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

[Soapy]

Never claimed a multiple of God but rather a God that is comprised of three parts. Like you and me that have a spirit created from the breath of God, and a soul where God gave us free will and a body so that we can live on this earth, likewise God is comprised of three parts... The Father, The Word and His Spirit.

To be consistent with "them" for a birthday party, it would be inconsistent when YHWH said "Let us make man in our image and in our likeness". The party "them" would not fit.

Let "us" have a cup of tea would include the person along with the doll and not singular.

Hmmm....

I really don’t know what you are saying. Honestly. You might have to rephrase what you said.

But what I THINK you are saying is not within the scope of the discussion. It appears to be bordering on the edge of a linguistic discussion.

Let me draw you back to the OP.... Trinitarians claim that ‘ELOHIM’ proves that the Israelites GOD, and hence the Christian God, is THREE PERSONS because ‘Elohim’ is a plural word.

The first ridiculous aspect is that this necessitates ‘plural’ meaning only Three.

Added to that, when Ha Elohim said, “Let us make man in our image”, why would He be speaking to Himself when He doesn’t do that any other time in any scripture.

And, the ‘image’ referred to is nothing of physicality as suggested by fantasists. ‘Image’ means like ‘Manner’: ‘Love, wisdom, ingenuity, creativity, forethought, forgiveness, husbandry, nurture, knowledge, self-Willed, kingship, righteousness, ....’ It certainly did not mean body, spirit, and Will, which is a bit of a stretch to any mind to claim as ‘Image of God’.

And you will note that these and the other aspects of image of God are also present in angels - except the self-will. Angels are spiritual work tools for God. Hence God told man that they must not worship angels even though angels can do great works that are a wonderment to man. Mankind has used his God-image of creativity and ingenuity to design ‘Angel’ devises and systems to act as his work tools and we have already seen vague signs of man imagining worshipping these devices or at least giving their power and authority to them - sad!

Theres too much to say so I’ve only says a little here.

 

[Soapy]

Elohim is pluralis majestatis. Otherwise Moses being addressed by God as Elohim to pharaoh, must be several if not three people. Moses is one man.

Why do posters ALWAYS BELIEVE that a plural is THREE?

 

[firedragon]

Why do posters ALWAYS BELIEVE that a plural is THREE?

Because they dont have a choice. How else could they justify their theology? And that's what they have been taught by their apologists. They have not been trained to empathise with another language.

Pluralis Majestatis is pretty common in modern day languages across the world. It has kind of died in the English language. Thus, people are not used to it anymore, though it used to be common those days. Especially in England. Our humility must help us empathise with a language. It is not there.

Thats why.

 

[Colt]

Sorry but I did say that. I said that though OTHER RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM have their GODS, the Israelites only ACKNOWLEDGED their own GOD. They only WORSHIPPED their own GOD.

Im not going to refer to dissidents Jews who entered into worship of other Gods because of weakness - YAHWEH God punished them for it - but ultimately the mass majority of those Israelites RETURNED to worship their ONLY GOD.

I’m not sure why you think I said anything else. It’s written throughout the Torah even down to the children of Israel making a golden calf and worshipping that. I’m any cases, because they lived among tribes and nations who made idols to worship, some Israelites were seduced by the glamour and drunken celebratory events that took place. Even Solomon in all his wisdom was bewitched enough to take part and was punished appropriately by Yahweh.

addendum: whenever the discussion comes up about God and Gods, there always someone who comes up with some nonsense argument - what is it about supposed Christian or Jewish posters that drives them to misinterpret simple things written in plan sight.

The greatest of these is the ‘There is no God but YAHWEH’.

This is, of course, true..... if you are Christian or Jewish.

BUT remember, or take note, that belief in Yahweh God is just that - a Jewish and Christian belief. NO ONE has the right to say about another belief system that their GOD is not real: IT IS TO THEM!!!

Therefore, the best we can do is say, as the great apostle said:

• ‘Though there may be many Gods and many Lords, FOR US (Jews and Christians) there is but ONE GOD: the Father, and ONE Lord: Jesus Christ’

So, we are to say that we believe in YAHWEH God and no other.

Even Yahweh said of himself: “I am the GOD of ALL whom are called GODS”.

Yahweh was one of the many Canaanite nature Gods that the Israelites adopted during their 40 stay in the vicinity of the Mount Sini volcano.

