PDA

View Full Version : El-o-Hym = El-o-Human = All-Human = No ego



granpa
June 20th, 2017, 05:07 AM
El-o-Hym = El-o-Human = All-Human = No ego
"Human" is used here in the sense of "Logical"
as opposed to "Animals" which are illogical.

El = ολως = All = Infinity

The Logos of God is infinitely Logical (having no ego) and hence an All-Human or El-o-Hym.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with All-Human, and the Logos became All-Human;

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human&allowed_in_frame=0

human (adj.)
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, "human," from Old French humain, umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized."

This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods (from root *dhghem- "earth"), but there is no settled explanation of the sound changes involved.

Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian žmuo (accusative žmuni) "man, male person." 


A person with no ego would not require sleep.
A crucified person stood on a small platform with their arms stretched outward horizontally.
As long as they were awake they could support their weight on their feet but as soon as they fell asleep all of their weight went on to their arms causing intense pain which would wake them back up. 

granpa
June 20th, 2017, 05:13 AM
Logos means "worder" which means "human" (since animals dont speak).

beameup
June 20th, 2017, 05:21 AM
:kookoo:

TrevorL
June 20th, 2017, 06:10 AM
Greetings granpa,
El-o-Hym = El-o-Human = All-Human = No ego
"Human" is used here in the sense of "Logical"
as opposed to "Animals" which are illogical.
El = ολως = All = Infinity Elohim is a Hebrew word and one definition is "Mighty Ones". The "El" portion represents "Power or Strength". The "im" portion is a Hebrew plural. Even though the word is plural, the verb used is usually singular, i.e. Mighty Ones (he) created. My understanding of this plural noun/singular verb combination is that it represents the One God working through many agents, in this case God working through the angels to create the world.

Kind regards
Trevor

granpa
June 20th, 2017, 06:31 AM
Greetings granpa,Elohim is a Hebrew word and one definition is "Mighty Ones". The "El" portion represents "Power or Strength". The "im" portion is a Hebrew plural. Even though the word is plural, the verb used is usually singular, i.e. Mighty Ones (he) created. My understanding of this plural noun/singular verb combination is that it represents the One God working through many agents, in this case God working through the angels to create the world.

Kind regards
Trevor

I see.
That's your story and you're sticking to it.

beameup
June 20th, 2017, 07:30 AM
Greetings granpa,Elohim is a Hebrew word and one definition is "Mighty Ones". The "El" portion represents "Power or Strength". The "im" portion is a Hebrew plural.

It's "PLURAL" for a good reason; that's because God is "plural". In Hebrew a "plural" is three.
In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth - Genesis 1:1
The angels had nothing to do with it.

TrevorL
June 20th, 2017, 03:17 PM
Greetings again granpa and greetings beameup,
I see. That's your story and you're sticking to it.I commend you for being very imaginative in your opening post, and I wondered if you were serious, or just having fun. But yes, I’m sticking to my story, and even disagreeing with beameup.
It's "PLURAL" for a good reason; that's because God is "plural". In Hebrew a "plural" is three.Are the “gods” (plural – Elohim) of the nations only three gods?
In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth - Genesis 1:1
The angels had nothing to do with it.Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator and in Genesis 1:26 he invited the angels to participate in the creation of man in the image of God and the angels. Elohim represents God the Father working through various agents and this is verified by Psalm 8:5 where Elohim is translated Angels.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 20th, 2017, 10:37 PM
God the Father is the Creator and in Genesis 1:26 he invited the angels to participate in the creation of man in the image of God and the angels. Elohim represents God the Father working through various agents and this is verified by Psalm 8:5 where Elohim is translated Angels.

And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness - Genesis 1:26a
God is speaking amongst Himself, it's an internal conversation of the Godhead.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him - Genesis 1:27a
God, and God alone, created man, and he created man in HIS image.

chair
June 20th, 2017, 11:01 PM
In Hebrew a "plural" is three.

What? Two isn't plural? How about four?

TrevorL
June 20th, 2017, 11:33 PM
Greetings again beameup,
And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness - Genesis 1:26a
God is speaking amongst Himself, it's an internal conversation of the Godhead.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him - Genesis 1:27a
God, and God alone, created man, and he created man in HIS image.I agree there is a plurality in Genesis 1:26, “us”, “our” and “our” and then a singular in Genesis 1:27 “he” and "his". If what you suggest is true about v26, why does the record say “he” and "his" in v27 and not "they" and "their", that is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit? The other alternative is that the plurality in v26 is God speaking to the Angels, and the “he” of v27 is Yahweh, God the Father, who definitely is one person and hence singular. If a builder or architect builds a building, he uses many tradesmen and other labourers, but it still can be said that the architect or builder built the completed item.

David attributes the creation to one being whom he addresses as Yahweh, and he is not the Trinity, but God the Father.
Psalm 8:1-5 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
Verse 5 continues on addressing the Creator as “thou” singular. And David in verse 5 is speaking of the creation of man, summarising Genesis 1:26-27, but using different language. While in Genesis 1:1,26-27 the term Elohim represents the One God, Yahweh, the Father and included in this plurality are various “mighty ones” through whom God works, here in Psalm 8:5 we have the component parts separated. It is Yahweh who is the Creator and Yahweh has made man in the image and likeness of Himself and the Angels, or as expressed here a little lower than the Angels. But here the term previously applied to Yahweh and the Angels is applied to the Angels by themselves, because they are “Mighty Ones” because God gave them power and wisdom to help in the creative process of man.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 21st, 2017, 12:04 AM
Greetings again beameup, I agree there is a plurality in Genesis 1:26, “us”, “our” and “our” and then a singular in Genesis 1:27 “he” and "his". If what you suggest is true about v26, why does the record say “he” and "his" in v27 and not "they" and "their", that is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit? The other alternative is that the plurality in v26 is God speaking to the Angels, and the “he” of v27 is Yahweh, God the Father, who definitely is one person and hence singular. If a builder or architect builds a building, he uses many tradesmen and other labourers, but it still can be said that the architect or builder built the completed item.

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: - Colossians 1:16 Christ is the subject

TrevorL
June 21st, 2017, 12:23 AM
Greetings again beameup,
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: - Colossians 1:16 Christ is the subjectI suggest that you need to read Psalm 8 again, as it is Yahweh God the Father who is the creator. This is confirmed by Jesus' quotation and allusion to Psalm 8 where he addresses Yahweh as "O Father". Colossians 1:16 must be talking of the spiritual creation, not the Edenic creation. Where Jesus appears in Psalm 8:5 is that he was made a little lower than the angels as Hebrews 2 testifies. He fulfils the role where Adam failed.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 21st, 2017, 01:26 AM
Greetings again beameup,I suggest that you need to read Psalm 8 again, as it is Yahweh God the Father who is the creator.

