Elohim: ‘We’, ‘US’... Singular or Plural GOD?

firedragon · Apr 24, 2021

Vouthon said:
I expected that you would have been aware that I'm referring to the standard scholarly dating for Genesis, which dates its final form as post-exilic to circa. 539-333 BCE, as opposed to to the traditional Mosaic ascription.

Vouthon. If you are looking at it from a completely naturalistic point of view, all you have is that this is a time period that is giving a period that it may have been written after. But that is a hypothesis of scholars.

Think about it. We dont have any extant Hebrew manuscripts prior to the 9th century. Though the script is available prior to that. The oldest Septuagint we have is from the 4th century, and that too begins with the 21st chapter. Unfortunately the Qumran fragments dont have the parts that you would concern yourself of. Thus how could one determine that the text in Hebrew was exactly as we read now in a plural? I am taking a completely naturalistic point of view. All one could determine is that the book of Genesis would have existed in the 1st century BC in some form. But how do you know the exact script this verse was written in?

Taking the same naturalistic approach in your case, according to Lumbard and even his arch rival Wellhausen would date the original Elohist and Yahwist-Elohist writings to the 9th century BC or later. What Hebrew documents do we have to compare with if it is the case? But then again, this is also a hypothesis that would only denote a hypothesised dating of the school of thought, not the actual penning of the exact text.

Soapy · Apr 24, 2021

Vouthon said:
Yes.

One example:

The sentence is rendered by decree of the watchers (angels),
the decision is given by order of the holy ones,
in order that all who live may know
that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals;
he gives it to whom he will
and sets over it the lowliest of human beings.’ (Daniel 4:13-17)

So this should go a long way to show that ELOHIM is a single entity and the ‘Is’ and the ‘We’ that is spoken of us, indeed, sentient, powerful, wise, and intelligent beings (though not self-willed).. to wit: the or more likely, one Angel.

And as I keep suggesting, this Angel sought worship for himself because of the ‘image’ creation in which he participated even though knowing that it would be a sin to seek worship as HA ELOHIM had decreed there should be none. That Angel overstepped his role and this led to his downfall.

My main point being that any tri-Person God would not need to state the act ‘IT’ was about to perform as if a consultation as the trinitarian view is that one thought from any of them is that of all of them... plainly a nonsense as in no other place is any consultation taken place about anything that is to be done... clearly, it would have had to be between two separate and independent beings... and trinity is NOT separate and independent (though Trinitarians will rush to say it is... simply because otherwise it exposes their fallacy!)

Vouthon · Apr 24, 2021

firedragon said:
Thus how could one determine that the text in Hebrew was exactly as we read now in a plural? I am taking a completely naturalistic point of view

The plural form is used in all of our extant copies of Genesis 1:26, including the Masoretic and the LXX. Even the Samaritan Pentateuch, which represents a completely distinct textual tradition of the Torah preserved in that community, renders Genesis 1:26 with the exact same plural:

Gen 1 | SPE | STEP | In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Samaritan Pentateuch - Wikipedia.

Some six thousand differences exist between the Samaritan and the Masoretic Text. Most are minor variations in the spelling of words or grammatical constructions, but others involve significant semantic changes, such as the uniquely Samaritan commandment to construct an altar on Mount Gerizim.

Wide agreement now exists among textual critics that the Samaritan Pentateuch represents an authentic ancient textual tradition despite the presence of some unique variants introduced by the Samaritans.[5]

Targum Onkelos is dated to the early second century CE and it reads:

TgOnk Gen. 1-6

"And the Lord said, Let us make Man in Our image, as Our likeness; and shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every reptile which moveth upon the earth."

Philo of Alexandria's (20 BCE - 50 CE) writings quote a version of this text in his exegesis, for example in On the Creation of the World, using the plural in every instance where he cites Genesis 1:26:

Philo: On the Creation

For he introduces the Father of the universe using this language: "Let us make man after our image, and in our likeness."