 

[Soapy]

Because they dont have a choice. How else could they justify their theology? And that's what they have been taught by their apologists. They have not been trained to empathise with another language.

The language of truth... Agreed.

The angels who rebelled made human-like bodies for themselves... The bodies are vessels did the spirit. But angels cannot create spirits: Yahweh is the only spirit-creator and so the angels entered their own self, their own spirit, into the bodies they created in order to make the bodies living souls - Fathers of the Nephilims.

So we know that angels CAN create bodies. So what is terrible in saying that angels or AN ANGEL had a hand in creating the body of Adam. Adam’s body was not LIVING because Yahweh is the only one who could create and put an independent spirit into it to animate it.

So, though Yahweh said, “Let us create man in our image”, the man created was only made a LIVING SOUL when Yahweh animated it. Thus the man, Adam, WAS created in fullness by an “US”.

Perhaps also why the lead Angel (whom is called, ‘the Satan’) fell from grace by desiring worship from mankind just as his master, Yahweh received worship.

 

[Kenny]

Hmmm....

I really don’t know what you are saying. Honestly. You might have to rephrase what you said.

But what I THINK you are saying is not within the scope of the discussion. It appears to be bordering on the edge of a linguistic discussion.

Let me draw you back to the OP.... Trinitarians claim that ‘ELOHIM’ proves that the Israelites GOD, and hence the Christian God, is THREE PERSONS because ‘Elohim’ is a plural word.

Ok... let me say it differently. No, it isn't just that scripture that brings us to that conclusion but rather a compilation of scriptures as we digest words from God through the prophets. It just so happens it also fits the narrative in the scripture you mentioned and in Genesis.

Is48:16 Draw near to me, hear this:
from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,
from the time it came to be I have been there.”
And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

From the beginning he was there along with the Lord God and his Spirit.

I used the analogy of man because we also are a triune being and, yes, my body speaks to me and at times I speak to my body. Man is a three part being, spirit, soul and body so "we" go together as one man.

Then you have YHWH speaking from a human body to Abraham in 18, where we believe it was The Word in an epiphany.


"Zech2:6 Up! Up! Flee from the land of the north, declares the LORD. For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, declares the LORD. 7 Up! Escape to Zion, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon. 8 For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: 9 “Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me. 10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD. 11 And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 12 And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.”

No fewer than three times in this text, Yahweh (the LORD God) states that he has been sent by Yahweh. Now hang on a minute – Yahweh has sent Yahweh? That’s right – that is exactly what the text says. Here, there are two persons identified by the title of Yahweh. There is simply no way of reading this except through the lens of divine plurality. In light of the New Testament, we can conclude that here the Son speaks of Himself being sent by the Father to dwell in the midst of God’s people."

quote

 

[cataway]

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.

perhaps what you don't realize is God is saying to subordinates "get er done "

 

[Vouthon]

@Soapy

There are a variety of ways an exegete could interpret the use of the plural na‘aśeh adam (literally, “let us make a man,” or “shall we make a man?”) in the first chapter of Genesis, some more plausible and justifiable on the basis of the text than others.

In these verses, the basic grammatical problem is that the plural of Elohim (which can be rendered 'gods' as opposed to just 'God') is combined with an adjective also in the plural in Gen. 1:26: “let us make man, in our image and our likeness”, rather than being matched with or qualified by a verb in the singular as in other instances.

This grammatical construction could variously signify:

(1) Angels:

An address of counsel by YHWH to the other 'elohim', or angels, the subordinate heavenly beings comprising His court, who are referred to independently in Psalm 82:1 "God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment" [as you suggested in your OP] and which surface elsewhere in Genesis as divine emissaries.

Philo of Alexandria and a number of ancient Jewish witnesses favoured this interpretation, including Sanhedrin 38b in the Bavli/Talmud ("The Gemara asks: Why do I need these instances of plural words? Why does the verse employ the plural at all when referring to God? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act unless He consults with the entourage of Above, i.e., the angels, as it is stated: “The matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones” (Daniel 4:14)) the Targum Onkelos (which elucidated Genesis 1:26 in theological terms by interpreting it as God saying "let us make [...]" to the angels that were created by him and that were ministering in front of him) and in the medieval period the Jewish commentator Rashi (1040-1105) as an example of divine humility:

"Although [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel, to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies, Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person [God] should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one [the angels]".

This remains a strong contender in contemporary scholarship for exegeting the meaning of the verse.

