Proof of Trinity

[Chopper]

Excellent point. Trying to understand the Spiritual realm from a carnal mindset is a waste of time. Too many other Christians responsibilities that we should be spending our time upon. All will be revealed one day, in the twinkling of an eye and then we will understand. We will understand, and we will see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him.

:amen

 

[Gregg]

God CANNOT sin.

Jesus COULD sin, but didn't.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED in ALL POINTS like as we are, but did no sin.

Therefore , Jesus was NOT God, otherwise He did NOT conquer sin. There would have been no contest.

You are very skilled at manipulating words.

James 1:3 states that God is not temptable [Gk. adjective απειραστος] by evil. This doesn't exclude people and Satan from trying to tempt Him.

 

[Gregg]

God CANNOT sin.

Jesus COULD sin, but didn't.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED in ALL POINTS like as we are, but did no sin.

Therefore , Jesus was NOT God, otherwise He did NOT conquer sin. There would have been no contest.

Heb 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted [Gk. verb form of πειράω] in all things as we are, yet without sin."

The verb translated as 'tempted' here is in the passive voice, which means that Jesus was not performing the action. Someone else performed the action, meaning that someone was trying to tempt Jesus; and that without success.

 

[th1b.taylor]

To me it is the same. How could he still be God and not be divine?

I have never pretended to completely understand the God Head and I cannot pretend to do that now. All I, a servant, have to present is what the Master, my Master, has given me. I cannot and I will not pretend to be equal with GTod and say that I can explain all things.

What is here is a matter of faith. Not faith in me and not faith in you but faith in God. Until, and if, God reveals what I have said to be true, you are not liable to believe this. As seekers of God, the best I can ever see folks doing is prayer, study and study of God's Word. And no, I do not have a prepared study for people. This is not some scam and I am not a televangelest looking to get rich.

God bless but I'll not even debate this.

 

[Gregg]

God CANNOT sin.

Jesus COULD sin, but didn't.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED in ALL POINTS like as we are, but did no sin.

Therefore , Jesus was NOT God, otherwise He did NOT conquer sin. There would have been no contest.

There was never a contest between Jesus and Satan, nor will there ever be a contest as such. God is Sovereign. Jesus is Sovereign.

 

[Chopper]

I read the Bible first, prior to reading any Christian literature. Starting at the beginning. Old Testament first. The first sentence presumes the existence of God. One knows right off the frame of reference. The Old Testament clearly presents a God of one person. Yet Christians interpret the New Testament as if it refers to a Trinity of persons in one God. Either the Old and New Testaments contradict one another - or - the idea of a God of three persons is an interpretation, and the New Testament references used to prove a Trinity can be understood in a way that they don't contradict what the Old Testament clearly says.

The Trinity is the primary essential doctrine of Christianity. The choice is simple. Believe it and be a Christian or don't believe it and be a non-Christian. Doesn't really matter whether or not I believe in the God (Old Testament) or the Son of God and his purpose on the earth (New Testament) of the Bible. I can't be a Christian because I think the idea of a God composed of three persons is just a theory, not a fact. Christians, like Evolutionists, think their theory is a fact.

I don't think Christians believe in the Bible. Not really. They believe in interpretations of the Bible. Christian denominations are based on different interpretations. Even their music is based on different interpretations for the most part. Sometimes interpretations of the Bible. Sometimes interpretations of interpretations of the Bible. The Trinity is one of their interpretations. An essential interpretation. Christians are strangely unified regarding the basics of the Trinity interpretation.

Christian denominations are like an exclusive club. One either goes along with the program and believes the interpretations (by-laws) or not be a member. The Bible is just a figurehead. The interpretations and their interpreters have the real authority. I've never been one to belong to exclusive clubs for long. They tend to think way too much of themselves. And that can feed the need for interpretations that solve all problems. Except the problem of exclusivity. That's solved by an action, closed communion or banning. An action based on interpretation. The necessity for such an action is another area that Christians are strangely unified about.

This post is not a rant. I hope it is received in the spirit given. It would be nice to read a profoundly useful response to the concerns presented above. For or against.

Concerning your first sentence, "The Old Testament clearly presents a God of one person". According to the Hebrew text, that statement is not true. The Text says "`In the beginning, elohiym created." The word here for God is PLURAL. Therefore it reads, In the beginning, God's created. Plural suggests Trinity to the great theologians.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Heb 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted [Gk. verb form of πειράω] in all things as we are, yet without sin."