There is no translation or direct quotation of this verse, from ancient texts, which has a rendering in the singular - and this is from across the full span of very distinct textual traditions (i.e. Masorete versus septuagint and others like the Samaritan P).

firedragon · Apr 24, 2021

Vouthon said:
The plural form is used in all of our extant copies of Genesis 1:26, including the Masoretic and the LXX. Even the Samaritan Pentateuch, which represents a completely distinct textual tradition of the Torah preserved in that community, renders Genesis 1:26 with the exact same plural:

Gen 1 | SPE | STEP | In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Samaritan Pentateuch - Wikipedia.

Some six thousand differences exist between the Samaritan and the Masoretic Text. Most are minor variations in the spelling of words or grammatical constructions, but others involve significant semantic changes, such as the uniquely Samaritan commandment to construct an altar on Mount Gerizim.

Wide agreement now exists among textual critics that the Samaritan Pentateuch represents an authentic ancient textual tradition despite the presence of some unique variants introduced by the Samaritans.[5]

Targum Onkelos is dated to the early second century CE and it reads:

TgOnk Gen. 1-6

"And the Lord said, Let us make Man in Our image, as Our likeness; and shall have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every reptile which moveth upon the earth."

Philo of Alexandria's (20 BCE - 50 CE) writings quote a version of this text in his exegesis, for example in On the Creation of the World, using the plural in every instance where he cites Genesis 1:26:

Philo: On the Creation

For he introduces the Father of the universe using this language: "Let us make man after our image, and in our likeness."

There is no translation or direct quotation of this verse, from ancient texts, which has a rendering in the singular - and this is from across the full span of very distinct textual traditions (i.e. Masorete versus septuagint and others like the Samaritan P).

What you have done here is, taken all the "attributed time periods" as proven factual dates.

Anyway can show me these that you mentioned?

1. Original or dated manuscript of Philos works to the 1st century BC.
2. Dated manuscript of Targum Onkelos to the 2nd century AD.
3. Samaritan Torah dated any time early.

Please go ahead and provide them.

sojourner · Apr 24, 2021

rosends said:
There are 2 points to make:
1. The word is a singuar or a plural depending on the verb that connects with it (or the nouns it agrees with) and it doesn't even always mean "god" or "gods" (God tells Moses that God will make him an elohim, meaning a judge)
2. The letters yod-mem sofit that people see as a pluralizing ending (though in Hebrew they are not always so) are, and Nachmanides explains, a reference beyond the word, as he sees the words as meaning "master of all other forces". So the pural is pointing out the other forces to which God is superior.

Thank you for bringing a bit of sanity to the thread.

BilliardsBall · Apr 26, 2021

Soapy said:
The Jews were not under any delusion that Yahweh was claiming to be ECHAD!

It is a trinitarian miscue made in an attempt to suggest that ONE means THREE.

The Israelites were living among tribes and nations that believed in, and worshipped, multiple Gods.

Yahweh, the true God, told his favoured nation, that they were not to worship any other God but He.

Yahweh told them that he was to be their ONE and ONLY God.

It’s that simple!

Nothing in the Torah suggests a God of multiple persons and so Trinitarians snatch at every attempt to claim something that is not what was spoken. Profanity is the word to use here.

You can figure that something is not right by the fact that at no time was anything if a multiplicity ever mentioned by Yahweh God concerning his Rulership.

The book of Genesis speaks of Yahweh’s Holy Spirit... but Trinitarians say it is a person in itself. .. Since when does the SPIRIT property of a Being become a person?

Genesis also only mentions Yahweh and his holy Spirit ... this is TWO (If the attempt at the trinity is to be made).... Where is the THIRD person of the weird Math of trinity?

If you argue that it was Jesus who was the ‘US’ and ‘OUR’ spoken by Yahweh then WHY??? Why, if all three are co-equal, co...whatever, does it take a consultation to come to a decision to make man when no consultation was made to make the vast universe and all the plants and animals and other living creatures!!

No... a consultation with ‘Himself’ is not valid.

Yahweh was making a statement, ‘Let us make man in OUR image’.

