|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Instead of "God created" it is, according to the original, literally "the Gods created". From this some have derived an argument for the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine Essence. But these proofs do not appear very solid. Such anomalous expressions are found in the Hebrew, as in all other languages, and in passages where there does not seem to be any mystery.Some plural nouns, without changing the sense are construed sometimes with a plural, sometimes with a singular verb - as adonim, lords; panim, faces; see Isaiah 19:4; Gen. 9:23, etc. |
(Calmet, Commentary on OT and NT and Dictionary of the Holy Bible)
He was a French Benedictine monk (1672-1757). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is truly strange that such a notion [that Elohim denotes a plurality of persons] should ever have been entertained. And indeed it is only a modern notion, of the same as scholastic [Roman Catholic] theology. The Christian Fathers of the Church, who were eager enough to discover in the OT proofs of the Trinity never dreamed of appealing to the word Elohim. |
(Dr. Geddes, Critical Remarks, p. 8)
He was a Roman Catholic (1737-1802) clergyman in Banffshire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnlife
Lion King
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 1122
Location: US
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| holly102869 wrote: | | Quote: | Not more than One God but more than one persons in the One GodHead, God is a Trinity..
|
God is a trinity?
I really don't think that God is a trinity in any way.
There is only one God..
God; The one true God
Jesus; Son of God, died for are sins
Holy Spirit; The power of God or his breath. How he gives us life and speaks to us.
Yes, they all work together but are not all God. |
Beautifully stated, Holly!
The problem I have is most churches believe that Jesus is God or they believe in a Godhead (they believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that are all Gods under one Godhead....). I've heard two Pastors admit that they cannot explain the trinity but they still devoutly and whole-heartedly believe in and preach the trinity.
Are there any christian churches left who believe as you stated above?
Luv
Last edited by luvnlife on Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Geddes, again.
| Quote: | | The plural number is no proof of the Trinity of persons and this is, indeed, allowed by the best commentators. Its meaning was generally restricted to the One God, by putting the verb or adjective which goes with it in the singular number. Every language has some such peculiarities. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Nouns of dominion eloah, baal, and adon are frequently used in the plural number instead of the singular to express the dignity of the person who rules or from the usage of the holy language, as in Gen. 1:1; 24:9; 40:1; 42:30; Exod. 21:4,6,8,29; Isa. 1:3; Josh. 24:19 and many other passages. |
(Peter Guarin, Gram Heb, Vol. 1, p. 477, can 3)
Another French Benedictine Monk (1678-1729). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I consider Elohim which is generally construed with verbs and adjectives in the singular number to be plurals of majesty, and deny that it can at all refer to the mystery of the Trinity. If this word signified the Holy Trinity it would imply that the doctrine was by the constant use of the language far better known under the OT than it is under the New. |
(Dr. John David Michaelis. Sup. ad Lex. Heb, p. 8)
He was Professor of Philosophy at Gottingen; (1717-1791). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The plural number is used of things singular, which are great and distinguished; as yamim is equivalent to a great sea, Ps. 46:2; Tanim is used of a large dragon, Ezek. 29:3; adonim, lords, for a great and powerful lord; elohim, gods, for a god eminently to be worshipped. Kodshim, holy ones, for the most holy God. Behemot, of a huge beast. Naharot, rivers, for a great river. |
(Storr. Observ. ad Analog et Syntax. Heb., p. 97-99)
He was a Professor of Divinity, University of Tubingen; (1746-1805). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="beloved57"] | Quote: |
This is what my study guides say:
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God
Transliteration
'elohiym
Pronunciation
el·o·hēm' (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
plural of H433 |
Your study guide proves my point.
I paid thousands of dollars to obtain the information (as part of my studies to earn a BTh) that I shared with you on this point. If you want additional documentation I will be glad to continue posting on the subject. I think it is enough...and probably then some! (Besides, all this typing has worn me out for the evening.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beloved57
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mattathias wrote: | | beloved57 wrote: | | But of course, you pick and choose what is the bible to you dont you ? |
No. And what does that have to do with your argument from the word elohim?
I made an easily verifiable statement and you asked me to "prove it." I have provided abundant information to do just that...and all from Trinitarian sources! |
But you didnt prove anything to me ..you made a effort but failed.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="beloved57"] | Quote: | | But you didnt prove anything to me ..you made a effort but failed.. |
"You can lead a horse to water but..." 
I'm sorry that you didn't find the material I presented persuasive. I think it is. C'est la vie.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Young Wolf
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mattathias,
Quote:
It is truly strange that such a notion [that Elohim denotes a plurality of persons] should ever have been entertained.
Must be God talks to Himself.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God (th wrismenh boulh kai prognwsh tou qeou). Instrumental case. Note both purpose (boulh) and foreknowledge (prognwsis) of God and "determined"
This death was predetermined by God even before humanity existed. This was determined by a council. I am sure that Our Heavenly Father was talking to the Angels. (Not) There was a plural form of El in the Old Testament and that plural form was Elohim.
Acts 2:23 surely supports Genesis 1 Elohim.
Of course you probably won't read this and study it because you have an ax to grind and aren't interested in truth.
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beloved57
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am sure that Our Heavenly Father was talking to the Angels. |
I wouldnt be sure He is your Heavenly father first of all, Then how are you sure He was talking with angels ? And who was Talking to here ?
Gen 1:
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6826
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JB"] | Quote: | | There was a plural form of El in the Old Testament and that plural form was Elohim. |
If you want to insist that elohim must be understood in the plural sense when applied to YHWH, then all I ask is that you be consistent. Translate it in the plural form (Gods), not in the singular form (God). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mattathias
Lion King
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 1043
Location: Atlanta
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
JB.
Have you ever looked at the Genesis passages in the Septuagint?
The word used to translate the Hebrew elohim is the Greek theos (singular "God"), not theoi (plural "Gods").
The ambiguity that exists in the Hebrew word does not exist in the Greek word. If the translators of the LXX had wanted to convey the thought that elohim must be understood in the plural sense when speaking of YHWH, they had a word that would have accomplished the task.
The evidence from the LXX lends further support that elohim must be understood in the singular sense when speaking of YHWH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