Sorry, I don't buy the Jehovah's Witness line.
If you are blind to the scripture, it is self-induced.

Elohim is the creator. Elohim is a tri-plural. Elohim is a unity.
I suggest you combine the truths revealed in this tri-verse concerning the triune God:

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. - Isaiah 45:23
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. - Romans 14:11
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:10-11

TrevorL
June 21st, 2017, 01:50 AM
Greetings again beameup,
Sorry, I don't buy the Jehovah's Witness line.
If you are blind to the scripture, it is self-induced.

Elohim is the creator. Elohim is a tri-plural. Elohim is a unity.
I suggest you combine the truths revealed in this tri-verse concerning the triune God:

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. - Isaiah 45:23
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. - Romans 14:11
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:10-11Not every Unitarian is a JW, I certainly am not. Are you sure that "im" ending is always three. Yes Elohim is the Creator. Could I ask why in Philippians 2:11 when we bow the knee to Jesus it will be to the glory of God the Father? Why not also to the glory of God the Son if that is the correct Biblical teaching? There is no Athanasian Creed mentioned in the Bible.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 21st, 2017, 02:06 AM
Greetings again beameup,Not every Unitarian is a JW, I certainly am not. Are you sure that "im" ending is always three. Kind regards
Trevor
Three+
Compare the English "pair" with the English "few"

God alone has the capacity to eternally change himself. This was the case with the 2nd person Elohim.
Terms applied to the 1st person Elohim and the 2nd person Elohim are many and varied in the Bible. "father" and "son" were of later revelation.

Clete
June 21st, 2017, 06:39 AM
El-o-Hym = El-o-Human = All-Human = No ego
"Human" is used here in the sense of "Logical"
as opposed to "Animals" which are illogical.

El = ολως = All = Infinity

The Logos of God is infinitely Logical (having no ego) and hence an All-Human or El-o-Hym.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with All-Human, and the Logos became All-Human;

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human&allowed_in_frame=0

human (adj.)
mid-15c., humain, humaigne, "human," from Old French humain, umain (adj.) "of or belonging to man" (12c.), from Latin humanus "of man, human," also "humane, philanthropic, kind, gentle, polite; learned, refined, civilized."

This is in part from PIE *(dh)ghomon-, literally "earthling, earthly being," as opposed to the gods (from root *dhghem- "earth"), but there is no settled explanation of the sound changes involved.

Compare Hebrew adam "man," from adamah "ground." Cognate with Old Lithuanian žmuo (accusative žmuni) "man, male person." 


A person with no ego would not require sleep.
A crucified person stood on a small platform with their arms stretched outward horizontally.
As long as they were awake they could support their weight on their feet but as soon as they fell asleep all of their weight went on to their arms causing intense pain which would wake them back up. 
Logos means "reason" or "logic".

Funny how you didn't use any of it when you typed up your opening post.

What is an ego?

Why wouldn't a human have an ego?

What does the ego have to do with needing sleep?

Do you really think it wouldn't have hurt to hold your weight on your feet while being crucified, especially after having been beaten almost to death with a Cat of Nine Tails?

Was it your intention to imply that the cross was somewhat easier for Jesus to bear because He wouldn't have accidentally fallen asleep? Really?




I am constantly amazed at the convoluted pretzels that people are willing to twist themselves into when it comes to doctrine. If you thought like this about your car or your wife or your shoes or the food you eat or any other aspect of your life, you'd die alone and hungry. Assuming, that is, that you didn't managed to poison your whole family or drive off a cliff with your wife in the car within the first 24 hours of living one's life based on such a rationally disconnected way of thinking.
If you wonder why people think you're a lunatic, it isn't because you're on some higher spiritual plain, it's because it's rational to assume that when you hear quacking that there's a duck nearby.

Resting in Him,
Clete

TrevorL
June 21st, 2017, 06:51 AM
Greetings again beameup,
Three+ Compare the English "pair" with the English "few". I am not proficient with Hebrew but the words cherubim and seraphim are also plural, and I believe that you cannot restrict these to three beings. For example in Ezekiel 1 there are four cherubim and my impression is that there are more than three seraphim in Isaiah 6. On some occasions Elohim is used for one being, not necessarily God Himself, but an agent of God. I disagree with the rest of your post and you did not answer my question on Philippians 2. Also Yahweh is the creator, and this can be expressed as Elohim is the creator and please also note in Genesis 2:7 it is Yahweh Elohim that created man.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 21st, 2017, 07:45 AM
Greetings again beameup, I am not proficient with Hebrew but the words cherubim and seraphim are also plural, and I believe that you cannot restrict these to three beings.

You failed to notice that I posted THREE +
Just like I compared a "pair" with a "few".
God is unified as one.
The problem is he's not human, which causes you to stumble.
He doesn't follow inferior "human logic".


Elohim has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the elohim he holds judgment
Psalm 82:1

chair
June 21st, 2017, 03:12 PM
2 is plural. Not just 3+

The Hebrew nouns for water and sky also have a plural structure. Are there 3 skies?

TrevorL
June 21st, 2017, 04:22 PM
Greetings again beameup,
You failed to notice that I posted THREE +
Just like I compared a "pair" with a "few".
God is unified as one.
The problem is he's not human, which causes you to stumble.
He doesn't follow inferior "human logic".Yes I did notice it, but I was wondering if you would insist that the plurality of Elohim demands it must be three thus proving the Trinity as you seemed to insist in your early Post. If it can be more than three then it does not prove the Trinity and leaves the door open for my understanding that there are numerous Angels involved in the creation. I take the Elohim portion of Yahweh Elohim in Genesis 2:7 as referring to the involvement of the Angels. Here we have 3+ and yet the Yahweh portion is singular. Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator, and he delegates some of his work to his ministers, the Angels.
Psalm 82:1 Elohim has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the elohim he holds judgment I believe this is speaking of Yahweh (singular) through his angels (Elohim - plural) is judging the unjust judges in Israel (Elohim - plural). Refer John 10:30-36. It has nothing to do with the Trinity except to refute the claim.

I am not absolutely insisting, but I believe that Philippians 2 and all its detail refutes the Trinity, especially “to the glory of God the Father”. On the other hand I am more interested in looking at “Elohim” and what this term signifies than having a full scale discussion on the Trinity, as this has been adequately presented on both sides elsewhere.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 21st, 2017, 11:20 PM
On the other hand I am more interested in looking at “Elohim” and what this term signifies

Then Elohim said, “Let us make mankind
in our image, after our likeness - Genesis 1:26a ESV
So Elohim created man in his own image,
in the image of Elohim he created him;
male and female he created them. - Genesis 1:27 ESV

Yes, I can see how Elohim might be too "alien" a concept for you.