The verb translated as 'tempted' here is in the passive voice, which means that Jesus was not performing the action. Someone else performed the action, meaning that someone was trying to tempt Jesus; and that without success.

Gregg,
Let me say first, it is refreshing to see another trusting God and not hiding behind a keyboard. You look like someone I can enjoy being seated with at the feet of Jesus for a few thousand years or so.

Now, background. I grew as an Atheist and did not convert until I was 45, in 1990. In the Army the day after my 17th, I managed, almost all of the 8th grade and in the Service, tested for my GED.

In the second year of my salvation my Pastor, my wife and I all heard the calling of God for me to teach. Brother Clark asked me had I been troubled of God to teach and when I said yes he laughed and told me he had been told that by the LORD and he had been told I and the Deacons Daughter, my wife, were to coteach the Primary's class, 1st thru 3rd.

Deeter, when I told her of the 'dream/vision' had tolod me the same thing Brother Clark had told me. For a Heathen, straight off the stage and int6o Church, that was the class I needed to take to be grounded in the faith by the truth of Scripture.

So it is, I am not a scholar! I am just what I tell folks I am, a student of the Word, teaching the Bible on Sunday Mornings.

God bless and again, welcome.

 

[Chopper]

Gregg and the other new guys:

Instead of standing round mutually back-slapping one another, how about facing up to the GREAT PROBLEM AND PRODUCING SOME KIND OF ANSWER?

The GREAT PROBLEM

God CANNOT sin.

Jesus COULD sin, but didn't.

God CANNOT be tempted with evil.

Jesus WAS TEMPTED in ALL POINTS like as we are, but did no sin.

Therefore , Jesus was NOT God, otherwise He did NOT conquer sin. There would have been no contest.

Therefore, His example was no example at all. His sacrifice was no sacrifice at all either.

He NEVER claimed to be God, but instead said many times, that He was the Son of MAN, and the Son of God - facts which we all know very well.

He did say I and my Father are one - but then He added, regarding His disciples, 'that they may be one EVEN AS we are one. The disciples were not God either. He further stated that His Father was greater than Himself.

So how about an explanation, guys. No matter how lame. I've been waiting for a long time now,.

Do I wait in vain?

Personally, I don't like your post. You have not clearly stipulated whether Jesus is God or not. It sounds to me like you believe that God is one, not a trinity, therefore Jesus is not a part of the essence of God. Why don't you CLEARLY point out your theology, I'm waiting!

 

[Gregg]

Gregg,
Let me say first, . . .

God bless and again, welcome.

Thank you for the kind words. It is wonderful to hear that our Lord has saved a former atheist. Like you I am not a scholar, and I am learning and growing. Where I have misunderstandings about God and the Scriptures, I am confident He will correct me and lead me into all truth.

 

[mondar]

Chessman said,
I know a lot of Trinitarians (am one) but I don’t know any that think there are multiple Gods nor any that think God has other equals. Yet you are saying that’s a Trinitarian view. No wonder you don’t like it, you don’t understand it.

Asyncritus said,
If we have this: (London Baptist Creed), can you explain how this differs from the three gods idea:

Asyncritus, you have been repeatedly corrected on trinitarian doctrine and yet right after chessman corrects you, you again make the same identical mistake? It is not just chessman that corrected you in your misrepresentation of the trinity, I have too, and so have others. Yet you keep on making the same mistake over and over. It is now obvious you are trolling. You are trolling on this point, and also on other points.
I will cut and paste from the creed you quoted. The URL is http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part2
"In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided. "
Also,
"All three are infinite, without beginning, and are therefore only one God, Who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties, and also their personal relations."

The same is true of any trinitarian doctrinal statement.

Now the reason trinitarian theology is monotheistic is because we believe that God is one in essence, nature, and being. Now you most like do not grasp any of the language that is used to define the trinity, but this is not a place for teaching. Most likely you failed to notice that trinitarians never say God is one person. He is one being, one essence, but we differentiate between the concept of a person, and a being.

The question I am asking, and maybe someone can explain this to me, is why does Asycritus keep trolling and saying that trinitarians believe that there are three gods? Is this because he has not defense for his position and he wants to set up a straw man?

 

[Gregg]

The straw man and false premises are here and on many other websites with Christian forums. The M.O. of the arguments are always lengthy, multi-directional, and rest on false premises. When someone does not agree that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, any other argument is fruitless.

