On the word Elohim

[7thMoon]

“I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);18Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc.
(MIDRASH Midrash Tanchuma Shemot, Siman 22)

This is what the LXX originally worded in Genesis 1:26. The NT uses biblical Aramaic syntax, instead of "Biblical" Hebrew syntax.

This important, because he apostles never heard of the word Elohim. Eli is used instead of Elochai for example. Elohim always implies polytheism, and we have examples of the word elim in the OT, though elin is the likely original plural form. Elohim is also used plurally without the singular form eloah. The LXX doesn't use a plural form of theos for YHWH. It just uses theos.

The Hebrew text including the Dead Sea Scrolls after the fall of the 2nd temple during the Barkochba period is certainly not inerrant.

 

[freelight]

“I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);18Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc.
(MIDRASH Midrash Tanchuma Shemot, Siman 22)

This is what the LXX originally worded in Genesis 1:26. The NT uses biblical Aramaic syntax, instead of "Biblical" Hebrew syntax.

This important, because he apostles never heard of the word Elohim. Eli is used instead of Elochai for example. Elohim always implies polytheism, and we have examples of the word elim in the OT, though elin is the likely original plural form. Elohim is also used plurally without the singular form eloah. The LXX doesn't use a plural form of theos for YHWH. It just uses theos.

The Hebrew text including the Dead Sea Scrolls after the fall of the 2nd temple during the Barkochba period is certainly not inerrant.

Yet even if 'elohim' has a plural nuance, it would seem most Jewish rabbis interpret this passage as being 'God' speaking to the company of angels around him (or a heavenly tribunal, or plural 'audience' of all creation), when 'us' is implied, since there could be no other 'God' present. So in a beginning of creation, there is only YHWH and his hosts. Of course trinitarians assume this is 'God' speaking to his other two selves or divine personalities

Other interpretations are possible. I have no problem with 'Elohim' in its plurality, for any word is interpreted by its innate meaning and context wherever it is used, it will be nuanced accordingly. 'God' remains one no matter how many personalities or personifications we divide The One into
Wonderful commentaries on the glories and mystery of the Trinity exist, from traditional and unorthodox sources as well,...yet the singular, exclusive and special IDentity of 'God' is still at heart, 'monotheistic'. The Shema forever holds


o-----o​

 

[popsthebuilder]

“I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);18Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc.
(MIDRASH Midrash Tanchuma Shemot, Siman 22)

This is what the LXX originally worded in Genesis 1:26. The NT uses biblical Aramaic syntax, instead of "Biblical" Hebrew syntax.

This important, because he apostles never heard of the word Elohim. Eli is used instead of Elochai for example. Elohim always implies polytheism, and we have examples of the word elim in the OT, though elin is the likely original plural form. Elohim is also used plurally without the singular form eloah. The LXX doesn't use a plural form of theos for YHWH. It just uses theos.

The Hebrew text including the Dead Sea Scrolls after the fall of the 2nd temple during the Barkochba period is certainly not inerrant.

So Elohah or Elohah is in no text?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yet even if 'elohim' has a plural nuance, it would seem most Jewish rabbis interpret this passage as being 'God' speaking to the company of angels around him (or a heavenly tribunal, or plural 'audience' of all creation), when 'us' is implied, since there could be no other 'God' present. So in a beginning of creation, there is only YHWH and his hosts. Of course trinitarians assume this is 'God' speaking to his other two selves or divine personalities

Other interpretations are possible. I have no problem with 'Elohim' in its plurality, for any word is interpreted by its innate meaning and context wherever it is used, it will be nuanced accordingly. 'God' remains one no matter how many personalities or personifications we divide The One into
Wonderful commentaries on the glories and mystery of the Trinity exist, from traditional and unorthodox sources as well,...yet the singular, exclusive and special IDentity of 'God' is still at heart, 'monotheistic'. The Shema forever holds


o-----o​

Yet is it not said that angels had no part in creation? Another question would of course be; where is it written that GOD formed angels in the likeness of GOD?
I'm thankful for the rest of your post here.

peace

 

[7thMoon]

So Elohah or Elohah is in no text?

Eloah is not in any Aramaic text of the Old Testament which now has added commentary. Eloah is also rare in the Hebrew text.

Aramaic seems to be the original Hebrew dialect according to the Greek New Testament. I have surmised that Koine Greek and Greek in general originated in Babylon. Why mention Aramaic script unless the alpha-beta is different? What is called Aramaic script is not different from Hebrew script.