TrevorL
June 21st, 2017, 11:56 PM
Greetings again beameup,

Just in case you have a short memory, in Post #4 of this thread I defined how I understood the word Elohim, and also explained my understanding of the plural “IM”.
Elohim is a Hebrew word and one definition is "Mighty Ones". The "El" portion represents "Power or Strength". The "im" portion is a Hebrew plural. Even though the word is plural, the verb used is usually singular, i.e. Mighty Ones (he) created. My understanding of this plural noun/singular verb combination is that it represents the One God working through many agents, in this case God working through the angels to create the world.
In response at first in Posts #6 and #13 you insisted that the PLURAL must be three, but later you accepted 3+.
It's "PLURAL" for a good reason; that's because God is "plural". In Hebrew a "plural" is three.
In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth - Genesis 1:1
The angels had nothing to do with it.
Elohim is the creator. Elohim is a tri-plural. Elohim is a unity.
I suggest you combine the truths revealed in this tri-verse concerning the triune God:

But now you are reverting to your original concept, simply stating that ElohIM is plural, and in effect ignoring all that has been discussed. Yes, I agree Elohim is plural, representing Yahweh, the One God the Father, working through numerous agents, and in this case of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:26-27 these agents or ministers are the Angels. If you carefully consider all of Genesis chapters 1-3, with this concept in mind, we will discover that the interaction between Elohim and Adam is actually an interaction between the Angels and Adam.

Then Elohim said, “Let us make mankind
in our image, after our likeness - Genesis 1:26a ESV
So Elohim created man in his own image,
in the image of Elohim he created him;
male and female he created them. - Genesis 1:27 ESV

Yes, I can see how Elohim might be too "alien" a concept for you.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 22nd, 2017, 12:42 AM
Greetings again beameup,
Kind regards
Trevor

Like I indicated, the Godhead is an enigma when using "human logic".
I gave you the illustration between "pair" (2) and "few" 3+
In Elohim there is no provision for a "pair" (2), it must be at least 3.
This is in Biblical Hebrew. I have no idea what gyrations that Jews
have used in "Modern Hebrew" to escape this grammatical FACT that God is 3.

I'm certain that the ancient Hebrews understood this; however, in the Scriptures
it is still a gradual evolving revelation of the true nature of God due to
the extensive efforts of the Devil to hide God's true nature and being from man.

Come ye near unto ME, hear ye this;
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
from the time that it was, there am I:
and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent ME. -- Isaiah 48:16

TrevorL
June 22nd, 2017, 01:12 AM
Greetings again beameup,

Like I indicated, the Godhead is an enigma when using "human logic".
I gave you the illustration between "pair" (2) and "few" 3+
In Elohim there is no provision for a "pair" (2), it must be at least 3.
This is in Biblical Hebrew. I have no idea what gyrations that Jews
have used in "Modern Hebrew" to escape this grammatical FACT that God is 3.Again when considering Elohim, you insist on the Trinity, which is a 3rd or 4th Century concept, based on Greek philosophical ideas, by Greek philosophers who did not understand the Hebrew basis of the NT. I suggest that those that understand Biblical Hebrew understand the language and would not agree with your suggestions and your various desperate attempts to find the Trinity in the OT. It certainly is not there, nor in the NT.

Kind regards
Trevor

chair
June 22nd, 2017, 01:30 AM
In Elohim there is no provision for a "pair" (2), it must be at least 3.
This is in Biblical Hebrew. I have no idea what gyrations that Jews
have used in "Modern Hebrew" to escape this grammatical FACT that God is 3...

Both in Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew plural is plural. i.e. more than one. The only "gyrations" here are your attempts to pretend that in Biblical Hebrew the plural only refers to three or more.

If you insist on this, then please bring a source that tries to prove it.

If you want examples of two being in the plural, try Numbers 28, verses 9 and 11

Chair

beameup
June 22nd, 2017, 01:46 AM
Greetings again beameup,
Again when considering Elohim, you insist on the Trinity, which is a 3rd or 4th Century concept, based on Greek philosophical ideas, by Greek philosophers who did not understand the Hebrew basis of the NT. I suggest that those that understand Biblical Hebrew understand the language and would not agree with your suggestions and your various desperate attempts to find the Trinity in the OT. It certainly is not there, nor in the NT.

Kind regards
Trevor

At Sinai, the Hebrews clearly saw and understood God in human form:
Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. - Exodus 24:10
--------------------------------
In Daniel, we clearly see the ancient Hebrew belief of "Two Powers in Heaven" illustrated:
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. - Daniel 7:13 This Hebrew theology was abandoned following the rejection of Messiah.
------------------------------
Previously posted was Isaiah 48:16, where we see all 3 of the Godhead in one verse.
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD (1), and his Spirit (3), hath sent me (2).
----------------------------------
The Old Testament is full of appearances of #2 of the Godhead, and he was worshipped.
The full revelation of the New Testament is crystal clear, so you can "run but you cannot hide".

beameup
June 22nd, 2017, 01:57 AM
Both in Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew plural is plural. i.e. more than one. The only "gyrations" here are your attempts to pretend that in Biblical Hebrew the plural only refers to three or more.

If you insist on this, then please bring a source that tries to prove it.

If you want examples of two being in the plural, try Numbers 28, verses 9 and 11

Chair

So, you are saying that God is a pair (2).
The BCE Jewish theology was "Two Powers in Heaven", as illustrated in Daniel 7:13.
However, taking into account the Ruach Elohim, you have Three composing the Godhead.
This theology was rejected post 70AD for obvious reasons.

chair
June 22nd, 2017, 03:25 AM
So, you are saying that God is a pair (2).

I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that your claim that the plural in Biblical Hebrew implies three (3) is complete and utter nonsense.

Unless you can show some support for that idea, it is nonsense. On a linguistic level, and plain common sense level.

beameup
June 22nd, 2017, 04:20 AM
I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that your claim that the plural in Biblical Hebrew implies three (3) is complete and utter nonsense.

Unless you can show some support for that idea, it is nonsense. On a linguistic level, and plain common sense level.

So you are saying that in Hebrew you don't have a plural suffix as well as a dual form suffix?


Then אֱלֹהִים ʼĕlôhîym said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

chair
June 22nd, 2017, 06:14 AM
So you are saying that in Hebrew you don't have a plural suffix as well as a dual form suffix?

