NOT necessarily mean "G-d". It CAN be a word used to denote "G-d", and often is within the Tanakh, but this is not the exclusive definition. Nor is its meaning plural (as evidence, see the verse above). The word has strong connotations with power, but is not always intended to refer to G-d, nor is it intended to have a plural meaning.

I'm not sticking around because I know I'm not welcome here, but I couldn't just sit by while you pound your chest and insult people when it is apparent your own knowledge of Hebrew is lacking.

 

[Heber]

Exodus 7:1



Do you really think that G-d was making Moses into a triune-god, many gods, or a deity of any kind?

אֱ־לֹהִים (Elohim) does NOT necessarily mean "G-d". It CAN be a word used to denote "G-d", and often is within the Tanakh, but this is not the exclusive definition. Nor is its meaning plural (as evidence, see the verse above). The word has strong connotations with power, but is not always intended to refer to G-d, nor is it intended to have a plural meaning.

I'm not sticking around because I know I'm not welcome here, but I couldn't just sit by while you pound your chest and insult people when it is apparent your own knowledge of Hebrew is lacking.

Of course, I do not have the concern to defend the indefensible use of a word to make it something that it is not. It was the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland, if memory serves me correct, who said that a word meant what he meant it to mean. We cannot take such a cavalier view when it comes to Scripture.

There is no reason at all that G_d, who is the G_d of all language as well, would call himself Elohim if that is not true - he would, surely, have used the singular: eloahh (cannot do the Hebrew here) - can he tell a lie, or mislead us? I note, also, that if you were to agree that G_d's use of Elohim was to be read as the plain, simple use of the word, you would consider it a gross violation of the Sh'ma - I disagree, the two can be held together with integrity; I agree with the Sh'ma entirely. Over the centuries, in defense of this theological nightmare, the word has been ascribed another use - but that doesn't change the root meaning that G_d is one but, as I explained about the grapes, above, also more than one. Of course, in agreeing to that you would have no excuse whatsover to reject Yeshua - therein lies your problem and therein lies the answer to why you insist on linguistic and theologcal gymnastics to get round the problem with which G_d, in all his glorious wisdom, has confronted you.

Putting into context the question about Moshe - Elohim was instructing him and he, in turn, was instructing Aharon who was to take Moshe's instructions as if Elohim was speaking directly to him. This neither adds to, nor detracts from, the fact that Elohim is plural and is meant to be so, notwithstanding the attempts over the years to avoid the simple truth that fact in order to uphold a theology that was shown to be flawed by the advent of Yeshua two millennia ago.

I do not have a keyboard / fonts that will allow me the benefit of typing Hebrew but as you have kindly provided that above, I give the transliteration below, with the plain, simple meaning:

'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural. gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural especially with the article) of the supreme G_d.

I agree that it can also mean other than G_d, but that doesn't change the argument - I am concerned with its application in relation to G_d because of its use in Tanakh.

 

[-Nikolai-]

You glossed over completely that it can be and is singular in meaning, particularly when referring to G-d. When it refers to G-d, a verb in the third-person singular conjugation follows it (see Genesis 1:1). This isn't particularly rare in Hebrew. Just because a word has a plural ending does not necessarily make it plural (this occurs in English as well; "economics"). Other "plural" words in Hebrew with singular meaning include:

חיים = chaim = life
מים = mayim = water
פנים = panim = face
אקלים = aklim = climate
צהרים = tsohoraim = midday

If you would like to maintain that Elohim is proof of the trinity, suit yourself. I know you hold to the trinity concept and I won't really try to dissuade you from it. But if you're so sure that Elohim must be more than one god, why not four, five, six, or eleven different gods? Why only three?

 

[Heber]

We have, then, to agree to differ on translating this word. But thank you for your input.

Your last point is a good question - there's also a good answer: it cannot be more than three because G_d has not revealed himself to us as more than three. Simple really!

 

[-Nikolai-]

We have, then, to agree to differ on translating this word. But thank you for your input.

The one thing you'll notice is that thosewho have made a living studying and learning Hebrew, without almost any exception, will agree with me. If you take Elohim to be plural in form AND meaning, you are saying that there are many gods of Israel; a concept that doesn't wash in the Tanakh.

Your last point is a good question - there's also a good answer: it cannot be more than three because G_d has not revealed himself to us as more than three. Simple really!

