Old Testament Discussion

[Don]

I asked this question on talk shoe but I would like to discuss it a little more if I may.
Genesis 1:26 Why does it say "us" and "our"

Genesis 1:26 Then God said , "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.

One translation states it like this:
God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness,

maybe this does not apply.
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon for "our"and "us"

3027 yad yawd a primitive word; a hand (the open one (indicating power, means, direction, etc.), in distinction from 3709, the closed one); used (as noun, adverb, etc.) in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively, both proximate and remote (as follows):--(+ be) able, X about, + armholes, at, axletree, because of, beside, border, X bounty, + broad, (broken-)handed, X by, charge, coast, + consecrate, + creditor, custody, debt, dominion, X enough, + fellowship, force, X from, hand(-staves, -y work), X he, himself, X in, labour, + large, ledge, (left-)handed, means, X mine, ministry, near, X of, X order, ordinance, X our, parts, pain, power, X presumptuously, service, side, sore, state, stay, draw with strength, stroke, + swear, terror, X thee, X by them, X themselves, X thine own, X thou, through, X throwing, + thumb, times, X to, X under, X us, X wait on, (way-)side, where, + wide, X with (him, me, you), work, + yield, X yourselves.

[wmfinck]

What you are encountering is the ancient Hebrew literary "plural of majesty" device. Thousands of times it appears in Scripture as the word Elohim, a plural, but clearly referring to a singular God - Yahweh. If you go to Clifton Emahiser's website and do a search for the exact phrase "plural of majesty" you will find three articles discussing this literary feature.

There are dozens of passages later in Scripture which demonstrate clearly that it was a singular God - Yahweh - who made the heavens, earth, Adamic man, and all of the original creation, and it has recently been mentioned several times in the series I am concluding with Eli on the book of Isaiah

[JamesTheJust]

I will also add that it was customary for a king or queen in Europe to use the plural when filling royal duties. For example, the king or queen would not say, "I am not happy"; rather he or she would state, "We are not happy". It did not mean that the king or queen was referring to multiple people, but themselves, one and the same.

Is this a carryover from ancient Hebrew customs? Probably.

[Don]

Thank you. Clifton Emahisers website is helpful. I can see I need to sit down and study more.

[aleajactaest]

WATCHMAN’S TEACHING LETTER
Monthly Letter #66; October, 2003 By: Teacher Clifton A. Emahiser

One incorrect premise is that the “elohim” of Genesis 1 created the other races, whereas Yahweh formed Adam at Genesis 2:7. Promoters of this theory imply that the “elohim” of Genesis 1 is plural, while Yahweh of Genesis 2:7 is singular. This is not correct. I will now quote excerpts from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, pages 413-414, under the topic “God, name of”, under the term “Elohim”: “... In the great majority of instances, however, “Elohim” is used in a singular sense, even when, as a concession to the plural form of the word, the accompanying verb is in the plural (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 20:13; 35:7; Exod. 22:9 ...) This use is often called the ‘plural of majesty’ or pluralis amplitudinis ... Thus the word is equivalent to ‘deity’ or ‘Godhead.’ In this sense it is used in the priestly account of Creation: ‘Then Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26) ... The ‘plural of majesty’ did not arise first in Israelite tradition as a result of the identification of Elohim with Yahweh ... On the contrary, this is an ancient pre-Israelite expression which was employed in Babylonia and Canaan even with a singular verb. In the singular sense ‘Elohim’ is sometimes applied in the OT to the god of another people, as to Chemosh the god of the Ammonites (Judg. 11:24), Ashtoreth (Ishtar) goddess of Sidon (1 Kings 11:5), or Baalzebub of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2). But in the majority of cases ‘Elohim’ refers to the God known and worshiped in Israel. For Israel, Yahweh is not one El among many; he is God absolutely, the Lord of history and nature, who demands the exclusive homage of his people ... The conviction that Yahweh is Elohim, God in the absolute sense, is emphasized in the Elohistic (E) narratives of the Pentateuch, so designated because the narrator prefers to use the divine title Elohim, especially for the period before the Mosaic revelation ... The title Elohim stresses the fact that God, the Creator, is the absolute Lord over His creation and sovereign of history ... Elohim is none other than the God whose personal name, Yahweh, was later disclosed. Thus the priestly redactors [writers] of the Pentateuch in Gen. 2&3 placed Elohim in apposition [grammatical construction in which two nouns in a sentence mean the same thing] to Yahweh in the expression ‘Yahweh Elohim’ ... the intention being to affirm that Yahweh is Elohim, the God of all times.”

