Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | TheCurtMan | 88097 | ||
Truthfinder, are you still out there?? I was wondering if you would elaborate alittle on your last message to me. The CurtMan |
||||||
2 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88123 | ||
Hi The Curtman Here's one example to answer your question. You said in you post that elo-him means "plurality in unity". I want to know, "says who"? I want to know the authority that defines elo-him that way. You see, ordinarily the eem sufix or ending of Heb words indicate the masculine plural, as "os" indicated the masculine singular of most Spanish nouns. In Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh´ ´E·lim´]?” You notice here Jehovah is in the plural but refering only to one God. If it were intended to mean "plurality in unity" then the LXX (Greek translation would have used the word "theon" but it did not. It used the word "theos" (the singular form of the word for God) thus showing elo-him when refering to Jehovah is in the singular. Truthfinder That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim´ by the singular form The·os´ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate. Theon is the plural in Greek and Deum in Latin. |
||||||
3 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | TheCurtMan | 88240 | ||
Good Morning Truthfinder I have the info. you requested. 'All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible', by Herbert Lockyer. Published by Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan. Pg. 5, under, 'The Names and Titles of God the Father', par. 3, "In the beginning God-Gen. 1:1-as well as in the other references, the name is in the plural, and is a foregleam of the trinity acting in Unity. Ex. 20:11; Col. 1:16; and Job 26:13. God 'plural' said let us make man in our image. Gen. 1:26. Just outta curiosity, who was God talking to when He said, "let US make man in our image"?? Also, you might want to try looking at The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, by Moody Press. It says this, "...a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where , in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found. It goes on futher to say this, "The New Testament does not teach one God who acted in three modes, modalism, but one divine being who exists in three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal.The main point is that the Bible clearly declares one God in three persons all of whom are God. Note what Paul said about Jesus, and remember, this was not easy for him, as he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee. He wrote of Jesus, "looking for the blessed hope ad the appearing of the golry of our great God AND Savior, Christ Jesus." |
||||||
4 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | Truthfinder | 88273 | ||
Hi The Curtman, "Let us make man in our image". Jehovah is speaking to Jesus. (Col. 1:15)I already addressed this issue. Certainly the word elohim is in the plural. But as you know I wanted to know what Lexicon or Hebrew authority has defined "elohim" as you did, "plurality in unity". You quoted the editors of the NIV (known trinitarians)as saying the plural form denotes foregleams of the trinity. All I can say to that is absolute nonsense. You can not ignore as I said earlier that this word is used in the same way for individual pagan divinities, such as Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), who were not triune gods. Commenting on this, Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes in his Synonyms of the Old Testament: “Many critics, however, of unimpeachable [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a plural of majesty.” Such Trinitarian theologians doubtless realized that if they took ‘Elo·him´ as a numerical plural (gods), they would become polytheists! Summing up on so-called Old Testament proofs of the Trinity, the Protestant Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or decided proof upon this subject.” Truthfinder |
||||||