This is the problem inherent. Like Islam or Mormonism, Christianity relies on the concept of progressive revelation, of which Jews are forbidden to partake (Deuteronomy 13:1-4). The problem is obvious. When does it end? John insists that his final revelation is it. Mohammed does the same (oddly enough, Joseph Smith is a little more honest when he states that progressive revelation is an inherent characteristic of the church). However, Deuteronomy 13:1-4 first closes the door on new revelations on the nature of G-d; at least from a Jewish standpoint. Since the Jews did not know Jesus or the Holy Spirit at Mt. Sinai (as a god anyway), they are forbidden to accept them.

 

[Tanakh]

"It is well known that all the Names of G-d occuring in scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, he, vau and he (YHVH). This name is applied exclusively to G-d, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash, "The nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar, as we have already explained. ........ The derivation of the Name, consisting of yod, he, vau and he, is not positively known, the word having no additional signification. This sacred name, which, as you know, was not pronounced except in the sanctuary by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, undoubtedly denotes something which is peculiar to G-d, and is not found in any other being. It is possible that in the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge, the Tetragrammaton, in the way it was pronounced, conveyed the meaning of "absolute existence." In short, the majesty of the name and the great dread of uttering it, are connected with the fact that it denotes G-d Himself, without including in its meaning any names of things created by Him. Thus our Sages say: "My name' (Num. 6:27) means the name which is peculiar to Me." All other names of G-d have reference to qualities, and do not signify a simple substance, but a substance with attributes, they being derivatives. On that account it is believed that they imply the presence of a plurality in G-d, I mean to say, the presence of attributes, that is, of some extraneous element superadded to His essence. Such is the meaning of all derivative names; they imply the presence of some attribute and its substratum, though this be not distinctly named. As, however, it has been proved, that G-d is not a substratum capable of attributes, we are convinced that those appellatives when employed as names of G-d, only indicate the relation of certin actions to Him, or they convey to us some notion of His perfection." - Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed 1:61

Christianity, through the trinity, takes the meaning of G-d's essence and turns it into plurality by asserting that He is "3 in 1" and so by seperating G-d into 3, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you are making G-d into something that He is not and cannot be. The Names of G-d make clear that G-d is ONE but that through His actions, as outlined in the Tanakh, can make known plurality in His creation but NOT in Him.

 

[ShirChadash]

The one thing you'll notice is that thosewho have made a living studying and learning Hebrew, without almost any exception, will agree with me.

-- because one translation is accurate. And the other isn't LOL.


Good posts, BTW, Nikolai.

 

[Heber]

That's a lot of posts for someone who was not going to hang around.

I still disagree with you though but I guess you have to have your linguistic gymnastics to preserve a few millennia of error and blindness, just as the church has to, or everything would fall apart. At the end of the day the plural morphological form of Elohim gives a plural meaning, supported as it is by the first person plural pronouns in the same texts. Perhaps G_d was not very good at Hebrew / American / English and the Tower of Bavel was a big mistake!

You certainy haven't sorted the problem - but then, it wasn't yours, really, was it?

 

[-Nikolai-]

That's a lot of posts for someone who was not going to hang around.

I expected you to reply with snarkiness and sarcasm, but when you didn't, I decided to engage further. I see you saved it for later when you could not refute my argument. I'll leave now so you can feel better.

I still disagree with you though but I guess you have to have your linguistic gymnastics to preserve a few millennia of error and blindness, just as the church has to, or everything would fall apart.

Linguistic gymnastics? No. It's just that even basic Hebrew linguistics is over your head.

You certainy haven't sorted the problem - but then, it wasn't yours, really, was it?

Sorry, sir, but the burden of proof is on you to refute the understanding that has preceded Christianity. I'm showing you where your assertions are wrong and you have yet to refute me, but rather choose to disagree without offering any proof and then proceed to make backhanded comments. Like I said earlier, suit yourself.

And now I will take my leave, since you apparently have nothing of substance to bring to this discussion.

 

[Heber]

Christianity, through the trinity, takes the meaning of G-d's essence and turns it into plurality by asserting that He is "3 in 1" and so by seperating G-d into 3, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you are making G-d into something that He is not and cannot be. The Names of G-d make clear that G-d is ONE but that through His actions, as outlined in the Tanakh, can make known plurality in His creation but NOT in Him.

