Trinity ... and the excuse of "human limitations", etc
Comments
-
@C_M_ wrote
Are you saying that there is a problem with the writer of Genesis conveying what was given to him under inspiration?
No ... I am saying there is a problem with people reading and not understanding what the writer of Gen conveyes by using the majestic plural ... instead they wrongfully think of the emphatic special use of the plural that it is a regular plural referring to more than one person.
Or, brethren, are you saying there is something happen in the transmission of text and therefore the translations of the text from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc., over the years?
No ...
Are you saying one or more of the above groups lack grammatical principles and/or practice literary biblical malfeasance? CM
It seems to me from personal experience over 4 decades with people reading the Bible that unfortunately many have no or very little knowledge about the use of figures of speech in the Bible, thus they misunderstand what is figurative to be literal or what is literal is understood as being figurative, etc ...
-
@Wolfgang wrote: IF indeed "GOD" were a reference to a Trio of Beings/Persons, the regular use of pronouns should also be plural, but not singular (he, him, his) as is the case in all places, even in the passage in Gen 1:26-27 where v. 27 uses the singular.
@Bill_Coley wrote: This is a significant point, Wolfgang, one that I hadn't even thought of as I posted about the singular and plural pronoun references to God in the OT. Thanks.
Logical question: does frequency of Scripture use determine believability ? (God's name has relatively few uses in the Bible)
Did God have humans making mistakes when inspiring Holy Scripture ?
Human observation is remembering to learn my parents first names while seldom using them.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@C_M_ said:
Are you saying that there is a problem with the writer of Genesis conveying what was given to him under inspiration? Or, brethren, are you saying there is something happen in the transmission of text and therefore the translations of the text from Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc., over the years? Are you saying one or more of the above groups lack grammatical principles and/or practice literary biblical malfeasance?
I won't speak for Wolfgang, but in my view, we're not at all saying the "problem" is with the writer(s) of the Genesis text or its mode of transmission. The problem is with the methods of biblical interpretation that encounter singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT by perhaps 100-to-1, yet conclude that the small handful of plural pronouns define the OT's message about God's identity, not the hundreds of singular pronouns.
In my view, this circumstance is akin to the Trinity issue writ large, where the large number of NT verses whose most obvious meaning is that Jesus is NOT God lose interpretive influence to the comparatively small number of verses that can, with the necessary assumptions, be interpreted to report that Jesus IS God.
I don't understand how our default response be to give more weight to the position supported by the most verses?
EDIT: Sorry, but I need to add this - The issues I raised in response to your previous post, CM, had nothing to do with interpretive concerns. I claimed that 1) the vast majority of OT pronouns that refer to God are singular, not plural, and 2) basically every plural pronoun reference to God is followed by many times more singular pronoun references. In addition, I claim that there are no OT passages that refer to God in the terms you previously proposed, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That's why I requested that you cite the verses/passages which in your view support your claim.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I don't understand how our default response be to give more weight to the position supported by the most verses?
That sentence, from my previous post in this thread, makes no sense. My apologies for its lack of clarity. What I intended to write, but obviously did not, was this: I don't understand why our default position (e.g. regarding the Trinity or God as portrayed in the OT) shouldn't be to give more weight to the position supported by the most verses.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote
Logical question: does frequency of Scripture use determine believability ? (God's name has relatively few uses in the Bible)
frequency of use of a point in Scripture does not by itself determine believability ... However, it is commonly accepted that one of the sound principles for understanding and interpretation of Scripture is to consider the few seemingly difficult verses in light of the many clear verses; it is unsound to disregard the many clear in favor of a few seemingly difficult ones.
You know, just the one single plain statement in Gal 3:20 that "God is ONE" is sufficient to believe that God is NOT Two or Three or more.
Did God have humans making mistakes when inspiring Holy Scripture ?
I consider that the writers of the Scriptures while writing as inspired by God did not make mistakes. In the course of transmission of the original texts and translations into other languages, mistakes did happen ... even forgeries of certain texts seem to have been made in order "to produce support" for certain unscriptural doctrine
-
The Trinity is there for all who want to see it. And it is the only doctrine that separates Christianity from the rest of the world religions. You are more like Islam and Judaism in your belief about God than you are Christian. And you also are a heretic and cult leader by historic reckoning. As with any who post to this board denying the trinity in scripture.