One incorrect premise is that the “elohim” of Genesis 1 created the other races, whereas Yahweh formed Adam at Genesis 2:7.

I agree

Promoters of this theory imply that the “elohim” of Genesis 1 is plural, while Yahweh of Genesis 2:7 is singular. This is not correct.

I disagree. It is plural, period. It may be considered as a uni-plural name or word, but it is still plural.

I will now quote excerpts from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, pages 413-414, under the topic “God, name of”, under the term “Elohim”: “... In the great majority of instances, however, “Elohim” is used in a singular sense, even when, as a concession to the plural form of the word, the accompanying verb is in the plural (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 20:13; 35:7; Exod. 22:9 ...)

OF COURSE! This is the classical example of Elohim being considered as a uni-plural name.
Exercise: write down a dozen uni-plural names in modern English.

This use is often called the ‘plural of majesty’ or pluralis amplitudinis ... Thus the word is equivalent to ‘deity’ or ‘Godhead.’ In this sense it is used in the priestly account of Creation: ‘Then Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26) ...

I disagree even if in other non-biblical alien and pagan writings it is so.

The ‘plural of majesty’ did not arise first in Israelite tradition as a result of the identification of Elohim with Yahweh ... On the contrary, this is an ancient pre-Israelite expression which was employed in Babylonia and Canaan even with a singular verb. In the singular sense ‘Elohim’ is sometimes applied in the OT to the god of another people, as to Chemosh the god of the Ammonites (Judg. 11:24), Ashtoreth (Ishtar) goddess of Sidon (1 Kings 11:5), or Baalzebub of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2).

I agree. See? I am right; and Clifton admits that plural of majesty is pre-Israelite ancient pagan expression. I strongly suggest that this pagan plural of majesty should be removed from our 2-SL-CI-I dictionary/vocabulary.

But in the majority of cases ‘Elohim’ refers to the God known and worshiped in Israel.

Do you know why?

For Israel, Yahweh is not one El among many; he is God absolutely, the Lord of history and nature, who demands the exclusive homage of his people ...

EXACTLY! Yahweh is not one of the satanic pagan gods! If HE would be, then we could address HIM as plural of majesty. But, since HE is not, we must address HIM as the Creator Yahweh Elohim, the God of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, David, the prophets, ancient Israel and all the descendants of the Israelite and/or all other Adamic people only. Got my drift?

The conviction that Yahweh is Elohim, God in the absolute sense, is emphasized in the Elohistic (E) narratives of the Pentateuch, so designated because the narrator prefers to use the divine title Elohim, especially for the period before the Mosaic revelation ...

Sorry. I don't usually trust very much all these strange narrators even though they sincerely meant good. But, as we all well know, one can be sincerely wrong.

The Masoretic Old Testament may have been corrupted by the satanic jews to a certain extent, but it is still the most viable one. Happily, these satanic jews were also sufficiently incompetent in corrupting the Old Testament because they left most of it intact. Of course, I do not feel at ease with the introduction of vowels signs, in 500 A.D., by the Masoretes jews.

All other ancients writs must be deeply examined because they stink as something of Talmudic and/or of pagan in general, just as their strange narrators-writers.

The title Elohim stresses the fact that God, the Creator, is the absolute Lord over His creation and sovereign of history ...

I agree with a tiny reservation.

Elohim is none other than the God whose personal name, Yahweh, was later disclosed.

I agree with a tiny reservation.

