Originally posted by Punker69
Show me proof.
Here's a couple of sites that deal with it.
If you know some hebrew: http://tinyurl.com/gly5v
If not read this article: http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=823
Originally posted by Punker69
While your showing me how exactly God was originally plural why dont you show me why the word "fullness" would mean anything other than what it obviously does mean.
From Dictionary.com
fullness
n 1: completeness over a broad scope [syn: comprehensiveness] 2: the property of a sound that has a rich and pleasing timbre [syn: mellowness, richness] 3: the condition of being filled to capacity [ant: emptiness] 4: greatness of volume [syn: voluminosity, voluminousness]
So it obviously has more than one meaning. I think #4 is pertinent.
Originally posted by Punker69
Um..exactly. If we are made in the image of three people or three seperate persons which is what the Trinitarian doctrine states then where's our other 2 persons?I dont know about you but when I got up and looked in the mirror I saw a person staring back at me. Not three.
We're made after our parents image too. Do you see both of your parents when you look in the mirror?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Well first your are getting the OT LAWS (Duet, and Lev.) mixed up with the LAW of the Ten Commandments. It is never stated that the 10 Commandments were void...
Okay. When we say "void" it's totally useless anymore. It's not what my contention is, dear debs. 🙂
Originally posted by debbiejo
[B]Colossians 2:16-17 (New King James Version)
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.This has nothing to do with the 10 Commandments. It is referring to the what is called "Sabbath holy days" as in the their feasts days such as in Passover (Pesach), Unleavend Bread (Hag HaMatzah), Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim), Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) Tabernacles (Sukkoth),..These feast days were centered around the moon, food..etc.[/b]
Debbie dear, you were asking me if I observe Sabbath. I may ask here now, how should we suppose to observe Sabbath then?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus stating the 2 Commandments are only summing up the 10 that were already in place.1. Love god with all your heart and mind (1st 4 commandments)
2. Love others as yourself (last 6 commandments)Nothing has changed in the Law of the 10. Are you keeping the Sabbath?
Actually, Jesus said, the rest of the commandments depend on those 2 commandments Jesus stated... and that was since Jesus' priesthood.
Originally posted by debbiejo
This is a dispensationial view that was put in place in the 1800's. That means god saves people of different time periods in different ways...Like as in how did god save people of Noahs time as compared to Abraham, as to Moses, as compared to the Church Age. This would also be heresy to the scriptures that says "God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow"..."God changes NOT."
Yes, you're right. God doesn't change. He doesn't change in any form and in every promise He declared.
When God commanded Israel to keep Sabbath holy by observing it, He also promised that He will put an end to this kind of observance. And this ended when Jesus Christ came with a new covenant from God.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Again show me where the 10 commandments were voided out. Also, if there were to be a new covenant Jesus would have to have put it into place before his death. He did not. He followed all the commandments...
Yes. And He didn't observe the Sabbath anymore as how should it be observed when God commanded it to Israel.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Phil. 2 9-11 was written by Paul, who is considered heretical in his teachings because it went against the OT and what Jesus also taught.
Well, deb. I am a Christian. And nowhere in the Bible did Paul contradict the OT.
🙂
Originally posted by docb77
of course this whole debate can be summed up by the first verse of Genesis.1 IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The word God is interesting here. In hebrew its Elohim or Eloheim. The funny thing is that the -him or -heim suffix is used in hebrew to denote a plurality. The singular would be El or Eli.
From the beginning the plurality of God is in the bible. Oh an argument can be made that its a plurality of power or glory, but it's simpler to view it as a plurality in the Godhead, especially in light of what is said a few verses later "let us make man in our own image" (emphasis added). It could be the royal we, but in light of the plurality used earlier. I think it more likely its more like a commander or a leader saying, "let's get to it". Us in this case seems on casual and closer inspection to mean just what it usually means. More than one being was present.
This information is wrong.
