I wrote; "would not the rest of the Torah, and succeeding revelation mean 'anything' to the understanding of a translation of an ancient text"
After rereading your post Daniel, it seems you 'are' saying succeeding revelation can be used to define the translators understanding of the word Elohim. I'm not sure.
And I am not sure you are talking about the spoken Babylonian Semitic language equivalent or the Sumerian understanding of the similar word, and what period (Aramaic)?
Anyways the concepts of gods in the ancient world seemed to go 'all over' the place, from men having god like abilities, to divine powers (fire / water) to divine reason (Greek) etc., so a unit type god idea (like Marduk) was not as clear cut a concept either, to them as well.
"But, backwoodsman, if of “actual multiplicity”, then what is your argument? That “actual multiplicity” is merely a possibility but not always an actuality? Says who? Translators…?"
I am not sure of your opinion of the Godhead concept, you seem to be in agreement at the end of your post. So you do agree Elohim 'allows' a fullness, not just in number of gods, but fullness in substance - of prominence - of importance, (like you mentioned; majesty) or comprised of all or many attributes.
You wrote "Monotheism …a term I have already shown they neither define nor explain?"
I am not sure what you mean by not explaining Monotheism?
Like 7150 mentioned, One what; is One God (?).
(Sorry I'm a bit rushed here..)
Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Last edited by jriccitelli on Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Backwoodsman, states:
And yet I can’t imagine you will let my charge stand. For that would mean you admit to a contradiction. But, at least, I hope to be spared the kind of response so typical of e.g., the Calvinist, wherein he posits his theological version of the Hegelian dialectic (doublethink), containing a thesis and an antithesis (i.e. like your pitting against each other the phrases “this simple grammatical point” and “theological statement[s] about the nature of God”), only to ultimately declare the truth is a synthesis of the two. In other words, I’m expecting your next response to be something akin to the claim that I don’t understand your position at all, or that I’m putting words into your mouth and being silly, etc. For the trick of the Hegelian dialectical method is to embrace the synthesis of opposing ideas, but then deny doing so. And so on, ad infinitum.
For the ironic result of your statement quoted above is, instead of you yourself “separating” the two (thesis and antithesis) to produce clarity, you have thrown the two together, as if their synergistic effect (read confusion), will overcome their contradiction. You can believe that, if you want. But in my opinion a “point” has to mean something if it to be called a “point.” And I do not see how your utilization of the word “point” in the phrase “this simple grammatical point” can mean anything at all, since, again, your guidelines insist that such a “point” can express nothing about the nature of God.
The problem here is that you are embracing a logical contradiction but refusing to admit it. I don’t think that’s quite playing fair. Rather, if I found myself taking your position I would admit to the contradiction but press the fact that Gödel’s incompleteness theory has proved that every ideological system [biblical Christianity included] runs into the wall of logical contradiction at some point, and so has to accept by faith certain axioms it cannot prove. Within Christian doctrine the eternality of a God who nevertheless acts is one such axiom, since, theoretically, Zeno’s paradox shows that if between any two points in time there are infinite points of time, movement (including that of the will, i.e. Choice) should be impossible. And so there are (at least) a few axioms in biblical Christianity that defy logic as we humans understand it, yet apparently these axioms make sense to God. I think in essence this is your position—that the Trinity defies human logic but that Scripture shows it to be linguistically valid.
So why don’t I agree? Because in this case it seems that such a position takes the great majority of awkward phrases in the Bible—specifically, those in the O.T. involving the combination of Elohim with the singular verb—and insists that Elohim be translated in the singular, even at the expense of the more plainly understood phrases in the New Testament, nearly all of which defy such an understanding. Indeed, I find it darkly amusing that you claim your view makes things clearer, when, in fact, unless we understand Christ as a Person separate from his Father, we can make no sense of the most simplest statements in the New Testament. Take (1) Jesus’ statement that he came not on his own, but that He (the Father) who sent him is true. In what sense is there one singular God here? For that would mean that Christ sent himself if there is one God, despite his having said he came not on his own. Or (2) what of Christ’s statement when he asked the Father to glorify him in order that the Father would be glorified? In what sense is there one God here? For that would mean Christ aimed to glorify himself to the extent that there is one God. Or again, (3) in what sense did Christ mean that the Spirit, when he came, would not speak of himself? For if there is but one God then in some sense the Spirit must speak of himself. Do you see the problem? These are plain-sounding statements by Jesus, yet according to the guidelines you give us they really cannot be understood with any clarity at all.