-
@Dave_L wrote: The Trinity is there for all who want to see it. And it is the only doctrine that separates Christianity from the rest of the world religions.
Wikipedia has Ayyavazhi Trinity article (Vedic). Trimurti is the triple diety of supreme divinity in Hinduism. What is unique about Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (fulfilled prophecies) with verifiable evidence that includes lives changing after truly encountering Jesus. In contrast, Vedic and Hinduism founders are dead.
The "One God is One Person" belief filter chosen by @Wolfgang and @Bill_Coley (and others) reflect cunning deception (blindness) by father of lies (devil), who impersonates One Person being One God (sinful reason for falling in Isaiah 14:12-17). The end for three "person" spiritual deception is the lake of fire (burning sulfur) Revelation 20:10 Reading "23 Minutes in Hell" by Bill Wiese provided powerful reminder to Love everyone alive as God Loves them ❤️
Isaiah 9:6-7 includes "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, ... he will be called ... Mighty God ... He will reign on David's throne ..." so The Messiah is both "Son of God" (King David's human descendant) and "Son of Man" (God in Isaiah's prophecy and Daniel 7:13-14). Mark 4:12 documents fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10 (purpose of parables). Isaiah 42:1-4 includes Holy Spirit prophecy that was fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew 12:9-28 (includes unbelievers ascribing ascribing Miracles to the devil). Another Holy Spirit prophecy in Isaiah 61:1-2 is quoted in Luke 4:17-19 as being fulfilled by Jesus.
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote
The "One God is One Person" belief filter chosen by @Wolfgang and @Bill_Coley (and others) reflect cunning deception (blindness) by father of lies (devil), who impersonates One Person being One God (sinful reason for falling in Isaiah 14:12-17). The end for three "person" spiritual deception is the lake of fire (burning sulfur) Revelation 20:10 Reading "23 Minutes in Hell" by Bill Wiese provided powerful reminder to Love everyone alive as God Loves them ❤️
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, you have just disqualified yourself from further exchange with you.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
Logical question: does frequency of Scripture use determine believability ? (God's name has relatively few uses in the Bible)
I don't contend that frequency of use determines believability; but I do contend that frequency of use is a factor we must consider in our interpretive processes.
I contend that the number of singular pronoun OT references to God could be 100 times or more greater than the number of plural pronoun references. Whatever the actual magnitude of difference is, it's large. Doesn't that matter?
My given first name is William, but I tell you that other people call me "Bill." If in following me around for a month as I interacted with others, you were to discover that 99% of the time, people called me "William," wouldn't you conclude that it's not correct to say people call me "Bill"? In the OT, 99% of the time writers refer to God via singular pronouns. Doesn't such a large differential between the incidences of the two numbers of pronouns mean it's not correct to say OT writers refer to God in the plural?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
Did God have humans making mistakes when inspiring Holy Scripture ?
I don't claim to know the meaning or significance of the OT's few plural pronouns that refer to God. I DO claim to know that the number of singular pronoun references to God is MUCH greater than the number of plural references, AND that there is NO Old Testament support for a Trinitarian theology aside from - in a stretch - those few plural pronouns, pronouns for which, I contend, there is NO textual indication that they report a Trinitarian Godhead.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
Human observation is remembering to learn my parents first names while seldom using them.
At issue here is something other and more consequential than your use of your parents' names. But if it were akin to naming, it would sound like this: In your lifetime, 99% of the times you referred to your parents by name, you called them "John" and "Mary." One percent of the time, you called them "Burt" and "Marjorie." From that pattern, what should we conclude are your parents' names? I contend that the most reasonable conclusion is that your parents' names are "John" and "Mary." You seem to argue that such a naming history suggests "Burt" and "Marjorie" are their names. We disagree.
Here's my point: The issue here is NOT how frequently OT writers use God's name. The issue is when OT writers refer to God, do they use singular or plural pronouns? OVERWHELMINGLY, they use singular pronouns. If we reformulate this issue to have something to do with your parents, the situation would be this: Over the course of your life, when asked how many parents you have, 99% of the time you say two, and one percent of the time you say one. What is the most reasonable conclusion for us to draw as to how many parents you have? I contend it's two. [And you might respond, "But everybody has two parents! So of course the answer is two!" In the OT, everyone knows that God is one, so of course references to God will be singular, not plural.]
