Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is not plural of persons

[Yahoshea]

There is an unfortunate belief among many Christians that “elohiym†proves the Trinity because it is a plural noun. They go only as far in their research to see the plurality of the word until it fits their doctrine and stop their research.

Allow me to quote Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center ---
“Hebrew plurals can be either quantitative (more than one) or qualitative (great, large, prominent). For example the singular word "elo'ah" means God (or more literally mighty one). The plural form is "elohiym". This plural form can be more than one god or one great god. In fact, in Genesis 1:1 it says "in the beginning elohiym (plural) created...". In Hebrew the verb matches the verb in number and gender and the Hebrew word behind "created" is "bara" literally meaning "he created" (singular masculine). Therefore, the context of the verse will often indicate whether the noun should be translated as a plural or a singular.â€

As is clearly seen above the name elohiym cannot be categorically assumed as plural in number. It must be determined by the context.

 

[wavy]

Though true, if it were not this would only be incidental evidence. The real arguments Christians use for the Trinity are very different. You have to deal with the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all being called 'God' and yet recognized as distinct persons in the New Testament, for example.

Finis,
Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

There is an unfortunate belief among many Christians that “elohiym†proves the Trinity because it is a plural noun. They go only as far in their research to see the plurality of the word until it fits their doctrine and stop their research.

Allow me to quote Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center ---
“Hebrew plurals can be either quantitative (more than one) or qualitative (great, large, prominent). For example the singular word "elo'ah" means God (or more literally mighty one). The plural form is "elohiym". This plural form can be more than one god or one great god. In fact, in Genesis 1:1 it says "in the beginning elohiym (plural) created...". In Hebrew the verb matches the verb in number and gender and the Hebrew word behind "created" is "bara" literally meaning "he created" (singular masculine). Therefore, the context of the verse will often indicate whether the noun should be translated as a plural or a singular.â€

As is clearly seen above the name elohiym cannot be categorically assumed as plural in number. It must be determined by the context.

I worked with Jeff Benner for a few months on his website as a moderator on his forums and an occasional editorial consultant for his lexicon/mechanical translations, so I know where Mr. Benner is coming from. He certainly is right that the context dictates the meaning, and that the plural ending can indeed be qualitative "great God", although there are some indications of actual plurality in number when God says "let us". Mr. Benner has begun to make several dozen videos on youtube (rather professional too I might add) to supplement his teachings from his website and his particular interpetation for the 'let us make man in our image' passage (if I recall correctly) is that God is speaking metaphorically to the creation (the dust, for example - since man was made out of dust) like the metaphorical use of creation in other contexts like "let the heavens witness", personifying the heavens. However, though I don't like disagreeing with Jeff often because he is a personal friend, I sometimes don't agree with some of his interpretations, and this is one of them. A more common interpretation is that God was talking to a pantheon of angels, thus 'us', but I don't buy that interpretation either. Since the original meaning is generally obscure I don't see how you could rule out a theological meaning of the Trinity in that text. And whether or not the Trinity is its primary context when it was written doesn't mean it cannot indicate the Trinity in light of New Testament revelation - as the Apostles' later use of OT scripture in a double sense clearly indicates.

It's certainly up for discussion, but just something to think about.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[wavy]

I'd have to disagree with Jeff about the heaven/earth thing too. (an idea he presumably got from the rabbis) An angelic interpretation is in my opinion the most likely. This is conceivable against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern (and biblical) thought about a heavenly council.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Vince]

The word "God" means "Mighty Ones," and it is plural in Genesis 1, taking a singular verb, because God is both plural and only one. The context has God even saying "Let us," referring to himself. Elsewhere, "elohim" is translated "gods" or "mighty ones," taking a plural verb, when it refers to false gods, demons, or even angels.

The Bible teaches us that "great is the mystery of Godliness." The "Trinity" is a man-made attempt to explain something that God says cannot be explained.

 

[wavy]

Elohim just became a proper name for the god of Israel and a general designation for any single god. The plural component is evidently inoperative when used this way.

The plural pronouns are the language of divine council, not some kind of plural self-reference. This is totally foreign to the Hebrew mind.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Vince]

"This is totally foreign to the Hebrew mind."

Valid point. When Jesus said "I and the Father are one," the Jews correctly understood that He was claiming Deity. They picked up stones to kill Him, stating that "You, being a man, make yourself God."

However, other names for God, such as YHWH and Adone, are singular, taking singular verbs. His name "Elohim" shows His combined plurality and singleness.

 

[wavy]

His name "Elohim" shows His combined plurality and singleness.