This is why I have come to question the traditional understanding of the Trinity. For there is great danger, I believe, in making exceptions to the meaning of words simply because God is the grammatical subject. Again, Calvinists do this all the time, with the word “foreknowledge,” for example. Yet as Prof. Thomas Edgar points out, if words can change their meanings depending on whether God is the grammatical subject, how can we be sure what any word means when God is the subject? Take Elohim for example. The claim is made that Babylonian and Canaanite cultures sometimes referred to their respective chief deities under the name Elohim. But what is the percentage of such occurrences in extra-biblical writings where this is the case, compared to all the occurrences of Elohim in ancient literature? One percent? Two percent? But then why do we insist on using the minority use of this word to inform biblical translations? Indeed, is it really so unreasonable to suppose another scenario, i.e., that the Babylonians and Canaanites distorted the meaning of the biblical Elohim—understood properly beforetime by Noah and by Noah’s sons—from a plurality of Persons who act in single-mindedness (hence the singular verbs and pronouns), to an application where their respective chief deities could embody, by sound-association, the quality of majesty inherent in the word “Elohim”? Again, it seems to me the old adage is wisest, which says that the Old Testament in revealed in the New, and the New Testament hidden in the Old, and that we ought to take the plainer sounding statements of the New Testament to inform the rather bizarre-sounding ones of the Old, rather than have the Old ‘inform’ the New.
Finally, a word about the Hebrew word echad and the Greek word heis in the statement “Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one Lord.” Here the word God in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Hebrew word Elohim, and in Mark 12:29 the Greek word is theos; and here the word one in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Hebrew word echad, and in Mark 12:29 it is the Greek word heis. As for the singular “theos”, Thayer lists “Godhead” among the meanings. And we can see why, when taking into account a verse like Matthew 3:9, since, when Jesus says that “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” it is clear that the Son could perform this feat, and not just the Father (or the Father and the Spirit). But perhaps more to the point, your claim that I ought to find the term one Lord “clear enough” is obviously your way of saying that echad and heis cannot mean a corporate one. But, in fact, the Greek word heis is used to refer to a corporate one in John 17:21-22, where Jesus prays that “they will be one (Gr. heis), even as WE are one (Gr. heis), and the Hebrew word echad is likewise used to refer to a corporate one, in the phrase “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24, an idea repeated in kind in Corinthians in the phrase “one body,” which is the state a man finds himself who has joined himself to a whore, and here the word “one” is the Gr. heis. So, yeah, something is, in fact, clear enough to me now—I realize why, as a traditional Trinitarian, you wouldn’t find it in your best interest to notify readers of the full spectrum of meaning for Gr. heis.
Yet this is only one method of how traditional Trinitarians have advanced their view. The other effective method has been to use language vaguely while talking about how God is One, while allowing the natural association of thoughts about Christ, who is the image of God, to lead people to suppose the oneness is somehow personal. And so Trinitarian language typically runs thus: “But though there are three Persons of God, yet God is not Three, but One.”Thus the Trinitarian assiduously avoids and even contrasts personal language to describe the oneness of God, though it should be evident to us that, since Christ is the most plain manifestation of God Christians can think of, Christians will inevitably think of the oneness of God as personal, anyway. Yet to actually state that God is Three Persons yet only One Person would be plainly absurd. Indeed, this would invite actual questions about what it means to be a person, an aspect of inquiry also avoided in Trinitarian discussions, since personhood based (properly) on the creation of thought and choice would uphold the plurality, not singularity, of Elohim.
So, back-tracking a bit, backwoodsman, who does Jesus mean by “we” in John 17:22? And could not Christ have had in view the “we” when he speaks of “one Lord” in Mark 12:29? Should we, as you generally advocate in these matters, make the plain meaning obscure, so that only the obscure remains? Or, rather, should we not understand the obscure in light of the plain?
Your statement is very representative of the kind of ISBE confusion I’m talking about. For in claiming that I’m confusing a “simple grammatical point” with “a theological statement about the nature of God”, you thus place the two in mutual exclusion of the other, thus implicitly claiming that the “simple grammatical point” has nothing to do with a “theological statement about the nature of God.” But, pray tell, what else besides theological statements about the nature of God do we have which defines “God” for us? That is, what else besides these are comprehendible? For any statement about God’s existence, moral dimension, potential for good or evil, creator-hood, person-hood, and so forth, are, in fact, the only kind of statements able to be understood. In fact, all such that I list are theological statements about the nature of God. Therefore (following your logic) any other “points” (i.e. ‘statements’) that lay outside these comprehendible statements are by definition not comprehendible, which is exactly why you’re still failing to answer the question: “God is one what?” For to simply assert that God is one “Yahweh” and one “Lord” begs the question what “Yahweh” and “Lord” mean according to your system, since as “simple grammatical point[s]” you claim they cannot be “theological statement[s] about the nature of God”.I think you're confusing this simple grammatical point with a theological statement about the nature of God. If you can separate the two in your thinking, I think both will become much clearer.