 

[7thMoon]

I should also add Jesus said Eli Eli or rather El-oh-ee El-oh-ee, but not Elochai which means the same thing.

 

[The_drake_]

Eloah is not in any Aramaic text of the Old Testament which now has added commentary. Eloah is also rare in the Hebrew text.

Aramaic seems to be the original Hebrew dialect according to the Greek New Testament. I have surmised that Koine Greek and Greek in general originated in Babylon. Why mention Aramaic script unless the alpha-beta is different? What is called Aramaic script is not different from Hebrew script.

You make such huge and sweeping claims 7th. This is another one that would require a lifes work, probably the lifes work of several people,, to even begin to justify, and you just casually drop it into the convo.

What basis do you have for the belief that Greek originated in Babylon?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Yet even if 'elohim' has a plural nuance, it would seem most Jewish rabbis interpret this passage as being 'God' speaking to the company of angels around him (or a heavenly tribunal, or plural 'audience' of all creation), when 'us' is implied, since there could be no other 'God' present.

Barnabus said those things were spoken to the Son.

 

[The_drake_]

“I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);18Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc.
(MIDRASH Midrash Tanchuma Shemot, Siman 22)

This is what the LXX originally worded in Genesis 1:26. The NT uses biblical Aramaic syntax, instead of "Biblical" Hebrew syntax.

This important, because he apostles never heard of the word Elohim. Eli is used instead of Elochai for example. Elohim always implies polytheism, and we have examples of the word elim in the OT, though elin is the likely original plural form. Elohim is also used plurally without the singular form eloah. The LXX doesn't use a plural form of theos for YHWH. It just uses theos.

The Hebrew text including the Dead Sea Scrolls after the fall of the 2nd temple during the Barkochba period is certainly not inerrant.

Does this hold true for 3 22? It is quite clear from that he is including himself with the elohim, to whom he is speaking.

 

[The_drake_]

Yet even if 'elohim' has a plural nuance, it would seem most Jewish rabbis interpret this passage as being 'God' speaking to the company of angels around him (or a heavenly tribunal, or plural 'audience' of all creation), when 'us' is implied, since there could be no other 'God' present. So in a beginning of creation, there is only YHWH and his hosts. Of course trinitarians assume this is 'God' speaking to his other two selves or divine personalities

Other interpretations are possible. I have no problem with 'Elohim' in its plurality, for any word is interpreted by its innate meaning and context wherever it is used, it will be nuanced accordingly. 'God' remains one no matter how many personalities or personifications we divide The One into
Wonderful commentaries on the glories and mystery of the Trinity exist, from traditional and unorthodox sources as well,...yet the singular, exclusive and special IDentity of 'God' is still at heart, 'monotheistic'. The Shema forever holds


o-----o​

Psalm 82. At least one psalmist believes God does address the the angels in this fashion. See Michael Heiser for more. He goes on about it quite a bit.

Reasonably speaking, it is hard to say angels aren't lesser gods by the standards of other religions, they check all the boxes for what makes a god a god in any other religion.

But they aren't because the Christian God is a different sort of being than had ever been conceived of prior to that point, far more transcendent.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Psalm 82. At least one psalmist believes God does address the the angels in this fashion. See Michael Heiser for more. He goes on about it quite a bit.

Reasonably speaking, it is hard to say angels aren't lesser gods by the standards of other religions, they check all the boxes for what makes a god a god in any other religion.

But they aren't because the Christian God is a different sort of being than had ever been conceived of prior to that point, far more transcendent.

Freelght is ever learning never able to come to the truth.

 

[freelight]

Psalm 82. At least one psalmist believes God does address the the angels in this fashion. See Michael Heiser for more. He goes on about it quite a bit.

Reasonably speaking, it is hard to say angels aren't lesser gods by the standards of other religions, they check all the boxes for what makes a god a god in any other religion.

But they aren't because the Christian God is a different sort of being than had ever been conceived of prior to that point, far more transcendent.

Yep, many different views and beliefs exist on the naunce of the plural and how it relates to 'God' who is one

Its always a fun subject. Since in the consciousness of 'God' there is always all potential and actual reality, which includes all things and beings, the plural could include a trinity of divine personalities, cosmic beings, angels, elementals, human souls/spirits, etc.... the whole shebang. Hence he can be speaking in the light of a collective-consciousness which is all-inclusive. In any case, both monotheists, trins and polytheists could have a heyday with it


--------------o