ELOHIM in the Bible was used several times in several cases in several persons... ELOHIM were used both in singular and in plural form.
Example.
In Genesis 35:2, ELOHIM was translated this way:
"Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you...
In Exodus 21:6, ELOHIM was used for "judges".
In Psalm 8:5, is is used for "angels".
On the other hand, in Exodus 22:20, ELOHIM was used in singular form:
Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.
And is even used in Pagan god:
If Baal really is a god,
he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.
Judges 6:31
With these different meaning and usage of the word, it is not evident to use ELOHIM to prove the plurality in ONE God. For there is only one God throughout the Bible
The Father. 🙂
Yes. And He didn't observe the Sabbath anymore as how should it be observed when God commanded it to Israel.Jesus was a Jew and followed the OT....and NO, he didn't break the sabbath, show me where he did........He said it was lawful to do good on the sabbath...The Pharisees are the ones who tacked on extra laws. Jesus was only setting them straight.
Paul does contradict the OT"
Rom 10:1-2
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
It's interesting that Paul would claim the Jews who follow the law aren't basing their zeal on knowledge as his claim contradicts Proverbs 2:6 which states:
Prov 2:6
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Since the Lord God gave the law from his mouth to Moses, knowledge goes right along with following that very law.
Another verse which states that knowledge is found in obeying the commands of God is Psa 119:66 which states:
Psa 119:66
Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.
Paul's claim has no foundation since knowledge is found in the law and commands of God. Those who don't follow the law are the ones without knowledge.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
Here Paul attempts to discredit those who follow the Law of God.
However, his assertion that those who follow the law are not submitting to God's righteousness is completely bogus. God gave his laws so that people could establish righteousness.
Deut 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.
Psa 119:40
Behold, I have longed after thy precepts(laws): quicken(preserve) me in thy righteousness.
Obviously people could know righteousness because doing what the law instructed was righteousness. Paul's claim that people who follow the law aren't submitting to God is without basis.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Paul drops his doctrinal bomb here!
According to Paul, Christ(or Messiah) is the END OF THE LAW.
However, the law was declared perfect in Psa 19:7 and eternal in Psa 119:152, 160.
Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies(statutes), I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).
Since there is nothing in the Old Testament which states that a king messiah would abolish the Law, Paul has invented his own doctrine in Rom 10:4 and in the process makes a liar out of God, who declared that the Christ(or Messiah) would usher in an era where all God's people would keep the Law and not be given license to ignore it.
Ezek 37:24:
And David my servant(the Christ/Messiah) shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes(laws), and do them.
Paul's new doctrine is completely unfounded and contradicts what God declared in the OT.
It also contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 5:18-19. This is the unsound and invented doctrine that Christianity has adopted to escape the requirements of observing all the complicated laws God laid down in the OT.
Paul was looking for Gentile converts to the new religion. Greeks and other non-Jews couldn't be bothered with all the complicated laws that the Jewish God Yahweh set down in the Old Testament.
The Law of God was Paul's competition and stood as an obstacle to gaining new converts.
Paul voided the Law with his pen, declaring that Jesus the Christ or Messiah did away with all those complicated regulations by becoming a human sacrifice.
The irony is that Christians will go around proclaiming how they believe the whole Bible and want to serve God, worship God, and do the "will" of God. Christians follow Paul, not God.
This is the shallow pool of deception that Christianity swims in and tries to lure others into with threats of hellfire.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:5
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."
Paul only partially quotes Lev 18:5 here.
The fuller context is:
Lev 18:4-5
Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
The law is to be obeyed if one wants to find favor with God.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above🙂
Paul now attempts to establish a new form of righteousness which is simply by faith alone with no compliance to the law being needed. In attempting this subterfuge, Paul partially quotes Deut 30:12 to suit his needs.
The full quote is:
Deut 30:12
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:12 has nothing to do with Christ.
