Political Crossfire Forums

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

You are not mistaken, psholtz. Chet is 8.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24242

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Does that look like "unity in pluraility," John?

Of course there is no second...because God IS One. The Trinity is ONE. There isn't a 1st 2nd and a 3rd. It doesn't work that way.

Christians are strict monotheists.

And how about addressing the substance of my post? Or would you like me to spell it out for you?

Ecclesiastes 4:8 doesn't seem to say what you say it does...what verse in my version is it?

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

One more time for you, John:

What Ecc 4 is talking about is irrelevant.

You postulated, through your source, that echad refers to unity in plurality.

I tested that concept by looking at instances of echad in the bible. That test revealed that on a good number of occasions, ascribing the meanign of "unity in plurality" to the word echad is utterly ridiculous.

At which point, you for some reason wanted to talk about the subject matter of Ecc 4. The subject matter here is irrelevant. You are welcome to start another thread on it, if you so wish. What is relevant, is the usage of the word echad. Not only in Ecc, but in all the instances I quoted.

And THAT point, you haven't addressed. Would you like to?

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

Quote: Ecclesiastes 4:8 doesn't seem to say what you say it does...what verse in my version is it?

I haven't a clue how your version organizes the Bible.

EDIT:

Out of interest, I did look it up in the NASB. Same verse. It seems that the team of experts had a blast with that one. :lol:

In any case, that is a secondary matter.

Israel · Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 2188

psholtz wrote:
Chet is 8, no??

Basic gematria would suggest that echad = alef + chet + dalet = 1+8+4 = 13, implying that 13 is subsumed w/in the Unity, or in other words the 13 attributes of God (of which we have been speaking) are all subsumed w/in the Unity of the echad.

Or am I mistaken? :-D
7 upper realms AND this world = 8.

Here's what I said...

Quote: Alef - One G-d.
Chet - 7 upper realms and this world.
Dalet - 4 directions.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Israel wrote: psholtz wrote:
Chet is 8, no??

Basic gematria would suggest that echad = alef + chet + dalet = 1+8+4 = 13, implying that 13 is subsumed w/in the Unity, or in other words the 13 attributes of God (of which we have been speaking) are all subsumed w/in the Unity of the echad.

Or am I mistaken? :-D
7 upper realms AND this world = 8.
Nice save.. :tu: :-D

Israel · Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 2188

psholtz wrote: Israel wrote: psholtz wrote:
Chet is 8, no??

Basic gematria would suggest that echad = alef + chet + dalet = 1+8+4 = 13, implying that 13 is subsumed w/in the Unity, or in other words the 13 attributes of God (of which we have been speaking) are all subsumed w/in the Unity of the echad.

Or am I mistaken? :-D
7 upper realms AND this world = 8.
Nice save.. :tu: :-D
Not really a save, I thought I made it clear.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Israel wrote: psholtz wrote: Israel wrote: psholtz wrote:
Chet is 8, no??

Basic gematria would suggest that echad = alef + chet + dalet = 1+8+4 = 13, implying that 13 is subsumed w/in the Unity, or in other words the 13 attributes of God (of which we have been speaking) are all subsumed w/in the Unity of the echad.

Or am I mistaken? :-D
7 upper realms AND this world = 8.
Nice save.. :tu: :-D
Not really a save, I thought I made it clear.
It's clear now.. :wink:

Israel · Joined: 13 Jan 2005 Posts: 2188

psholtz wrote: It's clear now.. :wink:
Okay.

Jonah · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 928

Mailech wrote: I see Jonah, that is an interesting answer.

Jonah wrote: In the verse you quoted, Mailech, the man called Jesus "good teacher". In my opinion there is nothing here that indicates the man thought Jesus was G-d. So, I am left to conclude that Jesus meant, "Since you don't believe me to be the Christ, son of the living G-d, why are you calling me good, since anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Torah/bible understands that all men are fallen and sinful...none are good.?"

One thing I would contend with is you notion that all men are sinful, none are good.

Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

I'm contending that every man's nature is evil. That is the natural state of man...every man. Notice the part "from childhood". Man doesn't learn it, it's already there.

