Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Elohim?  (Read 890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dylan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Reputation: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
Elohim?
« on: July 02, 2007, 08:16:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello,


    I recently heard an argument by some skeptics claiming that since the plural form of God's name, Elohim, is used in the first chapter of Genesis that it is "teaching polytheism". I am very confused about this, could someone please help me with this?


    Thanks in advance,

    Dylan.


    Offline Cletus

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 603
    • Reputation: +20/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Elohim?
    « Reply #1 on: July 02, 2007, 09:06:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Usually I wouldn't recommend wikipedia, but in this case I think that it's the way to go for at least a "quick fix." I think that if you read their article on "Elohim" you'll see where the confusion lies in what you heard and you'll be reassured. Please let us know if that doesn't help- this could be researched further.


    Offline Carolus Magnus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 186
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Elohim?
    « Reply #2 on: July 02, 2007, 09:11:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The most obvious answer is that the plural is used as God is made up of three persons, the Holy Trinity, this is one of the mysteries of our Faith, no one wil accept it unless God gives them the Grace to have Faith, no amount of arguing on your part will convince someone of this, paticularly those who hate Christ so much as to deliberately choose to misinterpret the meaning of this word out of sheer malice.  Do not waste your time trying to explain the Trinity to these heathens, as Christ says: "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. "


    The etymology of the word Elohim is unknown. There are many theories, however, including the following:

        * The most commonly accepted root of this source among Jєωιѕн scholars is that the word literally translates to "powers" meaning God is the One in control of these powers.
        * The most likely derivation comes from the word Elohim ('lhm) found in the Ugarit archives, meaning the family or pantheon associated with the Canaanite father God El.
        * Hebraist Joel M. Hoffman derives the word from the common Canaanite word elim, with the mater lectionis heh inserted to distinguish the Israelite God from other gods. He argues that elohim thus patterns with Abram/Abraham and Sarai/Sarah.[1] (See also Yahweh.)
        * Karel van der Toorn repeats the common claim that elohim is the plural of eloah, but D. Pardee notes the lack of any clear etymology for eloah.[2]
        * Some trace its origin in el or ul which may mean ("to be strong") or possibly ("to be in front"), from which also are derived ayil ("ram", the one in front of the flock) and elah (the prominent "terebinth"); Elohim would then be an expanded plural form of El. (However, Semitic etymologies are generally based on triconsonantal roots, which this proposal completely ignores.)
        * Others relate the word (and Eloah, "a god") to alah ("to terrify") or alih ("to be perplexed, afraid; to seek refuge because of fear"). Eloah and Elohim, therefore, would be "He who is the object of fear or reverence," or "He with whom one who is afraid takes refuge".
        * Some Biblical scholars tend to resist making connections with the father god of Ugarit, El, due to the uncertainty of religious links between Canaanite and Israelite religion. Instead they focus on the common Semitic linguistic background of these two cultures. Others find the similarities between texts of Ugarit and the Bible useful evidence of a common tradition.

    The form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, is plural and masculine, but the construction is usually singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective when referring to the Hebrew god, but reverts to its normal plural when used of heathen divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7). There are many theories as to why the word is plural:

        * In one view, predominant among anthropomorphic monotheists, the word is plural in order to augment its meaning and form an abstraction meaning "Divine majesty".
        * Among orthodox Trinitarian Christian writers it is sometimes used as evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
        * In another view that is more common among a range of secular scholars, heterodox Christian and Jєωιѕн theologians and polytheists, the word's plurality reflects early Judaic polytheism. They argue it originally meant "the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being. They claim the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods of the Judean pantheon with their own singular patron god YHWH alone.

    As you can see from the above the meaning of this word is anything but clear, these people have chosen to use such a false interpretation purely out of spite.  Even if it could be proven that the Jєωs did worship many Gods at one time this would not mean anything to Christians, it is well docuмented that the Jєωs took to worshipping false gods and where punished for it by the One True God on several occasions.