There is a dual suffix for things that come in pairs. As in a pair of eyes, or pair of hands. It is spelled with two "yod". But that does not make all other uses of the plural "3 or more". One can, and does talk of Two Bulls, as in the verses in Numbers, using the simple plural. And it certainly does not imply 3 bulls.

Who taught you this foolishness?

beameup
June 22nd, 2017, 07:01 AM
There is a dual suffix for things that come in pairs. As in a pair of eyes, or pair of hands. It is spelled with two "yod". But that does not make all other uses of the plural "3 or more".


Is God a "dual" or a "plural" in Genesis 1:26?
So אֱלֹהִים ʼĕlôhîym created man in his own image,
in the image of אֱלֹהִים created he him; male and female created he them.
Take your time...

chair
June 22nd, 2017, 07:20 AM
Is God a "dual" or a "plural" in Genesis 1:26?
So אֱלֹהִים ʼĕlôhîym created man in his own image,
in the image of אֱלֹהִים created he him; male and female created he them.
Take your time...

Plural. And that does not mean he is three or more.
Have you bothered reading anything that I post?

TrevorL
June 23rd, 2017, 01:00 AM
Greetings again beameup,

Elohim has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the elohim he holds judgment Psalm 82:1

I believe this is speaking of Yahweh (singular) through his angels (Elohim - plural) is judging the unjust judges in Israel (Elohim - plural). Refer John 10:30-36. It has nothing to do with the Trinity except to refute the claim. I noticed that you did not respond to my comment above, and I am not sure if you agreed or disagreed. Also you did not agree with my comments on Psalm 8:5 where the Angels are called Elohim, directly summarising and commenting on Genesis 1:26-27. Both of these give an understanding of the OT meaning of the word Elohim, and would give a better understanding of Elohim as it is used in Genesis 1:1, 26-27.

I thought it expedient to post an explanation of Elohim as applied to the Judges in Israel, as the concept is similar to Elohim when applied to the Angels. In both instances I believe Elohim represents Yahweh, the One God, the Father working in and through his agents, either the Angels or Judges.

Many Trinitarians use John 10:30 in support of their beliefs. There is a need to look carefully at what Jesus actually says in v30, and also his explanation and response to the Jews.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In response to the false accusation by the Jews, Jesus also answers by speaking concerning the OT usage of the word “God”, “gods”, that is the Hebrew word “Elohim”, quoting Psalm 82:6, the Psalm that you introduced. Jesus speaks concerning the fact that in the OT the judges were called God or gods. It is interesting to note that the translators had difficulty with the relevant verses where the Judges acted in the role of God (Hebrew Elohim):
Exodus 21:6 (KJV): 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exodus 21:6 (ASV): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
Exodus 22:8-9 (ASV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

The role and responsibility of the judges is indicated in the following:
Deuteronomy 1:17 (KJV): Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
2 Chronicles 19:6 (KJV): And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment.
So the judges were called God or gods because they were united in administering the work or judgements of God. Here Elohim does not represent two or three in the plural of Elohim, as there were 70 Judges who were called Elohim, either individually or collectively.

Jesus was claiming a similar though superior role as The Son of God, by calling and claiming God as His Father. He represented God and also could be called Elohim individually. A careful consideration of verses 30 and 36 show that Jesus is not claiming to be God, but the Son of God.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
He was united with His Father in character and works.

Kind regards
Trevor

TrevorL
June 25th, 2017, 07:10 AM
One of the most important Scripture that reveals the OT use of Yahweh and Elohim, usually translated LORD and God in the KJV, is the following. Moses recorded what was spoken, but also adds various comments under inspiration, and it is important to note some of the unique expressions used.

Exodus 3:1 (KJV): 1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

It is important to note that it was the Angel of Yahweh that appeared to Moses. It was not Yahweh Himself, and therefore it was not God in the English sense of the word. But note v4, it is Elohim that calls unto Moses out of the midst of the bush. This Angel also states “I am the Elohim of thy father, the Elohim of Abraham”. And Moses records that he was afraid to look upon Elohim. And then in v7 the Angel speaks as if he was Yahweh: “Yahweh said …I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians”. The conclusion that can be gathered from all of this is that the Angel represents God the Father, and speaks on His behalf, as if the Angel is God Himself, and both the Name of God, Yahweh and the title Elohim are directly used when describing the Angel.

When considered, as this is Moses’ first encounter with an Angel, and even though it appears in the Second Book of Moses, Exodus, it establishes the use of these unique Hebrew words and ideas, not only in the Books of Moses, but all of the OT. This is especially relevant with regard to the Angels in Genesis 1-3, Genesis 1:26-27, Psalm 8:5 and the Judges in Exodus 21:6 and elsewhere. It also helps to explain John 20:28.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 25th, 2017, 08:14 AM
It is important to note that it was the Angel of Yahweh that appeared to Moses. Kind regards
Trevor
The Angel of YHVH is none other than the pre-incarnate Jesus (Yeshua). That is just one of his many titles. Note that whenever asked his NAME, he declines to give it (in the O.T.).
BTW, the "im" ending on a Hebrew word means plural (3 or more). Elohim is plural. You have been led down the wrong "path".

chair
June 25th, 2017, 08:16 AM
BTW, the "im" ending on a Hebrew word means plural (3 or more)..

No. No. No.

Why do you insist on this nonsense. Why is "im" used to indicate two cows, if it is "3 or more"?

beameup
June 25th, 2017, 08:45 AM
No. No. No.

Why do you insist on this nonsense. Why is "im" used to indicate two cows, if it is "3 or more"?

שְׁנַיִם shᵉnayim is two (2)
פָּרָה pârâh is cow
TWO WORDS, NOT A SUFFIX, knucklehead

Elohim is a plural form of eloh
Therefore God is a plural - always has been, always will be

Come ye near unto ME, hear ye this;
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
from the time that it was, there am I: and now
the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent ME. - Isaiah 48:16

chair
June 25th, 2017, 09:52 AM
שְׁנַיִם shᵉnayim is two (2)
פָּרָה pârâh is cow
TWO WORDS, NOT A SUFFIX, knucklehead

Elohim is a plural form of eloh
Therefore God is a plural - always has been, always will be

what is the plural of "bull"?
What is the plural of "sheep"
How does one say "2 sheep"? How about "3 sheep"?

The plural in Hebrew does not imply 3 or more.

And if you are going to argue about Hebrew, you should learn about suffixes in Hebrew.

