Where does "allah" say...

[beamishboy]

Brilliant post, applepie7! I never thought of Elohim as a uniplural reference to our Trinitarian God. How insightful and correct. I now see the connection. The Jews, like the Muslims, do not see the Trinitarian concept of God even though there are so many clear instances of plurality used in reference to God in the Old Testament.

I ask myself: if the Jews can make this mistake, why not the Arabs?

Like I said, applepie7 has nailed it! Bull's eye! as they say in archery.

 

[ApplePie7]

Brilliant post, applepie7! I never thought of Elohim as a uniplural reference to our Trinitarian God. How insightful and correct. I now see the connection. The Jews, like the Muslims, do not see the Trinitarian concept of God even though there are so many clear instances of plurality used in reference to God in the Old Testament.

I ask myself: if the Jews can make this mistake, why not the Arabs?

Like I said, applepie7 has nailed it! Bull's eye! as they say in archery.

Exactly...!

Muslims, just like the Jews that they follow, will stop at nothing to deny the concept of the Biblical Trinity in their scripture set...as this, then, would open the door for Christianity.

 

[français]

“Plural of Majesty” was invented to circumvent scriptures clearly showing a uniplural creator.

LOL ok but know there is a difference of opinion.

Yes.

Ok

Context.

The context tells us whether “elohim” is interpreted as singular or plural.

Your example uses “elohim” three times, with three separate gods.

One “elohim” with each god.

There is no indication that any of the mentioned gods are plural in nature.

My point exactly. If Elohim is referring to a uniplural god, then why is Elohim used to refer to these? And, why is Chemosh plural in the context?

 

[ApplePie7]

My point exactly. If Elohim is referring to a uniplural god, then why is Elohim used to refer to these?

Context.

What does it say regarding each of these gods?

Does the context of "elohim" lead you to believe that they are plural?

"Elohim" is used in the opening verse of the Holy Bible to show a unity in the plurality of the word itself. It does this by extending itself in the body of the context, by stating that "elohim" has a spirit, and a word, all being the creator Himself.

And, why is Chemosh plural in the context?

Show that it is...

 

[Montalban]

Brilliant post, applepie7! I never thought of Elohim as a uniplural reference to our Trinitarian God. How insightful and correct. I now see the connection. The Jews, like the Muslims, do not see the Trinitarian concept of God even though there are so many clear instances of plurality used in reference to God in the Old Testament.

I ask myself: if the Jews can make this mistake, why not the Arabs?

Like I said, applepie7 has nailed it! Bull's eye! as they say in archery.

And so you go on!

 

[beamishboy]

And so you go on!

This time, I read his post in its entirety using the most mature part of my brain and I was struck by its accuracy and truth and so I made a comment which serves both to encourage applepie7 and in a nutshell summarise in simpler words the gist of what he was saying.

It's true that applepie7's views are most novel. It is true that it appears quite fanciful. But when you read everything he says, it appears that he is truly knowledgeable in the subject and HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. It is for us then to decide in our hearts, whether we want to accept it or reject it. If we reject it, do we have a basis? That's precisely what he's been asking for. A basis to reject his view. I'm reading this thread to see if anyone has a basis to do so.

And here lies the difference between younger people and old people. Older people have pride. They have their views that have been formed for decades. For me, I have only known many things for some years. I first heard of the Quran 4 or 5 years ago. I must have first heard of the Bible 8 or 9 years ago. 10 years ago, I must have seen a Bible but it didn't register in my brain. I don't remember knowing it. I don't remember anything 10 years ago. So, in a sense, I'm a better judge of truth. I'm not saddled by strong views and am more willing to accept new ideas which are reasonable and cogently argued.

 

[Montalban]

This time, I read his post in its entirety using the most mature part of my brain and I was struck by its accuracy and truth and so I made a comment which serves both to encourage applepie7 and in a nutshell summarise in simpler words the gist of what he was saying.

It's true that applepie7's views are most novel. It is true that it appears quite fanciful. But when you read everything he says, it appears that he is truly knowledgeable in the subject and HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. It is for us then to decide in our hearts, whether we want to accept it or reject it. If we reject it, do we have a basis? That's precisely what he's been asking for. A basis to reject his view. I'm reading this thread to see if anyone has a basis to do so.