‘Image’ is personality, traits, power, and authority. And indeed, the angels, (and The Satan in particular) are immensely endowed with personality, traits, power, and authority (but not self-will). Or, Satan specifically, as the SUPERIOR ANGEL, may have had been endowed with SELF-WILL, as many HEAD SERVANTS are even in human societies.

This self-will could by all means be a reason why Satan sinned by demanding that he, too, should receive worship after HE HELPED CREATE MAN.

This, ‘help’, though, only extended to the creation of the BODY of Adam, as it is shown that the body was initially LIFELESS. It was only made a LIVING SOUL after YAHWEH put a living spirit into it.

You may note that even OTHER ANGELS later CREATED LIFELESS BODIES for themselves - but since ONLY YAHWEH can put AN INDEPENDENT spirit into a body (Yahweh is the creator and Father of spirits!) these rebel angels put THEIR OWN spirit into the bodies to enliven them. And note carefully that these bodies were so human-like that they were able to procreate with human females to create the Nephilims.

So it is not beyond the bounds of truth that Yahweh was speaking to [at least Satan] in saying, “Let us create man in our image”.

The main problem in understanding this stems from the sheer terror that Trinitarians get from the thought the angels did ANYTHING during or for the creation.

This is sad because angels, immensely intelligent, hugely powerful, and wonderful servants to Yahweh, are exactly the ‘intelligent tools’ required for such a monumental task.

Do not believe though that I’m advocating worship of angels. Yahweh expressly told us that we should refrain from such things - indeed any Angel that seeks worship is DOOMED to eternal destruction.

So even as the angels aided the creation process, they are NOT MENTIONED explicitly so they are not looked upon or to attract attention such as worship.

I'm getting a few facts from you but--respectfully--mostly a philosophical argument. As a Messianic Jew, I'd prefer to discuss the Hebrew language as used in the Bible, although we could go to things like, say, Jewish litany, where God is above, God has a Son, and the Ruach or Spirit is "Him who is below [on Earth] . . . "

Echad or plural majesty is used for God hundreds of times in the Hebrew scriptures. Echad is clearly, obviously also used in places like Genesis 2, a man and a woman in marriage form a unique plural one-ness from two persons. That is undeniable.

The singular version of one or "yachid" is never, ever used in the Hebrew scriptures, and in context where it appears in the Tanakh, most often means "one, a special, singular SON"!

Regarding your points, it did not take a consultation to create the universe. THE SON CREATED IT (John 1).

The Father is above and beyond the universe, but will be seen wrapped in glory by those who trust the Son and sit with the Son on the Son's throne (Revelation 3)!

I'm not that interested in a "our image" argument, the use of echad and not yachid, the context of yachid, the context of Messianic prophecy, and the context of ancient Jewish thought (trinitarian, plural majesty) is plain enough.

Thank you.

BilliardsBall · Apr 26, 2021

rosends said:
Echad means "one." Sometimes that "one" is made up of parts ("one nation" made up of people, "one household" made up of family members) and sometimes that "one" is purely singular (one man, one pit, one locust, one cherub).

Yachid is used to mean "lone" or "alone" or "lonely."

Great--now let's look at Tanakh--where we have 1,000 arguments for Yeshua and where my Jewish brethren never immediately go in most discussions for what are to me obvious reasons.

RIGHT THERE in Genesis 2, a man and woman in marriage are ECHAD. Two persons, UNIQUELY (especially if as faithful as God has made marriage apart from adultery) are ONE.

Indeed, Paul compares marriage to the unity of Jesus and the church. Yeshua and believers are echad, my wife and I are echad, God, the Son and "Him who is below, the Ruach" are ONE.

rosends · Apr 26, 2021

BilliardsBall said:
RIGHT THERE in Genesis 2, a man and woman in marriage are ECHAD. Two persons, UNIQUELY (especially if as faithful as God has made marriage apart from adultery) are ONE.

Indeed, Paul compares marriage to the unity of Jesus and the church. Yeshua and believers are echad, my wife and I are echad, God, the Son and "Him who is below, the Ruach" are ONE.

