Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is not plural of persons

[cyberjosh]

Anyone have thoughts on the video posted above? Just wondering.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Anyone have thoughts on the video posted above? Just wondering.

Yes, I guess there's a couple of points I could add. First, what scholars have noted about how the 6-day creation account being so in contrast with the creation mythologies of other cultures goes entirely against Jeff Benner's argument.

This contrast is found in everything in the universe being incapable of being worshiped because Yahweh created it. All the elements in the universe are silent impersonal forces brought into existence by the divine word including, initially, heaven and earth. In several ancient Near Eastern theogonies 'heaven and earth' are the first primordial divine pair who give birth to all the other gods. No such thing is taking place in Genesis. They are but part of the fabric of the universe and nothing more. For Yahweh to consult heaven or earth in any way that might suggest they are living beings runs totally against the conscious, anti-pagan character of the passage itself.

Then of course he combines the creating of man from the ground in the second chapter with the account in the first. You already know my thoughts on that (two different accounts), but ignoring that I think the above is just as decisive. His interpretation is forced, in my opinion.


Finis,
Eric

 

[JudaicChristian]

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

Very well said wavy. Also God gives His personal name as Yah which is singular.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Anyone have thoughts on the video posted above? Just wondering.

~Josh

I thought the video was exellent. Thanks for posting it.

 

[cyberjosh]

Anyone have thoughts on the video posted above? Just wondering.

Yes, I guess there's a couple of points I could add. First, what scholars have noted about how the 6-day creation account being so in contrast with the creation mythologies of other cultures goes entirely against Jeff Benner's argument.

This contrast is found in everything in the universe being incapable of being worshiped because Yahweh created it. All the elements in the universe are silent impersonal forces brought into existence by the divine word including, initially, heaven and earth. In several ancient Near Eastern theogonies 'heaven and earth' are the first primordial divine pair who give birth to all the other gods. No such thing is taking place in Genesis. They are but part of the fabric of the universe and nothing more. For Yahweh to consult heaven or earth in any way that might suggest they are living beings runs totally against the conscious, anti-pagan character of the passage itself.

Then of course he combines the creating of man from the ground in the second chapter with the account in the first. You already know my thoughts on that (two different accounts), but ignoring that I think the above is just as decisive. His interpretation is forced, in my opinion.


Finis,
Eric

I think you make an excellent point there. Thank you for that.

Aside from my occasional interpretive differences of opinion I have with Jeff Benner I have the utmost respect for the man. You cannot beat the work he is doing for the lay person to help people learn ancient Hebrew and promote ancient hebrew culture. He is a very down to earth guy (he is by profession an engineer, even) but he has made for himself a secondary career in Hebrew (for almost 10 years now) and is the author of many books and (as I'm sure you've seen by now) the creator and owner of http://www.ancient-hebrew.org. His "about" pages here and here (has Hebrew word studies as well) are very interesting. Have you seen Mr. Benner's mechanical translation site? That is the main page, and an example of his translation is here. You might notice the lowercase words Benner writes, concatenated by tildes (~), to supply the sense and construction of the root words which are written in Caps (including tenses, relationships such as "possessive" words, etc.) to supply as accurately as possible the nuance of the Hebrew into English. The translation is interlinear and also has the "mechanical translation" beside it.

Jeff Benner gave me a digital copy of his mechanical translation of Genesis for assisting (relatively little I might add, on my part) on his initial translation project. I have enjoyed reading it and have noticed some new themes in Genesis 1-2 because of the translation, namely four different words that basically express "life". I am contemplating buying a copy of his M.T. of Exodus. He will complete the entire Penateuch eventually and then come back to update his lexicon (I have his first version which is already a few versions/updates behind). The lexicon is essential to understanding where the words in his mechanical translation come from, as they come directly from the lexicon. Anyway, you might like to read some of Benner's books. Despite my occasional differences of opinion about how he interprets the meaning of a Hebrew word in his lexicon sometimes, it blows Strong's out of the water and is the next best thing to getting an intensive professional lexicon or getting into something with the technical depth of Gesenius. He organizes words in his lexicon into a tree structure of root-derivative relationships which is incredibly handy when trying to derive a word or find similar words. Check it out if you haven't before.

Regards,

~Josh

 

[follower of Christ]

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.

Uh...actually if its showing that it was used for multiple other 'gods' then it would very much so show the Trinity concept since 'God' in the scriptures is "one' God.
Im not taking your word for anything but *IF* what youve said is accurate then 1 Kings using 'elohim' to speak about any number of 'gods' does a fine job of helping prove that there is more to the 'One God' in Genesis than meets the eye.

Thanks for pointing that one out, Ill check the details and if its what you claim it'll be a fine addition to my Trinity article by showing that 'elohim' WAS used to describe something beyond a single faceted god.