The law was given to the people and they don't need to be in any suspense regarding what to do to find favor with God. Simply have faith in God and obey his laws. Paul wants to claim that Christ was needed to complete the "picture" for the people when there is no need for a Christ to do anything.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:7
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
There is no need to bring Christ up from the dead. The law was already given and serves to provide righteousness to the people.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:8
But what saith it? The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Paul distorts Deut 30 even more this time as he attempts to retrofit Jesus into Deut 30.
In attempting to do this, Paul dishonestly half quotes Deut 30:14 and omits Deut 30:9-11 as well.
Deut 30:10-11 throws such a huge wrench into Paul's theology it's no wonder he had no use for it.
First, Deut 30:14 actually states:
Deut 30:14
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Paul's altered quote of Deut 30:14:
the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart
Notice that Paul leaves off of his quote "that thou mayest do it". Paul has twisted Deut 30:14 by chopping off the part he wanted to get rid off. That omitted part is the instruction to obey the law.
Paul already claimed in verse Rom 10:4 that Christ was the end of the law and can't have people thinking the law should still be observed so he chops off the last part of Deut 30:14 to suit his need.
Also:
Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH without the DEEDS of the law.
Today's English Version: a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD only through FAITH, and not by DOING what the Law commands.
NIV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from OBSERVING THE LAW.
James 2:24 (James' rebuttal)
KJV: by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not by FAITH alone.
Today's English Version: it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone.
NIV: a person is JUSTIFIED by what he DOES and not by FAITH alone.
Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says.
PAUL VS JESUS
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus was a Jew and followed the OT....and NO, he didn't break the sabbath, show me where he did........He said it was lawful to do good on the sabbath...The Pharisees are the ones who tacked on extra laws. Jesus was only setting them straight.
That's why I am asking you how should one observe Sabbath? How did God commanded His people to observe Sabbath? In what way should everyone keep the Sabbath holy?
Originally posted by debbiejo
Paul does contradict the OT"Rom 10:1-2
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.It's interesting that Paul would claim the Jews who follow the law aren't basing their zeal on knowledge as his claim contradicts Proverbs 2:6 which states:
Prov 2:6
For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Since the Lord God gave the law from his mouth to Moses, knowledge goes right along with following that very law.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Another verse which states that knowledge is found in obeying the commands of God is Psa 119:66 which states:
Psa 119:66
Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.Paul's claim has no foundation since knowledge is found in the law and commands of God. Those who don't follow the law are the ones without knowledge.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
Here Paul attempts to discredit those who follow the Law of God.
However, his assertion that those who follow the law are not submitting to God's righteousness is completely bogus. God gave his laws so that people could establish righteousness.
Deut 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.Psa 119:40
Behold, I have longed after thy precepts(laws): quicken(preserve) me in thy righteousness.Obviously people could know righteousness because doing what the law instructed was righteousness. Paul's claim that people who follow the law aren't submitting to God is without basis.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.Paul drops his doctrinal bomb here!
According to Paul, Christ(or Messiah) is the END OF THE LAW.
However, the law was declared perfect in Psa 19:7 and eternal in Psa 119:152, 160.Psa 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.Psa 119:152,160
Concerning thy testimonies(statutes), I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments(laws) endureth for ever(are eternal).Since there is nothing in the Old Testament which states that a king messiah would abolish the Law, Paul has invented his own doctrine in Rom 10:4 and in the process makes a liar out of God, who declared that the Christ(or Messiah) would usher in an era where all God's people would keep the Law and not be given license to ignore it.
Ezek 37:24:
And David my servant(the Christ/Messiah) shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes(laws), and do them.Paul's new doctrine is completely unfounded and contradicts what God declared in the OT.
It also contradicts what Jesus said in Matt 5:18-19. This is the unsound and invented doctrine that Christianity has adopted to escape the requirements of observing all the complicated laws God laid down in the OT.
Paul was looking for Gentile converts to the new religion. Greeks and other non-Jews couldn't be bothered with all the complicated laws that the Jewish God Yahweh set down in the Old Testament.