And yet I can’t imagine you will let my charge stand. For that would mean you admit to a contradiction. But, at least, I hope to be spared the kind of response so typical of e.g., the Calvinist, wherein he posits his theological version of the Hegelian dialectic (doublethink), containing a thesis and an antithesis (i.e. like your pitting against each other the phrases “this simple grammatical point” and “theological statement[s] about the nature of God”), only to ultimately declare the truth is a synthesis of the two. In other words, I’m expecting your next response to be something akin to the claim that I don’t understand your position at all, or that I’m putting words into your mouth and being silly, etc. For the trick of the Hegelian dialectical method is to embrace the synthesis of opposing ideas, but then deny doing so. And so on, ad infinitum.
For the ironic result of your statement quoted above is, instead of you yourself “separating” the two (thesis and antithesis) to produce clarity, you have thrown the two together, as if their synergistic effect (read confusion), will overcome their contradiction. You can believe that, if you want. But in my opinion a “point” has to mean something if it to be called a “point.” And I do not see how your utilization of the word “point” in the phrase “this simple grammatical point” can mean anything at all, since, again, your guidelines insist that such a “point” can express nothing about the nature of God.
The problem here is that you are embracing a logical contradiction but refusing to admit it. I don’t think that’s quite playing fair. Rather, if I found myself taking your position I would admit to the contradiction but press the fact that Gödel’s incompleteness theory has proved that every ideological system [biblical Christianity included] runs into the wall of logical contradiction at some point, and so has to accept by faith certain axioms it cannot prove. Within Christian doctrine the eternality of a God who nevertheless acts is one such axiom, since, theoretically, Zeno’s paradox shows that if between any two points in time there are infinite points of time, movement (including that of the will, i.e. Choice) should be impossible. And so there are (at least) a few axioms in biblical Christianity that defy logic as we humans understand it, yet apparently these axioms make sense to God. I think in essence this is your position—that the Trinity defies human logic but that Scripture shows it to be linguistically valid.
So why don’t I agree? Because in this case it seems that such a position takes the great majority of awkward phrases in the Bible—specifically, those in the O.T. involving the combination of Elohim with the singular verb—and insists that Elohim be translated in the singular, even at the expense of the more plainly understood phrases in the New Testament, nearly all of which defy such an understanding. Indeed, I find it darkly amusing that you claim your view makes things clearer, when, in fact, unless we understand Christ as a Person separate from his Father, we can make no sense of the most simplest statements in the New Testament. Take (1) Jesus’ statement that he came not on his own, but that He (the Father) who sent him is true. In what sense is there one singular God here? For that would mean that Christ sent himself if there is one God, despite his having said he came not on his own. Or (2) what of Christ’s statement when he asked the Father to glorify him in order that the Father would be glorified? In what sense is there one God here? For that would mean Christ aimed to glorify himself to the extent that there is one God. Or again, (3) in what sense did Christ mean that the Spirit, when he came, would not speak of himself? For if there is but one God then in some sense the Spirit must speak of himself. Do you see the problem? These are plain-sounding statements by Jesus, yet according to the guidelines you give us they really cannot be understood with any clarity at all.
This is why I have come to question the traditional understanding of the Trinity. For there is great danger, I believe, in making exceptions to the meaning of words simply because God is the grammatical subject. Again, Calvinists do this all the time, with the word “foreknowledge,” for example. Yet as Prof. Thomas Edgar points out, if words can change their meanings depending on whether God is the grammatical subject, how can we be sure what any word means when God is the subject? Take Elohim for example. The claim is made that Babylonian and Canaanite cultures sometimes referred to their respective chief deities under the name Elohim. But what is the percentage of such occurrences in extra-biblical writings where this is the case, compared to all the occurrences of Elohim in ancient literature? One percent? Two percent? But then why do we insist on using the minority use of this word to inform biblical translations? Indeed, is it really so unreasonable to suppose another scenario, i.e., that the Babylonians and Canaanites distorted the meaning of the biblical Elohim—understood properly beforetime by Noah and by Noah’s sons—from a plurality of Persons who act in single-mindedness (hence the singular verbs and pronouns), to an application where their respective chief deities could embody, by sound-association, the quality of majesty inherent in the word “Elohim”? Again, it seems to me the old adage is wisest, which says that the Old Testament in revealed in the New, and the New Testament hidden in the Old, and that we ought to take the plainer sounding statements of the New Testament to inform the rather bizarre-sounding ones of the Old, rather than have the Old ‘inform’ the New.