'Tis a pity you do not read or understand what is posted to you - if you did you would see the error in your words here. Having told you once or twice, or even three times (and that has no connection to the trinity, in case you try to bring that into the debate) I shall leave you to re-read what is actually written, rather than what you wish had been written. Enjoy eating your grapes - or is that just sour grapes?

 

[Heber]

I expected you to reply with snarkiness and sarcasm, but when you didn't, I decided to engage further. I see you saved it for later when you could not refute my argument. I'll leave now so you can feel better.



Linguistic gymnastics? No. It's just that even basic Hebrew linguistics is over your head.



Sorry, sir, but the burden of proof is on you to refute the understanding that has preceded Christianity. I'm showing you where your assertions are wrong and you have yet to refute me, but rather choose to disagree without offering any proof and then proceed to make backhanded comments. Like I said earlier, suit yourself.

And now I will take my leave, since you apparently have nothing of substance to bring to this discussion.

I have refuted your arguments and shown, linguistically, why you are in error, but neither of us has convinced the other - and, following my latest post with more proof, you decide to leave the debate. That's OK - I had agreed to differ earlier but you decided to continue the debate. That was your choice so there is little to be gained by blaming me! You may also note that I made the same comments about the error in your understanding of this as the church has made errors in understandings too. I thought that was quite an equal way of addressing the fact that all around linguistics are twisted to meet doubtful doctrines and theologies.

But do feel free to walk away if that is your heart's desire. But, then, you will not read this, will you?

 

[Tanakh]

The one thing you'll notice is that thosewho have made a living studying and learning Hebrew, without almost any exception, will agree with me. If you take Elohim to be plural in form AND meaning, you are saying that there are many gods of Israel; a concept that doesn't wash in the Tanakh.

Very true. None of G-d's Names imply plurality in the context that it relates to G-d but it can, in certin circumstances, have plural meaning to whom G-d's name is directed. For example when G-d's name is used in conjuction with the whole of Israel or in the context of commanding more then one. For example when it is said, "Our G-d" many see this as implying that our G-d is better then this or that god because of the way that they see the sentence structured and yet "Our G-d" is a simple affirmation that G-d belongs to us (the Jews) first and foremost and hence is One and unique but it is important that people read the text correctly and thank G-d that Hebrew, the language of G-d, clearly demonstrates the truth of scripture.

This is the problem inherent. Like Islam or Mormonism, Christianity relies on the concept of progressive revelation, of which Jews are forbidden to partake (Deuteronomy 13:1-4). The problem is obvious. When does it end? John insists that his final revelation is it. Mohammed does the same (oddly enough, Joseph Smith is a little more honest when he states that progressive revelation is an inherent characteristic of the church). However, Deuteronomy 13:1-4 first closes the door on new revelations on the nature of G-d; at least from a Jewish standpoint. Since the Jews did not know Jesus or the Holy Spirit at Mt. Sinai (as a god anyway), they are forbidden to accept them.

"You are standing today, all of you, before HASHEM, your G-d: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers - all the men of Israel; your small children, your women, and your proselyte who is in the midst of your camp, from the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water, for you to pass into the covenant of HASHEM, your G-d, and into His imprecation that HASHEM, your G-d, seals with you today, in oder to establish you today as a people to Him and that He be a G-d to you, as He spoke to you and as He swore to your forefathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Not with you alone do I seal this covenant and this imprecation, but with whoever is here, standing with us today before HASHEM, our G-d, and with whoever is not here with us today." - Deuteronomy 29:9-14

This passage clearly demonstrates that the law is to be forever and that it cannot be changed because when G-d is stating that the covenant is with those who are here and who are not here, and so this means that all future Jewish generations are sealed into the covenant that was brought forth at Sinai, to be an eternal covenant. Thus Christianity cannot make void the covenant of "old" by implying that G-d is more then what He Himself has stated. The Torah and the Book of Romans, Hebrews and Galatians conflict.

 

[Heber]

This passage clearly demonstrates that the law is to be forever and that it cannot be changed because when G-d is stating that the covenant is with those who are here and who are not here, and so this means that all future Jewish generations are sealed into the covenant that was brought forth at Sinai, to be an eternal covenant. Thus Christianity cannot make void the covenant of "old" by implying that G-d is more then what He Himself has stated. The Torah and the Book of Romans, Hebrews and Galatians conflict.

