Was Genesis mistranslated?

Damocles said:
I propose that I study as a history and as a linguist, as I have since I was about fourteen when I openly admitted I didn't believe the religion and it was an insult to those who did to continue to pretend it for another. I respect people of religion and don't mention these things to create animosity.

I'm not being "insulting" or even judging. I am just telling you why and how the words are used in certain passages.

The verse where he sits in judgment as Lord of lords is in Psalms, written by David.
Click to expand...

You can study as a linguist 'til the cows come home, but studying a concept that can only be divined via an understanding (in this case understanding Elohim as trinitarian) you'll just walk in circles. The usage only makes since contextually when understood literally that God is a plural God. He is three persons yet one.

When the term Lord is used it is understood to be speaking of the Son. When the spelling is LORD it is speaking of the Father. When terms such as Lord of lords and King of kings is used it is to convey God's Supremacy, not to teach that there are actually other gods. Hyperbole is used to illuminate his Supremacy.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You can study as a linguist 'til the cows come home, but studying a concept that can only be divined via an understanding (in this case understanding Elohim as trinitarian) you'll just walk in circles. The usage only makes since contextually when understood literally that God is a plural God. He is three persons yet one.

When the term Lord is used it is understood to be speaking of the Son. When the spelling is LORD it is speaking of the Father. When terms such as Lord of lords and King of kings is used it is to convey God's Supremacy, not to teach that there are actually other gods. Hyperbole is used to illuminate his Supremacy.
Click to expand...

I'm cool with that, however I will continue to read it as a language with a set grammar.

I can understand that you say that about "us" and "we", that can clearly be contextually understood as either the royal "we" or mentioning the trinity. However the word Elohim (the word we were talking about) is singular in the passage, because contextually it is shown to be singular with the verb usage. It is plural in other passages because it references "other gods", like in the ten commandments.

There is even a time when God speaks of how others will be punished, he mentions singular gods by name (because they worshiped <so and so>, Elohim of <those people>,) one at a time. In each the correct word Elohim is used, but as a singular.

Anyway, we are digressing.

I am simply pointing out that the word Elohim can be both singular and plural by context and is used exactly that way throughout the old testament. You began by telling me that Elohim refers to the Trinity, but that is incorrect. "We" or "Us" can be seen to refer to the trinity, and I like the theme, but the references to God Himself when using "Elohim" each time is the singular, as I made clear, as set in context by verb usage.
 
Im sorry, I have absolutely no intention of debating the mentally ill. Religious people believe in fairy tales. There's nothing that would make me wish to delve into such nonsense. Its below me or any other thinking person.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Im sorry, I have absoliutely no intentiom of debating the mentally ill. Religious people believe in fairy tales. I have no interest in delving into such nonsense Its below me or any other thinking person.
Click to expand...

wow water nice fraidy cat moron BURN


I'm guessing your a senior now as your burns have more depth to them.
 
Damocles said:
Not really, the Old Testament doesn't really reference the Trilogy, and this particular part speaks of him as "Lord of lords"... The Elohim being referenced, he was supposedly the leader of, not just a piece. It doesn't logically follow that it was referencing the Trinity, especially since every place that the Trinity is referenced in the Bible it is singular.

I think it is convenient to your argument to suggest that at this one place it means the Trinity, but in every other time it is mentioned in the singular.
Click to expand...

depends on what you mean by "every other time" since in truth "Trinity" or it's Hebrew or Greek alternative is not referenced anywhere in scripture.....there are references in the OT to the existence of the Spirit of God and to the existence of a Messiah.....the WORD Trinity is not used in either the OT or the NT, but it is disingenuous to claim that the concept of Trinity is not evident in both......
 
Damocles said:
Here, this can explain it better. Probably you may believe it more...

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/Elohim.pdf

The point I was speaking of is even referenced, first he is referenced in the singular, then sits in judgment with the Elohim (plural form).
Click to expand...

Dam, read the conclusion of the source you just provided......the concept you just raised isn't even consistent within the same pericope.....God (singular) said to gods (plural) "Lets all create man in the image of all of us"?.....but in the very next verse God (singular) created man.......
 
