No, Elohim is not an exception.

There are several words for "god" in Hebrew.

One is "el" (Aleph Lamed). The plural ("gods") is "elim" (Aleph Lamed Yud Mem).

Another is "eloah" (Aleph Lamed 'Vav' He). The plural is "elohim" (Aleph Lamed He Yud Mem). (I marked 'Vav' because it is a vowel and not part of the root.)

This is cognate to Arabic "ilah" (Aleph Lamed He), which, together with the definite article "al" (Aleph Lamed, long story) forms "Allah" (= "the god").

There is no doubt that "Elohim" is plural.

However, the verbs it commands are in singular ("Elohim says" rather than "Elohim say"). This suggests a majestic plural. But that's not the argument I am making.




I'm not sure I understand that sentence.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough about the "intrinsic plural". English has two numbers, singular and plural. Hebrew, like most(?) Semitic languages has three numbers, singular, dual, and plural.

The "dual" is named such because it most often applies to pairs. But what it really applies to is "intrinsic plurals", i.e. plurals that are part of the concept of the noun.

Hebrew for "leg" is "regel" (Resh Gimel Lamed). Legs have an intrinsic plural since they usually appear together. The intrinsic plural or dual is formed by adding -aim (Yud Yud Mem) instead of -im (Yud Mem).

1 regel RGL: (one) leg
2 raglaim RGLYYM: two legs (of a man)
3 raglim RGLYM: three legs (different such)
4 raglaim RGLYYM: four legs (of a dog)
5 raglim RGLYM: five legs (different such)

Same applies to teeth (shin -> shinaim), eyes (3ayin -> 3inaim (I suppose you could have "3inim" in a jar)), and breasts (shad -> shadaim). ("3" is a letter.)

Hence "elohim" (Aleph Lamed He Yud Mem), if we read it has a plural is a non-intrinsic plural.

eloah: god (one such)
elohim: gods (different such)
elohaim 'LHYYM: gods (united such)

So if you want to read "elohim" to mean "lots of different gods", you can (although you would still have the problem of the verbs attached to it being singular).

But it's simply not the right grammatical form for "gods (united such)".




No. It means "one" (masculine). "Achat" (with a "t") means "one" (feminine).

What you are looking for is "ochad" (adjective of the verb "le'achad" = "to unite").

The relationship between "echad" and "le'achad" and "ochad" is the same as in English "one" and "to unite" and "union".

"Unite" and "union" are from Latin, but the Germanic root "one" is from the same Indo-European root. In Latin "one" is "unus" (masculine).

Mithra was the basis for Christ, Saul (Paul) even went so far as to use the selling points of Mithras when he went to Greece to 'convert' the 'heaterns' there. Just mixed the two 'gods' up a bit, shake well and viola!

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

 

SODAIHO POSTS:



Besides returning to dust takes care of our physical body after death, what do you think happens to our spirit (our soul)?

You say Heaven and Hell exist as part of this life, and Post # 799 is where I attempted to tie the foundation of the reality of Hell, Satan, etc. existing apart from this life. I'm sure you understand the principle of earthly justice...for our authorities and our laws are all about that. We punish the bad and reward the good. Same deal with God for our earthly justice (authority and laws) is based up His Justice.

Unbelievers tend to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell and yet, God is one in His Mercy, Love, Power and Justice. We can't set one of His attributes against the other. God is Justice. God is Mercy. He cannot defeat His Mercy by His Justice, nor His Justice by His Mercy nor can He deviate from His right without ceasing to be God.

The human race ever since the Fall of Adam and Eve have yielded to temptation and sinned grieviiously. God offered us eternal happiness on the condition that we serve Him freely during our life (our time of probation). If a sinner deliberately refuses , then God's Perfect Justice will punish him afterward. If a man is condemned to Hell, then he certainly deserved it. IF he can honestly say, I didn't know God's law, or I could not help sinning, God cannot and will not punish him. None of the lost have ever asked for His mercy.

For those deliberate sinners, can God, Jesus Christ, justly say to them, if they die unrepentant, "Come ye blessed of My Father, possess the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world?"

 

You do realize this is exactly what a Talmudic discussion looks like!  Wonderful!

More later, just now I need to step out.

Be well.

Oops. I meant that because Elohim is plural it does NOT have the intrinsic value of trinity (being limited to 3).



Thanks for clearing that up.



Hmm, Take a look at Genesis 11:6.

ויאמר יהוה הן עם אחד ושפה אחת לכלם וזה החלם לעשות ועתה לא־יבצר מהם כל אשר יזמו לעשות׃

Note that when talking about one people (עם אחד) the word used for 'one' is echad but very shortly after in referencing a singular language we see Achat (ושפה אחת).

