Elohim

[Nachshon]

I was just reading that some scholars suspect that 'Elohim' was not used to referr to Father in the original Hebrew, because only the MT uses it. Both the LXX and the POT use the singular (Theos, and Alaha). I was wondering if anyone knew what term is used in the DSS, and if anyone had any insight. Thanks.

Shalom,
David

[Blake]

Hm, sounds interesting although I highly doubt that the singular Eloah was replaced by Elohim because there are still passages where Eloah is used. Replace one why not all? I think the translators used the singular in their dialects to avoid confusion. It is clear in the Hebrew text that singular verbs are attributed to the plural Elohim which makes it a singular noun although it is plural, it is not a literal plurality. This isn't as easy to express in other launguages or to those who are not familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Dead Sea Parchments do not disagree on the most common name for the Deity in the Hebrew Scriptures.


Its good your asking questions though!

[Nachshon]

Thank you. I had forgotten about this topic. I've also read a rabbinic comment that Elohim means that He is plural in glory, and I know the classic Christian interpretation relates to the Trinity doctrine (which I have a hard time buying). Do you think the plural was used to distinguish Him from other elohim?
Thank you for answering my questions.

Shalom,
David

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Blake,

Good points.

Shalom Nachshon,

I believe that "Elohim" is used to describe the nature of our Heavenly Father. He is a compound being just as we are. After all, we are made in His image. The term "echad/one" describing Him communicates a compound unity such as a cluster of grapes. We serve one Elohim with multiple distinct parts.

B'shem Yeshua HaMashiach,

Reuel

[Nachshon]

I've also heard that echad is a unity term, but I'm not sure I buy that, because it is used in Genesis 1:5, "and the evening and the morning were day one." Does that mean that the first day was compound? I have heard a rabbinic commentary say that it was a composite of all the days of creation, but that doesn't seem to make sense. From my own Hebrew studies, isn't echad simply the masculine word for "one"? It is special because the feminine achat is normally used, but none the less...
I don't know. lol. I guess I'm just confused.
Thank you again for answering my questions. lol, I have plenty of them. (I think they're tired of answering my questions at Peshitta.org.)

Shalom,
David

[Pioneer]

nachshon said:

I've also heard that echad is a unity term, but I'm not sure I buy that, because it is used in Genesis 1:5, "and the evening and the morning were day one." Does that mean that the first day was compound? I have heard a rabbinic commentary say that it was a composite of all the days of creation, but that doesn't seem to make sense. From my own Hebrew studies, isn't echad simply the masculine word for "one"? It is special because the feminine achat is normally used, but none the less...
I don't know. lol. I guess I'm just confused.
Thank you again for answering my questions. lol, I have plenty of them. (I think they're tired of answering my questions at Peshitta.org.)

Shalom,
David

Yes it does have a unity meaning, just what the Dr. ordered for trinitarians, but the Hebrew unity is much different than three persons. It has been a long time since my Jewish teacher taught me about the term, so I'll defer to a better memory
I have "senior moments"! Sorry.

[Nachshon]

I have "senior moments," too, and I'm only in highschool. Thank you for the reply. I think that unity is a possible meaning of "echad" but it would probably be a minority meaning.

Shalom,
David

[Blake]

You must also see that understanding "echad" as a compound unity would be to depart from several thousands of years of Jewish Scholarship and if that is so, we have undermined monotheism one of the main pillars of truth of the .

Compound unity? Of course that is one use of echad such a husband and wife coming together but its used to define THEIR ABSOLUTE ONENESS that they become one flesh upon consumating the marriage.

If echad means that Elo(k)him is more than one, what's the point of even stating that He is One? If there can be a compund unity, how many is there? 2? 3? 37? 1,000,000,000 as Hindus believe?

I'm sure you can see the problems with this kind of thinking.

In my opinion, this interpretation of of echad could bring about shittuf at best and outright polytheism at worst.

[Nachshon]

True.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

"and the evening and the morning were day one." Does that mean that the first day was compound?

Yes, a day is also a compound unity made up of more than one part.

Blake, I don't believe that your statements are true. Again, we are a single living being described as a compound unity (body, soul, spirit) and we are made in the image of Elohim. This is irrefutable and therein is your answer found.