You jump to one particular use which, like the English word "one" can be used to label something made of many parts (I have "one body" but trillions of cells - do you consider that "one"?) The water in Genesis 1:9 collects in ONE place (is this a place made of parts? No). In Gen 21:15, Ishmael is placed beneath ONE of the bushes. 22:2 refers to ONE of the mountains. 42:11 -- ONE man. I could go on showing how the word in the text refers to a singular entity or idea, not two.

Soapy · Apr 27, 2021

BilliardsBall said:
I'm getting a few facts from you but--respectfully--mostly a philosophical argument. As a Messianic Jew, I'd prefer to discuss the Hebrew language as used in the Bible, although we could go to things like, say, Jewish litany, where God is above, God has a Son, and the Ruach or Spirit is "Him who is below [on Earth] . . . "

Echad or plural majesty is used for God hundreds of times in the Hebrew scriptures. Echad is clearly, obviously also used in places like Genesis 2, a man and a woman in marriage form a unique plural one-ness from two persons. That is undeniable.

The singular version of one or "yachid" is never, ever used in the Hebrew scriptures, and in context where it appears in the Tanakh, most often means "one, a special, singular SON"!

Regarding your points, it did not take a consultation to create the universe. THE SON CREATED IT (John 1).

The Father is above and beyond the universe, but will be seen wrapped in glory by those who trust the Son and sit with the Son on the Son's throne (Revelation 3)!

I'm not that interested in a "our image" argument, the use of echad and not yachid, the context of yachid, the context of Messianic prophecy, and the context of ancient Jewish thought (trinitarian, plural majesty) is plain enough.

Thank you.

The ‘Son’ did not create anything because he did not exist at the beginning of time (at the creation).

Yahweh created a PHYSICAL WORLD and proposed that a HUMAN BEING should RULE over it. This human Being is whom he call his ‘SON’, in fact, the MOST BELOVED of all human Beings to be (Trinitarians say, Only Begotten, as an agenda point but it simply means the ‘Most Beloved of the Father)

This ‘Son’ must PROVE HIMSELF WORTHY - and Jesus did so.

It’s a ridiculous notion to say that ‘Almighty SPIRIT Jesus’ created a physical world which is a LIMITED realm, and put himself down from an almighty ruler to rule over this limited creation... Thats a DEMOTION OF RANK AND POSITION.

Why?

BilliardsBall · Apr 29, 2021

rosends said:
You jump to one particular use which, like the English word "one" can be used to label something made of many parts (I have "one body" but trillions of cells - do you consider that "one"?) The water in Genesis 1:9 collects in ONE place (is this a place made of parts? No). In Gen 21:15, Ishmael is placed beneath ONE of the bushes. 22:2 refers to ONE of the mountains. 42:11 -- ONE man. I could go on showing how the word in the text refers to a singular entity or idea, not two.

In English, when you say I have "one body", that is an expression of plural majesty? No, it's not.

The issue is, of course, you can show me places in Tanakh where the word is used in one sense while ignoring the other sense. The other issue you're ignoring, of course, is all I've said about yachid not being used for God ever in Tanakh and how yachid is a pointer at a unique SON.

BilliardsBall · Apr 29, 2021

Soapy said:
The ‘Son’ did not create anything because he did not exist at the beginning of time (at the creation).

Yahweh created a PHYSICAL WORLD and proposed that a HUMAN BEING should RULE over it. This human Being is whom he call his ‘SON’, in fact, the MOST BELOVED of all human Beings to be (Trinitarians say, Only Begotten, as an agenda point but it simply means the ‘Most Beloved of the Father)

This ‘Son’ must PROVE HIMSELF WORTHY - and Jesus did so.

It’s a ridiculous notion to say that ‘Almighty SPIRIT Jesus’ created a physical world which is a LIMITED realm, and put himself down from an almighty ruler to rule over this limited creation... Thats a DEMOTION OF RANK AND POSITION.

Why?

Where in John 1 does it say "In the beginning God created than told a human to rule over His creation?"

If He told a human being to rule over creation, doesn't that make Jesus thousands or millions of years old?