Damocles said:
I propose that I study as a history and as a linguist, as I have since I was about fourteen when I openly admitted I didn't believe the religion and it was an insult to those who did to continue to pretend it for another. I respect people of religion and don't mention these things to create animosity.

I'm not being "insulting" or even judging. I am just telling you why and how the words are used in certain passages.

The verse where he sits in judgment as Lord of lords is in Psalms, written by David.
Click to expand...

I think it is important to understand that the Scriptures began as an oral tradition......the patriarch of the tribe would have sat at the campfire at night and passed on the traditional stories.......at some point of time someone with the education (personally I believe it was Moses, trained by Pharaoh's household) wrote those stories down.....at some point in time, likely during the Babylonian captivity, someone compiled the sum of those writings into a single text that became Genesis....

It is even possible to separate the stories of Genesis into different categories based upon the original word used to reference YHWH in the stories....one type appears more ancient, more poetic, the other type more narrative.

the message of both is quite consistent, however.....there is only ONE god there is any reason to pay attention to.....
 
Damocles said:
I'm cool with that, however I will continue to read it as a language with a set grammar.

I can understand that you say that about "us" and "we", that can clearly be contextually understood as either the royal "we" or mentioning the trinity. However the word Elohim (the word we were talking about) is singular in the passage, because contextually it is shown to be singular with the verb usage. It is plural in other passages because it references "other gods", like in the ten commandments.

There is even a time when God speaks of how others will be punished, he mentions singular gods by name (because they worshiped <so and so>, Elohim of <those people>,) one at a time. In each the correct word Elohim is used, but as a singular.

Anyway, we are digressing.

I am simply pointing out that the word Elohim can be both singular and plural by context and is used exactly that way throughout the old testament. You began by telling me that Elohim refers to the Trinity, but that is incorrect. "We" or "Us" can be seen to refer to the trinity, and I like the theme, but the references to God Himself when using "Elohim" each time is the singular, as I made clear, as set in context by verb usage.
Click to expand...

The only way Elhoim makes sense contextually and grammatically is when it is understood as God being a triune God. The examples you cite i.e. 10 commandments follow this pattern; other gods (elohim).

God is singular. The only one. At the same time he is plural;the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
depends on what you mean by "every other time" since in truth "Trinity" or it's Hebrew or Greek alternative is not referenced anywhere in scripture.....there are references in the OT to the existence of the Spirit of God and to the existence of a Messiah.....the WORD Trinity is not used in either the OT or the NT, but it is disingenuous to claim that the concept of Trinity is not evident in both......
Click to expand...
Right, we went over that. I should have been more clear. When Elohim is used in every mention of God it is singular as set in context. "The Trinity" is god.

"We" or "Us" can be logically represented as examples of God thinking of Himself as more than one, but the use of Elohim cannot, as it is clearly delineated as singular when speaking of God by context, but it plural when speaking of the other gods he was Lord over...
 
Ice Dancer said:
The only way Elhoim makes sense contextually and grammatically is when it is understood as God being a triune God. The examples you cite i.e. 10 commandments follow this pattern; other gods (elohim).

God is singular. The only one. At the same time he is plural;the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
Again, you simply misunderstand my point. Elohim can be either singular or plural, when God is specifically talked about contextually it is singular, every time. This holds up with other texts as well, in usage Elohim (Elohoi) is used both as singular or plural (like deer in the English language) and only by context can you determine which, the context in the verses you mention, and each time God Himself is mentioned, the usage is singular as denoted by verb usage.

While God's use of "We" or "Us" can be seen by some to mean the Trinity (hence my statement that every time the Trinity is mentioned the use of Elohim is singular earlier, I wasn't saying the Bible ever specifically mentioned the word Trinity, I was saying each time God is mentioned Elohim is singular).

What I have said in this thread is that the word Elohim is not a clue as to Trinity, you should use his mention of "We" and "Us" (although some scholars believe that to be simply use of the royal We...) but not the word Elohim as the usage of that word in those contexts is singular.
 