(2) To the earth:

An address by YHWH to the earth/heaven, other elements and beings that He has created before adam (i.e. because man is formed from the dust of the earth, in addition to his becoming a nephesh or living soul through being so breathed into by God). Rabbi Nachmanides (1195-1270) favoured this interpretation but it is not supported by modern scholars, as Hasel notes: "the view of a partnership between God and earth in the creation of man finds no support in the OT or in ancient Near Eastern texts. The idea is actually contradicted in Gn 1:27 where God alone is the Creator of the world. It would be also strange that the earth is spoken of in the third person in vs. 24".

(3) Plural of 'self-deliberation':

Whereby YHWH is depicted anthropomorphically as someone in contemplation with himself about the act of creating humanity, which He did not do with the preceding creations of inanimate nature and animals (signifying the unique dignity of the human being, created as His image or earthly manifestation of His power).

This interpretation was first advanced by the church father St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) in his Creation of Man: "This same language was not used for (the creation) of other things. The command was simple when light was created; God said, “let there be light.”…O marvellous! A sun is made, and no counsel precedes; a heaven likewise; and to these no single thing in creation is equal. So great a wonder is formed by a word alone, and the saying indicates neither when, nor how, nor any such detail...For humans, there was deliberation…See how worthy you are! Your origins are not in an imperative. Instead, God deliberated about the best way to bring to life a creation worthy of honour." (Creation of Man 3.2) and enjoys a considerable degree of support today from scholars, such as Westermann.

There is biblical evidence to back up this theory: for example in Genesis 6:6, God regretted creating human beings and the LORD himself held his own heart. In support of this hypothesis, 2 Sam 24:14 is often cited, where David speaks of himself in the plural "let us fall [nippehih] into the hand of the Lord . . . but into the hand of men let me not fall ['eppokih]", although this has also been contested on the basis that: "it can hardly qualify as an explanation that there is a plural of deliberation used in Gn 1:26, because in none of these examples do we find God as the speaker".

(4) Polytheism:

As has been argued by many secular scholars, it could retain a vestige of Canaanite polytheism in an otherwise monotheizing redaction, akin to a later passage of the Torah in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 which, in its earliest attested textual variation from Qumran (circa. first century BCE) that is replicated by the Greek LXX but not the later Masoretic, refers to other nations having gods apportioned to them and may distinguish El Elyon "the Most High" as father from YHWH as a son, thus characterising the latter as one of the elohim of the nations, assigned by El to Israel:

"When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny 'l[hym]). For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance" (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, in 4QDeutj)

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

(5) Plural of fullness and divine co-agent(s) of creation:

According to both ancient Christian interpreters such as the Patristics (St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Basil of Caesarea) and in a refined form a number of modern scholars (i.e. Hasel 1975:58–66), it may be a 'plural of fullness' - whereby the singular Creator is referring to Himself as having some kind of plural aspect within His own nature, such as an emanation of His unitary being acting as a divine co-agent of creation, like one finds in the chokmah or personified Wisdom tradition attested in the biblical and extrabiblical sapiential literature in Proverbs 8:22–30 ("I, wisdom...before the hills, I was born (holalti), when he established the heavens I was there...when [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, as an amon (confidante, masterwork, little daughter); and I was daily his delight, playing before him always"), Wisdom of Solomon 7:22; 8:5–6 and Sirach 24, where Wisdom is pre-existent beside God from eternity at the creation of the world and humanity as a kind of emanation of his being, and is often characterised as the agent 'through' which He fashioned the universe and human beings: "O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your Word, and by your Wisdom have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures you have made...give me the Wisdom that sits by your throne" (Wisdom 9:1-2); "[Wisdom] is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation (aporroia eilikrinēs) of the glory of the Almighty...she is a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God (tēs tou theou energeias), and an image (eikōn) of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26).

Hasel notes that: "Proverbs 8:31 may be understood to allude "to the topics of conversation
between Yahweh and Wisdom.""

While post-Jewish Christian doctrinal ideas of God being 'one essence in three hypostases (persons or subsisting relations)' i.e. Trinitarianism, cannot be anachronistically imputed to an ancient Hebrew author with any degree of scholarly objectivity, this interpretation also cannot be dismissed, in light of the ancient Jewish tendency to 'personify' divine attributes such as the Chokhmah (Wisdom), Ruach (Spirit) and Memra (Word) in a manner that treats them as akin to emanations of God with quasi-independent agency in creation and the widespread creative inner-biblical exegesis that combined speculation on the different possible meanings of be-re**** in Gen 1:1 with the language for Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31 ("The Lord created me (qanani) as the beginning (re****) of his way." (Proverbs 8:22)).

