More than one God in the OT?

[Teritos]

Genesis 3:8 Hebrew Text Analysis (biblehub.com)

Genesis 3:8 says "Elohim walks", the Hebrew verb is singular. If the word Elohim were plural in this verse, how can the verb be singular? If we translate Elohim also, it would be: "God walks" but if Elohim is plural in this verse, then it would be: "Gods walks". That makes no sense. If it were really "Pluralis Majestatis", then the verb would also be plural.

 

[firedragon]

The word Elohim is not always plural,

It is always plural. Always. Elohim is plural, but pluralis majestatis.

 

[firedragon]

So you grant the possibility that e.g. Elohim could be adressed to a plurality of deities?

No. It is pluralis majestatis.

 

[firedragon]

That is not correct. If it were "Pluralis Majestatis", then the verb would not point to a singular.

Always does. Always. Pluralis Majestatis refers to a singular. One.

 

[Teritos]

It is always plural. Always. Elohim is plural, but pluralis majestatis.

The facts speak against it. Why don't you just look at the context of a sentence?

 

[firedragon]

The facts speak against it. Why don't you just look at the context of a sentence?

Sure. Which context shows that Elohim is "several Gods"?

 

[Kooky]

No. It is pluralis majestatis.

Then my objection was not against a strawman.

 

[Teritos]

@firedragon
Here is an example sentence from The Royal We | Definition of The Royal We by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) for Pluralis Majestatis: When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we."

Do you see it? The verb in pluralis majestatis is plural and not singular, or are you saying that this sentence would make sense: "We is not amused" ?

 

[firedragon]

Then my objection was not against a strawman.

Pluralis Majestatis. Not Plural of numbers.

Many many languages in the world have pluralis majestatis. Some languages much more than others. Just that one must empathise with other languages, not try to impose a baggage onto it.

 

[firedragon]

Here is an example sentence from The Royal We | Definition of The Royal We by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) for Pluralis Majestatis: When Queen Victoria said, "We are not amused," she was using the royal "we."

Excellent. You just made my case.

Thank you.

 

[firedragon]

Then my objection was not against a strawman.

Just to reiterate on your strawman, this is the sentence you made mate.

"I don't think it's plural forms all the time, but I don't think your claim that every single plural is in the majestic form holds much water,"

I never said that every plural is pluralis majestatis. So that's a false statement you made.

Its a Strawman fallacy. Its not just a strawman fallacy, its made up.

Elohim is pluralis majestatis. The same word is used for Moses as well. Thats the same question I asked @Teritos because the claim was Elohim was plural in numbers, not pluralis majestatis. So the question was when it was used for Moses, was it still plural of numbers? I asked that question because I was addressing the word Elohim.

I never addressed all the plurals in the Bible and said "all the plurals are pluralis majestatis". What a bogus claim to make is that??

 

[Kooky]

Just to reiterate on your strawman, this is the sentence you made mate.

"I don't think it's plural forms all the time, but I don't think your claim that every single plural is in the majestic form holds much water,"

I never said that every plural is pluralis majestatis. So that's a false statement you made.

Correct, you instead said it is impossible for the plural forms to not be plural majestis, which conveys the exact same meaning in a different form.
Thanks for clearing up your intentions in this debate, have a nice day.

 

[firedragon]

Correct, you instead said it is impossible for the plural forms to not be plural majestis,

Never said that. Another false claim. Absolutely false.

 

[Teritos]

Sure. Which context shows that Elohim is "several Gods"?

Psalm 82:6 Hebrew Text Analysis (biblehub.com)
Psalm 82:6 says "Elohim attem", the verb "attem" here is plural, so it says "You are gods". The use of singular and plural verbs for Elohim show us that this word can be used in Hebrew as singular and plural, thus it refutes the "pluralis majestatis" theory.

 

[firedragon]

Psalm 82:6 Hebrew Text Analysis (biblehub.com)
Psalm 82:6 says "Elohim attem", the verb "attem" here is plural, so it says "You are gods". The use of singular and plural verbs for Elohim show us that this word can be used in Hebrew as singular and plural, thus it refutes the "pluralis majestatis" theory.

Nothing will ever ever in your life mean that Elohim is singular or plural in numbers as a foundation. Any plural is always plural. Dont think of it from the English point of view. Especially not modern English.

In an Asian language like lets say Pali, when you say "THEY" it is plural. But there are numerous instances that this word is referred to one person in the single tense. It is simple. It is pluralis majestatis. That does not mean the word "they" is singular. It is used to a husband, a leader, a priest, a respectable person, in the singular form out of respect. Even for judges.

Anyway, what you are missing is that Hebrew is a semitic language, and they dont work like English.

For example, how do you address many people? Is there a plural of "You"? No. You address a group of people as "You". But not in semitic languages. In arabic, when you say "you" to a single person it will be "antha" but when you say "You" to a group of people it will be "anthum". The Hebrew you had stated here is the same and they work similar because they are sister languages. English is absolutely not. So "YOU" is singular in English. But in these languages though you would translate it as "you" it is a plural address. So it is address many in numbers. This does not mean Elohim is plural in numbers.

Hope you understand.

 

[Teritos]

Nothing will ever ever in your life mean that Elohim is singular or plural in numbers as a foundation. Any plural is always plural. Dont think of it from the English point of view. Especially not modern English.

In an Asian language like lets say Pali, when you say "THEY" it is plural. But there are numerous instances that this word is referred to one person in the single tense. It is simple. It is pluralis majestatis. That does not mean the word "they" is singular. It is used to a husband, a leader, a priest, a respectable person, in the singular form out of respect. Even for judges.