The Law of God was Paul's competition and stood as an obstacle to gaining new converts.
Paul voided the Law with his pen, declaring that Jesus the Christ or Messiah did away with all those complicated regulations by becoming a human sacrifice.
The irony is that Christians will go around proclaiming how they believe the whole Bible and want to serve God, worship God, and do the "will" of God. Christians follow Paul, not God.
This is the shallow pool of deception that Christianity swims in and tries to lure others into with threats of hellfire.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:5
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."
Paul only partially quotes Lev 18:5 here.
The fuller context is:
Lev 18:4-5
Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.The law is to be obeyed if one wants to find favor with God.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above🙂Paul now attempts to establish a new form of righteousness which is simply by faith alone with no compliance to the law being needed. In attempting this subterfuge, Paul partially quotes Deut 30:12 to suit his needs.
The full quote is:
Deut 30:12
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?Deut 30:12 has nothing to do with Christ.
The law was given to the people and they don't need to be in any suspense regarding what to do to find favor with God. Simply have faith in God and obey his laws. Paul wants to claim that Christ was needed to complete the "picture" for the people when there is no need for a Christ to do anything.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:7
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)There is no need to bring Christ up from the dead. The law was already given and serves to provide righteousness to the people.
Continuing on:
Rom 10:8
But what saith it? The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;Paul distorts Deut 30 even more this time as he attempts to retrofit Jesus into Deut 30.
In attempting to do this, Paul dishonestly half quotes Deut 30:14 and omits Deut 30:9-11 as well.
Deut 30:10-11 throws such a huge wrench into Paul's theology it's no wonder he had no use for it.First, Deut 30:14 actually states:
Deut 30:14
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.Paul's altered quote of Deut 30:14:
the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heartNotice that Paul leaves off of his quote "that thou mayest do it". Paul has twisted Deut 30:14 by chopping off the part he wanted to get rid off. That omitted part is the instruction to obey the law.
Paul already claimed in verse Rom 10:4 that Christ was the end of the law and can't have people thinking the law should still be observed so he chops off the last part of Deut 30:14 to suit his need.Also:
Romans 3:28 (Paul)
KJV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from WORKS of the law.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH without the DEEDS of the law.
Today's English Version: a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD only through FAITH, and not by DOING what the Law commands.
NIV: a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH apart from OBSERVING THE LAW.James 2:24 (James' rebuttal)
KJV: by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.
RSV: a man is JUSTIFIED by WORKS and not by FAITH alone.
Today's English Version: it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone.
NIV: a person is JUSTIFIED by what he DOES and not by FAITH alone.Clearly, James seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what Paul says.
PAUL VS JESUS
Oh, Paul. Thank God, He found you. I don't see them contradictory. Maybe, it's just you and your kind, deb? 😎
So, haven't read about the mystery of God's will, how God has promised it in the OT, and how it was fulfilled in the NT? I bet you haven't.
🙂
Originally posted by Jury
This information is wrong.ELOHIM in the Bible was used several times in several cases in several persons... [b]ELOHIM
were used both in singular and in plural form.Example.
In Genesis 35:2, ELOHIM was translated this way:
"Get rid of all the foreign gods you have with you...
In Exodus 21:6, ELOHIM was used for "judges".
In Psalm 8:5, is is used for "angels".On the other hand, in Exodus 22:20, ELOHIM was used in singular form:
Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the lord must be destroyed.
And is even used in Pagan god:
If Baal really is a god,
he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.
Judges 6:31With these different meaning and usage of the word, it is not evident to use ELOHIM to prove the plurality in ONE God. For there is only one God throughout the Bible
The Father. 🙂 [/B]
But any of those could be translated as a plurality. The article I linked to gave a good explanation of how to view the word in it's Hebrew context.