Important examples of the latter exegesis are the Jerusalem Targum to Genesis 1:1 ("In wisdom (be-hukema) the Lord created") and Genesis 1:27 ("And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them"); the Targum Neofiti to Genesis 1:1 ("From the beginning, with wisdom, the Lord created and finished the heavens and the earth"); the Fragment Targum, one of the oldest Palestinian targumim on the Torah, likewise translates the verse Genesis 1:1 be-re**** bara Elohim not as “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” but instead as “through/by means of wisdom (be-hokhmah) God created and perfected the heaven and the earth" (mileqadmin, “in/at the beginning,” and be-hokhmah, “through/by means of wisdom”): the tractate Sanhedrin 38a in the Bavli/Talmud which reiterates this idea that God created the universe through Wisdom ("The baraita explains: “Wisdom has built her house”; this is referring to the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who created the entire world with wisdom").

This is the exegesis taken up by and reflected in the New Testament texts that exegete these passages, since they emerged from this particular theological strain within Second Temple Judaism, for example the Pauline hymn in Colossians 1:15-16: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible... all things have been created through him and for him". (where the Son is identified with every possible meaning of both the beth and the reʾ**** of Gen 1:1; as the “firstborn” (vv. 15b, 18c), “beginning” (v. 18c), “sum-total” (v. 17b), “head” (v. 18a), and the one who is “preeminent” (v. 18e) and everything was created “in,” “through,” and “for/to” him).

Contrary to this but still in the same tradition of 'divine agency' at creation, the grand Midrash Rabbah on Genesis also linked the be-re**** of Genesis to the re**** of Proverbs' Wisdom but interpreted chokmah not as a quasi-independent and personified divine attribute or emanation, but rather as being synonymous with the Torah: "The great Rabbi Hoshaya opened [with the verse (Mishlei 8:30),] "I [the Torah] was an amon to Him and I was a plaything to Him every day." Amon means "pedagogue" (i.e. nanny)....amon means "artisan." The Torah is saying, "I was the artisan's tool of Hashem." In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect...So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, "Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth]," and reishis means Torah, as in "Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way" (Mishlei 8:22)."

(6) Pluralis Majestatis:

A minority of interpreters, beginning with Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (1089-1164), have thought that it could be a pluralis majestatis or 'royal we', in which case it is a purely rhetorical device. However, this theory is rejected by modern commentators for a variety of reasons, including that the 'royal we' is first clearly attested in usage by the Greeks of the eastern Roman Empire in the third to fourth century in the context of a diarchic or tetrarchic imperial order (more than one emperor in Constantinople reigning concurrently with at least one co-ruler Caesar in the West) and was not normative for ancient Israelite or Near Eastern rulers.

Plurals of majesty exist with nouns in the Hebrew language but there are no certain examples of plurals of majesty with either verbs or pronouns. Moreover, the verb used in Genesis 1:26 is never used with a plural of majesty, with Hasel thus concluding: "There is no linguistic or grammatical basis upon which the "us" can be considered to be a plural of majesty".

Barnes Notes: ‘Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, “I have dreamed a dream” (Gen. 41:15). Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” (Dan. 2:3). Darius the Mede, “I make a decree” (Dan. 6:26). Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). Darius, “I make a decree” (Ezra 6:8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King':

"There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis (in Hebrew); plural self-reference by a deity, e.g., ‘let us make humankind in our image’ (Gen. 1.26), has occasionally been explained as pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations (for further discussion, see GKC 398; Hasel 1975:58–66; Westermann 1981:144–145)" [ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3].

 

[Fool]

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:

in a panetheistic state them and they would be the same because the absolute is one and it's forms are plural.

thus the all(singular) is in all(plural)

I AM(singular) that i am(plural)

 

[cataway]

(5) Plural of fullness and divine co-agent(s) of creation:

According to both ancient Christian interpreters such as the Patristics (St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Basil of Caesarea) and in a refined form a number of modern scholars (i.e. Hasel 1975:58–66), it may be a 'plural of fullness' - whereby the singular Creator is referring to Himself as having some kind of plural aspect within His own nature, such as an emanation of His unitary being acting as a divine co-agent of creation, like one finds in the chokmah or personified Wisdom tradition attested in the biblical and extrabiblical sapiential literature in Proverbs 8:22–30 ("I, wisdom...before the hills, I was born (holalti), when he established the heavens I was there...when [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, as an amon (confidante, masterwork, little daughter); and I was daily his delight, playing before him always"), Wisdom of Solomon 7:22; 8:5–6 and Sirach 24, where Wisdom is pre-existent beside God from eternity at the creation of the world and humanity as a kind of emanation of his being, and is often characterised as the agent 'through' which He fashioned the universe and human beings: "O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your Word, and by your Wisdom have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures you have made...give me the Wisdom that sits by your throne" (Wisdom 9:1-2); "[Wisdom] is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation (aporroia eilikrinēs) of the glory of the Almighty...she is a reflection (apaugasma) of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God (tēs tou theou energeias), and an image (eikōn) of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26).

Hasel notes that: "Proverbs 8:31 may be understood to allude "to the topics of conversation
between Yahweh and Wisdom.""

While post-Jewish Christian doctrinal ideas of God being 'one essence in three hypostases (persons or subsisting relations)' i.e. Trinitarianism, cannot be anachronistically imputed to an ancient Hebrew author with any degree of scholarly objectivity, this interpretation also cannot be dismissed, in light of the ancient Jewish tendency to 'personify' divine attributes such as the Chokhmah (Wisdom), Ruach (Spirit) and Memra (Word) in a manner that treats them as akin to emanations of God with quasi-independent agency in creation and the widespread creative inner-biblical exegesis that combined speculation on the different possible meanings of be-re**** in Gen 1:1 with the language for Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31 ("The Lord created me (qanani) as the beginning (re****) of his way." (Proverbs 8:22)).

Important examples of the latter exegesis are the Jerusalem Targum to Genesis 1:1 ("In wisdom (be-hukema) the Lord created") and Genesis 1:27 ("And the Word of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them"); the Targum Neofiti to Genesis 1:1 ("From the beginning, with wisdom, the Lord created and finished the heavens and the earth"); the Fragment Targum, one of the oldest Palestinian targumim on the Torah, likewise translates the verse Genesis 1:1 be-re**** bara Elohim not as “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” but instead as “through/by means of wisdom (be-hokhmah) God created and perfected the heaven and the earth" (mileqadmin, “in/at the beginning,” and be-hokhmah, “through/by means of wisdom”): the tractate Sanhedrin 38a in the Bavli/Talmud which reiterates this idea that God created the universe through Wisdom ("The baraita explains: “Wisdom has built her house”; this is referring to the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who created the entire world with wisdom").

This is the exegesis taken up by and reflected in the New Testament texts that exegete these passages, since they emerged from this particular theological strain within Second Temple Judaism, for example the Pauline hymn in Colossians 1:15-16: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible... all things have been created through him and for him". (where the Son is identified with every possible meaning of both the beth and the reʾ**** of Gen 1:1; as the “firstborn” (vv. 15b, 18c), “beginning” (v. 18c), “sum-total” (v. 17b), “head” (v. 18a), and the one who is “preeminent” (v. 18e) and everything was created “in,” “through,” and “for/to” him).

Contrary to this but still in the same tradition of 'divine agency' at creation, the grand Midrash Rabbah on Genesis also linked the be-re**** of Genesis to the re**** of Proverbs' Wisdom but interpreted chokmah not as a quasi-independent and personified divine attribute or emanation, but rather as being synonymous with the Torah: "The great Rabbi Hoshaya opened [with the verse (Mishlei 8:30),] "I [the Torah] was an amon to Him and I was a plaything to Him every day." Amon means "pedagogue" (i.e. nanny)....amon means "artisan." The Torah is saying, "I was the artisan's tool of Hashem." In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect...So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, "Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth]," and reishis means Torah, as in "Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way" (Mishlei 8:22)."

(6) Pluralis Majestatis:

A minority of interpreters, beginning with Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra (1089-1164), have thought that it could be a pluralis majestatis or 'royal we', in which case it is a purely rhetorical device. However, this theory is rejected by modern commentators for a variety of reasons, including that the 'royal we' is first clearly attested in usage by the Greeks of the eastern Roman Empire in the third to fourth century in the context of a diarchic or tetrarchic imperial order (more than one emperor in Constantinople reigning concurrently with at least one co-ruler Caesar in the West) and was not normative for ancient Israelite or Near Eastern rulers.