You are adding to the Bible's plain explanation in John 1.

rosends · Apr 29, 2021

BilliardsBall said:
In English, when you say I have "one body", that is an expression of plural majesty? No, it's not.

Good thing I never claimed it was "plural majesty". I recognize that some make that claim and I'm curious about testing that claim, but it isn't my position.

BilliardsBall said:
The issue is, of course, you can show me places in Tanakh where the word is used in one sense while ignoring the other sense. The other issue you're ignoring, of course, is all I've said about yachid not being used for God ever in Tanakh and how yachid is a pointer at a unique SON.

You have ignored what the word "yachid" actually means in the text where it IS used. Instead of using a later Hebrew meaning and deciding that because that later meaning isn't used in the text, the meaning is absent, you could easily find that same meaning expressed in other words in the text But you don't like that.

BilliardsBall · Apr 30, 2021

rosends said:
Good thing I never claimed it was "plural majesty". I recognize that some make that claim and I'm curious about testing that claim, but it isn't my position.

You have ignored what the word "yachid" actually means in the text where it IS used. Instead of using a later Hebrew meaning and deciding that because that later meaning isn't used in the text, the meaning is absent, you could easily find that same meaning expressed in other words in the text But you don't like that.

1) Nonsense.

2) Nonsense.

"Yachid": UNIQUE SONS pointing to YESHUA, SON OF GOD:

"He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." " Genesis 22:2
"He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." " Genesis 22:12
"and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares Yahweh, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, " Genesis 22:16
"Now she was Jephthah's one and only [yachid] child; besides her he had no son or daughter." Judges 11:34
"When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only son [yachid] in the sight of my mother, " Proverbs 4:3
"Mourn as for an only son [yachid]" Jeremiah 6:26
"And I will make it like a time of mourning for an only son [yachid]" Amos 8:10
"they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son [yachid]" Zechariah 12:10

rosends · Apr 30, 2021

BilliardsBall said:
1) Nonsense.

Solid argument...

BilliardsBall said:
2) Nonsense.

More brilliant argumentation

BilliardsBall said:
"Yachid": UNIQUE SONS pointing to YESHUA, SON OF GOD:

"He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son,

Except he wasn't the "only" son (he was the second of 2) so the word can't mean "only."

BilliardsBall said:
"He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." "

So Yishma'el wasn't Avraham's son. Got it. Solid argument.

BilliardsBall said:
"and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares Yahweh, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, "

Third time's a charm I guess. Still, Yitzchak was not the only son, so the word "yachid" can't mean "only" unless God was wrong.

BilliardsBall said:
"Now she was Jephthah's one and only [yachid] child; besides her he had no son or daughter." Judges 11:34

If the word meant "only" then why would the text have then explained that there was no other son or daughter? Answer, because the word doesn't mean "only" -- it means alone (unmarried) so the text has to add additional information about there being no other children.

BilliardsBall said:
"When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only son [yachid] in the sight of my mother, " Proverbs 4:3

No, "tender and unique". Why would the allegory have him be tender and only? Weird.

BilliardsBall said:
"Mourn as for an only son [yachid]" Jeremiah 6:26

Since the word "son" doesn't appear in the verse, you would be claiming that "yachid" means "only son"? The word means "lone" or "alone". Check the Malbim "שלא נשאר לו בן אחר שיתנחם בו" which means "there remain to him no other sons who will comfort him".

BilliardsBall said:
"they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son [yachid]" Zechariah 12:10

You mean this line?
"and they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born." Notice how "first born" in the same analogy would indicate the presence of others?

So, no, you can't show that, biblically, the word "yachid" means "only." And I can show that God's is described as only using other words. In fact, I have, on other threads. Feel free to start at Dev 4:35.

Now, if you want to assume that th word "yachid" includes an implicit "son" reference, then Psalms 25:16 wouldn't really make sense and the Judges quote, speaking about a daughter wouldn't make sense. Psalms 22:21 would be incomprehensible. Also Ps 35:21. But whatever...

Wandering Monk · Apr 30, 2021

Soapy said:
I have been looking at the suggestion by trinitarian believers that YAHWEH GOD [Ha Elohim] was speaking in the plural of himself when he said he was going to create mankind - that he was not speaking WITH the Elohim Angels.