And here lies the difference between younger people and old people. Older people have pride. They have their views that have been formed for decades. For me, I have only known many things for some years. I first heard of the Quran 4 or 5 years ago. I must have first heard of the Bible 8 or 9 years ago. 10 years ago, I must have seen a Bible but it didn't register in my brain. I don't remember knowing it. I don't remember anything 10 years ago. So, in a sense, I'm a better judge of truth. I'm not saddled by strong views and am more willing to accept new ideas which are reasonable and cogently argued.

Yet you're impressed by his inability to answer simple questions I put to him

 

[ApplePie7]

This time, I read his post in its entirety using the most mature part of my brain and I was struck by its accuracy and truth and so I made a comment which serves both to encourage applepie7 and in a nutshell summarise in simpler words the gist of what he was saying.

It's true that applepie7's views are most novel. It is true that it appears quite fanciful. But when you read everything he says, it appears that he is truly knowledgeable in the subject and HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. It is for us then to decide in our hearts, whether we want to accept it or reject it. If we reject it, do we have a basis? That's precisely what he's been asking for. A basis to reject his view. I'm reading this thread to see if anyone has a basis to do so.

And here lies the difference between younger people and old people. Older people have pride. They have their views that have been formed for decades. For me, I have only known many things for some years. I first heard of the Quran 4 or 5 years ago. I must have first heard of the Bible 8 or 9 years ago. 10 years ago, I must have seen a Bible but it didn't register in my brain. I don't remember knowing it. I don't remember anything 10 years ago. So, in a sense, I'm a better judge of truth. I'm not saddled by strong views and am more willing to accept new ideas which are reasonable and cogently argued.

 

[français]

Context.

What does it say regarding each of these gods?

Does the context of "elohim" lead you to believe that they are plural?

No, not at all. It is speaking about each god individually.. Which is why it should not use "elohim" but should instead use "Eloah"... Unless it is of course using the plural to signify majesty, which is what I am trying to get at.

If the Bible uses "Elohim" to signify uniplurality, then why does it also use Elohim when referring to different gods, none which seem to be uniplural in any way, and they were each addressed seperately.. Meaning it is not referring to a bunch of differnt gods at once, but rather ONE god each time.

I have read the context, and of course it is not at all implying they are plural. Which is why, if we are using your argument that there is no plural of majesty, it just doesn't make sense to me.

"Elohim" is used in the opening verse of the Holy Bible to show a unity in the plurality of the word itself. It does this by extending itself in the body of the context, by stating that "elohim" has a spirit, and a word, all being the creator Himself.

Elohim itself is plural, but everything else is in singular form.

Breshith bara elohim ath hashamiyam ath va a haretz.

Bara - Singular. (I believe Baru is the plural)

Yet Elohim is plural..

You say it signifies uniplurality.. But, I think it just shows majesty, as Elohim is also used in 1 Kings to refer to other gods.

Show that it is...

That "Chemosh" used is plural?
Ok, I tried doing the Hebrew here but it didn't work so I did a screenshot and then I pasted it and hopefully it will be suffice.

Now, I do admit.. As I was doing this, I did realize that maybe "Chemosh" is not plural as I thought it was. I thought it was because it sounded plural to me, and it is used differently in one spot than in another in the Bible.

But now as I think about it, I realize it may not be plural in both cases, but rather just spelled/pronounced differently. I am still not very good at Hebrew, and I know that the -im ending or sometimes a -u ending can denote plural. However, I am also sure that there are other ways to denote plural!

So, I am unsure if "Chemosh" is actually plural. It may be, may not be. My lexicon does not say and my Hebrew speaking spouse is not here right now to tell me!


But, even if it is not plural, the fact that "Elohim" is used to describe these particular gods should be suffice enough to prove that "elohim" in the OT is not used to show uniplurality, as you claim. So, my main point still stands

 

[ApplePie7]

No, not at all. It is speaking about each god individually.. Which is why it should not use "elohim" but should instead use "Eloah"...

If you feel that the term “eloah” should have been used in this instance can you provide any lexical reasoning for this stance…?

Unless it is of course using the plural to signify majesty, which is what I am trying to get at

.

“Plural of Majesty” never existed in Biblical Hebrew.

If the Bible uses "Elohim" to signify uniplurality, then why does it also use Elohim when referring to different gods, none which seem to be uniplural in any way, and they were each addressed seperately.. Meaning it is not referring to a bunch of differnt gods at once, but rather ONE god each time.

Context.

“Elohim” is used in a variety of ways in the OT, but determined via its context.

It is even used in the Shema.

I have read the context, and of course it is not at all implying they are plural. Which is why, if we are using your argument that there is no plural of majesty, it just doesn't make sense to me.