Best keep you comments about my intelligence to yourself, until this is sorted out, oh wise one.

jamie
June 25th, 2017, 10:33 AM
what is the plural of "bull"?
What is the plural of "sheep"
How does one say "2 sheep"? How about "3 sheep"?


what is the plural of "bull"? - bullim
What is the plural of "sheep" - sheepim
How does one say "2 sheep"? - coupla sheepim
How about "3 sheep"? - more sheepims

OK, that's my thought.

chair
June 25th, 2017, 10:52 AM
what is the plural of "bull"? - bullim
What is the plural of "sheep" - sheepim
How does one say "2 sheep"? - coupla sheepim
How about "3 sheep"? - more sheepims

OK, that's my thought.

You're much closer than beameup is

RevTestament
June 25th, 2017, 04:56 PM
2 is plural. Not just 3+

The Hebrew nouns for water and sky also have a plural structure. Are there 3 skies?

I thought Hebrews believed there were three heavens?
How would you respond to the assertion that Elohim refers to the house of Elohim. So YHWH is telling us that I am YHWH your family/house?...

chair
June 25th, 2017, 09:27 PM
I thought Hebrews believed there were three heavens?
How would you respond to the assertion that Elohim refers to the house of Elohim. So YHWH is telling us that I am YHWH your family/house?...

You'll have to be more specific. I don't know where you get these ideas from. 3 heavens?

Maybe some verses would help. Or sources that say whet you are referring to.

TrevorL
June 26th, 2017, 12:04 AM
Greetings again beameup,
The Angel of YHVH is none other than the pre-incarnate Jesus (Yeshua). That is just one of his many titles. My understanding of this is that the Angel is a Messenger of Yahweh, and he came to deliver a message concerning the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt. As such the Angel cannot be Yahweh himself, nor can he be a third part of a Trinitarian “Elohim”. The Scriptures are clear that man cannot look upon God and live, therefore the Angel must be a lesser creature.

BTW, the "im" ending on a Hebrew word means plural (3 or more). Elohim is plural. You have been led down the wrong "path".
Elohim is a plural form of eloh. Therefore God is a plural - always has been, always will beI will let you and chair resolve this on a Hebrew language level, but I consider that what chair has stated appears to be correct. How do you read Exodus 3:6 where Moses was afraid to look upon Elohim? Were all three revealed to Moses at the bush, or was there one Angel representing Yahweh, called here Elohim.


Note that whenever asked his NAME, he declines to give it (in the O.T.).But Moses did ask God’s Name and was given an answer. And when the Name was given it was singular, not plural. It was given as “I am”, or as I prefer as per Tyndale and RV and RSV margins “I will be”. Why not “We are”, “We are what we are”?
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
Are you suggesting that God the Father’s Name is Yahweh, but the supposed pre-incarnate Jesus did not share this Name? BTW, as a Biblical Unitarian, unlike JWs and Trinitarians, I do not believe that Jesus pre-existed. Jesus is the name of the child born to Mary.

Another example of Elohim used in the sense of representation is when Moses is called Elohim to Pharaoh:
Exodus 3:1 (KJV): 1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Hebrew Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Also Genesis 17 has similar language to Exodus 3, where an Angel represents Yahweh and speaks on His behalf. When the Angel finishes speaking with Abraham, it states the following:
Genesis 17:21-22 (KJV): 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
Now it says that Elohim went up from Abraham. Only one being went up from Abraham, the Angel, but again the word Elohim is used because the Angel represented God.

Kind regards
Trevor

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 12:22 AM
I thought Hebrews believed there were three heavens?
How would you respond to the assertion that Elohim refers to the house of Elohim. So YHWH is telling us that I am YHWH your family/house?...

May I suggest that you ask someone who has a knowledge of the Original Pictographic Hebrew and the "Worldview" of ancient Hebrews.
Hint: You won't find that with Chair (secular Jew) or Trevor (Unitarian).

chair
June 26th, 2017, 12:59 AM
May I suggest that you ask someone who has a knowledge of the Original Pictographic Hebrew and the "Worldview" of ancient Hebrews.
Hint: You won't find that with Chair (secular Jew) or Trevor (Unitarian).

1. I am not a "secular Jew".
2. Learn some Hebrew:

The word for "bull" is "PAR". פר
The plural is "PARIM" פרים
numbers:
"one" is "ECHAD" אחד
"two" is "SHNAIM" שניים
"three" is "SHLOSHA" שלושה

there are differences in numbers between male and female objects.

so we have :
PAR ECHAD- one bull פר אחד
SHNEI PARIM- two bulls שני פרים
SHLOSHA PARIM- three bulls שלושה פרים

the plural for bulls is PARIM. It can mean any number more than one.

Your Pictograms are not relevant (even if they were accurate). This is the way the language is spoken as well as written. Which letters are used is not relevant.

chair
June 26th, 2017, 01:22 AM
Greetings again beameup, My understanding of this is that the Angel is a Messenger of Yahweh...
Kind regards
Trevor

The Trinitarian view has a major difficulty in the Old Testament. It is stated quite clearly that God is one. It doesn't state anywhere that God is a trinity. So if a Trinitarian wants to find the Trinity in the Old Testament, he has to look for hints or obscure points.

There are alternate explanations for these unclear verses. Even if there weren't- it doesn't make a clearly wrong suggestion (Trinity) correct.

It is important to note that in the Bible a messenger can speak in his sender's voice. That is, he can speak in the first person, as if he was a recording of what the sender said.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 03:45 AM
This is the way the language is spoken as well as written. Which letters are used is not relevant.

The dual form doesn’t exist in English, and in the modern Hebrew it exists only in very specific nouns.

The source of this form is in the biblical Hebrew where each noun had singular, dual and plural form.
https://www.duolingo.com/comment/7465436/Hebrew-Time-10-The-Hebrew-Nouns-Adjectives-Dual-and-Plural-Forms

I'll stick with the Hebrew that Moses wrote in and spoke in as the final authority... thank G_d for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

BTW, the SUBJECT is Elohim

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 03:50 AM
It is important to note that in the Bible a messenger can speak in his sender's voice. That is, he can speak in the first person, as if he was a recording of what the sender said.
Yea, here is an example:
Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [YHVH] is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. - Exodus 23:20-22

Compare with this:
And the LORD [YHVH] descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD [YHVH]. And the LORD [YHVH] passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God [YHVH-YHVH 'el], merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped. - Exodus 34:5-8

chair
June 26th, 2017, 04:24 AM
I'll stick with the Hebrew that Moses wrote in and spoke in as the final authority... thank G_d for the Dead Sea Scrolls.

BTW, the SUBJECT is Elohim

What alphabet are the Dead Sea Scrolls written in , oh wise one? When were they written?