Finally, a word about the Hebrew word echad and the Greek word heis in the statement “Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God is one Lord.” Here the word God in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Hebrew word Elohim, and in Mark 12:29 the Greek word is theos; and here the word one in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the Hebrew word echad, and in Mark 12:29 it is the Greek word heis. As for the singular “theos”, Thayer lists “Godhead” among the meanings. And we can see why, when taking into account a verse like Matthew 3:9, since, when Jesus says that “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” it is clear that the Son could perform this feat, and not just the Father (or the Father and the Spirit). But perhaps more to the point, your claim that I ought to find the term one Lord “clear enough” is obviously your way of saying that echad and heis cannot mean a corporate one. But, in fact, the Greek word heis is used to refer to a corporate one in John 17:21-22, where Jesus prays that “they will be one (Gr. heis), even as WE are one (Gr. heis), and the Hebrew word echad is likewise used to refer to a corporate one, in the phrase “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24, an idea repeated in kind in Corinthians in the phrase “one body,” which is the state a man finds himself who has joined himself to a whore, and here the word “one” is the Gr. heis. So, yeah, something is, in fact, clear enough to me now—I realize why, as a traditional Trinitarian, you wouldn’t find it in your best interest to notify readers of the full spectrum of meaning for Gr. heis.
Yet this is only one method of how traditional Trinitarians have advanced their view. The other effective method has been to use language vaguely while talking about how God is One, while allowing the natural association of thoughts about Christ, who is the image of God, to lead people to suppose the oneness is somehow personal. And so Trinitarian language typically runs thus: “But though there are three Persons of God, yet God is not Three, but One.”Thus the Trinitarian assiduously avoids and even contrasts personal language to describe the oneness of God, though it should be evident to us that, since Christ is the most plain manifestation of God Christians can think of, Christians will inevitably think of the oneness of God as personal, anyway. Yet to actually state that God is Three Persons yet only One Person would be plainly absurd. Indeed, this would invite actual questions about what it means to be a person, an aspect of inquiry also avoided in Trinitarian discussions, since personhood based (properly) on the creation of thought and choice would uphold the plurality, not singularity, of Elohim.
So, back-tracking a bit, backwoodsman, who does Jesus mean by “we” in John 17:22? And could not Christ have had in view the “we” when he speaks of “one Lord” in Mark 12:29? Should we, as you generally advocate in these matters, make the plain meaning obscure, so that only the obscure remains? Or, rather, should we not understand the obscure in light of the plain?
-
backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Daniel,
Wow -- you seem to know quite a bit more about my beliefs than I've stated. Maybe you're superimposing onto me a set of beliefs that you feel a need to oppose? Maybe you're convinced that anyone who doesn't accept your view on these things must hold all those beliefs? Whatever the case, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you by not responding. But if you'd like to dial it back a few notches to where you wait until I've said something to convince yourself I believe it, I'd be happy to have a rational discussion.
Wow -- you seem to know quite a bit more about my beliefs than I've stated. Maybe you're superimposing onto me a set of beliefs that you feel a need to oppose? Maybe you're convinced that anyone who doesn't accept your view on these things must hold all those beliefs? Whatever the case, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you by not responding. But if you'd like to dial it back a few notches to where you wait until I've said something to convince yourself I believe it, I'd be happy to have a rational discussion.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Backwoodsman states:
You see, to prove that I understood your position I decided to forecast the type of response you would have to give, were you to maintain your position. But I’ll admit even I’m a little amazed at how succinctly you fulfilled my predictions. Nevertheless, it’s sad to see that you feel it necessary to cling to your position. If you reply like your last, it's doubtful (though not impossible) that I'll reply, lest I find myself just repeating points already made.
OR, maybe you’re just not familiar enough with philosophy to realize how your type of error fits into a past philosophical system.Wow -- you seem to know quite a bit more about my beliefs than I've stated. Maybe you're superimposing onto me a set of beliefs that you feel a need to oppose? Maybe you're convinced that anyone who doesn't accept your view on these things must hold all those beliefs?