The outcome is usually the same: Christians are strengthened in Christ, while the hearts of others are hardened - evidence of God's two edged sword.

 

[Chopper]

Asyncritus, you have been repeatedly corrected on trinitarian doctrine and yet right after chessman corrects you, you again make the same identical mistake? It is not just chessman that corrected you in your misrepresentation of the trinity, I have too, and so have others. Yet you keep on making the same mistake over and over. It is now obvious you are trolling. You are trolling on this point, and also on other points.
I will cut and paste from the creed you quoted. The URL is http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part2
"In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided. "
Also,
"All three are infinite, without beginning, and are therefore only one God, Who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties, and also their personal relations."

The same is true of any trinitarian doctrinal statement.

Now the reason trinitarian theology is monotheistic is because we believe that God is one in essence, nature, and being. Now you most like do not grasp any of the language that is used to define the trinity, but this is not a place for teaching. Most likely you failed to notice that trinitarians never say God is one person. He is one being, one essence, but we differentiate between the concept of a person, and a being.

The question I am asking, and maybe someone can explain this to me, is why does Asycritus keep trolling and saying that trinitarians believe that there are three gods? Is this because he has not defense for his position and he wants to set up a straw man?

I believe you hit the nail on the head, as they say, there is definitely an obstinate spirit with this fellow. Whether on purpose, trolling, as you have mentioned, or just bad theology. What you have just posted is Truth, thank you very much for your input here in this thread. I love the London Baptist Creed. Spurgeon was a great theologian and it always amuses me when folk think they know more than he.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Personally, I don't like your post. You have not clearly stipulated whether Jesus is God or not. It sounds to me like you believe that God is one, not a trinity, therefore Jesus is not a part of the essence of God. Why don't you CLEARLY point out your theology, I'm waiting!

I also would like for him to stop dodging and answer. I have, earlier, made this one for a modalist.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Thank you for the kind words. It is wonderful to hear that our Lord has saved a former atheist. Like you I am not a scholar, and I am learning and growing. Where I have misunderstandings about God and the Scriptures, I am confident He will correct me and lead me into all truth.

He will do that.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Chopper wrote (#246 above):

“Plural suggests Trinity to the great theologians.”

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim,(“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiaeor maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:


Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us:

“...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [‘master’] and baalim [‘owner’, ‘lord’] employed with reference to [individual] human beings.”

The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,

“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

Exodus 7:1 (KJV and Hebrew text) shows God calling Moses "a god" (elohim).　 This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural　oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).

- From my Elohim study posted on my blog.
………………..

So, I’d like to know who the “great theologians” are who believe elohim “suggests trinity,” and are they “greater” than the scholars quoted above (most of whom are trinitarians)?

 

[Gregg]

Async,

Gen 1:26 " και [and] ειπεν [said - singular] ο θεος [God - singular] ποιησωμεν [let Us make - plural] ανθρωπον [man] κατ [according to] εικονα [image - singular] ημετεραν [our own - plural] και [and] καθ [according to] ομοιωσιν [likeness - singular].

'let us make' and 'our own' are plural in the LXX, although they are required by Greek grammar rules to agree in tense with the tenses of God, image, and likeness; of which the latter are singular. This is not correct Greek grammar; nonetheless, it expresses an eternal truth about the oneness of the will of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In Gen 1:27 where it records God's actual act of creating man, the words 'God', 'created', 'own image' are all in the singular form - and would agree with the NT statements that the Son of God is the Creator.

 

[Gregg]

So, I’d like to know who the “great theologians” are who believe elohim “suggests trinity,” and are they “greater” than the scholars quoted above (most of whom are trinitarians)?

Async,

How can you quote trinitarians in your arguments, but yet disagree with their trinitarian theology?

 

[Chopper]

Chopper wrote (#246 above):

“Plural suggests Trinity to the great theologians.”

That the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote “a ‘plural’ of majesty or excellence” is well-known by all Biblical Hebrew language experts and has been known from at least the time of Gesenius (1786-1842), who is still regarded as one of the best authorities for Biblical Hebrew!

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (“long regarded as a standard work for students”), p. 49, shows that elohim,(“God/gods”) is sometimes used in a numerically plural sense for angels, judges, and false gods. But it also says,

“The plural of majesty [for elohim], occurs, on the other hand, more than two thousand times.” And that elohim when used in that sense “occurs in a [numerically] singular sense” and is “constr[ued] with a verb ... and adjective in the singular.”

