Elohiym in Gen 1:1 is not plural of persons

[Anth]

I certainly hope you have something to actually offer here, chap.
So far I see nothing but ad hominems

Follower

Not sure who you are following - likewise, all your cute little winks and simply saying someone is wrong has absolutely no substance. You strike me as a very young person who at best only recently "got religion" and is now excitedly spilling out their Discipleship 101 class. [well, after hitting your profile, I now know that while you seem like a young, immature person - you simply an older person who has never really grown up and learned how to interact in a edifying manner].

Based on the above, I see not one whit of interest in following Christ or His gospel but simply spilling your ideas from your mind. In light of your orientation, I politely terminate my fellowship with you.

BTW - if you do make a decision to seriously follow Jesus Christ - I encourage using the Greek text as your primary source - it will be most helpful.

Best,
Anth

 

[follower of Christ]

I certainly hope you have something to actually offer here, chap.
So far I see nothing but ad hominems

Follower

Not sure who you are following - likewise, all your cute little winks and simply saying someone is wrong has absolutely no substance. How old are you 14, 15??

If it matters (it doesnt), Im well over 40. And you ?

Based on the above, I see not one whit of interest in following Christ or His gospel but simply spewing your ideas from your mind. In light of your unrepentant orientation, I politely terminate my fellowship with you.

Best,
Anth

Great

.

 

[follower of Christ]

So can I assume, Anth, that you have no response to my previous post ?


Getting directly to this particular absurdity...

Anth wrote:
Follower - before you do any exegesis of the text - try reading the Greek first.... There is NO agency in Col 1 in the Greek - the English translators LIED when they translated the prepositions dia and ev as agency.

How about we read more than your two words and see what the CONTEXT shows? ;)
READERS look at the passage yourself and tell us if this is about the Son of God, or not ;)

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
(Colossians 1:12-19 KJV)

Huh...
It SAYS 'Son'...and waddayaknow, it MEANS 'son' :yes

G5207
????
uihos
hwee-os'
Apparently a primary word; a “son†(sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.

Isnt that ironic ?

The passage also says very clearly
"In whom we have redemption through his blood"
Hmmm...now I wonder WHOSE blood it is by whom we have redemption .
Could it be....an 'agent' ;)

And whomever this is is the head of the church...
"And he is the head of the body, the church"
I WONDER who that might be.... ;)

Some here are stuck in a word or two and falsely accuse our translators of being incompetent.

What do you think, Anth....another round of drinks ?



.

 

[wavy]

Well, like I said, my position is not that the plural pronouns are 'majestic plurals' anyway. And no, to my knowledge there is no evidence that Egyptian monarchs ever used so-called 'majestic plurals' since 'the custom of rulers speaking in the plural appeared with the Persians.' (Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1, NY: Abingdon Press, 1952, p. 482; cf. Ez vii.24)

And no, it is not commonly held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (a topic for another time and thread), but there's nothing wrong with the Israelites borrowing concepts and phrases from neighboring 'polytheistic' cultures, including Egypt. In fact, it can be shown that that is exactly what they did all over the Hebrew bible. (examples upon request) There is even a case where Proverbs directly cites an older Egyptian work called the Wisdom of Amen-em-ope.

No scholar disputes borrowing. The debates surrounding such issues are what the Israelites did with what they borrowed, or in other words how they adapted it. (if at all)

Finis,
Eric

Again I can't demand this be truth because how could one know for certain? But if I were to guess - I would say that the "us" in Genesis 1:26 was one of those words that God wanted in there specifically for his purpose, not just so it would sound comprehensible to the writer and the readers (who were strictly monotheistic I might add).

I think it is commonly held that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. (maybe you have research that shows otherwise) If the use of "us" for the Ultimate Power is something he was familiar with, you would have to conclude that he got that idea from Pharoah while living in Egypt. I am not an Egyptian scholar, so I wouldn't venture to say whether or not the Pharoahs spoke in the "majestic we" but that is not the impression I get when I read Pharoah's words in Exodus. But, it seems a stretch that Moses would take any aspect from the pagan Pharoah-god and the polytheism of Egypt and use it to express the story of the One true God.

Just a thought.

 

[glorydaz]

God is more than capable of keeping the Bible exactly as He wants it. :amen

It's simply tiring to hear how the translators lied because the natural man lacks the understanding to discern the truth therein. The Holy Spirit quickens the Word to those who know God...it's called spiritual discernment.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Anth]

It's simply tiring to hear how the translators lied because the natural man lacks the understanding to discern the truth therein.

Because you get tired of hearing it does not make it false.

The fact that many translation contains simply human deception is undeniable for anyone who even knows basis Greek - there are theological orientations that clearly come through many modern texts - not to mention such textual deceptions such as the well known IJn5:7 and the lesser known Mt 28:19.

If you want a pretty sure translation, I would recommend the ASV1901 - they are generally quite true to the original text - more so than any other translation that I know of.

 

[follower of Christ]

Because you get tired of hearing it does not make it false.