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
The "One God is One Person" belief filter chosen by @Wolfgang and @Bill_Coley (and others) reflect cunning deception (blindness) by father of lies (devil), who impersonates One Person being One God (sinful reason for falling in Isaiah 14:12-17). The end for three "person" spiritual deception is the lake of fire (burning sulfur) Revelation 20:10 Reading "23 Minutes in Hell" by Bill Wiese provided powerful reminder to Love everyone alive as God Loves them ❤️
No. The "'one God/one person' belief filter" (whatever that is!) which I have chosen reflects decades of faithful Bible study and prayerful pursuit of God in my life and ministry. There was a time in my life when I embraced Trinitarian theology. I changed my mind and embraced a different point of view when said study and pursuit found no biblical support for the Trinitarian position.
I respect and celebrate your faithful embrace of Trinitarianism, and neither make nor hold any judgments that might suggest nefarious or evil origins of your views. I believe the "end" for people who believe as you do is heaven, the Kingdom of God, and the company of the angels... as well as people who believe as I do.
FWIW, the heart emoji comes across to me as a cynical and sophomoric way for you to end a paragraph in which you chose to condemn other followers of Jesus to hell. I suggest that you either choose emojis more appropriate for the content you post, or post content more in keeping with the emojis you select.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I won't speak for Wolfgang, but in my view, we're not at all saying the "problem" is with the writer(s) of the Genesis text or its mode of transmission. The problem is with the methods of biblical interpretation that encounter singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT by perhaps 100-to-1, yet conclude that the small handful of plural pronouns define the OT's message about God's identity, not the hundreds of singular pronouns.
In my view, this circumstance is akin to the Trinity issue writ large, where the large number of NT verses whose most obvious meaning is that Jesus is NOT God lose interpretive influence to the comparatively small number of verses that can, with the necessary assumptions, be interpreted to report that Jesus IS God.
My Brothers, Bill/Wolfgang,
Thanks for sharing with us personal understanding of God, the appearance of the word, "God" and the "encounter singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT by perhaps 100-to-1...". The two of you stated, that you once believed in the Trinitarian biblical teachings, but changed after a new study of the Bible, thereby became anti-trinitarians. May I encourage you to continue to study Scripture. If you changed once you can change again. 😉
This is not the purpose of this post. I firmly believed, that the very one you deny (The Holy Spirit), will bring about a change in your life, in the fullness of time. This will only happen as you continue to study, with a humble spirit and a submissive will to God's leading. May I encourage you to view with new eyes, God’s uniqueness and His goodness in order that you may be attracted to the beauty of His character. It's then, and only then, you will be in a better state of mind to accept Him as He reveals himself in Scripture.
In addition to what I said in earlier posts, in response to your inquiry, why there seems to be so many "singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT", the possible answer could be in context and history. Consider the following when it comes to the word, "Elohim". The contextual meanings could be:
- "Elohim" denotes supernatural beings, namely the pagan gods (such as, for example, Pss 86:8; 96:4!5; 97:7, 9) or angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps 8:5).
- It could convey the notion of human authorities who acted in God’s name, referring to native Israelite judges and leaders (Exod 4:16; 21:6; 22:28 [NIV, in the note]; 1 Sam 2:25; 2 Sam 19:27). Please Note: Exod. 23:6, in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV render "elohim" as “the judges” in Exod 21:6. The NASB and NJPS list this option in the note. The RSV, ESV, NASB, and NJPS have “God.”
- It could reflect some ancient Near Eastern practices to idolize kings and view them as incarnate deities, denoting the kings of the nations. See Keel, below, for more information about the ANE views of some kings as deities.
- "Elohim express the notion of “the mighty ones,” referring to local and/or foreign oppressors, who are often mentioned in the Psalms (e.g., Pss 52:1; 69:4; 135:10; 136:18). The meaning of ‘adat ’el (“the assembly of God”) in v. 1 is also uncertain. The identity of the "elohim" in vv. 1b and 6 of Ps 82, is crucial to the understanding of this phrase and of the whole psalm.
Further example is “Psalm 82. The most puzzling moment in the psalm is the identity of the “gods” (’elohim) in vv. 1b and 6. The word "elohim" is mentioned four times in this short psalm, clearly depicting the God of Israel in vv. 1a and 8.
