Originally posted by islamispeace
I am saying that authoritative sources clearly disagree with you. The source I used is a Jewish one (not Christian or Muslim) which makes sense since Hebrew is the language of the Jews.
I am saying that authoritative sources clearly disagree with you. The source I used is a Jewish one (not Christian or Muslim) which makes sense since Hebrew is the language of the Jews.
I would advise extreme caution about accepting Jewish secondary sources on Biblical Hebrew interpretation. I qualify this with the statement with the fact that I am a Christian Zionist and love the Jewish people, but Jewish sources many times mix Theological interpretation in with their exegesis. For example, their translation of Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14 which totally distort the Hebrew of those passages.
Originally posted by islamispeace
You obviously ignored the source I quoted which gives a specific example from the Bible of a monarch who uses the plural of majesty, and this monarch was an Israelite! Are you saying the Bible is wrong? 2 Samuel 16:20 says:
You obviously ignored the source I quoted which gives a specific example from the Bible of a monarch who uses the plural of majesty, and this monarch was an Israelite! Are you saying the Bible is wrong? 2 Samuel 16:20 says:
"Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?”"
Absalom was the king of Israel, was he not? Since the answer is yes, this refutes your claim that "such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East".
"The plural form ’elohim is used not only of pagan "gods" (e.g., Ex. 12:12; 18:11; 20:3), but also of an individual pagan "god" (Judg. 11:24; II Kings 1:2ff.) and even of a "goddess" (I Kings 11:5)." [Names of God]
So clearly, the word can be used to refer to a single "individual" as in the case of the god Chemosh (Judges 11:24). Commenting further on the use of ""Elohim", the Encyclopedia Judaica states:
"The odd fact that Hebrew uses a plural noun to designate the god of Israel has been explained in various ways. Some scholars take it as a plural that expresses an abstract idea (e.g., zekunim, "old age" ne ’urim, "time of youth"), so that ’Elohim would really mean "the Divinity." More likely, however, it came from general Canaanite usage. In the el-Amarna Letters Pharaoh is often addressed as "my gods [īlāni ’ya] the sun-god."" [Ibid.]
As you can see, there is no mention of any possibility of the word being interpreted as referring to a triunity. This is simply a Christian interpolation, which is just not grounded in fact.
What I am giving you is examples from mathematics and nature that show "three yet oneness." You are taking the analogies of water and the egg too far. The same water can take on three different forms: liquid, solid, gas (not sure if steam is actually a gas but you get my point) and I can take a hard-boild egg and easily separate it into shell, yoke, and white. The equations 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 are both mathematically true.
Now you are simply copping out. The documentary hypothesis and form criticism certainly do not present anything that can be termed "strong evidence." They are nothing more that academic myths based on nothing but pure speculation.
You are avoiding the facts rather than explaining them. I submit again that the God presented in the Hebrew Bible is a singularity that is also a plurality. For example, take Genesis 18:1-2:
Now the LORD appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him
The Lord יהוה (Yahweh) appeared as three men. Again you see the jump between singularity and plurality. This is because God is a singularity that is also a plurality.
The example of water is also not sufficient since no matter what form it is in (solid, liquid or gas), it is still chemically the same (H2O). How is this similar to the trinity? Jesus (the "son") was flesh and blood. The Father and the Holy Spirit are clearly different. Therefore, the water example as a defense of the trinity is not logical.
If you want to switch topics go ahead. I summarize this topic, to wit, the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible as follows:
God is presented in the Hebrew Bible as a singularity that is also a plurality.
Originally posted by islamispeace
I would also rather discuss the other point I raised as it has everything to do with this topic. It has major implications on your claim that the trinity even exists in the Hebrew Bible, as if your claim is true, it would show an inconsistency between the two books, and one that I think is impossible to reconcile.
I would also rather discuss the other point I raised as it has everything to do with this topic. It has major implications on your claim that the trinity even exists in the Hebrew Bible, as if your claim is true, it would show an inconsistency between the two books, and one that I think is impossible to reconcile.
If you want to switch topics go ahead. I summarize this topic, to wit, the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible as follows:
Originally posted by islamispeace
Clearly, "logic" to you is something entirely different to the rest of us. Making silly comparisons of the trinity to an egg or water is the epitome of desperation. How is an egg similar to the trinity? An egg is something that is created. The triune God was not created. Additionally, if you really want to get technical, then you would see that an egg is much more than simply a shell, yolk and albumen (egg white). Underneath the shell, there are actually two membranes. There is also the germinal disc which serves as the pathway for sperm during fertilization [Georgia Egg Commission].
Clearly, "logic" to you is something entirely different to the rest of us. Making silly comparisons of the trinity to an egg or water is the epitome of desperation. How is an egg similar to the trinity? An egg is something that is created. The triune God was not created. Additionally, if you really want to get technical, then you would see that an egg is much more than simply a shell, yolk and albumen (egg white). Underneath the shell, there are actually two membranes. There is also the germinal disc which serves as the pathway for sperm during fertilization [Georgia Egg Commission].
What I am giving you is examples from mathematics and nature that show "three yet oneness." You are taking the analogies of water and the egg too far. The same water can take on three different forms: liquid, solid, gas (not sure if steam is actually a gas but you get my point) and I can take a hard-boild egg and easily separate it into shell, yoke, and white. The equations 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 are both mathematically true.
Originally posted by islamispeace
Well, the reason for that is that the OT was written by different people. The Documentary Hypothesis presents strong evidence that the different usages of the names of God points to different authors. In fact, two of the anonymous authors have been designated "Jahwist" and "Elohist". The presupposition that the different usages mean that God must be a trinity is baseless and hence nothing more than a non-sequitur.
Well, the reason for that is that the OT was written by different people. The Documentary Hypothesis presents strong evidence that the different usages of the names of God points to different authors. In fact, two of the anonymous authors have been designated "Jahwist" and "Elohist". The presupposition that the different usages mean that God must be a trinity is baseless and hence nothing more than a non-sequitur.
Now you are simply copping out. The documentary hypothesis and form criticism certainly do not present anything that can be termed "strong evidence." They are nothing more that academic myths based on nothing but pure speculation.
The antecedent of the "we" in 2 Sam 16:20 ( "us" is not there in the Hebrew) is verse 15:
Then Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, entered Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him.
Absalom was with his cabinet, his advisors, when he asked Ahithophel the question in verse 20:
Give counsel among you what we shall do-This is the first cabinet council on record, although the deference paid to Ahithophel gave him the entire direction of the proceedings. Jamieson Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary 2 Sam 16:20
Thus the we in verse 20 refers to Absalom and his cabinet advisors.
Originally posted by islamispeace
Again, you are making completely unsupported statements. The Encyclopedia Judaica has an interesting entry on the word "Elohim":
Again, you are making completely unsupported statements. The Encyclopedia Judaica has an interesting entry on the word "Elohim":
You are making my point exactly here. Zero in on the phrase "The odd fact that Hebrew uses a plural noun to designate the god of Israel." It is indeed a very odd fact. One that cannot be ignored. It is the same with the word for water מימ (mayim) and heaven שמימ (shamayim) which can be either plural or singular. אלהים (Elohim) is a singularity that is also a plurality.
No comments:
Post a Comment