This scripture text seems to suggest the opposite of your previous response?

As I said: ""Achat" (with a "t") means "one" (feminine)."


In Hebrew:

"Safa" ("language") is feminine, hence "safa achat" = "one language".

"3am" ("people") is masculine, hence "3am echad" = "one people".


In Latin:

"one language" = "una lingua" (or old Latin: "una dingua", actually "one tongue")

"one people" = "unus populus"


In German:

"one language" = "eine Sprache"

"one people" = "ein Stamm" (actually "one tribe", but at least it's masculine)

Yes. (Although I don't know if the term "used as an adjective" is strictly correct.)

The same applies to all adjectives and numbers up to ten or so. Also, the number "one" follows the noun while numbers from two precede it.

"bayit echad" = "one house"

"shney batim" = "two houses"

Yeah this is similar to grammatical rules in Russian (Sorry only familiar with English, Spanish, Russian, and some Hebrew).

It seems that we are now on the same wave length. Yay!

I am really slow in reading Hebrew. Doesn't help with the singing in shul!

I can form sentences though and write them down.

Hebrew is difficult because it's not Indo-Euroean and forces you to learn new ways of looking at the world (the world we perceive very much depends on the ways we have to form thoughts).

What makes Hebrew different for English-speakers:

1. Pronunciation of Aleph, Khaf, Resh, and Ayin.

2. Grammatical gender and adjectives that follow the gender of the noun.

3. Conjugation of verbs.

4. Conjugation of prepositions!

5. There is no accusative case and the direct object needs a preposition.

6. But sometimes not.

7. The relationship between words based on the same root.

8. All the words are new with no relationship to English words.

9. There is no "to be" in the present tense.

10. There is no word for "to have".

11. Existence and non-existence are identified in the same way.

12. There is no difference between words and things.

13. Double negatives are used.

14. Three numbers instead of two as in English (although this is now rare).

15. Word order is Verb-Subject-Object (although this can be violated).

16. Vowels are not written but sometimes are.

17. Vowels move around the word freely in conjugation.

I think that's it.

 

Yet, Lula, you must try to understand the translations in terms of the knowledge of the translators at the time of the translation. "World" can mean "known world" as was, I think often the case in ancient times.  What a translators work says should never be "good enough" for yoyu, as if to say, "case closed".  The case for knowledge can never be closed.  Always new things are being discovered and learned.

 

I think God wanted to start over again with the people to whom and for whom the scripture was written. Kind of like a social experiment went awry. There may have been many other peoples in many other lands which were not affected by His judgement.

Be well.

Sodaiho, you don't understand the severity of the problem.

Even if the translators had known what we know today, the remains a problem in as much as "earth" then did NOT mean what it does today.

Latin "terra" meant "region" or "land" originally. Hence the words "terra incognita" on maps (for unrecognised LAND) and hence the English loanword from Latin "territory". (And a "terrarium" does not contain a planet either.)

Only slowly did the word "earth" develop its new meaning "planet earth" over the last few centuries. And it did so at differing speeds in different languages.

In American English the word "ground" has very much replaced the word "earth" for the original meaning. British English still uses "earth" for what Americans call "ground".

In German the word "Erde" (cognate, i.e. derived from the same Germanic word) has only less than half completed the transition and most people would think "floor" rather than "our planet" when you say the word. In German you literally say "my cup fell onto the earth" and it means "fell onto the ground". It's dying out, I think, but it's still at the stage where the word is mostly understood to mean "ground" rather than "planet earth".

The translation as "earth" (meaning "ground") was completely correct and still is, IF one knows that of the several meanings of the word "earth" it is the "surface" meaning that is meant, not the "planet earth" meaning.

The Afrikaans word "Aardvark" means, literally, an "earth piglet". The word does NOT refer to a piglet that has a special connection to planet earth (for example a piglet that lives on earth as opposed to those that live on Mars), but it refers to a piglet that has a special connection to _the ground_ (as opposed to other piglets that do not have that particular connection; perhaps they don't dig as much).

I don't know how better to explain this...

The word "girl" used to mean a child of either sex, in Middle English. Now it means a female child (or even any young unmarried female). If the word "girls" were used to translate "yaledim", the translation would be correct (because "girls" means "young children of either sex"). But a few hundred years after the translation was written, the word "girl" developed a second meaning: only female children. And at some point the first meaning died out.

And if the Bible made a law for "yaledim" (i.e. boys and girls) and the English translation said only "girls", we would have the same argument. And Lula would tell us that she knows what a girl is and that is good enough for her, and the original meaning would be lost, because of people like Lula.