And so you prove my case. As I predicted, now you are (1) claiming you didn’t say what you said, despite my actual quote of you; and (2) claiming it is I, not you, who is not engaging in rational discussion, despite my demonstration of the irrationality in your statement (which I quote at the beginning of my last comment). Thus here, too, you have proved my prediction that, after positing the thesis and antithesis and finding the solution in a Hegelian synthesis of the two, you might deny doing so.But if you'd like to dial it back a few notches to where you wait until I've said something to convince yourself I believe it, I'd be happy to have a rational discussion.
You see, to prove that I understood your position I decided to forecast the type of response you would have to give, were you to maintain your position. But I’ll admit even I’m a little amazed at how succinctly you fulfilled my predictions. Nevertheless, it’s sad to see that you feel it necessary to cling to your position. If you reply like your last, it's doubtful (though not impossible) that I'll reply, lest I find myself just repeating points already made.
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
hi daniel,
grace and peace
what do you mean by "of the same substance"?I do believe Elohim is Three Persons, all of whom are co-eternal, equally powerful, and of the same substance.
grace and peace
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Hi Jeremiah,
I think the traditional way of stating the equality of the Persons of the Godhead is to say they are of the same "substance". An analogy (if imperfect) would be that you are I share the same substance as finite humans.
Most Christians seem to believe that before the Creation God was spirit only, and that theophanies and Christ's incarnation have since been exceptions to what originally had been. Still, there is some question whether God's substance before the Creation was spirit only, or whether it also involved the material. Personally, I'm not particularly convinced of the view that the Persons of the Godhead were without bodies prior to creation, since the scriptures that purportedly support the spirit-only view are in my opinion weak. But I haven't made a detailed study of it enough to really want to discuss it in much detail. If any of the Persons of the Godhead are bodiless, I suppose it would be the Spirit. Yet even in the Spirit's case it may be that his name is more of a function of what he does (communicating through non-material means, i.e., thoughts), than a main description of what he is.
To try to answer your question directly, I don't think any human can fully comprehend what the "substance" of God entirely involves, but it seems to me it cannot in principle be vastly far removed from man's in many ways, since man is made in God's image. But, of course, there are differences. One is the degree of God's power and ways, which are as high above ours as the heavens are to the earth. Another is that God Himself is uncreated, yet able to create other persons with the ability to think and choose, without determining what they think and choose.
A small note here. I think when the Creeds speak of the Persons of the Godhead being of the same substance, they are implicitly reminding their readers that the substance of angles or of men is not the same as God's, if nevertheless these share certain similarities with God.
I think the traditional way of stating the equality of the Persons of the Godhead is to say they are of the same "substance". An analogy (if imperfect) would be that you are I share the same substance as finite humans.
Most Christians seem to believe that before the Creation God was spirit only, and that theophanies and Christ's incarnation have since been exceptions to what originally had been. Still, there is some question whether God's substance before the Creation was spirit only, or whether it also involved the material. Personally, I'm not particularly convinced of the view that the Persons of the Godhead were without bodies prior to creation, since the scriptures that purportedly support the spirit-only view are in my opinion weak. But I haven't made a detailed study of it enough to really want to discuss it in much detail. If any of the Persons of the Godhead are bodiless, I suppose it would be the Spirit. Yet even in the Spirit's case it may be that his name is more of a function of what he does (communicating through non-material means, i.e., thoughts), than a main description of what he is.
To try to answer your question directly, I don't think any human can fully comprehend what the "substance" of God entirely involves, but it seems to me it cannot in principle be vastly far removed from man's in many ways, since man is made in God's image. But, of course, there are differences. One is the degree of God's power and ways, which are as high above ours as the heavens are to the earth. Another is that God Himself is uncreated, yet able to create other persons with the ability to think and choose, without determining what they think and choose.
A small note here. I think when the Creeds speak of the Persons of the Godhead being of the same substance, they are implicitly reminding their readers that the substance of angles or of men is not the same as God's, if nevertheless these share certain similarities with God.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Steve, I understand why you would express it this way. Another way of stating this would be to say that there are three Gods. And yet I must confess that, if we express it this way to make a temporary point, I feel more comfortable ultimately settling on the grammar which Elohim uses. Personally, then, I would prefer to say that there IS three Gods. But even here I just prefer to use the more abstract plural, since, although there is three so far as I can tell, Elohim never seems to so directly state the matter this way in the Old Testament. Rather, Elohim expresses it as “Elohim is…”, although, of course, there are exceptions to the singular verb construction, such as when Elohim says let US make man in OUR image. It occurred to me yesterday or so that another verse which implicitly says the same thing is when Elohim tells Noah that whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of Elohim created he man. Since this mention of “image” is a reference to Gen. 1:26, in which US and OUR is used to refer to the image of Elohim in which man was made, I think this is yet another verse (i.e., Gen. 9:6) not generally cited which recognizes the plurality of Elohim.Steve7150 writes:
So it seems to me if Jesus and the Holy Spirit always existed as God , we have three Gods.
