Genesis 3:22 ???

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
posthuman

posthuman

Senior Member
#21
Jul 31, 2013
36,675
13,131
113
#21
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
The word GOD in that verse is elohim, which is the plural form of GOD (el).
Click to expand...
((not that i know Hebrew at all))

i've heard that everywhere the Bible uses this plural word referring to God, the verb tense associated with it is singular. (putting to rest any objection that God is not one God).
have also heard that in Hebrew the plural form of words is sometimes used for emphasis of importance -- that it doesn't always mean the subject is a quantity of more than one.

can someone who actually knows Hebrew verify or correct this?
and maybe comment whether it could just be the case that the Hebrew pronoun is in plural form, but doesn't necessarily mean the intended meaning is plurality?

i poked around a bit and it looks like Jewish sources generally interpret the plurals here and in the rest of the first couple chapters of Genesis to refer to 'the council of heaven' and Christian sources generally interpret this to be a reference to trinity. it seems possible that it may be neither, maybe just an artifact of the language that doesn't have a direct correlation in English, sort of like using the royal "we" that simply speaks of the majesty of the speaker, not the plurality.
or maybe i'm butchering the language because i know nothing abut Hebrew :p
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#22
Jul 3, 2015
55,998
26,134
113
#22
resurrection33 said:
I once read a book that theorized the first part of the Bible was a combination of three or four witnesses, all woven together. Having said this, I would suggest the Lord was referring to himself and people who had passed into the resurrection. It's not that I know this to be true, but I find it hard to think of any other explanation.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are known by initials that indicate certain things, such as two are known by how they refer to God: there is E source for Elohim, J source for Jehovah/Yahweh; then there is also D for Deuteronomical, and P for the priestly writer. Of course it is heavily critiqued like anything else to do with Scriptural analysis and hypotheses. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis:


 
S

skylove7

Guest
#23
#23
Magenta said:
Yes, they are known by initials that indicate certain things, such as two are known by how they refer to God: there is E source for Elohim, J source for Jehovah/Yahweh; then there is also D for Deuteronomical, and P for the priestly writer. Of course it is heavily critiqued like anything else to do with Scriptural analysis and hypotheses. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis:


Click to expand...
Wow Magenta!
Cool!
How did you learn all this?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#24
#24
thepsalmist said:
My first thought was Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... but then I hesitated ... but am not sure why, exactly~
Click to expand...
I would have went with this, But context could go either way.
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#25
Jul 3, 2015
55,998
26,134
113
#25
skylove7 said:
Wow Magenta!
Cool!
How did you learn all this?
Click to expand...
I read weekly with a group where each person has a different translation, so the E and J differences are easy to spot; otherwise, it is simply something that was told to me, that I take with a grain of salt, for much theorizing goes on as to Scripture, and some people think it important to know everybody else's opinion and call it scholarship, whereas I am happy to know a little and call it faith. I would like to know more, but have actually been somewhat reluctant to go to school, because there always seems to be some agenda being pushed that I would really rather avoid, not to mention the fact that I work full time. Retirement looms ever closer... maybe then?
 
O

oldethennew

Banned
#26
Feb 28, 2016
11,311
2,972
113
#26
posthuman said:
((not that i know Hebrew at all))

i've heard that everywhere the Bible uses this plural word referring to God, the verb tense associated with it is singular. (putting to rest any objection that God is not one God).
have also heard that in Hebrew the plural form of words is sometimes used for emphasis of importance -- that it doesn't always mean the subject is a quantity of more than one.

can someone who actually knows Hebrew verify or correct this?
and maybe comment whether it could just be the case that the Hebrew pronoun is in plural form, but doesn't necessarily mean the intended meaning is plurality?

i poked around a bit and it looks like Jewish sources generally interpret the plurals here and in the rest of the first couple chapters of Genesis to refer to 'the council of heaven' and Christian sources generally interpret this to be a reference to trinity. it seems possible that it may be neither, maybe just an artifact of the language that doesn't have a direct correlation in English, sort of like using the royal "we" that simply speaks of the majesty of the speaker, not the plurality.
or maybe i'm butchering the language because i know nothing abut Hebrew :p
Click to expand...
==========================================

post,

in Hebrew grammar it is called, 'the majestic plural', and it can point out someone of importance.....
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#27
#27
Magenta said:
Yes, they are known by initials that indicate certain things, such as two are known by how they refer to God: there is E source for Elohim, J source for Jehovah/Yahweh; then there is also D for Deuteronomical, and P for the priestly writer. Of course it is heavily critiqued like anything else to do with Scriptural analysis and hypotheses. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis:


Click to expand...
The Documentary Hypothesis is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest that there were such sources. The people who came up with it were talking out of their backsides. Anything to discredit the divine revelation of the Bible.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
#28
#28
Man people here are really messed up. I didn't know what i was getting into to on this site. wow just wow.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
#30
#30
Tintin said:
Hmmm... But not you?
Click to expand...

Yep HMMMM!! I know i'm messed up but some here don't realize that they are. Know how much I need the cross and my righteousness is a fitly rag. With out the Cross of Christ I am nothing.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#31
#31
RobbyEarl said:
Yep HMMMM!! I know i'm messed up but some here don't realize that they are. Know how much I need the cross and my righteousness is a fitly rag. With out the Cross of Christ I am nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes, good stuff! We all are, unless we have Christ. I'm just not sure what you were referencing then when you said people here were messed up.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
#32
#32
Tintin said:
Yes, good stuff! We all are, unless we have Christ. I'm just not sure what you were referencing then when you said people here were messed up.
Click to expand...
Self Righteousness is what I am addressing it seems to be rampant. My brother
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
#34
#34
Tintin said:
The Documentary Hypothesis is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to suggest that there were such sources. The people who came up with it were talking out of their backsides. Anything to discredit the divine revelation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
I have a book that covers the JEPD theory.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
#35
#35
and is our foremost problem, but this tread isn't about that so I won't impose.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
#36
#36
I have one as well it's called the bible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.