Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 194 (457437)
02-23-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by IamJoseph
02-23-2008 1:00 PM


Re: The Biblical God
IAJ, getting this back to topic, the plurality of the Hebrew elohim, i.e. "Us" implies a plurality of the administrative complexity of Jehovah relative to his spirit and his son, the son being born directly from his spirit. The word god/elohim is a generic word applicable to any god.
Jesus, his father Jehovah both of who have designatied proper names is substantiated by thousands of references in the OT and at least hundreds of Jesus in the NT. The spirit of the two is simultaneously the multipresent spirit of both father and son who have designated proper names as substantiated by thousands of references in the OT to Jehovah and at least hundreds to Jesus in the NT who we Christians ascribe to the fulfillment of OT messianic prophecy.
The modern English properly translated name of the head of the trinity is Jehovah. There's no way you can legitimately obfuscate your way around the above facts.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by IamJoseph, posted 02-23-2008 1:00 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by IamJoseph, posted 02-23-2008 10:47 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 02-25-2008 7:48 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 32 of 194 (457534)
02-23-2008 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
02-23-2008 1:56 PM


Re: The Biblical God
The premise of the NT, which came 2000 years later, is different from that of the OT, although christians see both scriptures as inter-related, which is really a subjective issue, depending which scripture one is alligned with. The NT is also in conflict with Islam, which gives a totally different take on history and beliefs. Thus I am listing what the OT says, according to its own, independent texts. The only certainty here is that all three scriptures cannot be equally correct, and this is the non-alligned, and unbiased view.
The OT names are descriptive only, but alligned with their context and history: there is no 'son' here, no Judaism or islam; your reference to son and spirit is thus a later, subjective blief,not what the text actually refers to, and you will find totally variant takes depending on who and which other later scripture is attached.
Before the advent of humans, Genesis correctly uses a descriptive term which signifies this factor, namely by using US - which is a big picture view of creation and life forms predating all humans and their religions: here, figures such as Moses and Jesus do not enter the picture - animals and spiritual forces do; galaxies, suns and moons are listed; elements such as water and land are listed; humans become one dot in this scenario; religions do not feature in the first chapter. This is correct, because there is a treshold which transcends all religions.
So whether we accept this or not, Genesis is talking, retrospectively, of a scenario devoid of humanity, as a background scenario. The OT is a very exacting and pristine document in this sense - it transcends the later, inter-group religious differentials.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2008 1:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 2:14 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 194 (457621)
02-24-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by IamJoseph
02-23-2008 10:47 PM


Re: The Biblical God
IAJ writes:
The OT names are descriptive only.......
That's nonsense. Though they had descriptive meanings as do modern proper names, they were proper names identifying and distinguishing living existing beings.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by IamJoseph, posted 02-23-2008 10:47 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-24-2008 3:32 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 37 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 9:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 34 of 194 (457630)
02-24-2008 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
02-24-2008 2:14 PM


Re: The Biblical God
IAJ writes:
The OT names are descriptive only.......
Buzsaw writes:
That's nonsense...
Hi Buzsaw,
Please accept my apologies if this is an inappropriate question -- I think it does have bearing on the main topic of this thread, and it is not intended as any sort of personal or dogmatic affront:
I'm wondering why you decided to pick and respond to that particular statement form IAJ, while not citing or responding to this one:
IAJ writes:
The only certainty here is that all three scriptures cannot be equally correct...
Do you agree with that statement?
(Please understand that I have no personal stake in the matter one way or the other. I'm just looking for clarification about the respective positions being argued in this debate. IAJ seems to be saying that the OT, NT and Quran are all mutually incompatible, and you seem to have no disagreement with this. Do you in fact consider the assertion to be uncontroversial, or are you simply skipping over it as somehow not relevant to the current topic?)
UPDATE: On taking a second look, I gather there could be a third alternative for interpreting your reply: by refuting the particular point that you chose from IAJ's post, are you asserting that OT and NT would thereby be considered compatible? Is it your view that the incompatibility that IAJ mentions is due only to the interpretations of these particular words as descriptive vs. proper names?
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added last paragraph, hoping not to look completely ignorant...)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (minor grammar repair)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 2:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 9:12 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
autumnman
Member (Idle past 5012 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 35 of 194 (457652)
02-24-2008 5:38 PM


