Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben Avraham]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I'll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, "Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

Let's take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham's name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural but of the object or "many nations."

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben

 

[Tumah]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I'll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, "Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

Let's take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham's name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural but of the object or "many nations."

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben

1. The verse does not say "Eloh-m bara et hashamayim". It says "bara Eloh-m et hashamayim". I'm sure that was obvious to you last time you read the Hebrew.

2. Abraham is not a good example whatsoever. The word elohim is considered to be plural because the last two letters "im" make the suffix that renders a masculine word into plural. That's why it is also used as the plural word when speaking about false gods. As in the phrase "elohim acherim" "other gods", the word "other" is rendered into the plural because the subject "elohim" is in the plural.

Abraham is a contraction of the phrase "AV [RA] HAMon goyim". As a single word, it doesn't have any meaning. It also doesn't have anything indicating it should be understood to be plural. Aside from the fact that the subject in the phrase is "AV" meaning "father", not "fathers".

3. The singular of Eloh-m is Elo-ah. You can find it in Deut. 32:17, Job 11:5, 19:6, 22:12 and 27:3.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, "Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

I'm unfamiliar with Hebrew. In English, however, we can have this statement: "Everyone is happy." The verb is singular and the subject is singular, but is clearly referencing multiple subjects. Does this apply to Elohim?

 

[wizanda]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

What a mess of theology....

Originally YHVH elohim is a member of a council of Gods (Elohim), with EL as the ultimate creator; then slowly Rabbinic Judaism has changed its meanings, even if the Tanakh stated otherwise.

Judaism was originally henotheism, and trying to make it monotheistic, goes against everything within the text, to suit an agenda.

There is also Yeshuat Eloheinu in Isaiah 52:10, so the suffering Servant was also an Elohim.

Yet don't let me spoil your fun against Christianity, it isn't like I'm also an Elohim (angel/avatar) sent before the Tribulation.

 

[Tumah]

What a mess of theology....

Originally YHVH elohim is a member of a council of Gods (Elohim), with EL as the ultimate creator; then slowly Rabbinic Judaism has changed its meanings, even if the Tanakh stated otherwise.

There is nowhere in that Psalm where the Tetragrammaton is mentioned.

Judaism was originally henotheism, and trying to make it monotheistic, goes against everything within the text, to suit an agenda.

Whatever.

There is also Yeshuat Eloheinu in Isaiah 52:10, so the suffering Servant was also an Elohim.

The "t" suffix means, "of". Those words mean, "the salvation of our G-d". Just like in the Psalm you alluded to above where it says "Adat E-l" the "t" suffix also means "of".

Yet don't let me spoil your fun against Christianity, it isn't like I'm also an Elohim (angel/avatar) sent before the Tribulation.

Don't let me spoil your fantasy world though.

 

[wizanda]

There is nowhere in that Psalm where the Tetragrammaton is mentioned.

Well spotted, yet that is the concept we find across the Tanakh, YHVH Elohim was given Israel by EL originally.

The "t" suffix means, "of". Those words mean, "the salvation of our G-d".

Thank you was aware....

There are two references to Yeshuat Eloheinu, both in context of Yeshua as the servant sent to fulfill the marvelous work of the lord....

The other is Psalm 98:3, which is also referring to him being the right arm of the lord, which people shall see.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I'm unfamiliar with Hebrew. In English, however, we can have this statement: "Everyone is happy." The verb is singular and the subject is singular, but is clearly referencing multiple subjects. Does this apply to Elohim?

No, Kelly, it does not. When one says, "Elohim is happy" he or she is describing his or her own mood. Elohim is a Conscious Spirit. Spirits are incorporeal. There is no emotional feeling in incorporeality.

 

[Ben Avraham]

What a mess of theology....

Originally YHVH elohim is a member of a council of Gods (Elohim), with EL as the ultimate creator; then slowly Rabbinic Judaism has changed its meanings, even if the Tanakh stated otherwise.

Judaism was originally henotheism, and trying to make it monotheistic, goes against everything within the text, to suit an agenda.

There is also Yeshuat Eloheinu in Isaiah 52:10, so the suffering Servant was also an Elohim.

