Political Crossfire Forums

[John]

Secondary Oak wrote: 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).

Of course it's never used in the dual suffix...that's the point. If it was...you'd have me. You could say..."see, here it is used with a dual sufix" ...

If you follow the rules of the plural and dual suffixes for all the other examples ("El" isn't going to be one because it wouldn't be true). You will have to agree that Elohim is plural as in 3 or more. Why would Elohim be the exception?

Either way...it's just a semantic. The main point is that Elohim is plural...as in more than one. That can't be disputed.

[John]

Quote: 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.....

Are you calling God a liar? You're proving my point actually....there is a reason why the word yechid is used for Isaac.

Can you tell me what was unique and special about Isaac? Why would God make a point to inspire the use of that word?

[Secondary Oak]

John wrote: Of course it's never used in the dual suffix...that's the point. If it was...you'd have me. You could say..."see, here it is used with a dual sufix" ...

If you follow the rules of the plural and dual suffixes for all the other examples ("El" isn't going to be one because it wouldn't be true). You will have to agree that Elohim is plural as in 3 or more. Why would Elohim be the exception?
It isn't an exception. I thought I explained it, but I'll give it another shot:
Titles (such as god) can never appear in the dual form. It's not valid in Hebrew. The dual form of god could never appear because it doesn't grammatically exist, just like the dual form of "writer" can never appear because it doesn't exist, even if you refer to a pair of writers. In fact, there are a million other things that may never appear in the dual form - that form is reserved for a specific list of words. These words are the exception, not the other way around.

Quote: Either way...it's just a semantic. The main point is that Elohim is plural...as in more than one. That can't be disputed.
Sure, "elohim" is plural. But "plural" can mean 2 or more. Just like plural in English.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: 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.....

Are you calling God a liar? You're proving my point actually....there is a reason why the word yechid is used for Isaac.

Uhhh, no. I am not calling G-d anything. I am just showing you how YOUR hypothesis falls apart as soon as tested against the scripture.

You gave an example that if talking about one of your sons, the word echad would be used.

Isaac is one of TWO of Abraham's sons. And he is referred to as yechid.

What does that do to your hypothesis? Along with the usage of the word echad in Ecclesiastes, your hypothesis goes out the window.

Quote: Can you tell me what was unique and special about Isaac? Why would God make a point to inspire the use of that word?

Whatever G-d's point was, your tortuous hypothesis goes squarely against it. In fact, the very example that you used - with sons - goes squarely against the scripture, and that's why I used the example with Isaac.

Which is why I find it so comical. :lol:

[John]

Quote: It isn't an exception. I thought I explained it, but I'll give it another shot:
Titles (such as god) can never appear in the dual form. It's not valid in Hebrew. The dual form of god could never appear because it doesn't grammatically exist, just like the dual form of "writer" can never appear because it doesn't exist, even if you refer to a pair of writers. In fact, there are a million other things that may never appear in the dual form - that form is reserved for a specific list of words. These words are the exception, not the other way around.

Yes..I understand. But what I'm saying is that IF God was a pair...then the dual form would surely be used. But isn't...so we know that it means more than 2. If it were true about God...then He would also have to be on the specific list of words. Understand where I'm coming from here?

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: 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.....

Are you calling God a liar? You're proving my point actually....there is a reason why the word yechid is used for Isaac.

Uhhh, no. I am not calling G-d anything. I am just showing you how YOUR hypothesis falls apart as soon as tested against the scripture.

You gave an example that if talking about one of your sons, the word echad would be used.

Isaac is one of TWO of Abraham's sons. And he is referred to as yechid.

What does that do to your hypothesis? Along with the usage of the word echad in Ecclesiastes, your hypothesis goes out the window.

Quote: Can you tell me what was unique and special about Isaac? Why would God make a point to inspire the use of that word?

Whatever G-d's point was, your tortuous hypothesis goes squarely against it. In fact, the very example that you used - with sons - goes squarely against the scripture, and that's why I used the example with Isaac.