Thus the priestly redactors [writers] of the Pentateuch in Gen. 2&3 placed Elohim in apposition [grammatical construction in which two nouns in a sentence mean the same thing] to Yahweh in the expression ‘Yahweh Elohim’

I disagree with the definition of apposition because it's not properly kosher. A more kosher definition is the following from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apposition, emphasis are mine:

ap·po·si·tion (p-zshn)
n.
1. Grammar
a. A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence . . .
b. The relationship between such nouns or noun phrases.


From the same dictionary:


e·quiv·a·lent
. . .
n.
1. Something that is essentially equal to another . . .


equivalent is not exactly equal to and/or the same as equal ... mathematics, epistemology and metaphysics should be used to appreciate the difference


syn·tac·tic (sn-tktk) or syn·tac·ti·cal (-t-kl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or conforming to the rules of syntax . . .

re·la·tion (r-lshn)
n.
1. A logical or natural association between two or more things; relevance of one to another; connection . . .

re·la·tion·ship (r-lshn-shp)
n.
1. The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.
. . .
3. A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other

... the intention being to affirm that Yahweh is Elohim, the God of all times.”

I agree.

==============================================================================

Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell

[matthewott]

Hi fausto!

While I always enjoy your intellectual discourse, sometimes delving deeper in thought than even most of our scholarly brethren here, I dare say you may be delving a little too deep. This is no sign of disrespect on my part and I hope you don't take it as such.

Languages are not mathematics. While they have many rules to govern structure and use, there are so many different instances where the same words and phrases are written, but can carry any number of connotations...literal, metaphorical, idiomatic, sarcastic, etc., etc. The explanation laid out through the various references by Clifton, Bill, and others, is a very concise explanation of the USAGE of the word ELOHIM. Here are some good examples of UNI-PLURAL words: fish, sheep, and man. Do we throw them out because their usage can confuse people in the written context? How about wind (short vowel) and wind (long vowel)? Though not uni-plural words, they can bring about the same confusion. While there are not many contexts in which these two words can be confused, it can and is a stumbling block even for those who speak the english language. Do we throw these out too? While Clifton provides the commentary that the "plural of majesty" originated Pre-Israelite and was used in Canaanite and Babylonian mysticism to refer to their gods, no where is the claim that that is where the premise ORIGINATED FROM. Pre-Israelite is by no means Pre-Adamic. Babylon was founded by Nimrod, an Adamite, and Canaan, although cursed, was an Adamite also. Any and all language conception by these peoples had their origins in ADAMIC CULTURE. It just so happens that their usage of the "plurality of majesty" is the earliest recording of such usage. If we had the original OT manuscripts to study, I am sure that we would encounter the same usage.

Trying to get too technical with a very "untechnical" subject is an effort to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While many people are unaware of the FACTUAL "plurality of majesty", once learned, the context in which the uni-plural word ELOHIM is used can easily be understood. Besides, ELOHIM (by those who know it and use it) is acknowledged as the proper title for Yahweh. It sure beats using "God". I think it is more demeaning to His stature to be referred to by that "title", rather than the "Elohim" of antiquity. And if you so choose to translate "Elohim" to "the Creator Yahweh Elohim, the God of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, David, the prophets, ancient Israel and all the descendants of the Israelite and/or all other Adamic people only", all the power to you. I'll simply write "Elohim", because I and my fellow Israelites know what it means, and it's shorter!

As for your exposition on the definition of apposition, I have to take a humorous jab...if you want your brethren to take that point seriously, please don't use a jewish reference to convey what's right and proper! That just took away all creedance in your argument (LOL). With that being said, once again I think you delved a little too deep on this one too. Clifton's paraphrased definition of apposition is just that...paraphrased. But a very good definition nonetheless. A more proper paraphrase would have been "grammatical construction in which two nouns in a sentence REFER to the same thing." Also note, in Clifton's paraphrase, that he did not write "...mean the EXACT same thing," as your argument alludes to.

Which brings us all to the same conclusion you came to, my dear brother:

... the intention being to affirm that Yahweh is Elohim, the God of all times.”
I agree.