The problem with your answer is that it relies on the translation instead of the original language. Being bilingual myself I know it's important to see the original context. (unfortunately my second language isn't Hebrew). There are often subtexts or subtleties that are difficult or impossible to translate (and sometimes the translator himself actually has an agenda). That's why it's not very reliable to rely on the exact wording of any translated work, the bible included.
That's why I am asking you how should one observe Sabbath? How did God commanded His people to observe Sabbath? In what way should everyone keep the Sabbath holy?If you are a true follower of the bible, you must keep it as it is stated, because "Not one jot of tittle was done away with, nor will it change, until heaven and earth pass away".....YOU tell me what you should be doing...
So, haven't read about the mystery of God's will, how God has promised it in the OT, and how it was fulfilled in the NT? I bet you haven't...........Yes I have... 🙄 .......And it's all just as I've said before, dispositional teachings that started in the 1800's with Darby and the Scholfield bible...
Oh, Paul. Thank God, He found you. I don't see them contradictory. Maybe, it's just you and your kind, deb?If god changes not, then god changes NOT...There is no Jew or Gentile according to scripture....It was the Christians that was graphed into the family tree, not the other way around...The Bible is Jewish!!! The church tried to shove the Jews out and Make it Christian. Telling the Jews then that they are now heathen and condemned to hell, when they are the originators or the bible in the first place, just as Jesus was a Jew...
You are a follower of Paul, not Jesus.......
* it's really pitiful to see you quote Saint Paul and try to contradict his epistle against Saint James, Christ and the Old Testament... but read this... 😉
"And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses ."
Acts 13:39
* see? 😉
* the law of Moses was only for the Israelites and it was not intended for all people... 😉
* the law of God is perfect but the law of God does NOT stop on Moses... 😉
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son , whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
Hebrews 1:1-2
* there are many prophets after Moses and most recently, God sent and spoke by His Son, Christ... 😉
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak ."
John 12:49
* God gave revisions or amendments to the laws... albeit, by Christ... for example...
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery :"
Matthew 5:27
* Christ, preaching God's law, amended this...
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart ."
Matthew 5:28
* see? 😉
* regarding Saint Paul against Saint James... you obviously discredited all other writings of Saint Paul and stuck only to a verse that seemed contradictory to Saint James... see how Saint Paul explained how is it that he preaches the law of faith...
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God ."
Romans 10:17
* Saint Paul is preaching the importance of faith to the unbelievers... not to those who are believers... 😉
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast ."
Ephesians 2:8-9
* that is what Saint Paul was preaching... but did he said that people will be saved by faith alone? nope...
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them ."
Ephesians 2:10
"That the man of God may be perfect, fully equipped unto all good works ."
II Timothy 3:17
* Saint Paul does NOT contradict Saint James, and most of all, Christ... 😉
* if you believe in Christ, then consider Saint Paul's epistles...
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord ."
I Corinthians 14:37
* the things Saint Paul wrote are the commandments of the Lord... 😉
* and please, do not mix Christianity from Catholicism... 😉
Originally posted by docb77
But any of those could be translated as a plurality. The article I linked to gave a good explanation of how to view the word in it's Hebrew context.The problem with your answer is that it relies on the translation instead of the original language. Being bilingual myself I know it's important to see the original context. (unfortunately my second language isn't Hebrew). There are often subtexts or subtleties that are difficult or impossible to translate (and sometimes the translator himself actually has an agenda). That's why it's not very reliable to rely on the exact wording of any translated work, the bible included.
You didn't get the point. You were saying that ELOHIM, because it is in a plural form, is a proof of plurality in one God. There's no evidence to that.
Again, the use in Hebrew, not in translations, of ELOHIM varies. ELOHIM in Hebrew was used BOTH in plural and in singular form. NOT only plural. Check Hebrew versions.
In Judges 6:31. Baal there is called ELOHIM.
In Exodus 7:1. Moses there is called ELOHIM.
In Judges 11:24. A pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM.
In I Samuel 5:7. A pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM.
How should we suppose to translate them? Plural?