All this to say that we have yet another reason translators should transliterate Elohim to “Gods”, instead of rendering “God”, in which latter case they tinker with the grammar for reasons they cannot justify.
It’s amazing how much vilification I have received just for requesting a transliteration of Elohim, which would merely be in accord with the normal definition and majority use of this word according to its grammatical use. I think the irony in all this is that ‘scholars’ and translators are so used to assuming that Elohim means “God”, that they imagine their own translations of this word constitutes the majority use!
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
So Daniel, do you think that the Septuagint translators a way back around 300 B.C. made a mistake in translating "elohim" (plural) into the Greek "theos" (singular)? Should they have translated it as "theoi" (plural)?
Did the writer to the Hebrews make the same mistake by saying that "theos" (singular) took Enoch (Heb 11:5), whereas it is written in Genesis 5:24 that "elohim" (plural) took Enoch?
Did the writer to the Hebrews make the same mistake by saying that "theos" (singular) took Enoch (Heb 11:5), whereas it is written in Genesis 5:24 that "elohim" (plural) took Enoch?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
Hi Paidion,
An excellent question. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and so if the best evidence we have of the original autographa for Hebrews 11:5 is that the singular form of the Greek word theos was used, I’m all for translating it “God.” And the same would go for any other similar examples in the New Testament.
But for all the reasons I have already given, I would hesitate, were I a translator, to translate Elohim to anything other than “Gods” in the Old Testament. Perhaps some would object here by citing Hebrews 11:5, and use that verse along with other similar examples to claim that ALL occurrences of Elohim in the Old Testament should be rendered “God” whenever the Creator God is in view. But who really knows why the singular is used in e.g. Hebrews 11:5 et al? For example, couldn’t I argue that in context with Hebrews 11:4, in which Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable to God, that it is only or primarily the Father in view, since Abel’s sacrifice is a type of Christ and therefore points to the sacrifice’s acceptance, which is not determined by the thing or person sacrificed, but by whom the sacrifice is offered to? For the sacrifice of the Son was in obedience to, and for the acceptance of, the Father, not for the acceptance of the Son (though He trusted that it would be accepted). Perhaps therefore in context Hebrews 11:5 is likewise stating that Enoch’s translation was something directed by the Father, albeit agreed upon by all the Persons of Elohim. I’m not saying I know this to be the case. I’m saying that others cannot really prove the opposite. And because they cannot, I don’t know why they should rush to translate every occurrence of Elohim in the O.T. as “God”.
Furthermore, according to Thayer the [singular] word “God” can mean the Godhead (plural). And even in Gen. 9:6, which I quoted in my last comment, the plural is in view, because the image of God in which man was made is mentioned, though admittedly we have the singular construction “he” in the phrase “for in the image of Elohim he created man.” And so, some will say, “Aha! There is the ONE God,” while I would contend that the “he” may simply be there to indicate the unity of action on the part of Elohim as though he were one person. I think that is what Christ must have had in mind when he doubtless felt a little exasperated with Philip’s request to see the Father. Had not he [Christ] been with Philip for three+ years, demonstrating in power and goodness all that the Father would himself have demonstrated, were he present? Why then must Philip insist on seeing the Father, as though the Father might demonstrate something differently than the Son, especially since the Son was diligent to do everything the Father showed him to do? Therefore Christ says, “Have I been with you so long, Philip, and yet have you not known me? He that has seen me HAS seen the Father!” And I think this is probably the sense that Elohim feels about Himself in the Old Testament. Indeed, I think we forget how amazing it would be for any two human adults to never proceed upon any moral question in any one of tens of thousands of situations, and never deviate in choice and action. I imagine, were I myself in such a relationship with a few others, that I might come to see myself as more or less of a single person, though technically I was not.
Finally, I think you yourself have properly pointed out somewhere on this forum that “God” may behave like the word “man” in that it may refer to either a single person or to man in general. And when I consider Matthew 3:9, where Christ warns his hearers not to imagine they are safe merely because they are the physical children of Abraham, saying “for I say unto you, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," that surely we should realize it is not merely the Father who is capable of such action, but also the Son, and also the Spirit. And so, surely “God” in this verse does not necessarily mean just one of the Persons of the Godhead, though Christ may have had his Father primarily in view, because of his not doing anything without the Father’s direction.