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 04:37 AM
What alphabet are the Dead Sea Scrolls written in , oh wise one? When were they written?
A mixture. There remains some yet undiscovered caches.
Original Hebrew Alephbet was derived from Phoenician, rabbi.

PS: Elad needs to excavate up there south of the south-east corner of the Haram al Sherif.

chair
June 26th, 2017, 04:52 AM
A mixture. There remains some yet undiscovered caches.
Original Hebrew Alephbet was derived from Phoenician, rabbi.

PS: Elad needs to excavate up there south of the south-east corner of the Haram al Sherif.

Well, at least you know something. Moses would not be able to read many of the Dead Sea scrolls.

In any case, the grammar is part of the language. It is not script dependent.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 05:08 AM
Well, at least you know something. Moses would not be able to read many of the Dead Sea scrolls.

In any case, the grammar is part of the language. It is not script dependent.
Yes, Moses would have no doubt had difficulty with the Paleo-Hebrew :) , but we don't know the extent of Moses education in Egypt.
Hebrew was originally written with a pictographic script similar to Egyptian Hieroglyphs. The Ancient Hebrew language is a concrete oriented language meaning that the meaning of Hebrew words are rooted in something that can be sensed by the five senses such as a tree which can be seen, sweet which can be tasted and noise which can be heard. Abstract concepts such as "praise" have no foundation in the concrete and are a product of ancient Greek philosophy. The much later Babylonian script was based on Aramaic script. To fully understand the original Hebrew, it must be seen through the perspective of the Ancient Hebrews who wrote it, not from Aramaic or Greek perspectives.

chair
June 26th, 2017, 06:10 AM
Yes, Moses would have no doubt had difficulty with the Paleo-Hebrew :) , but we don't know the extent of Moses education in Egypt.
Hebrew was originally written with a pictographic script similar to Egyptian Hieroglyphs. The Ancient Hebrew language is a concrete oriented language meaning that the meaning of Hebrew words are rooted in something that can be sensed by the five senses such as a tree which can be seen, sweet which can be tasted and noise which can be heard. Abstract concepts such as "praise" have no foundation in the concrete and are a product of ancient Greek philosophy. The much later Babylonian script was based on Aramaic script. To fully understand the original Hebrew, it must be seen through the perspective of the Ancient Hebrews who wrote it, not from Aramaic or Greek perspectives.

You are quoting from a text written by a self-proclaimed expert. You should reference his work when quoting him.

There are abstract concepts in the Bible. Many of which date from late periods which may have has Greek influence, but some likely predate that. "Praise" does appear in the Old Testament, mostly in Psalms (when those were written is an interesting question). The idea of "beauty" appears already in Genesis. Not likely under Greek influence.

Again- the script is not relevant. It is a way of recording language. It is not the language itself.

You may want to study some other sources about Biblical Hebrew.

daqq
June 26th, 2017, 06:13 AM
The Ancient Hebrew language is a concrete oriented language meaning that the meaning of Hebrew words are rooted in something that can be sensed by the five senses such as a tree which can be seen, sweet which can be tasted and noise which can be heard. Abstract concepts such as "praise" have no foundation in the concrete and are a product of ancient Greek philosophy.

Hmmm, so according to you "im" means three? :chuckle:
And Judah does not mean "praise" but rather something more like "noise"? :chuckle:

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 06:36 AM
You are quoting from a text written by a self-proclaimed expert. You should reference his work when quoting him.

There are abstract concepts in the Bible. Many of which date from late periods which may have has Greek influence, but some likely predate that. "Praise" does appear in the Old Testament, mostly in Psalms (when those were written is an interesting question). The idea of "beauty" appears already in Genesis. Not likely under Greek influence.

Again- the script is not relevant. It is a way of recording language. It is not the language itself.

You may want to study some other sources about Biblical Hebrew.

The gist of what I posted I already knew, long ago, from study... and by watching certain YouTube videos. You would do well to study a bit yourself.

Is it hard to understand "symbolism" as opposed to "alphabet"?
From my classes covering anthropology and linguistics this is a no-brainer.
The Hebrew worldview was an Oriental one and not a westernized logic-based "Greek" one.
I believe you have lost all contact with the original culture in this modern age.
Hebrew is but a "shell" of its former self; all the richness and earthiness is missing.

However, a "refreshing" and "restoration" of the land to pastoral/agricultural richness,
by Messiah, will refresh and restore Hebrew language and culture.

chair
June 26th, 2017, 06:54 AM
The gist of what I posted I already knew, long ago, from study... and by watching certain YouTube videos. You would do well to study a bit yourself.

Is it hard to understand "symbolism" as opposed to "alphabet"?
From my classes covering anthropology and linguistics this is a no-brainer.
The Hebrew worldview was an Oriental one and not a westernized logic-based "Greek" one.
I believe you have lost all contact with the original culture in this modern age.
Hebrew is but a "shell" of its former self; all the richness and earthiness is missing.

However, a "refreshing" and "restoration" of the land to pastoral/agricultural richness,
by Messiah, will refresh and restore Hebrew language and culture.

You can believe whatever you want. The form of the letters was certainly originally symbolic, but, once they became letters in an alphabet, they became a way of recording a language. Semitic languages existed long before they could be written. That is a real "no-brainer".

I agree the the original Hebrew world was not the Western (i.e. Greek) one. That is not a secret. But it doesn't change the plan facts of the language. What a plural means. The use of terms like "beautiful" (in genesis!) to describe a man or woman.

You are insisting on things that are completely wrong. Saying I don't understand doesn't change what the facts are.

We are speaking of Biblical Hebrew, of which you know very little. And you are knocking the 'shell' of modern Hebrew- only showing that you know even less about it.

Go learn Hebrew. Instead of watching pseudo scientific youtube videos. I know this is the "post truth" age- but that is a bad thing. There are facts and truths in the world.

daqq
June 26th, 2017, 07:13 AM
Greetings again beameup,

I noticed that you did not respond to my comment above, and I am not sure if you agreed or disagreed. Also you did not agree with my comments on Psalm 8:5 where the Angels are called Elohim, directly summarising and commenting on Genesis 1:26-27. Both of these give an understanding of the OT meaning of the word Elohim, and would give a better understanding of Elohim as it is used in Genesis 1:1, 26-27.

I thought it expedient to post an explanation of Elohim as applied to the Judges in Israel, as the concept is similar to Elohim when applied to the Angels. In both instances I believe Elohim represents Yahweh, the One God, the Father working in and through his agents, either the Angels or Judges.