Which is why I find it so comical. :lol:


No it doesn't. The use of the word yechid totally proves my point here. Isaac wasn't just one of Abraham's sons. He was a one of a kind. When ever God inspires the word yechid, it is talking about the singularity type of one-ness. Every time.

In fact that word had to be used in order for this to not be a contradiction in scripture.

[Mailech]

I find it very funny that John is trying to lecture Duchifas and Oak about Hebrew. :lol:

Here are some more examples from the Bible John.

Genesis 11:6
The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. - the Hebrew word is Echad, was there multiple languages into one?

Genesis 42:11
"We are all sons of one man; we are (A)honest men, your servants are not spies." - uses the word echad. (was there really multiple fathers that acted as one?)

Exodus 12:46
It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it.
- Hebrew word used Echad, in one house, not multiple houses united together.

Exodus 17:12
But Moses' hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus his hands were steady until the sun set. - Hebrew word used Echad, was Aharon a conglomeration of people, was Hur a conglomeration of people?

Leviticus 5:7
But if he cannot afford a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD his guilt offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.
- Hebrew word used, Echad. One and one is two, unless there where more than two turtledoves :think: hmm...

Numbers 7:11
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Let them present their offering, one leader each day, for the dedication of the altar."
- Hebrew word used Echad, wait was it one leader for each day, or a bunch of leaders all mushed into one each day???

Deuteronomy 17:6
On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. - Hebrew word used Echad. clearly this is one, if it was multiple, then it would be two and you throw him off the cliff :twisted:

Joshua 12:9
the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;
- Hebrew word used Echad, one king for each city, not a bunch of them.

Judges 13:2
There was a one man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had borne no children.
- Hebrew word used Echad, one man was Manoah, not a bunch of guys.

I could continue John, but I think you get the point.

[Duchifas]

Ok, John. Clearly you are not interested in an honest and serious discussion on the subject. Your zig-zags attest to that. If I didn't know you well enough, I would pursue this, but having had enough experience with your mind-numbing self-contradictions, I won't.

Your hypothesis and examples of Hebrew word usage are blatantly inconsistent with the Bible, and therefore, IMHO, possess zero credibility.

[John]

Mailech wrote: I find it very funny that John is trying to lecture Duchifas and Oak about Hebrew. :lol:

Here are some more examples from the Bible John.

Genesis 11:6
The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. - the Hebrew word is Echad, was there multiple languages into one?

Genesis 42:11
"We are all sons of one man; we are (A)honest men, your servants are not spies." - uses the word echad. (was there really multiple fathers that acted as one?)

Exodus 12:46
It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it.
- Hebrew word used Echad, in one house, not multiple houses united together.

Exodus 17:12
But Moses' hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus his hands were steady until the sun set. - Hebrew word used Echad, was Aharon a conglomeration of people, was Hur a conglomeration of people?

Leviticus 5:7
But if he cannot afford a lamb, then he shall bring to the LORD his guilt offering for that in which he has sinned, two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering.
- Hebrew word used, Echad. One and one is two, unless there where more than two turtledoves :think: hmm...

Numbers 7:11
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Let them present their offering, one leader each day, for the dedication of the altar."
- Hebrew word used Echad, wait was it one leader for each day, or a bunch of leaders all mushed into one each day???

Deuteronomy 17:6
On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. - Hebrew word used Echad. clearly this is one, if it was multiple, then it would be two and you throw him off the cliff :twisted:

Joshua 12:9
the king of Jericho, one; the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one;
- Hebrew word used Echad, one king for each city, not a bunch of them.

Judges 13:2
There was a one man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had borne no children.
- Hebrew word used Echad, one man was Manoah, not a bunch of guys.

I could continue John, but I think you get the point.

I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?


The point is that yechid is never used in regards to God's "solitary one-ness".

