Mattathias
Well-known member
Dr. Futato, who specializes in Hebrew language, confirms the simple point about the usage of the Hebrew word elohim.
Dr. Futato, who specializes in Hebrew language, confirms the simple point about the usage of the Hebrew word elohim.
That's complete circular reasoning.
Your scholar says-- Yes, it's the plural form-- BUT -the author must have meant singlular because he was talking about God!!!!
It's worse than confirmation bias-- it borders on dishonest.
Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew.
So, why the plural form if the referent is singular? GREAT QUESTION!!!!
Terrible answer. He should ask the question again.
And as a follow-up---- he should be asking himself why not just use the singular, if that is indeed what was meant.
Here's a much better example than the one he uses-- in that it makes a stark distinction between singular and plural uses.
......he (Jeshuran) forsook God (SINGLUAR) which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, (PLURAL) with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; (SINGLUAR) to gods (PLURAL) whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God (SINGLUAR) that formed thee.
The authors can and do use the singlular form when that is what they mean. Why can't you accept that the same goes for the plural form?
Mattathias
Well-known member
I studied the Hebrew language. You don’t have a leg to stand on. In your ignorance you say that Hebrew linguists border on being dishonest.
God, not gods, created the heavens and the earth.
Mattathias
Well-known member
Even The Encyclopedia Brittanica puts this thing to rest in a matter of seconds.
www.britannica.com
Elohim | Ancient, Monotheistic, Supreme Being
Elohim, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim),
www.britannica.com
I took one class and with that I can differentiate between plural H430 and singular H433.
Maybe ignorance comes in different forms too.
Mattathias
Well-known member
You’ve cornered the market on this one.
Even The Encyclopedia Brittanica puts this thing to rest in a matter of seconds.
Elohim | Ancient, Monotheistic, Supreme Being
Elohim, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim),
This is now comical. Your source-- even though it's plural in form---it's understood to be singular.
That's another way of agreeing-- Yes, it's a plural form----but we are going to pretend it's singular in this case, because-- God.
Like your pet topic-- The Trinity-- it's only construed to be there by inference. Not by reference.
Folks say it must be, though it isn't.... but it MUST be-- because that's how we've decided.
Mattathias
Well-known member
It would be comical but for the fact that you don’t believe God created the heavens and the earth.
Those who want to find the gods creating will find it in pagan mythology.
Your source-- even though it's plural in form---it's understood to be singular.
That's another way of agreeing-- Yes, it's a plural form----but we are going to pretend it's singular in this case, because-- God.
Hebrew linguists aren’t pretending. That you think they are is another strike against your argument.
Mattathias
Well-known member
You’re the only one arguing for creation by the gods.
Yawn.
Sorry-- for not pretending along with you that there is some sort of mandatory universal consensus. Your premise is greatly weakened later in that same first chapter of Genesis, where the text aligns much better with the plural form than the singular.
“Then God [’elohîm] said [he said], ‘Let us make [na‘as´eh: verb, first person plural] mankind in our [nû: first person plural pronoun] image, in our [nû: first personal plural pronoun] likeness . . .” (NIV). We find the plural ’elohîm... oh but I forgot--- you studied Hebrew.
Your insistence that it isn't possible is dogmatic and theological, not textutal in nature.