Yah Bless,
Matt

[Don]

Although I have heard another theory written by Jack Mohr. http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jmbiog.htm


There are some fascinating features in these three verses (Genesis 1:26-28) for an accurate translation direct from the ancient Hebrew says: "And Gods (plural, more than one), said, "Let US (plural) make man in OUR image." The word for God, as used here in the Hebrew ELOHIM and has a plural meaning which is often associated with angels. It actually means "gods" (plural) in the ordinary sense, according to Strong's Concordance, ff-1430.

If this is true, could it be possible, do you think, that God delegated His supreme authority to create man to His angels and that each created male and female in their own image? Which might be the reason we have different races? (This is merely supposition and I have no scripture to back this.)

Dr. John H. Deguer, a Hebrew scholar of some note, says that the world ELOHIM, which is translated God in our KJV, refers to the "oath bound servants of God," (angels), since EL is the name of God as found elsewhere in the Bible. According to Dr. Deguer, EL (Jehovah-Yahweh) gave these angels power to create beings after their own image. Scholars for many years have puzzled over the name of God, which is ELOHIM in Hebrew, but which is a plural word.

It would also answer the question as to how all races could come from ADAM, since if this were true, as evangelical and fundamental scholars aver, God would have had to break His own Law of "Kind after kind," We KNOW He does not do this!


Now I do find some validity in this theory. I have found many cases where Yahweh has delegated tasks to his angles.
Darby translation
Numbers 20:16
and when we cried to Jehovah, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and behold, we are at Kadesh, a city at the extremity of thy border.
1 Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; and as he was destroying, Jehovah beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough; withdraw now thine hand. And the angel of Jehovah stood by the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Yahweh did delegate tasks to the angeles. Could (Genesis 1:26-28) be Yahweh delegating the task of creating the nonAdamic races?
Strong's
430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

[matthewott]

I will answer that with a series of questions, Don.

Why then is there specifically one race of man referred to as the Children of Yahweh throughout scripture? When were any messengers ever delegated the power to CREATE? Wasn't scripture specific enough in stating that Yahweh formed ADAM of the earth and breathed His Spirit into him? Didn't Yahshua teach us that only Israel has Yahweh for a father?

And these questions are just off the top of my head. While it seems apparent to me, through Biblical and Apocryphal accounts, archaeology, theory, and a little conjecture, that all the other "races of man" started with fallen angel hybridization of Yahweh's creations, Yahweh himself created us as the perfect "human" species....in HIS image, directly with His own Breath, in order to rule over these mongrelized bastards, these GMO versions of Yahweh's creations, so they would not further pervert and destroy Yahweh's beloved creation. We've proven we are not strong enough to keep Yahweh's rule of law in place. We will soon be hybridized out of existence and that is why Yahshua is returning to set it all perfect and rule with an iron will; to rule properly over this world where we could not in the kingdom He Himself established upon His first arrival.

As for the premise of :" "And Gods (plural, more than one), said, "Let US (plural) make man in OUR image." The word for God, as used here in the Hebrew ELOHIM and has a plural meaning ...." it doesn't take an english major to realize that the plural reference and usage is ONLY being applied to Yahweh AND NOT TO MORE THAN ONE IMAGE. For this inference to be made and taken seriously, the verse would have to read: "And Elohim said, "Let us make men in our images."" How can we possibly believe that the separate races of men are the same IMAGE? If that was the case, why the heck don't we all look like Tiger Woods?

"Ahhhhhh...but you will! You will!" say the jews...

[Don]

Why then is there specifically one race of man referred to as the Children of Yahweh throughout scripture?
Good point.
When were any messengers ever delegated the power to CREATE?
To my my knowledge, never. They were destroyers and messengers.

I will tell you what I believe.I believe I have been fixating on this too much.
I believe in one sovereign God,YAHWEH.
I don't agree with what Jack Mohr had written but I thought it was interesting explanation and had some validity. Thank you for the input.

[TheAryanPathtoHELL]

I am having trouble understanding why some people say the Jew came from Cain, others say Canaanites and others say Esau.

If one looks at the Bible's Family Tree: http://www.lukemastin.com/diary/bible_family_tree.gif

They will see these 3 different fathers (Cain, Canaan, Esau) cannot be the same person and all 3 cannot be where the Jew comes from.

So WHERE does the Jews genealogy come from?