In short, my fear of the traditional view of the Trinity is that it seems to ultimately cast all of the language about God into unknowable mystery. I have already touched on this problem in a previous comment, when I pointed out that if God is one, what do we make of the various plain-sounding statements by Christ that he came not on his own but was sent, or that the Father, not the Son, knows the time of the Son’s return, or that the Spirit would not speak of Himself, but of what he saw and heard, etc. If God is really one, then in some sense, if not in every sense, all such statements cannot be taken at face value. Indeed, they really cannot be trusted at all, since the Persons are never Persons in such a way where the Oneness of God is absent. And so the result I fear is that some mischievous theologian will come and press this point until a doctrine is set forth which says that meaning for God as expressed in the written Word, regardless of how broad or narrow is the consideration, cannot be the identical meaning for man. But, of course, this kind of theology has already been advanced by Karl Barth and other mischievous fellows. (Yet, are they not merely following the implications of the traditional Trinitarian view?) My concern, then, is that we not give them fuel for the fire. So again, I propose that the plainer statements of the Bible ought to govern the translation of the rather bizarre combination of Elohim with the singular verb, though I would exempt all such verses like Hebrews 11:5, where the singular is used. By the same token, then, because I don’t think the theos of Hebrews 11:5 ought to lead us to change the Hebrew Bible from Elohim to Elowah, neither do I think the Elohim of Genesis 5:24 ought to lead us to “correct” the appearance of theos in Hebrews 11:5 in the Greek New Testament. And I guess that implicitly answers your question about my feelings on what the Septuagint did.
A final word about the rest of my feelings over all this. I have probably stated things in this thread more aggressively than I sometimes feel, for the sake of argument. I began this thread by saying I “lean” toward this view. That is still the case, despite the aggressive rhetoric. For the weight of tradition obviously has an effect on me, as it would on anyone sensitive about trying to get such matters of doctrine correct. After all, I don’t really know anyone else who actually holds my view. So, for all I know, maybe some day Jesus will say to me, “Boy, you really fouled that one up about the Trinity.” But in the meantime I have to proceed along the lines that seem most biblical and reasonable to me. And, you know, for all my objections to the traditional view, I don’t think there have been any overwhelming ‘smoking gun’ arguments here that have really closed the deal on the traditional view. But, admittedly, to promote the discussion I’m probably guilty of sometimes acting my part with more confidence than I sometimes feel, especially after I have written, when I’ m alone and prone by temperament to introspection. As I once stated on another forum, “If people only knew what a sheep I was in wolf’s clothing.”
An excellent question. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and so if the best evidence we have of the original autographa for Hebrews 11:5 is that the singular form of the Greek word theos was used, I’m all for translating it “God.” And the same would go for any other similar examples in the New Testament.
But for all the reasons I have already given, I would hesitate, were I a translator, to translate Elohim to anything other than “Gods” in the Old Testament. Perhaps some would object here by citing Hebrews 11:5, and use that verse along with other similar examples to claim that ALL occurrences of Elohim in the Old Testament should be rendered “God” whenever the Creator God is in view. But who really knows why the singular is used in e.g. Hebrews 11:5 et al? For example, couldn’t I argue that in context with Hebrews 11:4, in which Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable to God, that it is only or primarily the Father in view, since Abel’s sacrifice is a type of Christ and therefore points to the sacrifice’s acceptance, which is not determined by the thing or person sacrificed, but by whom the sacrifice is offered to? For the sacrifice of the Son was in obedience to, and for the acceptance of, the Father, not for the acceptance of the Son (though He trusted that it would be accepted). Perhaps therefore in context Hebrews 11:5 is likewise stating that Enoch’s translation was something directed by the Father, albeit agreed upon by all the Persons of Elohim. I’m not saying I know this to be the case. I’m saying that others cannot really prove the opposite. And because they cannot, I don’t know why they should rush to translate every occurrence of Elohim in the O.T. as “God”.
Furthermore, according to Thayer the [singular] word “God” can mean the Godhead (plural). And even in Gen. 9:6, which I quoted in my last comment, the plural is in view, because the image of God in which man was made is mentioned, though admittedly we have the singular construction “he” in the phrase “for in the image of Elohim he created man.” And so, some will say, “Aha! There is the ONE God,” while I would contend that the “he” may simply be there to indicate the unity of action on the part of Elohim as though he were one person. I think that is what Christ must have had in mind when he doubtless felt a little exasperated with Philip’s request to see the Father. Had not he [Christ] been with Philip for three+ years, demonstrating in power and goodness all that the Father would himself have demonstrated, were he present? Why then must Philip insist on seeing the Father, as though the Father might demonstrate something differently than the Son, especially since the Son was diligent to do everything the Father showed him to do? Therefore Christ says, “Have I been with you so long, Philip, and yet have you not known me? He that has seen me HAS seen the Father!” And I think this is probably the sense that Elohim feels about Himself in the Old Testament. Indeed, I think we forget how amazing it would be for any two human adults to never proceed upon any moral question in any one of tens of thousands of situations, and never deviate in choice and action. I imagine, were I myself in such a relationship with a few others, that I might come to see myself as more or less of a single person, though technically I was not.