Yet don't let me spoil your fun against Christianity, it isn't like I'm also an Elohim (angel/avatar) sent before the Tribulation.

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel if you read Psalm 44:10-27 which is the explanation in the plural as a People of the sufferings of His Servant Israel in Isaiah 53. Again, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21, the Suffering Servant is identified as Israel aka Messiah ben Yoseph who was rejected by HaShem so that Judah aka Messiah ben David be confirmed as the only one to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Psalm 78:67-70)

 

[Tumah]

Well spotted, yet that is the concept we find across the Tanakh, YHVH Elohim was given Israel by EL originally.

Ex. 6 has all three names from Psalm 82 attributed to one subject. "And Eloh-m spoke to Moses...I am YHVH... and I appeared ... with [the Name] E-l Sh-ddai"

As of course I'm sure you're aware.

Thank you was aware....

Of course you were.

There are two references to Yeshuat Eloheinu, both in context of Yeshua as the servant sent to fulfill the marvelous work of the lord....

The other is Psalm 98:3, which is also referring to him being the right arm of the lord, which people shall see.

So since you are aware, I'm sure you're also aware that the "t" suffix is a common grammatical suffix that changes feminine nouns into the construct state and that this grammatical form is not found on a proper noun in the entire Tanach.

And I'm sure you're also aware, that according to that rule, the spelling of the word "Yeshuat" not in that grammatical state would properly be ישועה, a feminine noun meaning 'salvation'. Distinct from the proper noun יהושע and its Aramaic counterpart ישוע.

So is there any evidence or support that you'd like to bring that despite conventional grammar and vocabulary, these two verses are in fact talking about Jesus and not salvation? Or would you like to ask a mod to move this to the fantasy literature section?

 

[Tumah]

No, Kelly, it does not. When one says, "Elohim is happy" he or she is describing his or her own mood.

I can tell you don't follow conventional Judaism, because then you wouldn't have raised any pigs to get all that hogwash from.

 

[wizanda]

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel if you read Psalm 44:10-27

That matches none of the criteria specified within Isaiah 53; Israel clearly isn't the suffering servant, they weren't bruised for anyone's sins, they weren't put to death, through their knowledge they're not turning people to righteousness, etc....

Also Psalm 44 doesn't link with Isaiah 53 with any of the specifications within it, other then wishful thinking that you're a suffering people.

if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21, the Suffering Servant is identified as Israel

Isaiah 41:8 “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham my friend....

That specifies Jacob (Israel) the son of Abraham, not the people of Israel.

Isaiah 44:1-2, 21 Also all refer to Jacob by name....

It seems someone clearly can't read specifications set out by what a text says.

As of course I'm sure you're aware.

Yes, was aware of the verse, and that YHVH Elohim states he is EL to Moses, and open to questioning it.

these two verses are in fact talking about Jesus and not salvation?

They're talking about both, Yeshua means salvation, and was sent with a message of what is required for salvation; yet afterwards this all got corrupted into a covenant with death, as Isaiah stated would happen, to establish a snare to remove the workers of iniquity.

 

[turbopro]

1. The verse does not say "Eloh-m bara et hashamayim". It says "bara Eloh-m et hashamayim". I'm sure that was obvious to you last time you read the Hebrew.

2. Abraham is not a good example whatsoever. The word elohim is considered to be plural because the last two letters "im" make the suffix that renders a masculine word into plural. That's why it is also used as the plural word when speaking about false gods. As in the phrase "elohim acherim" "other gods", the word "other" is rendered into the plural because the subject "elohim" is in the plural.

Abraham is a contraction of the phrase "AV [RA] HAMon goyim". As a single word, it doesn't have any meaning. It also doesn't have anything indicating it should be understood to be plural. Aside from the fact that the subject in the phrase is "AV" meaning "father", not "fathers".

3. The singular of Eloh-m is Elo-ah. You can find it in Deut. 32:17, Job 11:5, 19:6, 22:12 and 27:3.

Thanks for the elucidation/clarity.

Words and their endowed meaning(s) are so important for understanding.

cheers

 

[Tumah]

Yes, was aware of the verse, and that YHVH Elohim states he is EL to Moses, and open to questioning it.