The meaning of "Us" in Genesis is the topic of this thread. In the Gen. 1 - 2:3 creation account the Hebrew Deity is >elohiym {-iym=masculine plural suffix}, thus the 1st person plural "na0aseh=us make" in Gen. 1:26. However, Gen. 1:26 begins with the verbal clause "vayomer=and it/he said" which employs the 3rd person singular masculine pronoun. The Paleo-Hebrew writing system was originally identical to the Canaanite/Phoenician writing system. The Supreme Canaanite God was >el who had a wife >asherah {the sacred tree), as son ba0al {the storm-god/master), and a daughter 0anet or 0ayin {the warrior virgin = the eye, mind, intellect). It is quite likely that the Israelites adopted their conception of Deity from the Canaanites and incorporated the Canaanite pantheon into their monotheistic view of God. Thus, >el became >elohiym.
Transliteration convention for above: >=1st Heb. letter "aleph"; 0=sixteenth letter "ayin".
Regards
Ger

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 9:25 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 40 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 9:41 PM autumnman has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 194 (457685)
02-24-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Otto Tellick
02-24-2008 3:32 PM


Re: The Biblical God
Otto writes:
Buz writes:
IAJ writes:
The only certainty here is that all three scriptures cannot be equally correct...
Do you agree with that statement?
Hi Otto. What I regarded as nonsense is IAJ's claim that OT names were only descriptive. Elohim is not a proper name. It is a generic word which can be applicable to any god/gods. The descriptive term "us" is used once so far as I'm aware whereas Jehovah/YHWH is used over 6000 times.
Adonai, again is not a proper name. It's also descriptive meaning lord/master.
As to whether the NT and OT being equally correct, many OT as well as most NT scholars believe they are. One needs to be aware of the messianic prophecies of the OT, with the understanding that the NT era is the dispensational fulfillment of the OT.
Regarding Islam, the Quran is compatible with neither the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Otto Tellick, posted 02-24-2008 3:32 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 10:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 37 of 194 (457687)
02-24-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
02-24-2008 2:14 PM


Re: The Biblical God
True, they are also actual names we address people by. This is seen in Adam being a generic description [of the earth], before Eve emerged [there was no one to call him by that name], but this became an actual name later on. The Pronoun name came from the original descriptive name [as in blacksmith, tailor, etc]. We see this actual progression represented in Genesis, which contains numerous pages of names of generations - all authenticated by archeology, and being one of the prime factors to determine datings.
Genesis back-tracts this progression to the very dawn of humanity, to a point when no names prevailed. Thus I say to those who reject that speech endowed humans are more than 6000 years old: I ask for a 'NAME' older than 6000, which is the definitive test for both history per se and of modern speech humans. A NAME does not depend on writings, but provable even by oral, traditional recall. This says, Genesis is not a mythical document, but appears to evidence itself by factual, historical and scientific evidencing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 2:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 9:33 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 194 (457688)
02-24-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by autumnman
02-24-2008 5:38 PM


autumnman writes:
In the Gen. 1 - 2:3 creation account the Hebrew Deity is >elohiym {-iym=masculine plural suffix}, thus the 1st person plural "na0aseh=us make" in Gen. 1:26.
Can't you see what you're saying here? All you're saying is that the Hebrew deity is gods, when in reality the Hebrew deity is Jehovah (modern English equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH) having complex aspects such as a multipresent spirit which calls for the plural suffix.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by autumnman, posted 02-24-2008 5:38 PM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 9:50 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 194 (457691)
02-24-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by IamJoseph
02-24-2008 9:19 PM


Re: The Biblical God
I don't see much here which warrants a response.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 9:19 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 40 of 194 (457693)
02-24-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by autumnman
02-24-2008 5:38 PM