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3418 Location: Haifa

John wrote: Quote: My point is that if you interpret "elohim" as plural, there's nothing that prevents it from being two.

The word "eloha" by itself is not plural, as you have claimed, though it's irrelevant here.

Well, I keep running across references that say that it means three or more.
Sounds completely baseless, but you're more than welcome to link those references.

Quote: Doesn't the word seem to break down like this: el-oh-im...with the root word being "El"? What exactly is the "oh" all about?
No, I don't think the root word is "el". I think "el" and "eloha" are two different words with identical - or nearly-identical - meaning. Both of them behave like base nouns.

Actually, I think a debate about the difference between them could be very interesting... I already have an idea... but I'll leave it be, for the moment. At least, until a new thread is opened about it :)

Quote: Also...is the plural form of the word "Bara" used in Ecclesiates 12:1?
Yep, plural.

Mailech · Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 2601

Jonah wrote: Mailech wrote: I see Jonah, that is an interesting answer.

Jonah wrote: In the verse you quoted, Mailech, the man called Jesus "good teacher". In my opinion there is nothing here that indicates the man thought Jesus was G-d. So, I am left to conclude that Jesus meant, "Since you don't believe me to be the Christ, son of the living G-d, why are you calling me good, since anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Torah/bible understands that all men are fallen and sinful...none are good.?"

One thing I would contend with is you notion that all men are sinful, none are good.

Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

I'm contending that every man's nature is evil. That is the natural state of man...every man. Notice the part "from childhood". Man doesn't learn it, it's already there.

It is there before we have the capacity to know better. A child is pure selfishness. The older that child gets the greater its capacity to care for others and break out of that mold.

Jonah · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 928

Mailech wrote: Jonah wrote: Mailech wrote: I see Jonah, that is an interesting answer.

Jonah wrote: In the verse you quoted, Mailech, the man called Jesus "good teacher". In my opinion there is nothing here that indicates the man thought Jesus was G-d. So, I am left to conclude that Jesus meant, "Since you don't believe me to be the Christ, son of the living G-d, why are you calling me good, since anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Torah/bible understands that all men are fallen and sinful...none are good.?"

One thing I would contend with is you notion that all men are sinful, none are good.

Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

I'm contending that every man's nature is evil. That is the natural state of man...every man. Notice the part "from childhood". Man doesn't learn it, it's already there.

It is there before we have the capacity to know better. A child is pure selfishness. The older that child gets the greater its capacity to care for others and break out of that mold.

Yes, a very reasonable statement, and I agree completely. I'm saying that even man's most selfless acts are tainted in some way. G-d know's every man's heart. Even if a man does a self-sacrificial act to save others, his prior life is a series of actions, that at their very best are tainted in some way, tainted by pride, tainted by guilt, etc. I'm saying that the man's thoughts and attitudes are just as important as the action. You may disagree at this point.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24242

Quote: Yep, plural.

So could Ecclesiastes 12:1 be translated with "Creators"?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24242

Quote: Sounds completely baseless, but you're more than welcome to link those references.

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

The use of Elohim (the three-or-more plural of El = God) in Genesis 1 suggests that there is something plural about the person of God. And the use of singular verbs with Elohim (bara = ‘created’, amar = ‘said’, raah = ‘saw’, etc.) throughout Genesis 1 intimates the uniplurality of God; i.e. God is one, yet in another sense is more than one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/name.asp

The name of God used in Genesis 1 is Elohim, a uniplural noun. El is singular, Eloah is dual, whereas Elohim apparently implies three or more persons. Yet the three Persons of the Godhead act as One God in all they undertake in creation, in redemption and in the management of the universe we live in (Ref 1). The creation of man was not an afterthought in the mind of God. From the beginning the plan and design of the cosmos had human being in view. The universe is God's house and men number among the inhabitants, in fact we are the highest of God's creations.
http://www.ldolphin.org/Image.html

a. "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) This name "Elohim" is a plural noun. As we noted last time, Plural, in English, means two or more. In the Hebrew, we have three terms referring to the grammatical number: singular,meaning one; dual, equaling two; plural, meaning three or more. Therefore "Elohim" is a plural noun meaning three or more. …Moses used this name, "Elohim," 500 times in the Pentateuch. (Stringfellow, Alan B., ed., Through the Bible in One Year, Vol. 3, Great Truths of the Bible, p. 19. Copyright © 1981)