Please.
EVERY false teacher that comes thru here has to do the same things. One of which is claims about how wrong the translators all are. Hundreds of them and ALL of them are supposedly wrong. ;)
Sorry but we just arent buying that they got all that all wrong gent.

The fact that many translation contains simply human deception is undeniable for anyone who even knows basis Greek - there are theological orientations that clearly come through many modern texts - not to mention such textual deceptions such as the well known IJn5:7 and the lesser known Mt 28:19.

The Johaninne Comma DOESNT make all the rest wrong, Im afraid.
I have a list of bibles that DONT have the Comma, MOST of my bibles DONT have the Comma, and they ALL show that Jesus is the Word and the Word is God.
So much for that theory.

If you want a pretty sure translation, I would recommend the ASV1901 - they are generally quite true to the original text - more so than any other translation that I know of.

The second thing false teachers do is insist we use THEIR approved bible versions.
Again, no thanks

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I have a quick thought on I Peter 1:20 - the verse that supposedly puts all other New Testament verses about a pre-existent Christ in their place.

"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you..."

I'm not a Greek or biblical scholar, but I would say the "foreknowing" was of the human person of Jesus. This does not negate that the Second Person of the Trinity was present at creation (as verses like Hebrews 1:10 clearly show). The Second Person was not known as Jesus until the incarnation. So no, the physical human Jesus was not at creation - but the Second Person was. Note that the subject of this verse "appears" in the last time - saying He showed up, not that He was created.

A correlating verse is Ephesians 1:3,4

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him

We are currently blessed in Him - just as we were chosen in Him. In both cases Jesus must exist for something to be done in Him - or through Him. That which was foreknown was the details of how God was going to reconcile His creation back to Him - before they fell and needed reconciling.

As Follower of Christ stated, there are many verses that spell out the pre-existent Christ.

 

[boodle]

I thought this thread was about the word Elohyim? What does that have to do with the New testament. I would think it is about the Hebrew word.

 

[boodle]

I thought this thread was about the Hebrew word Elohyim?

 

[follower of Christ]

I thought this thread was about the Hebrew word Elohyim?

It was just another Trinity thread in disguise.
Its just how some folks like to slide the same topic in over and over again when their views are exposed for what they are in one thread, they just come up with a new way of making another thread so the evidence in the previous one is lost. Most folks dont have the energy to keep up with it, so its one way that some 'win' the debate.

 

[boodle]

I thought this thread was about the Hebrew word Elohyim?

It was just another Trinity thread in disguise.
Its just how some folks like to slide the same topic in over and over again when their views are exposed for what they are in one thread, they just come up with a new way of making another thread so the evidence in the previous one is lost. Most folks dont have the energy to keep up with it, so its one way that some 'win' the debate.

I found the original posers proof good. Am I wrong?
What was the original thread that spawned this one?

 

[Free]

I found the original posers proof good. Am I wrong?
What was the original thread that spawned this one?

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42258&start=0

While this is essentially an anti-trinitarian thread, it really is focusing on just the one passage in Genesis.

 

[boodle]

I found the original posers proof good. Am I wrong?
What was the original thread that spawned this one?

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42258&start=0

While this is essentially an anti-trinitarian thread, it really is focusing on just the one passage in Genesis.

If a person is seeking the true meaning of a scripture and it turns out to not support the Trinity (as it was assumed) are Trinitarians to ignore the truth in light of our doctrine? How about instead of saying it is anti-trinitarian thread, we say it is a thread seeking the meaning of a particular verse or word? That would seem more fair to all concerned.

 

[jasoncran]

i beleive free said that because for the past several weeks a few have started like threads and have gotten nowhere, as one in particular person was frustrated that others didnt see it his way and wanted to start a few others.

i have locked some of the those as some here got ugly.

 

[boodle]

i beleive free said that because for the past several weeks a few have started like threads and have gotten nowhere, as one in particular person was frustrated that others didnt see it his way and wanted to start a few others.

i have locked some of the those as some here got ugly.

I do not understand "blocked?" Did you block the poster or the thread? Does blocking the thread mean that no one can post on there anymore? What thread would that be? Can I still read it?

 

[jasoncran]

you may read them i and other mods locked them up they are in either dead threads or the appropriate forum.

one link to one
viewtopic.php?
another one
f=14&t=42258&start=465http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42806

 

[boodle]

you may read them i and other mods locked them up they are in either dead threads or the appropriate forum.

one link to one
viewtopic.php?
another one
f=14&t=42258&start=465http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42806

I tried to open the link you sent me. It said the thread did not exist.
Did you delete it?
I have always believed that if a person has a correct doctrine they should be on the moral higher ground. It seems that it is not an ironclad rule. From what I have read I have seen as much antagonism from the Trinitarians as I have the others.

 

[jasoncran]

let me recorrect that link as yes boths sides have been ugly on the issues thus why it was locked.

 

[jasoncran]

first link
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42258

second one
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42907

i edite this and added the last link.