But I came across something that everyone (most, I presume, given the intensity of arguments) that seems to not take note of.

Here is an anecdote:

A child came to his mother and said, “Mom, I’ve been invited to my friend’s birthday part on Saturday”

“That’s really great”, replied Mom. “Have you thought about what present you are going give them?”

‘Them’? It’s plural ... but ‘Friend’ is singular

Are we to assume that the ‘friend’ is a three-some, Trinity, of persons?

Here are some definitions to get the debate started:

Quotes from: Elohim | Hebrew god:

There are several similarities in ancient Sumerian texts to the Bible, minus the narrative twists, that make me suspect that elohim is actually plural: gods.

There is an interesting story in Sumerian texts that the first man was made from the dust of the earth.

Humans were created to do the work and toil that the gods had previously done. The gods wanted a Sabbath rest, so man was made to toil. The gods 'rested,' but humans had to 'eat bread by the sweat of their brow.'

Soapy · May 19, 2021

BilliardsBall said:
Where in John 1 does it say "In the beginning God created than told a human to rule over His creation?"

If He told a human being to rule over creation, doesn't that make Jesus thousands or millions of years old?

You are adding to the Bible's plain explanation in John 1.

Do you mean that you didn’t read what God told Adam and Eve:

“God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."" (Gen 1:28)

But that is NOT the rulership that I am referring to. In that verse in Gen 1:28, All human Beings rule over all other created beings (Fish, Birds, Land animals, etc).

What I’m referring to is the ultimate rulership of the whole of creation including others of mankind: A King over all.

At present, the holy angels form a heirachially order over the government of creation with GOD as its King governor.

God proposed that a perfect Son from humanity should become King in his place over creation and with other righteous humans as heirachially rulers over governmental offices over creation.

Obviously, this Son would have been Adam as he was CREATED directly by God as Holy, Sinless, and completely righteous, and also would be FATHER of Humanity: From Adam all PROCREATED humans came.

However, when Adam sinned, he lost that place and do events took place that ANOTHER Adam was CREATED to replace the lost Adam - hence Jesus is called ‘The LAST ADAM’.

Jesus, as the Last Adam, remained Holy, Sinless, and completely Righteous, and will become that proposed King over all creation.

And the holy Saints (the Elect, as scriptures call them) will replace the angels as ruling governors over creation under its King.

The ultimate rulership with a holy, righteous, snd sinless human king is a future (at present) event.

BilliardsBall · May 19, 2021

Soapy said:
Do you mean that you didn’t read what God told Adam and Eve:

“God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."" (Gen 1:28)

But that is NOT the rulership that I am referring to. In that verse in Gen 1:28, All human Beings rule over all other created beings (Fish, Birds, Land animals, etc).

What I’m referring to is the ultimate rulership of the whole of creation including others of mankind: A King over all.

At present, the holy angels form a heirachially order over the government of creation with GOD as its King governor.

God proposed that a perfect Son from humanity should become King in his place over creation and with other righteous humans as heirachially rulers over governmental offices over creation.

Obviously, this Son would have been Adam as he was CREATED directly by God as Holy, Sinless, and completely righteous, and also would be FATHER of Humanity: From Adam all PROCREATED humans came.

However, when Adam sinned, he lost that place and do events took place that ANOTHER Adam was CREATED to replace the lost Adam - hence Jesus is called ‘The LAST ADAM’.

Jesus, as the Last Adam, remained Holy, Sinless, and completely Righteous, and will become that proposed King over all creation.

And the holy Saints (the Elect, as scriptures call them) will replace the angels as ruling governors over creation under its King.

The ultimate rulership with a holy, righteous, snd sinless human king is a future (at present) event.

Yes and Jesus is both human and GOD.

Elohim: ‘We’, ‘US’... Singular or Plural GOD?

firedragon

Veteran Member

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est

firedragon

Veteran Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

rosends

Well-Known Member

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

rosends

Well-Known Member

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

rosends

Well-Known Member

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member