God went out of His way to use the word yechid in regards to Isaac...but woun't have the same attention to detail in regards to the Shema...the most IMPORTANT comandment? Something doesn't square.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: Ok, John. Clearly you are not interested in an honest and serious discussion on the subject. Your zig-zags attest to that. If I didn't know you well enough, I would pursue this, but having had enough experience with your mind-numbing self-contradictions, I won't.

Your hypothesis and examples of Hebrew word usage are blatantly inconsistent with the Bible, and therefore, IMHO, possess zero credibility.

Hey..it's just a friendly conversation. Never asked you to give me any credibility. Take your shoes off, kick back and relax. I really am trying to have an honest and serious discussion on the subject. Promise.

[Duchifas]

Quote: God went out of His way to use the word yechid in regards to Isaac...but woun't have the same attention to detail in regards to the Shema...the most IMPORTANT comandment? Something doesn't square.

This is precisely why it is impossible to have a discussion with you. Because once you get hung up on an idea, no matter how ridiculous, you will dismiss anything that does not square with it.

So when you tell us that yachid can only be used in way X, and then I find you an example where it is used in way Y -- it is "G-d going out of His way."

It is not that the example would lead you to reconsider your own strange interpretations. No, no, that can't be. It must be that G-d is going out of his way.....so that you can remain convinced that your own interpretation.

So really, ANY example or examples from the Bible, either by me or by Mailech, wouldn't convince you of anything. Because in your mind you will much more readily attribute it to G-d going out of His way than to your own misunderstanding. Even if it is a misunderstanding of a subject of which you don't even know the basics.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: Ok, John. Clearly you are not interested in an honest and serious discussion on the subject. Your zig-zags attest to that. If I didn't know you well enough, I would pursue this, but having had enough experience with your mind-numbing self-contradictions, I won't.

Your hypothesis and examples of Hebrew word usage are blatantly inconsistent with the Bible, and therefore, IMHO, possess zero credibility.

Hey..it's just a friendly conversation. Never asked you to give me any credibility. Take your shoes off, kick back and relax. I really am trying to have an honest and serious discussion on the subject. Promise.

Well, then in my humble opinion, you need to try much much much harder.

But that's just my humble opinion.

[Mailech]

John wrote: I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?
Sorry I missed that


Quote: The point is that yechid is never used in regards to God's "solitary one-ness".

God went out of His way to use the word yechid in regards to Isaac...but woun't have the same attention to detail in regards to the Shema...the most IMPORTANT comandment? Something doesn't square.

So you are saying the word Yachid implies indivisible unity?
Well it is hard to prove or disprove that, it is only used 4 times in the Tanach.
But it is interesting, and I think I am right in this is that Yachid, has the rood Yachad, which means to unite. So it seems like you actually have it bass ackwards.

Besides just because Echad can mean both, does not mean that in the case of Hashem it means what you desperately need it to mean.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?

In that case, could you perhaps clarify what you mean below (the part I bolded):

John wrote: 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.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?

In that case, could you perhaps clarify what you mean below (the part I bolded):

John wrote: 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.

I mean that it isn't used to describe solitary oneness....

Numeric oneness is different that solitary oneness. A first born son is an example of solitary oneness. You and Malech's explaination of a God ("He does not have parts") is another example of solitary oneness.

But this word("yachid") for solitary oneness is NEVER used in reference to God.


"I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one [yachid]"
-Moses Maimonides

Why did Moses Maimonides use the word "yachid" instead of "echad"? Especially since the use of "yachid" in reference to God can't be found in the scriptures.

[John]

Mailech wrote: John wrote: I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?
Sorry I missed that


Quote: The point is that yechid is never used in regards to God's "solitary one-ness".

God went out of His way to use the word yechid in regards to Isaac...but woun't have the same attention to detail in regards to the Shema...the most IMPORTANT comandment? Something doesn't square.

So you are saying the word Yachid implies indivisible unity?
Well it is hard to prove or disprove that, it is only used 4 times in the Tanach.
But it is interesting, and I think I am right in this is that Yachid, has the rood Yachad, which means to unite. So it seems like you actually have it bass ackwards.