So, you see, context and continuous study are demanded by all. I don't know it all, but I am committed to continuous study, faith, and a humble spirit to be obedient to God's will and leadings. CM
Source:
-- Othmar Keel. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (New York, NY: The Seabury Press, 1978), 225-226, 263
-
This is not the purpose of this post. I firmly believed, that the very one you deny (The Holy Spirit), will bring about a change in your life, in the fullness of time. This will only happen as you continue to study, with a humble spirit and a submissive will to God's leading. May I encourage you to view with new eyes, God’s uniqueness and His goodness in order that you may be attracted to the beauty of His character. It's then, and only then, you will be in a better state of mind to accept Him as He reveals himself in Scripture.
I live in hope that the Holy Spirit will always find ways to bring about change in my life, just as I'm sure you live in hope that the Spirit will bring about change in yours. My transformation from one who embraced trinitarian theology to one who does not will always to me be an example just such a move of the Spirit.
In addition to what I said in earlier posts, in response to your inquiry, why there seems to be so many "singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT", the possible answer could be in context and history. Consider the following when it comes to the word, "Elohim". The contextual meanings could be:
The list of options for the meaning of the Hebrew word "Elohim" that you pasted from the Keel resource includes "pagan gods," "human authorities," "ancient Near Eastern practices to idolize kings," and "local and/or foreign oppressors." In my view, that's NOT a strong resume for a word you propose has Trinitarian godhead applications.
So, you see, context and continuous study are demanded by all. I don't know it all, but I am committed to continuous study, faith, and a humble spirit to be obedient to God's will and leadings. CM
As I testified in a previous post in this thread, the Trinity has been a subject of my faithful study for decades, a study the results of which I attribute to God's abundance and provision. I pray you have experienced a similar level of peace and satisfaction with the journey you've taken in your study of the issue.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
"... My transformation from one who embraced trinitarian theology to one who does not will always to me be an example just such a move of the Spirit."
I hope one day, we will be able to see the full divinity of Jesus; thereby, making the incongruence statement above, unnecessary.
The list of options for the meaning of the Hebrew word "Elohim" that you pasted from the Keel resource includes "pagan gods," "human authorities," "ancient Near Eastern practices to idolize kings," and "local and/or foreign oppressors." In my view, that's NOT a strong resume for a word you propose has Trinitarian godhead applications.
Yes, I am well aware that the meaning of the Hebrew word "Elohim" I shared, "includes "pagan gods," "human authorities," "ancient Near Eastern practices to idolize kings," and "local and/or foreign oppressors". I shared it in light of its historical standing, as well as to, convey that I am not afraid of truth. After all, it's biblical. Further more, a great deal more study needs to go on, in viewing with comprehension the uniqueness and the goodness of God, throughout the Bible and in context of its historical-grammatical settings. Truth, in any form, can stand close examination. However, that examination can only happen under the rubrics of faith, acceptance, prayer, and in the light of God's Word.
Bill, Keep studying! Greater truth is yet to be had, believed, and accepted. I will see you around the forums. 😀CM
-
If Jesus is Not God, then how could one follow Jesus and obey Deuteronomy 6:5 ? (logical conclusion for following the MAN Jesus is not Loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength)
If Jesus is God, then Loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength includes Loving all of God (who is One in heart, soul, strength): The Father (God), The Word (God who became the Son), and The Holy Spirit.
Apologies for me being a tall two year old child of God, who is still learning to walk and talk with God ❤️
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
If Jesus is Not God, then how could one follow Jesus and obey Deuteronomy 6:5 ? (logical conclusion for following the MAN Jesus is not Loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength)
This sounds to me like a "walk and chew gum at the same time" issue. I don't see why a person couldn't follow Jesus AND love God at the same time. I can follow Jesus and love my wife at the same time. Why can't I follow Jesus and love God at the same time? I don't see following Jesus and loving God as mutually exclusive actions.
As for "following the MAN Jesus," I follow him because I believe he is the Christ, God's chosen/anointed one. I follow Jesus because I believe he is the way to the life God desires both for and from me.
When as a kindergartner I held my older brother's hand and obeyed his instructions on the way to school because our parents told me to, that didn't somehow transform my brother into my parents; mom and dad were still mom and dad. In fact, by following my brother's directions I was submitting to my parents' authority. I contend the same is true when I follow Jesus, God's chosen one.