I dont think so. The first name [Elokim] is used when humanity was non-existent as we know it, namely to have speech and conduct intelligent dialogue. Thus this name is alligned with nature, or pre-modern human laws, being 'event' related. We see the text uses an extended name and abides by this for the rest of the five books, after the advent of dialogue addressed to humans.
The name El is not a name per se, but refers to the then used generic term for Sir, Boss, Lord, High One, etc. El Shadai = Boss with is a shield of protection. Here, the texts is speaking in the language of the people, and grammatically and historically correct.
The 'US', stated before the advent of modern humans - or at least stated not to humans, would only relate to spiritual beings - which we see are able to talk, which is contained in 'the heavens' - which predated the earth [V1], and which is referred to as angels today.
Also, you have assumed that the OT was taken from Canaanite beliefs, ignoring the fulcrum factor here: that Monotheism was a direct opposition premise from the Canaanite Polytheism, a factor for numerous wars throughout ancient history [with Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome].
Also, numerous sources, though not the majority, say that the Hebrew alphabetical writings predate Canaanite, Phonecian and sumerian writings; eg: Encyclopedia of Britanica. Also, the Greek writings, said to have emerged from the phoenecian - appears incorrect - the Greeks themselves say they got their alphabeticals from the Hebrew, and so does the 2000 year old Josephus documents. I say - prove the point, by producing a sumerian or phoenecian or Greek alphabetical book older than the Hebrew! I think one should seperate any bias here, and there is surely a bias when a post-dated religion is inclined on negating a pre-existant religion, to validate its own premise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by autumnman, posted 02-24-2008 5:38 PM autumnman has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 41 of 194 (457695)
02-24-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
02-24-2008 9:25 PM


What you refer to as plural, means PLENTIFUL in the Hebrew. Chiefely, in the verse, 'THEFULLNESS OF ALL THE UNIVERSE IS HIS GLORY'. This refers to a premise different from singular/plural.
The term [YKWH] is a later adaption by christianity, and does not actually exist, and never used as Jehovah pre-christianity. What happened was, christianity, not being adept with Hebrew in its liturgy, "spelled out" an abbreviation used by Jews- namely the 4 alphabets represent a full, long sentence, considered ineffable, and not mentionable casually ['NOT TO TAKE THE NAME IN VAIN'/The 10 Cs].
IOW, christianity took an abbreviation such as FBI - and made it a name by sounding it phonetically. When tracked back, it is a total fiction. But no doubt the intent is honorable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 9:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 42 of 194 (457697)
02-24-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
02-24-2008 9:12 PM


Re: The Biblical God
quote:
Elohim is not a proper name. It is a generic word which can be applicable to any god/gods.
Not so. This refers to the word, EL only.
quote:
The descriptive term "us" is used once so far as I'm aware
Correct, just once, and before the emergence of speech endowed humans. It is 'event' related.
quote:
whereas Jehovah/YHWH is used over 6000 times.
Not true. The name Elokim, is always attached to ADNAI, being an extention at all times, signifying the Gd of both Nature [Elokim] and humanity, namely the ONE God. After the advent of humanity and dialogue, the name Elkim is never given on its own.
quote:
Adonai, again is not a proper name. It's also descriptive meaning lord/master.
Not correct. This word was given when Moses asked God what was his source of power. It is a descriptive abbreviation of the 13 Attributes given to Moses for the first time. Abraham was not given this, as he never asked for it, as did Moses. There is really no such word as Adnai, except when used as an abbreviation, each letter representing attributes [descriptions].
quote:
As to whether the NT and OT being equally correct, many OT as well as most NT scholars believe they are. One needs to be aware of the messianic prophecies of the OT, with the understanding that the NT era is the dispensational fulfillment of the OT.
This is well outside the parametres of this thread. However, the prophetic writings, eg Isaiah, has many things never addressed by those who use it as an evidence. Fact is, nothing in Isaiah alligns with a divine human, and almost every verse contradicts such a premise. The people of this vicinity, including Islam, reject any allignments made by christians. However, this does not have any impact that christian belief is genuine and Godly inclined. Isaiah or any prohetic writings of the OT, are certainly not talking NT premises of trinity, the latter being more a mysterious compulsion which allowed Pagan Europe a path which suited this peoples.
The jews were not wrong the way they observed and interpreted their scriptures, which predate the NT by 2000 years, and incurred many wars to defend their premise. The terrible delima humanity faces is that both cannot be sustained, and unless a new or revealed manifestation occurs, there is only conflict ahead. I am certain there will be a resolvement, as all are genuine in their beliefs, and these two religions have the most in common,with only a single but pivotal disagreement. Here, an honest disagreement is better than a dishonest agreeement.
quote:
Regarding Islam, the Quran is compatible with neither the Hebrew or Christian scriptures
Islam fell in love with Judaism, after they saw jewish beliefs in their midst when Babylon exiled them. Instead of alligning with the OT adherants, there was an ego factor, which turned into disdain that Judaism and israel returned after 2000 years. No one wants to see the witness for the prosecution being resurrected - because it is seen as a negation of core factors held and cherished a long time. It appears the Messengers of Islam and the NT have fully harkened to the biblical God with Israel's return - only the adherants of those messengers see it otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2008 9:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 194 (457750)
02-25-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
02-23-2008 1:56 PM