7b. "And God (Elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness—so God (Elohim) created man in His own image, in the image of God created He them—"(Genesis 1:26-27). "This is another use of the plural noun, indicating the Trinity at work in the creation of man—yet indicating one God in the phrase, "in His own Image." The Godhead is a Trinity in Unity." (Ibid.)
http://www.cfdevotionals.org/devpg04/de040125.htm

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

John, any news on the "echad" front?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24242

Duchifas wrote: John, any news on the "echad" front?

Just got back from stuffing my face..Hmmm. Mexican food. :-D

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24242

Duchifas wrote: John, any news on the "echad" front?

Yes, echad is used to describe something singular, but it's never used to describe the singularity that you and Mailech are using to describe God. And it is often used to decribed a unity that forms one.

The right Hebrew word would be yachid. This word would be the word used for something that is unique in its one-ness.

Foe example....If I was to say that one of my sons is outside, I would use the word "echad".

But if I only had one son and I wanted to tell you he was outside...I would use the word "yachid".

Something that you need to face Duchifas is that the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God.

Secondary Oak · Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3418 Location: Haifa

John wrote: Quote: Sounds completely baseless, but you're more than welcome to link those references.

Quote: The name of God used in Genesis 1 is Elohim, a uniplural noun. El is singular, Eloah is dual, whereas Elohim apparently implies three or more persons.
Incorrect - "eloha" is singular.

Quote: That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

a. "In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) This name "Elohim" is a plural noun. As we noted last time, Plural, in English, means two or more. In the Hebrew, we have three terms referring to the grammatical number: singular,meaning one; dual, equaling two; plural, meaning three or more. Therefore "Elohim" is a plural noun meaning three or more. …Moses used this name, "Elohim," 500 times in the Pentateuch. (Stringfellow, Alan B., ed., Through the Bible in One Year, Vol. 3, Great Truths of the Bible, p. 19. Copyright © 1981)
The dual suffix is never used for either "el" or "eloha", so I'm afraid your sources are entirely incorrect. Unlike the plural form of words, the dual form is reserved for a specific list of words, which usually refer to things that naturally come in pairs or more. Even more specifically, the dual form cannot be applied to a title - like "writer" or like "god".

Anyhow, the plural form still means 2 or more, not 3 or more (though the use of dual form instead of plural with pairs is very common in biblical Hebrew).

Duchifas · Joined: 22 Jun 2004 Posts: 9950

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John, any news on the "echad" front?

Yes, echad is used to describe something singular, but it's never used to describe the singularity that you and Mailech are using to describe God. And it is often used to decribed a unity that forms one.

The right Hebrew word would be yachid. This word would be the word used for something that is unique in its one-ness.

Foe example....If I was to say that one of my sons is outside, I would use the word "echad".

Mhmm. Now, let's see how well your hypothesis works with the scripture.

Genesis 22

Quote: 2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."

Care to guess which word is used? It is yechid. Interesting, ain't it?

64 million dollar question -- how many sons did Abraham have? And yechid is still used? Hmmmmm.....

[EDIT: BTW, the NASB butchers this verse just as badly as it butchers Ecc 4:8.]

Quote: But if I only had one son and I wanted to tell you he was outside...I would use the word "yachid".

Good. Now, with regard to that, I refer you back to the Ecclesiastes verse I cited to. Try to find a translation that is more true to the text than the NASB.

The above examples from the scripture DIRECTLY contradict what you just hypothesized. Or rather, what you just hypothesized contradicts the scripture.

Quote: Something that you need to face Duchifas is that the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God.

Why should it be used? Echad is perfectly suitable for it, until people come along and butcher it, Bill Clinton style. Someone needed to explain to him what the definition of "is" is. And I am trying to explain that he definition of "one" is ........ one.