Anyway, what you are missing is that Hebrew is a semitic language, and they dont work like English.

For example, how do you address many people? Is there a plural of "You"? No. You address a group of people as "You". But not in semitic languages. In arabic, when you say "you" to a single person it will be "antha" but when you say "You" to a group of people it will be "anthum". The Hebrew you had stated here is the same and they work similar because they are sister languages. English is absolutely not. So "YOU" is singular in English. But in these languages though you would translate it as "you" it is a plural address. So it is address many in numbers. This does not mean Elohim is plural in numbers.

Hope you understand.

I am Semite and speak a Semitic language. As I said, if the verb is singular, the noun must also be singular, that is logical, otherwise the sentence makes no sense. With plural majestatis, the verb is always plural. In Hebrew, if it's referring to Elohim, the verb is not always plural, when referring to the one single God, the verb is singular, when referring to others in the plural, for example the jewish judges and angels, the verb is plural. This clearly shows that the word Elohim is singular and plural, we must consider the context.

 

[firedragon]

I am Semite and speak a Semitic language. As I said, if the verb is singular, the noun must also be singular, that is logical, otherwise the sentence makes no sense.

Excellent. So what is plural in Genesis 1:1 to make Elohim a plural in numbers?

 

[sojourner]

I'm confused; where does the holy Spirit come into this equation?

Of course you’re confused! The HS doesn’t factor into the exegetical process. The HS is included in interpretation, not exegesis.

 

[Etritonakin]

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, Let Us make mankind in Our image.

Ecclesiastes 12:1
Remember also your Creators in the days of your youth.

Isaiah 54:5
For your husbands are your Makers, Whose name is Yahweh of armies.

In most Bible translations the singular form is used, but this is not correct, the words "creators, husbands, makers" in the respective verses are plural in Hebrew.

Now some would say that it is "pluralis excellentiae" or "Royal we", but if that were really the case, why don't we see this with the kings in the Bible? I have looked, not one king, Jewish or Gentile, used this kind of speech in the Bible, all kings speak about themselves in the singular.

Am I saying that there is more than one God? No, but I believe the Bible teaches one God who is a unity in himself.

"God" is a (translated) word which applies collectively to two beings.

It is not extremely clear in the OT that this is the case, but the being Moses saw the back parts of (in his glorious body) was actually the Word (Logos) who later became Christ ("before Abraham was, I am"). The same was also Melchizedek (high priest without beginning of days or end of life, etc).

As high priest, it indicates he was so to a being in greater authority.
As the Word, he was actually the being (who became Christ) that did the actual creating of all things -according to the will of the being in greater authority (by him and for him all things were made).

The being in greatest authority is called the Father in the new testament.
None have seen the Father.

The most accurate and simple description of them I can think of based on scripture is that the Father is the original.
He is literally everything which has always existed, yet is dynamic -possessing or having developed self-awareness, creativity, etc.

......and the Word, the Son, high priest, etc. is essentially the first self-replication of the Father.

In the New testament, it is written that Christ is actually "the firstborn of many brethren" -though he will always be in authority over all except the Father.

The Father will always be his God -and they both will always be God to all others.

We are to become like him. We are those many brethren who will become the immortal children of God -to be made perfect and given powerful, immortal bodies (like unto his glorious body, according to the working thereof he is able to subdue all things into himself.)

God had the Son create the universe to have him be in authority over it. Called "the heavens" in the bible, it is written that they "were formed to be inhabited" -and elsewhere it is written in that the entire creation awaits liberation from its bondage to decay by the children of God.

Therefore, it is our future to use bodies and power -similar to that used by the Word to create all things -over even cosmic events as we order, inhabit and create throughout the entire universe.

Why? Because it's reeeeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyyyy awesome!

(at least it is when you do things right -once we get over all these destructive tendencies)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

"God" is a (translated) word which applies collectively to two beings.

It is not extremely clear in the OT that this is the case, but the being Moses saw the back parts of (in his glorious body) was actually the Word (Logos) who later became Christ ("before Abraham was, I am"). The same was also Melchizedek (high priest without beginning of days or end of life, etc).

As high priest, it indicates he was so to a being in greater authority.
As the Word, he was actually the being (who became Christ) that did the actual creating of all things -according to the will of the being in greater authority (by him and for him all things were made).

The being in greatest authority is called the Father in the new testament.
None have seen the Father.

The most accurate and simple description of them I can think of based on scripture is that the Father is the original.
He is literally everything which has always existed, yet is dynamic -possessing or having developed self-awareness, creativity, etc.

......and the Word, the Son, high priest, etc. is essentially the first self-replication of the Father.

In the New testament, it is written that Christ is actually "the firstborn of many brethren" -though he will always be in authority over all except the Father.

The Father will always be his God -and they both will always be God to all others.

We are to become like him. We are those many brethren who will become the immortal children of God -to be made perfect and given powerful, immortal bodies (like unto his glorious body, according to the working thereof he is able to subdue all things into himself.)

God had the Son create the universe to have him be in authority over it. Called "the heavens" in the bible, it is written that they "were formed to be inhabited" -and elsewhere it is written in that the entire creation awaits liberation from its bondage to decay by the children of God.

Therefore, it is our future to use bodies and power -similar to that used by the Word to create all things -over even cosmic events as we order, inhabit and create throughout the entire universe.

Why? Because it's reeeeeeaaaaaalllllllyyyyyy awesome!

(at least it is when you do things right -once we get over all these destructive tendencies)

Is any of this actually written down as such anywhere or is it just personal interpretation gleaned from numerous verses scattered throughout the OT? I think another Christian would have an entirely different interpretation of the exact same material.