Plurals of majesty exist with nouns in the Hebrew language but there are no certain examples of plurals of majesty with either verbs or pronouns. Moreover, the verb used in Genesis 1:26 is never used with a plural of majesty, with Hasel thus concluding: "There is no linguistic or grammatical basis upon which the "us" can be considered to be a plural of majesty".

Barnes Notes: ‘Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, “I have dreamed a dream” (Gen. 41:15). Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” (Dan. 2:3). Darius the Mede, “I make a decree” (Dan. 6:26). Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). Darius, “I make a decree” (Ezra 6:8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King':

"There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis (in Hebrew); plural self-reference by a deity, e.g., ‘let us make humankind in our image’ (Gen. 1.26), has occasionally been explained as pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations (for further discussion, see GKC 398; Hasel 1975:58–66; Westermann 1981:144–145)" [ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3].

i wonder if you realize that the son of God had a major role in the act of creation ? when ya get right down to it there really was only one thing that the almighty God did completely by him self .

 

[firedragon]

"There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis (in Hebrew); plural self-reference by a deity, e.g., ‘let us make humankind in our image’ (Gen. 1.26), has occasionally been explained as pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations (for further discussion, see GKC 398; Hasel 1975:58–66; Westermann 1981:144–145)" [ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3].

A very small portion.

Try the rest from the same chapter, where in which you have quoted a very small portion of a few lines. .

Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew

The term ‘majestic plural’ or pluralis majesta- tis refers to the use of a plural word to refer honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the ‘plural of respect’, the ‘honorific plural’, the ‘plural of excellence’, or the ‘plural of intensity’. In the Hebrew Bible such plural forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, e.g., ±ònìm ±<ånì ‘I am a master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Mal. 1.6), although it can also be used when referring to a human, e.g., ±ar<åh<åm ±òn<åw ‘Abraham his master (lit. ‘masters’)’ (Gen. 24.9), an object, e.g., qiròÆú<å ‘your grave (lit. ‘graves’)’ (2 Kgs 22.20), or a personified abstraction, e.g., TMåúmò b<ån<å è<åh ‘Wisdom (lit. ‘wisdoms’) has built her house’ (Prov. 9.1). The pluralis majestatis appears most frequently in nouns, particularly ±(lòhìm ‘God (lit. ‘gods’)’, but may also be used with nominalized adjectives, e.g., qëòšìm ‘the Holy One (lit. ‘holy ones’)’ (Prov. 9.10); some participles, e.g., ò«ayiú ‘your maker (lit. ‘makers’)’ (Isa.54.5) seem to be examples of the pluralis majestatis as well (Joüon and Muraoka 1991:501–502; Waltke pluralis majestatis: biblical hebrew 145 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 146 pluralis majestatis: modern hebrew and O’Connor 1990:123; but see GKC 399)

When a plural word used in the pluralis majestatis is modified by an adjective, the adjec- tive is usually singular, e.g., ±(lòhìm TMay‘thelivingGod’(Isa.37.4),althoughaplural adjective is occasionally used, e.g., ±(lòhìm TMayyìm ‘the living God’ (Jer. 23.36). Similarly, when a plural word in the pluralis majestatis is the subject of a verb, the verb is usually singular, e.g., h<ålaú h<å- ±(lòhìm ‘God went’ (1 Chron. 17.21), but a plural verb is occasionally used, e.g., hå< lúù-±(lòhìm ‘God went’ (2 Sam. 7.23).

For the lack of fonts the Hebrew text is veiled in the above cut and paste, of course.

 

[Vouthon]

A very small portion.

Try the rest from the same chapter, where in which you have quoted a very small portion of a few lines

Well, I cannot quote the entirety of the linguistic study in a forum post but I did leave the citation for others to look up.

Nothing that you have quoted negates the conclusion that I cited, in reference to the other scholars, that: "comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations" i.e. other elohim, plural of self-deliberation, possible Canaanite mythological vestige or the Wisdom tradition of God using another emanated agent in creation.

 

[firedragon]

Well, I cannot quote the entirety of the linguistic study in a forum post but I did leave the citation for others to look up.

Nothing that you have quoted negates the conclusion that I cited, in reference to the other scholars, that: "comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations" i.e. other elohim, plural of self-deliberation, possible Canaanite mythological vestige or the Wisdom tradition of God using another emanated agent in creation.

I didnt cite anything. Just the surrounding text that was missed from the same chapter on pluralis majestatis.