As I said before, Tanakh - you really must read what is written and not what you wish the posts said. I have said all through that the Law stands, in it's entirety, for all time for all people, first to the Jew then to the Gentile. It is the application of G_d's law where there might be scope for debate (so nothing has changed there - Jews debate the Law - if they didn't you wouldn't have the various guides to it that have been penned over the past hundreds of years, nor halachic decisions by Rabbis), not the fact of its existence and necessity in life. How much more explicit do I need to be? You keep banging on about this particular view as if you are wanting to fight over it with anyone who disagrees with you. Not many, if any at all, on this forum, will! If you want a real debate on this try the purely Christian fora.

As for the linguistics, your friendly poster has walked away from further debate following my comments re the plural construction of Ber. 1:26 using first person plural pronouns. Now it is down to you again and I expect you will tell me that 'us' does not mean a plurality but is, in reality, denoting a first person, singular by some quirk of fate from yesteryear. I look forward to our daily spiritual gymnastics... . You comment that G_d can never be more than he has stated - I agree - he stated that he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but you do accept his word. This is the essence of the debate with you. You write off his words by trying to read into them more than the plain, simple text says.

Wish I could get Hebrew on this pda!

 

[ContraMundum]

So why use the term 'Elohim' for G_d - it is a plural term? You have beaten around the edges of an answer but you have not actually answered. For the third time... please explain the title Elohim if G_d is one. It's your language, not mine, so you should be able to answer!

No matter how much they rant and rave about Hebrew etc- the fact remains that Elohim is plural, and God is "Echad" not "Yachid".

Secondly, Jewish tradition is loaded with interesting precedents that allow a Trinitarian understanding of HaShem. The matter is enlightened and settled in the newer and complete revelation of the NT.

Thirdly, none of the detractors of the Trinity have a handle on it. They argue against something no one (with a clue) believes.

 

[ContraMundum]

This is the problem inherent. Like Islam or Mormonism, Christianity relies on the concept of progressive revelation, of which Jews are forbidden to partake (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).

Quite possibly the worst interpetation of Dt 13:1-4 I have ever seen- esp in the light of Dt 18:18 etc. The text speaks of false prophets, not true ones. Read.

This one's a doozy from you. A new level of absurdity. If the text forbids progressive revelation, then Judaism is doomed as a joke from the moment Moses died. Simply put, later prophets have added to the revelation of God since your alleged prohbition of revelation was declared. Furthermore, since the Holy Spirit left Israel without prophecy (as stated in the Talmud) when the last of the prophets died, the Rabbis have added revelation too, even more so in the form of chasidus.

"The problem is inherent", as you say. Too bad the problem is yours. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is based on a progressive revelation in time.

All the boasting about Hebrew knowledge etc. is laid bare as false bravado under the jury of common sense and simple children's grammar.

 

[Tanakh]

No matter how much they rant and rave about Hebrew etc- the fact remains that Elohim is plural, and God is "Echad" not "Yachid".

Secondly, Jewish tradition is loaded with interesting precedents that allow a Trinitarian understanding of HaShem. The matter is enlightened and settled in the newer and complete revelation of the NT.

Thirdly, none of the detractors of the Trinity have a handle on it. They argue against something no one (with a clue) believes.

Elohim simply means G-d or "The G-d" and in and of itself does not denote plurality, least of all a trinitarian one. Other names of G-d can denote plurality in His attributes but not in His essence, that G-d is G-d as the name YHVH denotes. It is why most Jews will use HASHEM (The Name) or ADONAI (L-rd).

 

[Heber]

So you keep saying - anyone got anything interesting to add to this thread, instead of this circular argument?

 

[johnd]

Elohim simply means G-d or "The G-d" and in and of itself does not denote plurality, least of all a trinitarian one. Other names of G-d can denote plurality in His attributes but not in His essence, that G-d is G-d as the name YHVH denotes. It is why most Jews will use HASHEM (The Name) or ADONAI (L-rd).

And yet it is interesting in the shma HaShem did not use yakhid but ekhad to say YHVH is ekhad.

Bill Hillary and Chelsey Clinton. One name Clinton, three people who are the one name Clinton.

 

[johnd]

And you cannot deny the fact that elohiym is a plural word.

 

[Tanakh]

So you keep saying - anyone got anything interesting to add to this thread, instead of this circular argument?

It is not a "circular argument" and is simply a debate and in that regard I thank everyone who has participated in this thread so there is no need to get hostile about the way the thread has evolved.