Gesenius - Kautzsch’s Hebrew Grammar, 1949 ed., pp. 398, 399, says:

“The pluralis excellentiaeor maiestatis ... is properly a variety of the abstract plural, since it sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides possessing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea. It is thus closely related to the plurals of amplification .... So, especially Elohim ... ‘God’ (to be distinguished from the plural ‘gods’, Ex. 12:12, etc.) .... That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:


Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:

“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.” - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].” - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:

“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.” - p. 208.

The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. xxi, July 1905 (Aaron Ember) tells us:

“...elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to the Great God. It ranks with the plurals adonim [‘master’] and baalim [‘owner’, ‘lord’] employed with reference to [individual] human beings.”

The famous trinitarian scholar, Robert Young, (Young’s Analytical Concordance and Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible) wrote in his Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1,

“Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

Exodus 7:1 (KJV and Hebrew text) shows God calling Moses "a god" (elohim).　 This alone shows the error of some that the plural elohim must mean a "plural　oneness" unless we want to believe Moses was a multiple-person Moses!

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.” - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:

“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

And the New American Bible (St. Joseph ed.) tells us in its “Bible Dictionary” in the appendix:

“ELOHIM. Ordinary Hebrew word for God. It is the plural of majesty.” – Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970.

A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ.) declares:

“The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

And the prestigious work edited by Hastings says about this:

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

To show how ancient Jewish scholars themselves understood this we can look at the work of the seventy Hebrew scholars who translated the ancient Hebrew Scriptures (OT) into Greek several centuries before the time of Christ. The Greek language did not use the “plural of excellence” that the Hebrew did. So, if we see a plural used in the Greek Septuagint, it was really intended to represent more than one individual!

So how is elohim rendered in the Greek Septuagint by those ancient Hebrew scholars? Whenever it clearly refers to Jehovah God, it is always found to be singular in number (just as in New Testament Greek): theos ! Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural (in number) noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): theoi or theois (“gods”).

- From my Elohim study posted on my blog.
………………..

So, I’d like to know who the “great theologians” are who believe elohim “suggests trinity,” and are they “greater” than the scholars quoted above (most of whom are trinitarians)?

You went to a lot of effort to produce the findings of non-trinity believers. Just about all Baptist Universities believe in the Trinity. Granted, Elohim can be used in several cases. In Gen. 1 though it is used for plurality, thus the Trinity. I'm not impressed with those who explain away what is clear. I'm Baptist Old School, and make no apology for that. Baptist theology has been recognized in Europe before coming to this Country, as solid fundamental doctrine. The great theologian's were from those areas where the reformation changed the course of Christianity.

 

[Gregg]

a quote from The Complete Word Study Dictionary, G2316, Θεός

"The Sept. constantly translated the Hebr. pl. name Elohim, when used for the true God, by the sing. Theós, God, never by the pl. theoi, gods. The reason for this was that at the time the Sept. translation was made, Greek idolatry was the prevailing superstition, especially in Egypt under the Ptolemies. Their gods were regarded as demons, i.e., intelligent beings totally separate and distinct from each other. If the translators rendered the name of the true God by the pl. theoi, they would have given the heathen under Greek culture an idea of God inconsistent with the unity of the divine essence and conformable to their own polytheistic notions. However, by translating the Hebr. Elohim as "God," they inculcated the unity of God and at the same time did not deny a plurality of persons in the divine nature."

 

[jasoncran]

a quote from The Complete Word Study Dictionary, G2316, Θεός

"The Sept. constantly translated the Hebr. pl. name Elohim, when used for the true God, by the sing. Theós, God, never by the pl. theoi, gods. The reason for this was that at the time the Sept. translation was made, Greek idolatry was the prevailing superstition, especially in Egypt under the Ptolemies. Their gods were regarded as demons, i.e., intelligent beings totally separate and distinct from each other. If the translators rendered the name of the true God by the pl. theoi, they would have given the heathen under Greek culture an idea of God inconsistent with the unity of the divine essence and conformable to their own polytheistic notions. However, by translating the Hebr. Elohim as "God," they inculcated the unity of God and at the same time did not deny a plurality of persons in the divine nature."

this is constant with the name Elohim which is a transliterated word froma aramiac.