So we have two problems here:

1. Hebrew words do not perfectly map onto English words. Any translation therefor involves interpreting the text (and hence changing its truth value).

2. Hebrew words change their meaning as do English words. And once we have an original and a translation and both contain words that likely change meaning into different directions.

The first problem causes both "eretz" and "adama" to be translated as "earth". Germanic languages have only one word for the surface and the material. (On the other hand Hebrew has only one word for "thing" and "word" - "davar".)

The second problem causes the meaning of the text to change. If we freeze the meanings at a certain point in time it might be too early or too late. (The method I use is common sense.) "Shana" meant "something that repeats" at some point and "year" at a later age. Both meanins co-existed for a long time. The trick is to figure out when it means what. As I said, common sense tells us that it meant "something that repeats" when describing that somebody is 600 shana old and "year" when it says that some king ruled for 30 such.

(Incidentally, the plural "shanim" appears to be used in the Bible when the word means "year" while the singular "shana" is used when it means "something that repeats". But I haven't found all occurences of the word yet.)

But there is solid evidence that the meaning of "eretz" did NOT change from "planet earth" to "land".

First, people 3000 years didn't know about the "planet earth" they only saw the surface, i.e. land, as opposed to the heavens (the thing above it). Hence they could NOT have used a word to describe something they didn't know existed as a thing. Hence "eretz" could only mean the surface, not the planet. Also devidence from other languages suggests that the meaning would change FROM surface TO planet rather then vice versa, since mankind learned about the surface BEFORE they learned about it being a planet.

Second, G-d knew the difference between the surface and the planet and hence would have used TWO DIFFERENT word to describe them. (And He does, in fact, use the term "haKol 3olam" when He refers to the entire world.) The reason He used THE SAME WORD was because He was talking about THE SAME THING. (And, in Hebrew there is only one word for "word" and "thing" anyway, making this even more ridiculous.)

If anybody thinks that an Israelite reading Noah's story in 1000 BCE had an image in mind of a ball completely surrounded by water, I cannot help any more.

And if Lula again answers without showing evidence for her reading my explanation about the meaning of the words "earth" and "terra" I probably won't answer; unless by doing so I can make things clearer for others.

I am sick and tired of addressing the same issues again and again, as if I had never done that before.

If you disagree with what I say, tell me what's wrong. Don't just ignore it and repeat your stupid thesis.

Well I saw a rainbow today. Do you know what the rainbow symbolized in scripture Leauki? If this was as you say, a local flood instead of global one, why do I see the rainbow here? Shouldn't the rainbow be a local one? Shouldn't it just be seen in Iraq?



and this could be somewhat true as well. I mean obviously there was no one living here in the States yet. Most likely other parts of the world were uninhabited as well because until Gen 11 we don't see much movement as all were still speaking one language. But even having said this, I do believe in the global flood because that's what makes the most sense regarding climate and the longevity of the people changing after this flood. There seems to be a breaking up of the earth and the heaven that started all things rolling. It wasn't about just rain coming down.



Perhaps but not so much as a social experiment from God's perspective as it is ours. We should learn from our past but sad to say, rarely do. We should say "been there, done that." We're heading down the same road now and I believe that's what Jesus meant when he said "just like in the days of Noah."

It doesn't matter if it's written earth or land in the Hebrew when you look at the context. Land can mean earth can it not? What Lula is saying is Jerome, who was very proficient with the Hebrew language chose to put earth instead of land. No diff in my book. The earth was flooded....the land was flooded. Until you read the context you may not understand if it were local or global. REading the whole story one can understand quite easily this was NO local flood. A first grader could understand this and KNOW or NOT know Hebrew.



I can only vouch for myself. I am constantly learning. I'll never get there in this lifetime. Over the years I had to learn to put my bias aside and examine a passage for what it says, regardless if it fit my theology or not. Because of this, I had to change some of my ways of thinking. It's not easy to have a theology you've had ingrained in you for years and let it go. The Professor who died recently of cancer, Randy Pausch who wrote "The Last Lecture" summed it up perfectly. One thing that made a profound impact on him was that people do not want the truth. I concur. We want to believe what we want to believe regardless if it's truth or not.

Sometimes it's frustrating when I see others going down the same path I already went down knowing they are going down the wrong road. I went down that road, saw the dead end, turned around and met many others on the way out. So all I can do is try and warn them to tell them they are wasting their time going down that particular road. But of course, we all want to make our own mistakes. I'm sure I was warned at times as well and didn't listen. I just wish we could learn from each other but I'm afraid it all comes down to trust.