No...it doesn't....no matter how many times you say this and there is not a reputable Hebrew scholar alive who would say otherwise.


Finis,
Eric

 

[JudaicChristian]

Elohiym translated means: "God of life,"singular or "God of the Living," plural. Anyway, a plural name does not mean a person is more than one being. Elohiym and Holy Spirit are name titles for Yahwah. The words "Let us" are an interpretation for a Royal "we." See Hebrew Royal "we."

 

[JudaicChristian]

Yahwah means "Life Began." Yahshua means "Life Savior." Interpretation: God's Salvation. It is not known why the name "Yah" means Life. Perhaps it comes from a different language.

 

[Godfrey]

His name "Elohim" shows His combined plurality and singleness.

No...it doesn't....no matter how many times you say this and there is not a reputable Hebrew scholar alive who would say otherwise.


Finis,
Eric

Well, Derek Prince is no longer alive, but I think his academic record probably equals that of anyone on this board:

He was educated as a scholar of Greek and Latin at Eton College and Cambridge University, England, where he held a Fellowship in Ancient and Modern Philosophy at King’s College. He also studied Hebrew and Aramaic, both at Cambridge University and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

And this is what he has to say:

In this very first verse of Scripture, we have two words ending in -im. The word for God (Elohim) and heavens (shamaim) are both plural in form. Furthermore, Hebrew verbs also have a singular and plural form, which should agree with the nouns or pronouns to which they apply. Yet here in Genesis 1.1 we have an immediate conflict of grammar, because the Hebrew for created is singular in form, while the word for God, as already indicated, is plural! Here then is the mystery of the Triune God unfolded in the opening verse of Scripture: in God there is both plurality and unity.
- Derek Prince, War in Heaven

 

[Yahoshea]

I am excited to see some that understand hebrew on tis board.
"Let us" is a difficult passage to understand. I have also heard it was God speaking to Christ down through time. It is not clear either way. Certainly not a clear as scriptures that say He is alone with no one beside him or the hundreds of scriptures that declare he is one.

 

[wavy]

Well, Derek Prince is no longer alive, but I think his academic record probably equals that of anyone on this board:

He was educated as a scholar of Greek and Latin at Eton College and Cambridge University, England, where he held a Fellowship in Ancient and Modern Philosophy at King’s College. He also studied Hebrew and Aramaic, both at Cambridge University and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

And this is what he has to say:

[quote:1tz67520]In this very first verse of Scripture, we have two words ending in -im. The word for God (Elohim) and heavens (shamaim) are both plural in form. Furthermore, Hebrew verbs also have a singular and plural form, which should agree with the nouns or pronouns to which they apply. Yet here in Genesis 1.1 we have an immediate conflict of grammar, because the Hebrew for created is singular in form, while the word for God, as already indicated, is plural! Here then is the mystery of the Triune God unfolded in the opening verse of Scripture: in God there is both plurality and unity.
- Derek Prince, War in Heaven

[/quote:1tz67520]

This is nonsense. And this guy does not represent reputable Hebrew scholarship. Sorry.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

I am excited to see some that understand hebrew on tis board.
"Let us" is a difficult passage to understand. I have also heard it was God speaking to Christ down through time. It is not clear either way. Certainly not a clear as scriptures that say He is alone with no one beside him or the hundreds of scriptures that declare he is one.

No one understands Hebrew on this board, to my knowledge. Except for einstein maybe.


Finis,
Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

I am excited to see some that understand hebrew on tis board.
"Let us" is a difficult passage to understand. I have also heard it was God speaking to Christ down through time. It is not clear either way. Certainly not a clear as scriptures that say He is alone with no one beside him or the hundreds of scriptures that declare he is one.

No one understands Hebrew on this board, to my knowledge. Except for einstein maybe.


Finis,
Eric

I pretend to. I actually am trying to formally learn it though, and I have this standard book for Biblical Hebrew which I am using to teach myself: Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar: Second Edition.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Since Jeff Benner does infact know Hebrew I thought it might just benefit everyone if I posted the youtube video I mentioned that he made:

[youtube:28f7qhfw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LavvpdMPZdw[/youtube:28f7qhfw]

Hope you learn something.

~Josh

 

[(THE)]

There is an unfortunate belief among many Christians that “elohiym†proves the Trinity because it is a plural noun. They go only as far in their research to see the plurality of the word until it fits their doctrine and stop their research.