.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

If God was speaking to the angelic host when he said "Let us make man in our image," you'd think He was expecting the angels to participate. After all, when God commands, the angels obey. I don't think anyone could prove the angels helped God create man - nor would anyone want to. Therefore, this seems like a nonsense statement by God if it weren't directed to the other members of his tri-une nature

Are angels made in God's image? I don't think so. There is a sense in this verse that God is doing something new when creating man - with a fuller image-likeness of God's creative power, emotional components, and reasoning ability then the angels enjoyed. Otherwise, you could imagine God stating "Let us make man in our image - you know just how we made the angels, except this time without wings."

To say that God was speaking in the majestic sense of "us" as used by later kings seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Was God copying the vernacular of a future generation? God didn't get this "us" idea from man - man got it from God - even if they didn't have the slightest idea of how God was using the term.

 

[wavy]

The 'us' language is perfectly intelligible in a theological milieu where there existed a council of heavenly beings, in this case with Yahweh at their head (cf. Ps lxxxii // 1Kg xxii.19-22) These other beings are merely addressed, included because they also represent the divine image, but Yahweh executes the act alone.

I don't agree with the 'majestic plural' interpretation. There is no need to. But your objection to it doesn't work. It wouldn't be as if God wrote the account himself and in the Hebrew language. The account is recorded using the concepts and expressions available to the writer which made the best sense to him.


Finis,
ELB

If God was speaking to the angelic host when he said "Let us make man in our image," you'd think He was expecting the angels to participate. After all, when God commands, the angels obey. I don't think anyone could prove the angels helped God create man - nor would anyone want to. Therefore, this seems like a nonsense statement by God if it weren't directed to the other members of his tri-une nature

Are angels made in God's image? I don't think so. There is a sense in this verse that God is doing something new when creating man - with a fuller image-likeness of God's creative power, emotional components, and reasoning ability then the angels enjoyed. Otherwise, you could imagine God stating "Let us make man in our image - you know just how we made the angels, except this time without wings."

To say that God was speaking in the majestic sense of "us" as used by later kings seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Was God copying the vernacular of a future generation? God didn't get this "us" idea from man - man got it from God - even if they didn't have the slightest idea of how God was using the term.

 

[follower of Christ]

Its sort of amazing that this debate even goes on as if scripture hasnt already answered it.

Who Created in the beginning ?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God did.

For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins. who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
(Colossians 1:13-17 MKJV)

Huh....all things were created in Him...all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible..all things were created THROUGH him and for Him.
Who is 'Him' in this passage ?
Sure sound like 'His dear Son' to me.

Like it or not folks, Jesus WAS there in the beginning and DID participate in the creation.

Genesis shows that GOD created.
Together with Colossians shows that Jesus MUST be God since He participated in the creation.

Nuff said.

.

 

[wavy]

Its sort of amazing that this debate even goes on as if scripture hasnt already answered it.

Except that any notion is a 'dear son' i.e. Jesus is entirely absent from the account and irrelevant to the original context.

Finis,
Eric

 

[follower of Christ]

Its sort of amazing that this debate even goes on as if scripture hasnt already answered it.

Except that any notion is a 'dear son' i.e. Jesus is entirely absent from the account and irrelevant to the original context.

Finis,
Eric

No, you claim that Jesus is absent, friend.
Since you werent there you arent in a position to claim that a truine God did not create it all.
And since WE believe the scriptures, not you, WE will take the word of those scriptures that Jesus WAS present at creation. Your agreement simply is not required in the matter

 

[follower of Christ]

Looking at the scriptural details again...

Its sort of amazing that this debate even goes on as if scripture hasnt already answered it.

Who Created in the beginning ?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God did.

For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins. who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
(Colossians 1:13-17 MKJV)

Huh....all things were created in Him...all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible..all things were created THROUGH him and for Him.
Who is 'Him' in this passage ?
Sure sound like 'His dear Son' to me.

Like it or not folks, Jesus WAS there in the beginning and DID participate in the creation.

Genesis shows that GOD created.
Together with Colossians shows that Jesus MUST be God since He participated in the creation.

Nuff said.

.

 

[wavy]

No, you claim that Jesus is absent, friend.
Since you werent there you arent in a position to claim that a truine God did not create it all.
And since WE believe the scriptures, not you, WE will take the word of those scriptures that Jesus WAS present at creation. Your agreement simply is not required in the matter

The triune God may have created it all and Jesus may have been there. But Genesis does not express this itself. Unfortunately it seems your exegesis isn't sophisticated enough to understand the difference.


Finis,
Eric

 

[follower of Christ]

The triune God may have created it all and Jesus may have been there. But Genesis does not express this itself.

Nor is it required to.
Colossians tells us all we need to know about the matter ;)

Unfortunately it seems your exegesis isn't sophisticated enough to understand the difference.