Besides just because Echad can mean both, does not mean that in the case of Hashem it means what you desperately need it to mean.


All I ask is that you do an honest study on the subject.

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?

In that case, could you perhaps clarify what you mean below (the part I bolded):

John wrote: 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.

I mean that it isn't used to describe solitary oneness....

Numeric oneness is different that solitary oneness. A first born son is an example of solitary oneness. You and Malech's explaination of a God ("He does not have parts") is another example of solitary oneness.

But this word("yachid") for solitary oneness is NEVER used in reference to God.


"I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one [yachid]"
-Moses Maimonides

Why did Moses Maimonides use the word "yachid" instead of "echad"? Especially since the use of "yachid" in reference to God can't be found in the scriptures.

As far as I can tell, your concept of "solitary oneness" = unique. I don't see any difference between the two. Do you see one?

[Mailech]

John wrote: Duchifas wrote: John wrote: I've already said that Echad is used both ways. What's your point?

In that case, could you perhaps clarify what you mean below (the part I bolded):

John wrote: 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.

I mean that it isn't used to describe solitary oneness....

Numeric oneness is different that solitary oneness. A first born son is an example of solitary oneness. You and Malech's explaination of a God ("He does not have parts") is another example of solitary oneness.

look earlier to the reference to Manoach, there it is solitary oneness, and Echad is used.

Quote: But this word("yachid") for solitary oneness is NEVER used in reference to God.


"I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one [yachid]"
-Moses Maimonides

Why did Moses Maimonides use the word "yachid" instead of "echad"? Especially since the use of "yachid" in reference to God can't be found in the scriptures.

I don't know John, why do you write in English, no English is found in scriptures. the Rambam was giving a summary of the many instances in the Tanach where G-d is described as having that solitary oneness. He is using plain language.

[Mailech]

I hate to go back but talking about G-d's simplicity.

Check this out John.

In Christian thought, the importance of the concept is that God as a simple being is not divisible, and thus, he is present in his entirety everywhere that he is present, if he is present anywhere. In light of this idea, Thomas Aquinas wrote that, because God is infinitely simple, he can only appear to the finite mind as though he were infinitely complex. This doctrine also helps keep trinitarianism from drifting or morphing into polytheism, belief in multiple distinct Gods.

As for the Jewish conception, the Ramchal says it much better than I can.

The resultant paradox is famously articulated by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto: “God’s existence is absolutely simple, without combinations or additions of any kind. All perfections are found in Him in a perfectly simple manner. However, God does not entail separate domains – even though in truth there exist in God qualities which, within us, are separate... Indeed the true nature of His essence is that it is a single attribute, (yet) one that intrinsically encompasses everything that could be considered perfection. All perfection therefore exists in God, not as something added on to His existence, but as an integral part of His intrinsic identity... This is a concept that is very far from our ability to grasp and imagine..." (Derekh Hashem I:1:5)

Full Text of Article

[Duchifas]

Mailech wrote: So you are saying the word Yachid implies indivisible unity?
Well it is hard to prove or disprove that, it is only used 4 times in the Tanach.
But it is interesting, and I think I am right in this is that Yachid, has the rood Yachad, which means to unite. So it seems like you actually have it bass ackwards.

Absolutely.

Genesis 22

Quote: 19. And Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer sheba; and Abraham remained in Beer sheba.

Guess what word is used for together? Yachdav. Same root as yachid.

Genesis 22

Quote: 6. And Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering, and he placed [it] upon his son Isaac, and he took into his hand the fire and the knife, and they both went together.

Again, yachdav is used.

Modern hebrew word for together is ..... be'yachad.

Quote: Besides just because Echad can mean both, does not mean that in the case of Hashem it means what you desperately need it to mean.

Precisely. And on top of that, yachid does not necessarily mean what John desperately wants it to mean, as demonstrated in the verse where "G-d goes out of His way" per John.