If Jesus is God, then Loving God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength includes Loving all of God (who is One in heart, soul, strength): The Father (God), The Word (God who became the Son), and The Holy Spirit.
Of course the first clause of this response - "If Jesus is God" - defines a predicate with which I disagree. Said disagreement leads me not to feel a need to respond to the rest of your sentence.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Of course the first clause of this response - "If Jesus is God" - defines a predicate with which I disagree. Said disagreement leads me not to feel a need to respond to the rest of your sentence.
Bill,
What would it take for you to accept Jesus is God? I'll wait. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
What would it take for you to accept Jesus is God? I'll wait.
I think I can most readily communicate the challenge of your question by asking you an analogous question, CM: What would it take for you to acknowledge that Jesus is not God?
Your response to my question would likely resemble my response to yours: "It would take a biblical witness whose teaching about the relationship between Jesus and God I interpreted to mean that Jesus (is/is not) God." In my view - and I think yours - the Bible is clear about Jesus and God. Where we disagree is the content of that clear teaching.
I don't expect, hope for, or pray for you to change your view on this matter, CM, because it's clear to me that you are passionate about your Christology and are convinced of the correctness of your view. Praise God! At some point, I hope you will accept the fact that I, too, am passionate about my Christology and am convinced of the correctness of my view. We disagree, and that's not likely to change.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
"It would take a biblical witness whose teaching about the relationship between Jesus and God I interpreted to mean that Jesus (is/is not) God."
Bill,
What greater source of witness of Christology there is than the Bible, short of a personal visit from Christ himself. It's not about me, it's not about you, it's not about one's passion, or one's personal designed Christology. It's about God-- Creator, Wisdom, Love, Savior, Lord!
It's about Jesus, the Bible's teachings, humility, and faith in God. God has spoken and revealed himself to man in various ways over time to man. Let's keep the main thing, the main thing-- Christology-- Study of Christ. May I encourage you to do as I would. Take the Bible and study--
Systematic research, examination, identification, and understanding of the aspects or factors associated with an activity, event, phenomenon, situation, etc. Often a report is produced at the end of a study that summarizes its findings and may also include recommendations on the next step(s) to be taken.
Consider trying a new method of biblical interpretation, you may find a new faith, relationship, and understanding of who Christ is. Study on to know the Lord. I will. CM
-
Hello @Wolfgang ,
In order to avoid being deceived, we should doubt anything we could not fully prove from the bible, anything that we don't know, can't make sense to us, seems to contradict other things we thought we knew, only shows us how much we don't know or didn't understand and therefore we should read the bible more often and try to learn from it as much as we can.
Personally, since I couldn't prove or debunk the trinity, I say I doubt it, I believe we should never say things we don't know or can't support because that's a form of lying. Making mistakes is okay (as long as we are willing to admit them when proven wrong), but deliberately lying is not.
Thanks,
ASN_032.
-
Brethren:
The bases of the Christian faith is belief in the Triune. God is One but manifested in three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy. One needs deep humility knowing is limitation in grasping God.
Once again, note: Before God we are like a small child with an extremely limited understanding. It is said that Augustin was walking at the seashore while thinking about the vastness of God and the mystery of the Trinity. He saw a small boy who was pouring sea water repeatedly into his hole in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustin asked the boy. “Well, I am trying to pour the ocean into my hole!” he answered. Then Augustin whispered to himself (in another version of the story, Augustin heard a voice from heaven saying): “You silly man, you try a similar thing, to put an infinite God into the boundaries of your small brain.”
It's a great challenge to use imperfect human language to describe infinite God! He is far beyond any of our thinking and logic. Even man's best mathematical formulas:
- Like 1+1+1=1 (illogical one) or 1x1x1=1 (mathematically correct).
- Graphic designs, like the triangle or the circle with three parts inside.
- The unity of two persons in a harmonious marriage.
None of these can't describe who God is. All these analogies cannot express adequately the inner unity and harmony within the three persons of the Godhead. W. Gunther Plaut concisely puts it:
“Such a multiplicity of terms [for God in the Hebrew Bible] is one way in which human language attempted to express the essentially inexpressible nature of the Divine”.