YHVH Elohenu, YHVH echad!

I believe it is a error to divide the body of Messiah on this subject especially when someone is proclaiming a different understanding of the -one- G'd that we serve. Now, if someone claims to serve three completely separate elohim....than we have a problem. Please be careful about making statements as seen below...

You must also see that understanding "echad" as a compound unity would be to depart from several thousands of years of Jewish Scholarship and if that is so, we have undermined monotheism one of the main pillars of truth of the .

The above is your opinion, but is not actually expressed in . Therefore, you have no right to make such inflammatory remarks. G'd is one and there are three parts to His being just as there are three parts to our being.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Nachshon]

In the sense of compound parts, as in soul and spirit, I can see echad being unity, especially when it relates to Father, but I do not think that echad could be used to say that He is three different persons united.

Shalom,
David

[Blake]

Reuel, can you show me in the where it explicitly states that man is a triune being consisting of body, spirit, and soul? I've never come across anything saying that. In fact, the says that Elo(k)him breather the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul, not that one was given to him. To me this says that Breath of life (spirit) plus body equals soul. When this animating spark is taken away the soul ceases to exist and its only hope for immortality is the ressurection. I would also be interested in anything in the that states that the Deity is a triune Being, because again I've never come accross anything that says as such.

I don't see how you can say such a claim is irrefutable, especially without providing any scriptures to support your claim.

Also, I think when saying there are three different beings that exist within Elo(k)him (not that this is your claim) and still claiming to believe in one G'd is impossible. Its trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Nachshon]

I think you misunderstand, blake, what was breathed into 'Adam. Naphash is the Hebrew word for breath, it is also the root-word of Nephesh, the word for soul. I think it is quite clear that Father breathed a soul into 'Adam. Ruach, spirit, is also the word meaning "wind." I'm not yet sure on the role of man having a spirit. I toyed with the idea that man didn't have one to begin with, it was something he acquired, but that seems like quite a weird kind of mysticism, and I couldn't find any proof.
However, it is true that we may be made of three parts, we are not of three different persons, and as yet, I remain uncertain as to the role of the spirit, because I do not see Father giving a spirit to 'Adam. (it's also interesting to note that the first time anyone is mentioned as having a spirit, it is Pharaoh. Genesis 41:8.)

Shalom,
David

[Pioneer]

nachshon said:

I think you misunderstand, blake, what was breathed into 'Adam. Naphash is the Hebrew word for breath, it is also the root-word of Nephesh, the word for soul. I think it is quite clear that Father breathed a soul into 'Adam. Ruach, spirit, is also the word meaning "wind." I'm not yet sure on the role of man having a spirit. I toyed with the idea that man didn't have one to begin with, it was something he acquired, but that seems like quite a weird kind of mysticism, and I couldn't find any proof.
However, it is true that we may be made of three parts, we are not of three different persons, and as yet, I remain uncertain as to the role of the spirit, because I do not see Father giving a spirit to 'Adam. (it's also interesting to note that the first time anyone is mentioned as having a spirit, it is Pharaoh. Genesis 41:8.)

Shalom,
David

God formed man from the dust of the ground, breathed into him the breath of life, and Adam became a living creature. Then ecc. 12:7 the body returns to the ground andform which it came and the spirit goes back to God who gave it. Man has created the trinity of man and God. In Hebrew God there are three pillars in/of God, I don't have the notes I made and I have expressed my short memory, but someone with a lot of Hebrew has to be familar with the concept, it has nothing to do with man made triune nature. Mind , body and soul is straight out of Greco-Roman thought patterns. In Hebrew thought it is body and soul or body and spirit. Like the yetzer ha tov and yetzer ha rah, a duallity. In Hebrew God is ONE, everything else is either about him, from him or in him, One with endless attributes(Cluster of grapes), if you wish.
Shalom

[Chizuk Emunah]

Don't have much time to respond as I am at work, but I did want to comment and say that Pioneer has expressed it well. HaShem as Ein Sof is limitless and without end. Since our finite minds can not comprehend such a thing, he has chosen to relate to us through three different emanations of himself.