Allow me to quote Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center ---
“Hebrew plurals can be either quantitative (more than one) or qualitative (great, large, prominent). For example the singular word "elo'ah" means God (or more literally mighty one). The plural form is "elohiym". This plural form can be more than one god or one great god. In fact, in Genesis 1:1 it says "in the beginning elohiym (plural) created...". In Hebrew the verb matches the verb in number and gender and the Hebrew word behind "created" is "bara" literally meaning "he created" (singular masculine). Therefore, the context of the verse will often indicate whether the noun should be translated as a plural or a singular.â€

As is clearly seen above the name elohiym cannot be categorically assumed as plural in number. It must be determined by the context.

I agree,,,,, but I have never heard anyone use Genesis 1:1 to prove a Trinity.......

 

[Godfrey]

I agree,,,,, but I have never heard anyone use Genesis 1:1 to prove a Trinity.......

Well, a plurality rather than an actual Trinity. But v.26 has, I believe, the same mix of singular and plural:

Let us make man in our image

and as man is a tri-une being:

spirit, soul and body - 1 Thess.5.23

that narrows it down a bit.


Anyway, just to show that the idea is not unknown to scholarship:

“This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular…Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward a universalism: “We find in Canaanite an increasing tendency to employ the plural storot startes, and natot naths, in the clear sense of totality of manifestations of a deity’ †(William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2d ed., p. 213). But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2,26). This is further borne out by the fact that the form elohim occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic (Gustav F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 88).†[Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Page 044). Chicago: Moody Press.]

(Found on the net, of course, but I've no reason to suppose the quote is not accurate. The book is readily available and the authors are/were not amateurs.)

 

[wavy]

The TWOT is not cited or used by Semitic linguists or in the scholarly world as a whole. It's essentially an evangelical effort for evangelicals. Their concerns are primarily theological, not linguistic, and they openly admit this. Right from the introduction to the work:

The editors and Moody Press are of the conviction that essential to the right understanding of the theological terms of the Old Testament is a belief in the Bible’s truth. Spiritual things are "spiritually discerned" (I Cor 2:14). Therefore, about thirteen years ago, they enlisted the help of some forty evangelical scholars who would write essay definitions of the important theological terms in the Old Testament that would be helpful to their brothers in the work of interpreting Scripture.

Therefore, I do not regard this as an authoritative source...and apparently, neither does the larger world of scholarship. Further, I assume you quoted this from Glen Miller's think-tank, which goes on to disprove the erroneous assertion that the form elohim does not occur outside of the OT, citing three examples from the cognate language Ugaritic. Further, note the misleading qualification in the entry about the form not being found in 'Biblical Aramaic'...of course never telling you that:

Corresponding forms to elohim are not found in Phoenician but do occur in Aramaic and Arabic.
--Alt, Albrecht; trans. Wilson, R. A. [1966] Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, Garden City: Basil Blackwell, n. 72, p. 38

Why omit relevant linguistic evidence because it's not 'scripture'? Answer: Because this 'wordbook', as said, is not concerned with doing real linguistics. No small wonder this is a virtually irrelevant work out in the open field.

But the final nail in the coffin for these evangelical scholars is that the scripture itself refutes their 'theological' assumptions. 1Kg xi.33 uses elohim for each of the pagan gods it lists...proving that the word isn't some mysterious hint of the Trinity.


Finis,
Eric

 

[Godfrey]

there is not a reputable Hebrew scholar alive who would say otherwise.

Ah, I think I begin to understand. You meant linguistic scholar of Hebrew, or something similar. Whereas I, coming new to a Christian board, assumed something rather different:

Their concerns are primarily theological, not linguistic, and they openly admit this.

So are mine, and so do I. My scholars may not be linguists, but they are scholars nonetheless, and they do say otherwise. Whether Biblical scholars know less about linguistics than linguists know about God is an interesting question.

Which is perhaps the only point I need to make. Apologies for putting you to a lot of unnecessary work. I did find the quote on Glenn Miller’s site, about which I know nothing, I had just Googled for some likely terms; the second emboldened sentence, which you have answered at some length, was emboldened by him, and I should have de-emphasised it. The first sentence But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2,26). was emboldened by me, and was the only point I wanted to make. I did notice his citation of 3 external examples, but I also noticed a bit lower down he seemed untroubled by it.

But the final nail in the coffin for these evangelical scholars is that the scripture itself refutes their 'theological' assumptions. 1Kg xi.33 uses elohim for each of the pagan gods it lists...proving that the word isn't some mysterious hint of the Trinity.

I imagine they were not unaware of the passage.

By the way, is evangelical a pejorative term?