Read for yourself other voices that agrees with me:
- L.Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th rev. and enlg. ed.; GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 82–99
- Allan Coppedge, The God Who Is Triune: Revisiting the Christian Doctrine of God (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic, InterVarsity Press, 2007)
- Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor, 2005),104–121
- Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000).
- Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 226–261.
- W. Gunther Plaut, ed., The Torah: A Modern Commentary [rev. ed.; New York: Union for Reform Judaism, 2005], 5.
We must learn to trust God where we can't trace Him. It's about Jesus, the Bible's teachings, humility, and faith in God. CM
-
The bases of the Christian faith is belief in the Triune.
The belief in the Triune may be the basis of many and by far most Christian denominations' faith ... BUT it is absolutely not the basis of the Christian faith in general or even originally. The early Christian church did NOT even know anything about a Trinity or Triune (actually, the word "triune" doesn't even really exist and is an artificial fabrications to cover up the basic problem of this "Triune" which is that Three in number always remain Three in number and can NOT become One in number.
God is One but manifested in three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy. One needs deep humility knowing is limitation in grasping God.
This is the next false statement as an attempt to cover up the above mentioned basic problem. "God is One" is actually the truth => the true God is ONE in number (HE is a singular entity/person)!
The following "but manifested in three distinct persons ..." is a false statement in various regards. For starters, "manifested in" already indicates that whatever is the manifestation is NOT actually that which is being manifested (a car as a battery, which is manifested in the lights, in the ignition, in the car stereo, etc. ... but neither the lights, nor the ignition, nor the car stereo is the battery )
Furthermore, God is NOT manifested in "the Father" ... God ACTUALLY IS the Father. God, the Father, actually is manifested - in various ways - in His only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus ... but the only begotten Son, the man Christ Jesus is not God.
One is better served to leave theological Trinity "explanations" alone, seeing how they are self-contradicting and non-sensical, etc and fabricated "justifications" for false statements. The Triune / Trinity is a theological fabrication of the early centuries AD with the process finalized at the councils of the 4th century AD.
The Biblical Scriptures are plain and simple and reveal what can be known and should be known of the true God ... the most basic truth being that the true God is only ONE SINGULAR entity, person, Spirit Being. The Trinity dogma rejects this most basic truth by declaring God to be THREE distinct God-persons {or whatever nebulous descriptive terms they use} forming or being manifested or {whatever nebulous other terms they use} in some kind of "unity, commUnity, triunity" etc ...
-
Are my eyes deceiving me? Am I reading the words from one who professed to be a Christian? From one who accepts the Bible as Inspired and the Word of God? Is this a misprint or someone hacked Wolfgang's CD account and posted the above using his name? I will hold my peace and emotions until I hear from the real Wolfgang. CM
-
Are my eyes deceiving me?
Why would you think that?
Am I reading the words from one who professed to be a Christian?
I have professed that I am a Christian and continue to firmly do so. I also profess that I am not a follower of Trinitarian dogmas.
From one who accepts the Bible as Inspired and the Word of God?
I certainly do accept the Bible as it was originally given to be the inspired Word of God. I do recognize that translations are not equally God inspired and some even have grave errors and deviations from the original texts.
Is this a misprint or someone hacked Wolfgang's CD account and posted the above using his name?
I don't think so ... I am not aware of anyone having hacked my account or posting in my name
I will hold my peace and emotions until I hear from the real Wolfgang. CM
I have written the above ... and I am the real Wolfgang.
-
Lies are complex, Truth is not!
-
@Bill_Coley said:
1) the vast majority of OT pronouns that refer to God are singular, not plural, and 2) basically every plural pronoun reference to God is followed by many times more singular pronoun references.
Is not your conclusion is reasoning and an interpretation?
@Bill_Coley said:
I won't speak for Wolfgang, but in my view, we're not at all saying the "problem" is with the writer(s) of the Genesis text or its mode of transmission. The problem is with the methods of biblical interpretation that encounter singular references to God that outnumber plural references in the OT by perhaps 100-to-1, yet conclude that the small handful of plural pronouns define the OT's message about God's identity, not the hundreds of singular pronouns.
If this is so, Bill, what is your "method of biblical interpretation"? Please name it or be specific in your description. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
Is not your conclusion is reasoning and an interpretation?
The meaning of this question is not clear to me, but perhaps it's responsive to it for me to assert that my observation about the relative number of singular and plural pronouns that in the OT refer to God is more math than reasoning or interpretation.