Many Trinitarians use John 10:30 in support of their beliefs. There is a need to look carefully at what Jesus actually says in v30, and also his explanation and response to the Jews.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In response to the false accusation by the Jews, Jesus also answers by speaking concerning the OT usage of the word “God”, “gods”, that is the Hebrew word “Elohim”, quoting Psalm 82:6, the Psalm that you introduced. Jesus speaks concerning the fact that in the OT the judges were called God or gods. It is interesting to note that the translators had difficulty with the relevant verses where the Judges acted in the role of God (Hebrew Elohim):
Exodus 21:6 (KJV): 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exodus 21:6 (ASV): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:8-9 (KJV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
Exodus 22:8-9 (ASV): 8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods. 9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

The role and responsibility of the judges is indicated in the following:
Deuteronomy 1:17 (KJV): Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
2 Chronicles 19:6 (KJV): And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment.
So the judges were called God or gods because they were united in administering the work or judgements of God. Here Elohim does not represent two or three in the plural of Elohim, as there were 70 Judges who were called Elohim, either individually or collectively.

Jesus was claiming a similar though superior role as The Son of God, by calling and claiming God as His Father. He represented God and also could be called Elohim individually. A careful consideration of verses 30 and 36 show that Jesus is not claiming to be God, but the Son of God.
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
He was united with His Father in character and works.

Kind regards
Trevor

Hi Trevor, the definite article makes a difference in some of the passages you have quoted, (I noticed in another post you also quoted from the burning bush passage where it may also make a difference in the meaning of the text). Proper nouns or personal names are already emphatic and therefore do not tolerate an article. Elohim is sometimes used in this manner also, (but one must be careful because this is not always the case when you see the article in conjunction with the word Elohim). I will take your quote from Exodus 22:8-9 KJV and, while leaving everything else the same, I will substitute how I believe the text should read where it comes to Elohim with and without the article, (just my little ole opinion). When it has the article it should probably be understood as "Judges", as most render it, (but could also mean "Angels" in a supernal sense, and so on), but the final occurrence, the second occurrence in v.9, does not have an article, and look how it changes the meaning of the overall statement, (it implies as you and others have said, that is, that the Elohim-Judges speak and act on behalf of Elohim).

Exodus 22:8-9
8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto ha-Elohim, [the Elohim-Judges] to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.
9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before ha-Elohim; [the Elohim-Judges] and whom Elohim [Elohim without article] shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

So the people go to the Judges; and what do the Judges do? They consult Elohim, (by way of prayer and His Word), and the ultimate Judge is therefore Elohim because the Elohim-Judges do His bidding according to His Word, (so long as they are upright Judges).

daqq
June 26th, 2017, 07:53 AM
Hi Trevor, the definite article makes a difference in some of the passages you have quoted, (I noticed in another post you also quoted from the burning bush passage where it may also make a difference in the meaning of the text). Proper nouns or personal names are already emphatic and therefore do not tolerate an article. Elohim is sometimes used in this manner also, (but one must be careful because this is not always the case when you see the article in conjunction with the word Elohim). I will take your quote from Exodus 22:8-9 KJV and, while leaving everything else the same, I will substitute how I believe the text should read where it comes to Elohim with and without the article, (just my little ole opinion). When it has the article it should probably be understood as "Judges", as most render it, (but could also mean "Angels" in a supernal sense, and so on), but the final occurrence, the second occurrence in v.9, does not have an article, and look how it changes the meaning of the overall statement, (it implies as you and others have said, that is, that the Elohim-Judges speak and act on behalf of Elohim).

Exodus 22:8-9
8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto ha-Elohim, [the Elohim-Judges] to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.
9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before ha-Elohim; [the Elohim-Judges] and whom Elohim [Elohim without article] shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

So the people go to the Judges; and what do the Judges do? They consult Elohim, (by way of prayer and His Word), and the ultimate Judge is therefore Elohim because the Elohim-Judges do His bidding according to His Word, (so long as they are upright Judges).

By the way, Trevor, Exodus 22:8-9 is very likely one of the passages of scripture where the Psalmist, (Asaph), gets the teaching from, concerning the statement which is made in Psalm 82:6, because the Elohim-Judges had received the Torah-Word of Elohim, just as the Master says in John 10:35, (those to whom the Word of Elohim had come). I do not know if you already made that point or not but it is pretty obvious because the Elohim-Judges would have and did consult the Torah in all judgments. In this very passage above, (and the other similar passage you quoted from the previous chapter), is where they are called elohim.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 08:26 AM
Go learn Hebrew. Instead of watching pseudo scientific youtube videos. I know this is the "post truth" age- but that is a bad thing. There are facts and truths in the world.

I'll stick with the consensus of the experts. Apparently you are unaware of the tremendous amount of tools available to the computer user nowadays.
You do know the creator of the (original) Hebrew culture and language... don't you?

The earth was formless and void,
and darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Ruwach Elohim was hovering over the
surface of the mayim. - note the plurals

chair
June 26th, 2017, 08:43 AM
I'll stick with the consensus of the experts. Apparently you are unaware of the tremendous amount of tools available to the computer user nowadays.
You do know the creator of the (original) Hebrew culture and language... don't you?

The earth was formless and void,
and darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Ruwach Elohim was hovering over the
surface of the mayim. - note the plurals

If you have some consensus of experts- let's have their names, and some sources.

As far as I can tell, you are not following any consensus of experts. You are following one non-expert. Two, if you count yourself.

You can stand on your head , eat five camels, find some "expert" and tell me that I am ignorant. The Hebrew plural will still not mean "three or more". I've given you counter examples- and you have ignored them. Any school child who knows Hebrew will tell you that. And it is true in Biblical Hebrew as well.

It is a ridiculous attempt to force the Trinity on a text that doesn't have the trinity in it.

I hope you haven't fallen for the "Hebrew word for one actually mean many" bit as well. Another piece of total nonsense.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 09:39 AM
If you have some consensus of experts- let's have their names, and some sources.
As far as I can tell, you are not following any consensus of experts. You are following one non-expert. Two, if you count yourself.

It's obvious that you have no clue how many reliable sources and tools are available using a computer.
"if you have"? :chuckle:
"I can tell"? :chuckle:

Elohim has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the elohim he holds judgment
Psalm 82:1 ESV (from DSS)
I said, “You are elohim,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
Psalm 82:6 ESV (DSS)

chair
June 26th, 2017, 10:20 AM
It's obvious that you have no clue how many reliable sources and tools are available using a computer.


I have a very clear idea of that. Your inability to provide sources for your claims says quite a lot.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 09:34 PM
I have a very clear idea of that. Your inability to provide sources for your claims says quite a lot.
You have the very God-given scriptures right in front of you
in the (somewhat) original language. There can be no excuse
for you not resolving all those seeming "contradictions" posed
by the scriptures concerning the nature of God. Yet you remain mute.