What I am trying to say docb77 is that ELOHIM is not ONLY plural. It also appears in singular form even in Hebrew language.
So why is there a plural ELOHIM? The great Hebrew scholar has the answer:
No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of ELOHIM was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute." [E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1910), p. 399.]
Some are thinking that the word ELOHIM implies a "compound unity" when it refers to the true God as what you are trying to imply also. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this, docb77.
Furthermore, when the word ELOHIM is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." The evidence is clear, docb77: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel.
🙂
Originally posted by debbiejo
If you are a true follower of the bible, you must keep it as it is stated, because "Not one jot of tittle was done away with, nor will it change, until heaven and earth pass away".....YOU tell me what you should be doing...
You're not answering my question, dear deb. How should the Sabbath be observed?
Originally posted by debbiejo
..........Yes I have... 🙄 .......And it's all just as I've said before, dispositional teachings that started in the 1800's with Darby and the Scholfield bible...
And what is the mystery of God's will?
Originally posted by debbiejo
If god changes not, then god changes NOT...There is no Jew or Gentile according to scripture....It was the Christians that was graphed into the family tree, not the other way around...The Bible is Jewish!!! The church tried to shove the Jews out and Make it Christian. Telling the Jews then that they are now heathen and condemned to hell, when they are the originators or the bible in the first place, just as Jesus was a Jew...You are a follower of Paul, not Jesus.......
God changes not, deb. But the changes in the law are part of His plan since the beginning when He promised the covenance He will proclaim for the Seed of Abraham - Jesus Christ.
That's why I asked you also: What did Israel do in spite of God's covenance with them? Did they remain faithful to God's law?
🙂
Thought this was interesting...
Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'
"Again (v., 27), how could man be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also? The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Thought this was interesting...Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and the attributes of God. Of these, some are male and some are female. Now, for some reason or other, best known to themselves, the translators of the Bible have carefully crowded out of existence and smothered up every reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis iv., 26: 'And Elohim said: Let US make man.'
"Again (v., 27), [B]how could man be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim were male and female also?
The word Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular ALH, Eloh, by adding IM to the word. But inasmuch as IM is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency united to a masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring. Now we hear much of the Father and the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day. [/B]
Pitiful. I thought you were reading the Bible, dear debbie.
You didn't even know what this "image of God" man is created for. Surely, it's not about the human's being male or female.
🙂
Originally posted by Jury
You didn't get the point. You were saying that ELOHIM, because it is in a plural form, is a proof of plurality in one God. There's no evidence to that.Again, the use in Hebrew, not in translations, of ELOHIM varies. ELOHIM in Hebrew was used BOTH in plural and in singular form. NOT only plural. Check Hebrew versions.
In Judges 6:31. Baal there is called ELOHIM.
In Exodus 7:1. Moses there is called ELOHIM.
In Judges 11:24. A pagan god Chemosh is called ELOHIM.
In I Samuel 5:7. A pagan god Dagon is called ELOHIM.How should we suppose to translate them? Plural?
What I am trying to say docb77 is that ELOHIM is not ONLY plural. It also appears in singular form even in Hebrew language.
So why is there a plural ELOHIM? The great Hebrew scholar has the answer:
Some are thinking that the word ELOHIM implies a "compound unity" when it refers to the true God as what you are trying to imply also. That would mean that the word ELOHIM somehow changes meaning when it is applied to the true God so that the true God can be a compound being. There is just no evidence of this, docb77.
Furthermore, when the word ELOHIM is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." The evidence is clear, docb77: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel.
🙂
Sorry,We must have had a misunderstanding. I never argued for a compound deity. I thought that article captured the gist of the word well, I didn't really agree with their conclusions however. I actually was saying that there was more than one person(although divine persons) there when they said, "let us make man in our own image.)
I don't doubt that languages adapt over time, and perhaps that happened with the word in question. But given what I understand of the context, this does seem to be plural to me.