If this is so, Bill, what is your "method of biblical interpretation"? Please name it or be specific in your description.
Specific to the matter at issue, my method of biblical interpretation is to give interpretive significance to a consequential difference between mutually exclusive options. In this case, the mutually exclusive options are that in the OT, 1) God is one and 2) God is more than one. The incidence difference between those two options is reflected by the ratio of the number of singular to plural pronouns that refer to God, a ratio which I claim is perhaps as high as 100-to-1. Were that ratio 1.25-to-1 or 1.5-to-1, I wouldn't assign it nearly as much interpretive significance. But a 100-to-1 ratio (or WHATEVER it actually is; I just know it's HIGH!) in view IS significant and therefore contributes to my interpretation of the issue, and to my conclusion that in the Old Testament, God is one and only one rather than a triune or other multi-dimensional deity.
p.s. Your questions here refer to a post of mine that's more than two years old. Since you're willing to go back more than two years to engage my posts, perhaps you're finally now willing to go back to a post of mine that's not even two years old yet, THIS ONE from September 2019 (and its many successors that asked the same question) in which I asked you to identify the "non-Christian" with whom you asserted it was "difficult" to have a discussion about Titus 2.13 (see THIS POST OF YOURS)?
-
@Bill_Coley Specific to the matter at issue, my method of biblical interpretation is to give interpretive significance to a consequential difference between mutually exclusive options. In this case, the mutually exclusive options are that in the OT, 1) God is one and 2) God is more than one. The incidence difference between those two options is reflected by the ratio of the number of singular to plural pronouns that refer to God, a ratio which I claim is perhaps as high as 100-to-1. Were that ratio 1.25-to-1 or 1.5-to-1, I wouldn't assign it nearly as much interpretive significance. But a 100-to-1 ratio (or WHATEVER it actually is; I just know it's HIGH!) in view IS significant and therefore contributes to my interpretation of the issue, and to my conclusion that in the Old Testament, God is one and only one rather than a triune or other multi-dimensional deity.
Math observations using Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB), which has mostly Hebrew words.
Searching LHB for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???S??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 6,748 results (singular Pronouns)
Searching LHB for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 42 results (plural Pronouns)
Singular-to-plural pronoun ratio is 6,748-to-42 => 160.7-to-1
Added Nouns for singular-to-plural ratio consideration:
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??S??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???S??>) INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 15,005 (singular Nouns & Pronouns)
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??>) INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 2,778 (plural Nouns & Pronouns)
Singular-to-plural noun & pronoun ratio is 15,005-to-2,778 => 5.4-to-1
Added Verbs for singular-to-plural ratio consideration:
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??S??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???S??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ V????S???>) INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 21,333 (singular Nouns & Pronouns & Verbs)
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ V????P???>) INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 2,828 (plural Nouns & Pronouns & Verbs)
Singular-to-plural noun & pronoun & verb ratio is 21,333-to-2,828 => 7.5-to-1
Should the Bible to be interpreted like an election (majority usage) OR truly be inclusive (all inspired words matter) ?
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Singular-to-plural pronoun ratio is 6,748-to-42 => 160.7-to-1
I admire your Logos search skills, but I don't share them. Does this first result mean the search found 6,748 singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB? If so, the ratio of singular to plural pronouns doesn't surprise me.
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??>) INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 2,778 (plural Nouns & Pronouns)
Here I need examples of plural nouns that INTERSECT "God." Are all 2,778 of the nouns that result from this search direct references to God, or are they nouns that are close to God in the biblical text, but not direct references to God?
Should the Bible to be interpreted like an election (majority usage) OR truly be inclusive (all inspired words matter) ?
I did not claim that the Bible should be "interpreted like an election." I claimed that I "give interpretive significance to a consequential difference between mutually exclusive options," and that in my view, such consequential differences are "significant and therefore [contribute] to my interpretation of the issue, and to my conclusion that in the Old Testament, God is one and only one rather than a triune or other multi-dimensional deity." That is, I permit such differences to factor into my interpretation, but not necessarily to decide it. In this instance, the abundance of singular pronouns, in my view, is in line with the Old Testament writ large's understanding of God, as well as with Jesus' clear assertion that there is only one God, and he (Jesus) isn't that one God (cf. John 17.3; John 20.17)
I respect the fact that you disagree with my views here, a disagreement we have discussed at great lengths in other threads. Hence, I post this response to your question with no intention of resuming our exchange on the Trinity.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Singular-to-plural pronoun ratio is 6,748-to-42 => 160.7-to-1
@Bill_Coley I admire your Logos search skills, but I don't share them. Does this first result mean the search found 6,748 singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB? If so, the ratio of singular to plural pronouns doesn't surprise me.