 

[Vouthon]

I didnt cite anything. Just the surrounding text that was missed from the same chapter on pluralis majestatis.

The surrounding text does nothing to negate the conclusion that the author makes in relation to plural majesty, which I referenced and quoted, that "there are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis" and the comparative and textual evidence favours other explanations.

 

[firedragon]

Well, I cannot quote the entirety of the linguistic study in a forum post but I did leave the citation for others to look up.

Nothing that you have quoted negates the conclusion that I cited, in reference to the other scholars, that: "comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations" i.e. other elohim, plural of self-deliberation, possible Canaanite mythological vestige or the Wisdom tradition of God using another emanated agent in creation.

Out of curiosity, going through your texts, you have not made a real point. Of course its good that you have quoted people like Hasel of course who is a hyper christian evangelist, and Hebrew based arguments against the pluralis majestatis with a lot of other plurals which are of course prevalent in many many languages around the world.

You have quoted and said that a minority say it is pluralis majestatis. Maybe due to the low number of Jewish scholars who are Jews on the subject. Even the same book you quoted, explicitly says what pluralis majestatis is. Explicitly. Of course you have missed it. Read "An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew syntax" by Michael Patrick o Connor etc, and it will have a chapter called "Honorifics and the Like". Reiterate the word "honorific". Read the Encyclopedia Judaica on Pluralis Majestatis.

Also it is strange to note in your post that "it was a minority". Lets see what Rashi had to say. "WE WILL MAKE MAN — Although they did not assist Him in forming him (the man) and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel (i. e. to argue in favour of their own views), yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, “I shall make man”, we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself. And as a refutation of the heretics it is written immediately after this verse “And God created the man”, and it is not written “and they created” (Genesis Rabbah 8:9)"

 

[firedragon]

The surrounding text does nothing to negate the conclusion that the author makes

See, a cherry picked cut and paste from the middle of a page is not a conclusion. I have cut and pasted the surrounding two paragraphs earlier so please read. It negates your ideas.

 

[firedragon]

The surrounding text does nothing to negate the conclusion that the author makes in relation to plural majesty, which I referenced and quoted, that "there are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis" and the comparative and textual evidence favours other explanations.

Quote Jewish scholars, not seventh day adventists.

Pluralis majestatis. The noun is in the plural not to indicate plurality but out of respect to the person designated. Modern Hebrew includes in this category ֱאלֹ ִהים (God) and also ְּב ָע ִלים (owner), e.g., לֹא ִנ ְמ ָצא ְּב ָע ָליו ׁ ֶשל ַה ֶּכ ֶלב (The owner of the dog was not found).

Enclopedia Judaica

WE WILL MAKE MAN — Although they did not assist Him in forming him (the man) and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel (i. e. to argue in favour of their own views), yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, “I shall make man”, we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself. And as a refutation of the heretics it is written immediately after this verse “And God created the man”, and it is not written “and they created” (Genesis Rabbah 8:9)

Rashi.

Anyway, do you think Moses is a plural of numbers as in there were several Moses? Just a question out of curiosity.

 

[Vouthon]

Maybe due to the low number of Jewish scholars who are Jews on the subject.

Plural majesty was not the consensus traditional interpretation in the Talmud either but rather the angelic one was common, although plural of self-deliberation was also considered, as well as the consulting heaven and earth one that Nachmanides would later champion. In the medieval period, you had a plurality of interpretations amongst Jews ranging from angelic (Rashi - in Rashi's judgment, God was so humble that he would consult the heavenly court (more specifically, the angels) surrounding him as exemplified by 1 Kings 22:19 and Daniel 4:14/17.); invoking the earth, heaven and other creatures (Nachmanides); Maimonides (largely following the angelic theory) and then the exegete I cited who favoured plural majesty etc.

Given what I have surveyed above, I think the strongest contenders are consultation of the angels, a vestige of polytheism, plural of self-deliberation or referring to a divine agent/emanation as in Wisdom.

Anyway, do you think Moses is a plural of numbers as in there were several Moses? Just a question out of curiosity.

In that case it was a plural joined to a singular, not a plural to a plural.

See, a cherry picked cut and paste from the middle of a page is not a conclusion. I have cut and pasted the surrounding two paragraphs earlier so please read. It negates your ideas.

It actually doesn't.

 

[firedragon]

In that case it was a plural joined to a singular, not a plural to a plural.

So how about Genesis 1:26? is it a plural joined to a plural or singular?