How about keeping your personal remarks to yourself :yes
My method is sophisticated enough to know to read the ENTIRE bible, not just bits and pieces and then pretend Im in a position to teach others ;)

 

[wavy]

Nor is it required to.
Colossians tells us all we need to know about the matter ;)

How about keeping your personal remarks to yourself :yes
My method is sophisticated enough to know to read the ENTIRE bible, not just bits and pieces and then pretend Im in a position to teach others ;)

I would contend that method is actually on the naive side of things. But that's irrelevant. Even if one read the 'ENTIRE bible' as a unit that doesn't mean Colossians is interpreting the 'us' passages in Genesis. What you didn't consider is that they could be expressing two entirely different concepts. Therefore, your method is flawed.


Finis,
Eric

 

[JudaicChristian]

Looking at the scriptural details again...

Its sort of amazing that this debate even goes on as if scripture hasnt already answered it.

Who Created in the beginning ?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God did.

[quote:tgqpqnks]For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins. who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
(Colossians 1:13-17 MKJV)

Huh....all things were created in Him...all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible..all things were created THROUGH him and for Him.
Who is 'Him' in this passage ?
Sure sound like 'His dear Son' to me.

Like it or not folks, Jesus WAS there in the beginning and DID participate in the creation.

Genesis shows that GOD created.
Together with Colossians shows that Jesus MUST be God since He participated in the creation.

Nuff said.

.[/quote:tgqpqnks] Who is the "Him?" Elohiym or Yahshua? Him is singular, and "they" would be plural.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Elohyim,

You think "Let us make man" makes sense if the angels were not expected to participate, nor had they the power to do so?

If you said "Let us go get pizza" you would expect others to come with you.

The angels are nothing when compared to God. They can't be lumped into a "divine assembly" with God where God is the chief representative. That would be like the president of the US holding a handful of slugs and saying "Let us veto this bill" as if the slugs were a part of his entourage. The angels are nothing and have nothing that God did not give to them.

I wonder, do you think that God gave the "main ideas" to the writers of the Old Testament and expected them to use the language that fitted best? Or did He give them each and every exact word to write down?

I would think that with the importance of what God was conveying, He would leave nothing to expositor error, and give the writers the exact wording He wanted used.
That's my opinion.

 

[follower of Christ]

I would contend that method is actually on the naive side of things. But that's irrelevant.

Youre right, it is irrelevant. so much so that I really dont care about the opinion whatsoever.
I dont study Genesis alone as some here may do.
I study the ENTIRE word of God so I understand the WHOLE picture.

Genesis is a VERY limited historical account, it wasnt meant to give as much detail as you are demanding.
Colossians fills in some of the blanks and lets us know that Christ WAS there.
I dont remember saying, gent, that Genesis was a complete picture of the the creation account as you seem to be implying that I may have.

Even if one read the 'ENTIRE bible' as a unit that doesn't mean Colossians is interpreting the 'us' passages in Genesis.

Firstly I dont remember making any such statement.
How about you let ME say whats on MY mind here and not speak for me

Secondly, and again, Genesis is a very short narrative, it didnt need to go into as much detail as you are demanding from it.

Thirdly, if a word is used that CAN be plural, and we KNOW Christ was there, then yes, it can be assumed that when Genesis says 'let US make man in OUR image' that odds are it IS a truine God speaking seeing that angels dont create anything. ;)

And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'
(Genesis 1:26 YLT)

see the attachment HERE .

What you didn't consider is that they could be expressing two entirely different concepts. Therefore, your method is flawed.

Sorry but I read more than just genesis, gent.
What they could be and what they are isnt the same thing.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Elohyim,

You think "Let us make man" makes sense if the angels were not expected to participate, nor had they the power to do so?

If you said "Let us go get pizza" you would expect others to come with you.

The angels are nothing when compared to God. They can't be lumped into a "divine assembly" with God where God is the chief representative. That would be like the president of the US holding a handful of slugs and saying "Let us veto this bill" as if the slugs were a part of his entourage. The angels are nothing and have nothing that God did not give to them.

I wonder, do you think that God gave the "main ideas" to the writers of the Old Testament and expected them to use the language that fitted best? Or did He give them each and every exact word to write down?

I would think that with the importance of what God was conveying, He would leave nothing to expositor error, and give the writers the exact wording He wanted used.
That's my opinion.

In Hebrew and Aramaic there is such a thing as a "WE" imperfect, also known as the "Royal we."

 

[follower of Christ]

In Hebrew and Aramaic there is such a thing as a "WE" imperfect, also known as the "Royal we."

Thats all well and nice, but it doesnt nullify Colossians which PROVES that Jesus WAS there and DID participate in the creation

So you cannot say with any certainty that 'we' and 'us' was NOT because of the nature of our triune God, Im afraid.