Damocles said:
Right, we went over that. I should have been more clear. When Elohim is used in every mention of God it is singular as set in context. "The Trinity" is god.

"We" or "Us" can be logically represented as examples of God thinking of Himself as more than one, but the use of Elohim cannot, as it is clearly delineated as singular when speaking of God by context, but it plural when speaking of the other gods he was Lord over...
Click to expand...

except that in the same paragraph it IS used in the singular....therefore, there is no reason to distinguish this sentence as teaching something different than all the other passages which use the word....it isn't logical to argue the plural isn't evidence of the existence of the Trinity, yet turn around and argue it IS evidence of the existence of separate deities....either it can be evidence of both or it should not be evidence of either.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
except that in the same paragraph it IS used in the singular....therefore, there is no reason to distinguish this sentence as teaching something different than all the other passages which use the word....
Click to expand...
In that passage it is used as both singular and plural. God is the "God of gods" is how it would literally translate.
 
Damo, arguing a religious person on the trinity is not a productive task. They don't believe in the trinity because it makes sense or because of the evidence, and no amount of evidence is going to make them disbelieve.

The trinity is obviously a false doctrine and obviously it's polytheism, not monotheism, no matter what circular logic you use to defend it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good lord, where did you come up with that silly conclusion.....this may surprise you, but Jerusalem is still there......would you also argue that Alexandria and Rome and other ancient cities didn't exist because we haven't found ALL of them just as they were 3000 years ago?......we have the Wailing Wall, which is part of the temple built by Herod, on the land of the temple built by Nehemiah, on the land of the temple built by David.....undoubtedly, stones were reused......
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL. We have evidence of ancient Rome and Alexandria. Not the kingdom of David and Solomon. If there was really a kingdom that large and powerful there at that time we would be tripping over archaeological evidence. The natural conclusion is that when this book of myths was written down hundreds of years after the fact they had walled cities, and the Jews simply exaggerated the myths their ancestors told them.

And this does not come from just me. This comes from professors at the university of TEL AVIV. This comes from people who have a DIRECT INTEREST in proving that David was real, because it would further legitimize zionist claims. And they say... no... not only no evidence, the evidence that's there contradicts what the bible says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Archaeological_evidence

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Finkelstein"]Israel Finkelstein[/ame] and Ze'ev Herzog of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_University"]Tel Aviv University[/ame] do not believe the archeological record supports the view that Israel at that time was a major state, but rather was a small tribal kingdom, although both Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah about the 10th century BC.[84] Finkelstein says in his [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed"]The Bible Unearthed[/ame] (2001): "[O]n the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages and towns."[85] According to Ze'ev Herzog "the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom".[86] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#cite_note-86
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
In that passage it is used as both singular and plural. God is the "God of gods" is how it would literally translate.
Click to expand...

no, I'm talking about the next verse....
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, I'm talking about the next verse....
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Click to expand...


The trinity is a Christian invention and using Jewish texts to defend this nonsense is offensive.
 
Watermark said:
LOLOLOLOL. We have evidence of ancient Rome and Alexandria. Not the kingdom of David and Solomon. If there was really a kingdom that large and powerful there at that time we would be tripping over archaeological evidence. The natural conclusion is that when this book of myths was written down hundreds of years after the fact they had walled cities, and the Jews simply exaggerated the myths their ancestors told them.

And this does not come from just me. This comes from professors at the university of TEL AVIV. This comes from people who have a DIRECT INTEREST in proving that David was real, because it would further legitimize zionist claims. And they say... no... not only no evidence, the evidence that's there contradicts what the bible says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Archaeological_evidence

Israel Finkelstein and Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University do not believe the archeological record supports the view that Israel at that time was a major state, but rather was a small tribal kingdom, although both Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah about the 10th century BC.[84] Finkelstein says in his The Bible Unearthed (2001): "[O]n the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages and towns."[85] According to Ze'ev Herzog "the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom".[86] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#cite_note-86
Click to expand...

:palm:

your link in fact states evidence exists, it is only the size of the kingdoms that is in dispute

you fail
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top