Second person pronouns in English (you) does not show Hebrew singular OR plural (one option is visual filter highlighting using Logos OR Verbum on macOS/Windows).
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??>) INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 2,778 (plural Nouns & Pronouns)
@Bill_Coley Here I need examples of plural nouns that INTERSECT "God." Are all 2,778 of the nouns that result from this search direct references to God, or are they nouns that are close to God in the biblical text, but not direct references to God?
Should be direct references as <Person God> is word level tagging. Hebrew Elohim (God) is plural while Elohe (God) is singular.
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??>) INTERSECTS <Person God> INTERSECTS root:אֱלֹהִים finds 2,330 plural Elohim
Searching LHB for (<LogosMorphHeb ~ N??P??> OR <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??>) INTERSECTS <Person God> NOT INTERSECTS root:אֱלֹהִים finds 448 results. Caveat is <Person God> being interpretation (personally disagree with some word tagging choices).
John 17:3 includes καί (and, even, also) connection (to me, reads as Jesus also being only true God). John 20:17 declares who Jesus worships while saying nothing about who Jesus is (or is not).
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Second person pronouns in English (you) does not show Hebrew singular OR plural (one option is visual filter highlighting using Logos OR Verbum on macOS/Windows).
In your previous post, you reported 6,748 "(singular pronouns)" to be the result of the search query, "Searching LHB for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???S??> INTERSECTS <Person God>," and 42 "(plural pronouns)" to be the result of the search query, "Searching LHB for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??> INTERSECTS <Person God>." I then asked whether those results meant the search found 6,748 singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB. From this response of yours it's not clear to me what the answer to my question is, so I ask it again. What is the proper conclusion for me to draw about the number of singular pronoun references to God in the OT of the LHB from the fact that the first search query found 6,748 "(singular pronouns)"?
Should be direct references as <Person God> is word level tagging. Hebrew Elohim (God) is plural while Elohe (God) is singular.
Thanks.
The fact that most of these "direct" references employ the word Elohim is important, but is also a temptation to resume our previous and lengthy debate on the Trinity, which I will not do.
John 17:3 includes καί (and, even, also) connection (to me, reads as Jesus also being only true God). John 20:17 declares who Jesus worships while saying nothing about who Jesus is (or is not).
In my view, the two texts you cite clearly do not say what you claim they say, but to flesh out that observation in this post would be to resume our previous debate on the Trinity, which I will not do. I respect the fact that you believe the texts DO say what you claim they say.
-
Searching Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???S??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 6,748 singular pronouns
<LogosMorphHeb ~ R?1?S??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 3,023 first person singular pronouns: my, me, I, ...
<LogosMorphHeb ~ R?2?S??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 1,934 second person singular pronouns: you, yourself, ...
<LogosMorphHeb ~ R?3?S??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 1,799 third person singular pronouns: his, him, himself, ...
3,023 + 1,934 + 1,799 = 6,756 (bit puzzling since 6,756 is 8 more than 6,748)
Searching Lexham Hebrew Bible (LHB) for <LogosMorphHeb ~ R???P??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 42 plural pronouns
<LogosMorphHeb ~ R?1?P??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 12 first person plural pronouns: our, us
<LogosMorphHeb ~ R?2?P??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 16 second person plural pronouns: you, your, yourselves
<LogosMorphHeb ~ R?3?P??> INTERSECTS <Person God> finds 14 third person singular pronouns: them, their
12 + 16 + 14 = 42
First person pronoun singular-to-plural ratio is 3,023-to-12 => 251.9-to-1
Second person pronoun singular-to-plural ratio is 1,934-to-16 => 120.9-to-1
Third person pronoun singular-to-plural ratio is 1,799-to-14 => 128.5-to-1
To me, the ONEness of the plural UNIFIED God is Substantial.
Keep Smiling 😊
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