Finally, I think you yourself have properly pointed out somewhere on this forum that “God” may behave like the word “man” in that it may refer to either a single person or to man in general. And when I consider Matthew 3:9, where Christ warns his hearers not to imagine they are safe merely because they are the physical children of Abraham, saying “for I say unto you, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," that surely we should realize it is not merely the Father who is capable of such action, but also the Son, and also the Spirit. And so, surely “God” in this verse does not necessarily mean just one of the Persons of the Godhead, though Christ may have had his Father primarily in view, because of his not doing anything without the Father’s direction.
In short, my fear of the traditional view of the Trinity is that it seems to ultimately cast all of the language about God into unknowable mystery. I have already touched on this problem in a previous comment, when I pointed out that if God is one, what do we make of the various plain-sounding statements by Christ that he came not on his own but was sent, or that the Father, not the Son, knows the time of the Son’s return, or that the Spirit would not speak of Himself, but of what he saw and heard, etc. If God is really one, then in some sense, if not in every sense, all such statements cannot be taken at face value. Indeed, they really cannot be trusted at all, since the Persons are never Persons in such a way where the Oneness of God is absent. And so the result I fear is that some mischievous theologian will come and press this point until a doctrine is set forth which says that meaning for God as expressed in the written Word, regardless of how broad or narrow is the consideration, cannot be the identical meaning for man. But, of course, this kind of theology has already been advanced by Karl Barth and other mischievous fellows. (Yet, are they not merely following the implications of the traditional Trinitarian view?) My concern, then, is that we not give them fuel for the fire. So again, I propose that the plainer statements of the Bible ought to govern the translation of the rather bizarre combination of Elohim with the singular verb, though I would exempt all such verses like Hebrews 11:5, where the singular is used. By the same token, then, because I don’t think the theos of Hebrews 11:5 ought to lead us to change the Hebrew Bible from Elohim to Elowah, neither do I think the Elohim of Genesis 5:24 ought to lead us to “correct” the appearance of theos in Hebrews 11:5 in the Greek New Testament. And I guess that implicitly answers your question about my feelings on what the Septuagint did.
A final word about the rest of my feelings over all this. I have probably stated things in this thread more aggressively than I sometimes feel, for the sake of argument. I began this thread by saying I “lean” toward this view. That is still the case, despite the aggressive rhetoric. For the weight of tradition obviously has an effect on me, as it would on anyone sensitive about trying to get such matters of doctrine correct. After all, I don’t really know anyone else who actually holds my view. So, for all I know, maybe some day Jesus will say to me, “Boy, you really fouled that one up about the Trinity.” But in the meantime I have to proceed along the lines that seem most biblical and reasonable to me. And, you know, for all my objections to the traditional view, I don’t think there have been any overwhelming ‘smoking gun’ arguments here that have really closed the deal on the traditional view. But, admittedly, to promote the discussion I’m probably guilty of sometimes acting my part with more confidence than I sometimes feel, especially after I have written, when I’ m alone and prone by temperament to introspection. As I once stated on another forum, “If people only knew what a sheep I was in wolf’s clothing.”
-
backwoodsman
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.
Re: Should "Elohim" be rendered "Gods" in O.T.
I don't know where that's happened (not here, certainly), but you might want to carefully consider whether your behavior toward those with whom you disagree contributes anything to the problem, and whether you could help improve communication and relationships by acting in a more Christlike manner toward them. After all, without that, it doesn't really matter whether or not you're right on some point of doctrine, does it?DanielGracely wrote:It’s amazing how much vilification I have received just for requesting a transliteration of Elohim
Well, that's a start, but you've gone way beyond that.I have probably stated things in this thread more aggressively than I sometimes feel, for the sake of argument.
I don't think He's nearly as concerned about our opinions on particular views as He is about our character. (For one thing, Godly character will, over time, help to bring balance to our opinions.) When we see ourselves as more Christlike than we really are, we're often betrayed by how we treat others.So, for all I know, maybe some day Jesus will say to me, “Boy, you really fouled that one up about the Trinity.”