It’s not “my argument” but what is stated in the classic lexicons and grammars.

Elohim itself is plural, but everything else is in singular form.

Correct.

Breshith bara elohim ath hashamiyam ath va a haretz.

Bara - Singular. (I believe Baru is the plural)

Yet Elohim is plural..

You say it signifies uniplurality.. But, I think it just shows majesty, as Elohim is also used in 1 Kings to refer to other gods.

You forgot to consider the context.

Remember, this same creator that is plural, and yet singular, is said to possess a spirit and a word with which He creates.

He is uniplural in nature.

That "Chemosh" used is plural?
Ok, I tried doing the Hebrew here but it didn't work so I did a screenshot and then I pasted it and hopefully it will be suffice.

Now, I do admit.. As I was doing this, I did realize that maybe "Chemosh" is not plural as I thought it was. I thought it was because it sounded plural to me, and it is used differently in one spot than in another in the Bible.

But now as I think about it, I realize it may not be plural in both cases, but rather just spelled/pronounced differently. I am still not very good at Hebrew, and I know that the -im ending or sometimes a -u ending can denote plural. However, I am also sure that there are other ways to denote plural!

So, I am unsure if "Chemosh" is actually plural. It may be, may not be. My lexicon does not say and my Hebrew speaking spouse is not here right now to tell me!

Thanks for your honesty in this matter…

But, even if it is not plural, the fact that "Elohim" is used to describe these particular gods should be suffice enough to prove that "elohim" in the OT is not used to show uniplurality, as you claim. So, my main point still stands

Your “point” falls.

You failed to consider the context….yet again…

 

[français]

If you feel that the term “eloah” should have been used in this instance can you provide any lexical reasoning for this stance…?

Well, if Elohim is used to show uniplurality for the God of the OT(Yahweh) then shouldn't Eloah be used when referring to other gods, that are not uniplural and such? I mean, you are saying that Elohim is used because of Trinity, and it shows such. But certainly, the gods mentioned in 1 Kings were not any type of Trinity or anything!

“Plural of Majesty” never existed in Biblical Hebrew.

There is a difference of opinion on this.

Context.

I have looked at the context and I fail to see anything different. Please elaborate and show me how I am wrong.

“Elohim” is used in a variety of ways in the OT, but determined via its context.

Yes, indeed. So please show/explain to me the context in 1 Kings.

It is even used in the Shema.

Yes, and it is referring to Yahweh in the Shema, addressing the one god of the Jews, and Christians.

It’s not “my argument” but what is stated in the classic lexicons and grammars.

Show!

You forgot to consider the context.

Remember, this same creator that is plural, and yet singular, is said to possess a spirit and a word with which He creates.

He is uniplural in nature.

He, as in Yahweh?

Yes. But not Chemosh, or the other gods that were called "Elohim"

Thanks for your honesty in this matter…

No problem

Your “point” falls.

You failed to consider the context….yet again…

Well, as I already mentioned, please explain the context.

You say "yet again" but we are still on the same topic and I have not seen how the context contradicts what I am trying to say.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ApplePie7 If you feel that the term “eloah” should have been used in this instance can you provide any lexical reasoning for this stance…?

That word is used 40 times in the book of Job

http://www.scripture4all.org/

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Used only 17 times outside of book of Job

433 'elowahh el-o'-ah; rarely (shortened) >eloahh {el-o'-ah probably prolonged (emphat.) from 410; a deity or the Deity:--God, god. See 430.

God 52, god 5

 

[ApplePie7]

There is a difference of opinion on this.

Show us the "difference of opinion" regarding "plural of majesty" in the ANE...

Thanks...

 

[ApplePie7]

There is a difference of opinion on this.

Show us the "difference of opinion" regarding "plural of majesty" in the ANE...

 

[français]

Show us the "difference of opinion" regarding "plural of majesty" in the ANE...

Thanks...

Show us the "difference of opinion" regarding "plural of majesty" in the ANE...

Well, what do you want me to show you, like books that say there is a plural of majesty in the Ancient Near East languages?(I think that is what ANE means in this context.)

Also, you haven't yet shown me where I missed the context when citing 1 Kings.

 

[ApplePie7]

Well, what do you want me to show you, like books that say there is a plural of majesty in the Ancient Near East languages?(I think that is what ANE means in this context.)

Correct.

Also, you haven't yet shown me where I missed the context when citing 1 Kings.