Even an uneducated goy can read a reliable translation of the
scriptures in their own language and fully understand the
true nature of God and form a relationship.

chair
June 26th, 2017, 09:49 PM
You repeatedly ignore the plain facts that I bring to your attention. It is easier to resort to personal attacks than to deal with the issues.

Your source, as far as I can tell, is the website "Ancient Hebrew Research Center" (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org). Why don't you give them credit.

You would do well to read other sources as well.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 11:16 PM
You would do well to read other sources as well.
Since I have a computer and internet connection, I have access to a multitude of reliable sources.
This is not something that is done in a closet, the research into the scriptures is well documented.
For example, Peter Flint was one of the first to take full advantage of access to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psalm 8:4 KJV

I love those who love me;
And those who diligently seek me will find me.
Proverbs 8:17

You will seek Me and find Me
when you search for Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13

chair
June 26th, 2017, 11:29 PM
Since I have a computer and internet connection, I have access to a multitude of reliable sources.
This is not something that is done in a closet, the research into the scriptures is well documented...

..and yet you don't even credit your sources.

You should read more sources than you have. Your ideas are wrong. As wrong as the flat earth belief. Just plain wrong wrong wrong.

Go study Hebrew. Seriously.

beameup
June 26th, 2017, 11:51 PM
..and yet you don't even credit your sources.
Only on very, very rare occasions do I directly "quote" a source... except the Bible.
I can clearly read and understand what the Bible says - the "message" is clear to sincere seekers.
As far as archeology and ancient culture, there are outstanding resources available to LEARN from.

I understand that you don't believe in the Exodus or the accurate location of the Temple,
even though definite and unmistakable "clues" :sherlock: have been left for you in the DIVINE TEXT.
Does this means that your "mind is already made up... don't confuse me with the facts"?
A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste... it could have eternal consequences.

chair
June 27th, 2017, 12:59 AM
Only on very, very rare occasions do I directly "quote" a source... except the Bible.

You have quoted from the site I mentioned above, without giving them credit. And if you are going to claim things about pictographs or whatever- you need to supply evidence. Do you expect me to accept everything you say just because you say it, or claim that it is "out there somewhere in the internet"?



I can clearly read and understand what the Bible says - the "message" is clear to sincere seekers.
As far as archeology and ancient culture, there are outstanding resources available to LEARN from.

I have learned quite a lot, thank you. And I question whether the sources you like are "outstanding".


I understand that you don't believe in the Exodus or the accurate location of the Temple,
even though definite and unmistakable "clues" :sherlock: have been left for you in the DIVINE TEXT.
Does this means that your "mind is already made up... don't confuse me with the facts"?
A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste... it could have eternal consequences.

Your assumption about the Exodus is not accurate. Your ideas about the Temple location are very far from the consensus. That is for a different thread- and I have nothing further to contribute. You "facts" are not real.

I don't think someone like you should be telling others that they have closed minds. And I don't give two hoots about your ideas of "eternal consequences".

beameup
June 27th, 2017, 05:11 AM
Your assumption about the Exodus is not accurate. Your ideas about the Temple location are very far from the consensus. That is for a different thread- and I have nothing further to contribute. You "facts" are not real.
The reason being that you have no interest in HONEST authentic modern Biblical archeology? The majority ("consensus") out there have decades of "research" and many BOOKS; and because of PRIDE, would never confess/admit to being WRONG. Their "agenda" is to HIDE emerging "truth".


I don't think someone like you should be telling others that they have closed minds.

Does this mean that your "mind is already made up... don't confuse me with the facts"?




And I don't give two hoots about your ideas of "eternal consequences".
I see that you took that statement to apply to yourself. Well, "if the shoe fits", I guess.

Then YHVH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from YHVH out of heaven
Genesis 19:24

chair
June 27th, 2017, 05:37 AM
The reason being that you have no interest in HONEST authentic modern Biblical archeology? The majority ("consensus") out there have decades of "research" and many BOOKS; and because of PRIDE, would never confess/admit to being WRONG. Their "agenda" is to HIDE emerging "truth".




I see that you took that statement to apply to yourself. Well, "if the shoe fits", I guess.

Then YHVH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from YHVH out of heaven
Genesis 19:24

Whatever.

There is no point in discussing with you. You have delusions of being smarter than people who really know. And a delusion that you know God's mind to boot.

Have a nice day

TrevorL
June 27th, 2017, 06:20 AM
Greetings again beameup,

I have been interested in the quotes with various emphasis that you have been adding to some of your Posts:

Elohim has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the elohim he holds judgment
Psalm 82:1 ESV (from DSS)
I said, “You are elohim,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
Psalm 82:6 ESV (DSS)Refer Post #33.

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psalm 8:4 KJV This is speaking of the special intervention of God the Father, Yahweh, to create Jesus the Son of God. Refer also Psalm 80:17.

Then YHVH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from YHVH out of heaven
Genesis 19:24This is the Angel who represented God calling upon Yahweh, God the Father, in heaven. Evidently the Angel did not have the power to destroy Sodom.

Kind regards
Trevor

daqq
June 27th, 2017, 07:50 AM
El-o-Hym = El-o-Human = All-Human = No ego
"Human" is used here in the sense of "Logical"
as opposed to "Animals" which are illogical.

El = ολως = All = Infinity

The Logos of God is infinitely Logical (having no ego) and hence an All-Human or El-o-Hym.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with All-Human, and the Logos became All-Human

The "Logos became All-Human"?? All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body: if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, (1Cor 15:39-44).

From the moment Moses began to write the Living Oracles: the Word became flesh. :)

jamie
June 27th, 2017, 07:58 AM
This is speaking of the special intervention of God the Father, Yahweh, to create Jesus the Son of God. Refer also Psalm 80:17.
This is the Angel who represented God calling upon Yahweh, God the Father, in heaven. Evidently the Angel did not have the power to destroy Sodom.


"Then he remembered the days of old,
Moses and his people, saying:
Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
With the shepherd of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them,
Who led them by the right hand of Moses,
With His glorious arm,
Dividing the water before them
To make for Himself an everlasting name,
Who led them through the deep,
As a horse in the wilderness,
That they might not stumble?" (Isaiah 63:11-13)

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

TrevorL
June 27th, 2017, 09:21 PM
Greetings Jamie,
"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)Yes the rock that Moses struck and yielded water to Israel in the wilderness is Christ, in that he was crucified and provides the water of life to all that seek after him in sincerity and truth John 4:13-14,23-24. All that base their trust in Him and listen to Him and follow his words will be safe and secure Matthew 7:24-25.

Kind regards
Trevor