And Balaam says it as well.

They're talking about both, Yeshua means salvation, and was sent with a message of what is required for salvation; yet afterwards this all got corrupted into a covenant with death, as Isaiah stated would happen, to establish a snare to remove the workers of iniquity.

Your response is suffering from a decided glaring lack of 'proof' and 'support'.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, Kelly, it does not. When one says, "Elohim is happy" he or she is describing his or her own mood. Elohim is a Conscious Spirit. Spirits are incorporeal. There is no emotional feeling in incorporeality.

If it cant' be plural, then how can it be singular

 

[Tumah]

Thanks for the elucidation/clarity.

Words and their endowed meaning(s) are so important for understanding.

cheers

Just to clarify, I don't disagree with the premise that Eloh-m when its used to refer to G-d is meant to be understood in the singular. The grammatical context clearly indicates that as it always constructs verbs attached to it in the singular when it refers to G-d.

I just don't think that because the premise is correct we can make up anything we want and state it as fact.

 

[Ben Avraham]

That matches none of the criteria specified within Isaiah 53; Israel clearly isn't the suffering servant, they weren't bruised for anyone's sins, they weren't put to death, through their knowledge they're not turning people to righteousness, etc....

I am going to do something here about Israel that you cannot do with Jesus. Israel, the Suffering Servant was bruised by the sins of Judah when HaShem rejected Israel and confirmed Judah to remain as the only People before the Lord forever. That's in Psalm 78:67-70. Show me at least that much about Jesus. You can't because all you have about him are empty assumptions as if he was the only Jew to be crucified by the Romans. According to Josephus, thousands of Jews were crucified in the same manner as Jesus was.

Also Psalm 44 doesn't link with Isaiah 53 with any of the specifications within it, other then wishful thinking that you're a suffering people.

Psalm 44:10-27 is the perfect counterpart analogy in the plural with Isaiah 53 in the singular. But this must not be a problem because "Israel is My Son" said the Lord, in the singular and it is not Jesus but Israel. (Exodus 4:22,23)

Isaiah 41:8 “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham my friend....

Did you know that Jacob's name was changed into Israel by HaShem Himself when Jacob was fighting with that angel in a dream/vision in his way back from Padan-Aram? (Genesis 32:28,29) What's the problem, are you frustrate that Jesus' name was not changed into Israel? Sorry!

That specifies Jacob (Israel) the son of Abraham, not the people of Israel.

I am not going to comment on that one because it sounds too racist and I don't want to hurt you further

It seems someone clearly can't read specifications set out by what a text says.

The name is Wizanda.

They're talking about both, Yeshua means salvation, and was sent with a message of what is required for salvation; yet afterwards this all got corrupted into a covenant with death, as Isaiah stated would happen, to establish a snare to remove the workers of iniquity.

That's not what Jesus said. He said that what is required for salvation is to listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31) Now Wizanda, can you see how someone clearly can't read specifications set out by what a text says? That's a personal evidence.

 

[Ben Avraham]

If it cant' be plural, then how can it be singular

Elohim IS absolutely singular. He has never become plural; unless in a dream or vision of the Prophets. (Numbers 12:6)

 

[Desert Snake]

Elohim IS absolutely singular. He has never become plural; unless in a dream or vision of the Prophets. (Numbers 12:6)

We have
Genesis 1:26, noting a 'our'
Also, why use Elohim, then? They could have made it simpler, so why didn't they? And there might be other inferences to plurality Deity reference.

I don't know what the problem is, you think that G-d made people , but not angels?

 

[omega2xx]

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I'll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, "Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

Let's take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham's name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural but of the object or "many nations."

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was absolutely One, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained absolutely One.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is absolutely One and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

Ben

 

[Desert Snake]

Well spotted, yet that is the concept we find across the Tanakh, YHVH Elohim was given Israel by EL originally.

Thank you was aware....

There are two references to Yeshuat Eloheinu, both in context of Yeshua as the servant sent to fulfill the marvelous work of the lord....

The other is Psalm 98:3, which is also referring to him being the right arm of the lord, which people shall see.

Yeshua G-d and savior is all over the OT. Can barely open up the Bible without finding a reference to Him.