1 Kings is your googled example of an attempt @ "plural of Majesty"....thus, the burden of proof is upon you to do so...

 

[français]

Correct.

Ok, I will do this later.. I am about to go eat dinner!

1 Kings is your googled example of an attempt @ "plural of Majesty"....thus, the burden of proof is upon you to do so...

Who says I goggled it?

You said that Elohim is used to show uniplurality, yet it is also used to describe these gods.. There is not "uniplurality" in these gods. So, I don't think you claim that Elohim means uniplurality is correct, because it wouldn't be correct in these verses when referring to the other gods.

All I want you to do is show me how I got it all wrong.. How I am not looking at the context, etc.

Burden of proof is on you.. I showed you my proof, even the Hebrew. I have explained my reasoning as well. I want you to explain how I have it wrong.

 

[ApplePie7]

Ok, I will do this later.. I am about to go eat dinner!

Your first task to to show us that "plural of majesty" existed in Biblical Hebrew via reference materials.

You have not been able to do this..........stall....

Who says I goggled it?

Who said you didn't?

You said that Elohim is used to show uniplurality,

In context, correct.

yet it is also used to describe these gods..

Correct.

One "elohim" per god.

There is not "uniplurality" in these gods.

Correct.

So, I don't think you claim that Elohim means uniplurality is correct, because it wouldn't be correct in these verses when referring to the other gods.

Context.

"Elohim" is defined not only by the classic lexicons but also by its contextual usage.

You already admitted that the usage in 1 Kings is one of singularity only.

One "elohim" per god.

Further, there is no reason to believe that these gods had any plurality at all from the surrounding verses.

All I want you to do is show me how I got it all wrong.. How I am not looking at the context, etc.

Done.

Compare 1 Kings to the Genesis creation account and you will see that "elohim" in Genesis also has a spirit and a word that is used in creation.

Burden of proof is on you.. I showed you my proof, even the Hebrew. I have explained my reasoning as well. I want you to explain how I have it wrong.

The only thing that you have proven thus far is that you were wrong in thinking that "Chemosh" was plural.

 

[Montalban]

Your first task to to show us that "plural of majesty" existed in Biblical Hebrew via reference materials.

You have not been able to do this..........stall....

You're being very ungracious. I am no fan of Francais, but he says he's off to dinner. But you crow about this like its a victory. It is this constant badgering which suggests that all you have is bluff and bravado. And a choir of one.

In doing so you continaully demand people meet your challenges, and yet you ignore their responses. In this I note you compeletly ignored the most recent post of LittleLambofJesus showing you where it's used. In the end you offer nothing more than your opinion of your opinion

Thus if by 'plural of majesty' you mean the 'royal we', it is used in the OT as evidence of (a prefigurment for) the Trinity.
Refer to this site

 

[français]

Your first task to to show us that "plural of majesty" existed in Biblical Hebrew via reference materials.

Indeed, that is something I need to do, and I will soon.

You have not been able to do this..........stall....

Because I have been busy. My parents are visiting in from Ville de Lévis, which is about two hours from me(I am in Montréal) and I don't get to see them a lot! I'm sorry, but a plural of majesty argument is not at the top of my priorities right now.

Who said you didn't?

This still does not take away the fact that you accused me of googling something without suffice proof. Either way, it doesn't matter.

Correct.

One "elohim" per god.

Yes, so we are in agreement thus far.

Correct.

So we have agreed that these particular gods in 1 Kings are being called "elohim" for each, though there is no uniplurality.

Context.

"Elohim" is defined not only by the classic lexicons but also by its contextual usage.

You already admitted that the usage in 1 Kings is one of singularity only.

One "elohim" per god.

Further, there is no reason to believe that these gods had any plurality at all from the surrounding verses.

Exactly my point. So why is "elohim" being used and not "eloah?" If "Elohim" signifies uniplurality, then why being used here?

Do you see what I am saying?

Done.

Compare 1 Kings to the Genesis creation account and you will see that "elohim" in Genesis also has a spirit and a word that is used in creation.

Yes, indeed. So why on earth is Elohim(plural) used in 1 Kings?

The only thing that you have proven thus far is that you were wrong in thinking that "Chemosh" was plural.

Hey, at least I admitted it openly. Also, I have likewise said that I am not sure.. I have not left out the possibility that it could be plural.

And, as I have already said.. The Chemosh argument does not do anything to my argument about "Elohim" being used in 1 Kings. So, please, let's not bring up old arguments and let's stay with what is still being argued.. It will keep the topic flowing.

Au revoir!