Re: The Biblical God
Jesus, his father Jehovah both of who have designatied proper names is substantiated by thousands of references in the OT and at least hundreds of Jesus in the NT. The spirit of the two is simultaneously the multipresent spirit of both father and son who have designated proper names as substantiated by thousands of references in the OT to Jehovah and at least hundreds to Jesus in the NT who we Christians ascribe to the fulfillment of OT messianic prophecy.
I agree with this except that I would capitalize Father, Son, and Spirit.
And coming back to the "Us" of Genesis, this is the same "Us" of the Triune God as mentioned in the powerful prayer of the Son to the Father in John 17. That prayerful climax was for the completion of the perfecting of the saved believers in Christ into a divine / human oneness by being mingled with God.
Jesus Christ prays:
"That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us ... And the glory which you have given to Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me."
See John 17:21-23
The God Who said "Let Us make man in Our Image, and according to Our likeness ..." (Gen. 1:26) is the same God Who in the New Testament as God incarnated in a man Jesus said " ... even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us ..."
The oneness of the believers in the Triune God must be "perfected". It must be arrived at through the process of God dispensing Christ more and more into the entire beings of all the believers. As you said "The spirit of the two is simultaneously the multipresent spirit of both father and son ...".
In His new testament salvation the Triune God dispenses this "multi-present" , "life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) into His redeemed people for thier transformation and building up in love. God Himself as the oneness is building Himself into the corporate group of believers to make them one in the divine "Us" Who created man in His image for His eternal purpose.
The Divine "Us" of the Trinity us dispensed into the believers to perfect them eventually into the city New Jerusalem. This is carried out by means of the divine "We" of the Father and the Son (in the Holy Spirit) coming to make an abode within each believer:
"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
For Christ and the Father to make an abode with the believer should not be taken lightly. This is only initiated by being regenerated in the born again experience. It is a process which eventually leads, whether in this age, or in the next age, to Christ and His Father saturating, filling, totally dispensing the Divine life and nature of God into His people. God wants to therefore build Himself into His redeemed people and be the very factor of oneness of this new race of divine/human, deified humanity.
He said "Let Us" make man in our image so that He could build the divine "Us" into man for the producing of His Bride and Wife, the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 and 22.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2008 1:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 03-01-2008 6:09 PM jaywill has replied

  
gomisaburo
Junior Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 6
From: Japan
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 44 of 194 (458342)
02-28-2008 1:54 PM


Psalm 34:8
Imagine the unlimited God revealing himself through limited man and his limited language. Now imagine a limited man today reading the musings and revelations of a limited man written in a limited language thousands of years ago.
I don't suppose this is an insurmountable obstacle for the unlimited God, but imagine an enemy of God intellectually superior to us by a profound margin muddling our thoughts in this present day and age by infecting our hearts with all sorts of pollutants, having thousands of years to perfect his method.
But imagine the day "we all arrive at the oneness of the faith...through the operation in the measure of each one part..." (Eph. 4:13-16).
Hey jawill, I'm back..."eugeneous"...chose a different name in favor of something less flattering...
At any rate, I'm going to come back into the fray gently. I'll see you around. Amen, brother.

Those who come forward to God must believe that He is...(Heb 11:6)

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2008 4:23 PM gomisaburo has replied
 Message 48 by IamJoseph, posted 02-28-2008 6:02 PM gomisaburo has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 194 (458362)
02-28-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by gomisaburo
02-28-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Psalm 34:8
...imagine an enemy of God intellectually superior to us by a profound margin muddling our thoughts in this present day and age by infecting our hearts with all sorts of pollutants, having thousands of years to perfect his method.
It seems strange to hear "common sense" referred to as a "pollutant", but whatever floats your boat.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by gomisaburo, posted 02-28-2008 1:54 PM gomisaburo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by gomisaburo, posted 02-28-2008 5:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 49 by jaywill, posted 03-01-2008 8:14 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024