    Only the Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, and it must be interpreted in light of what the rest of the whole of the Scriptures say, the Scriptures are clear that there is one God, and this must influence our understanding of what is wirtten, Moses wrote Genesis and at the same time it is clear he worshipped One God so I do not see how he could at the same time believe in many God's, all other "gods" are not God's but  demons, that is made quite clear in scripture, and God punishes those who wpuld worship these false gods.
    adstiterunt reges terrae et principes convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum et adversus Christum eius diapsalma disrumpamus vincula eorum et proiciamus a nobis iugum ipsorum

    Offline Carolus Magnus

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 186
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Elohim?
    « Reply #3 on: July 02, 2007, 09:26:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would avoid talking to these heathens in the future if I where you, they are clearly men of bad will who are anti-christ and as such are bad company for a Catholic to keep.
    adstiterunt reges terrae et principes convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum et adversus Christum eius diapsalma disrumpamus vincula eorum et proiciamus a nobis iugum ipsorum

    Offline Dylan

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 241
    • Reputation: +16/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Elohim?
    « Reply #4 on: July 02, 2007, 03:38:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you for your help.  I was thinking it was referring to the Trinity but, I wanted to be sure.

    I wrote to JP Holding of Tektonics.org to see what he had to say about it and he said:

    Quote
    1) "Elohim" is a plural not of number but of power and majesty. It is hard to think of an English parallel offhand, but the word "power" when used to refer to a collection of energy is not far off.

    2) It's use in Genesis shows it refers to a single entity, because it is paired with verbs in the singular.


    Offline Dylan

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 241
    • Reputation: +16/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Elohim?
    « Reply #5 on: July 22, 2007, 03:23:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi again. Someone responded to my question on another forum and they sent me this article written by some Karaite Jєωs:

     Elohim: Plural or Singular?

    Now, I know that Jєωs do not except Our Lord Jesus Christ but, I figure that to understand the meaning used in the Bible the best thing to do is to read the actual Hebrew that it was first written in.

    In the first part of the article (see above link), it shows that in the Hebrew language 'Elohim' is actually numerically singular. The plural ending of 'im' denotes to greatness, not multiplicity.

    In Hebrew the sentences are structured differently that English sentences.

    for instance, in English:

    Singular: The big dog guarded.

    Plural: The big dogs guarded.


    But, in Hebrew:

    Singular: The big (sg) dog (he) guarded. שָׁמַר  הַכֶּלֶב  הַגָּדוֹל

    Plural: The big (pl) dogs (they) guarded. שָׁמְרוּ  הַכְּלָבִים  הַגְּדוֹלִים


     In the very first verse of the Torah (first 5 books in the Bible) we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning "Elohim (he) created". So the Bible makes it clear that there is only one God. I believe that it is also referring to the Trinity.

    But, the reason I'm writing again is because of the third part of the article (Elohim: Part 3). This is the part that I'm confused on. I am confused the most with the verses of Gen. 20:13, Gen 35:7, and 2 Samuel 7:23 listed in the third part of the article with Abraham, Jacob, and David as listed in the 3rd part of the article. I'm not too familar with phonetics and grammar in general so, this has been bothering me lately. The "attraction" phenomenon, mentioned in the article, is what I am confused with also. I don't understand this part at all. Can anyone help clarify this or explain it in a different way.

    Thanks and God Bless,

    Dylan.

    Offline dust-7

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 199
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Elohim?
    « Reply #6 on: July 22, 2007, 07:11:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Dylan
    I'm not too familar with phonetics and grammar in general so, this has been bothering me lately. The "attraction" phenomenon, mentioned in the article, is what I am confused with also. I don't understand this part at all.


    Your author is there trying to argue, obviously, that many means one, in every case. The many construction is more a convenient grammatical turn, instead, not meant to imply plurality. And his basis is the masoretic texts. So a) one could as easily argue to the contrary. And b) the TNK is not a reliable source in any case.