Last updated 9-20-11
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:26 PM
Subject: Praying in the Spirit
The charismatics seem obsessed with the concept of "praying in the Spirit", which I am only guessing they derive that from some rendering of 1 Corinthians 14:15 (where Paul mentions "praying withthe spirit")...but it might be from their rendering of v 14, where Paul mentions praying in a "tongue" (but he admits is unfruitful, which seems oddly contrary to their obsession over the idea).
Is there a biblical reference to "praying in the spirit" or is it just a twisting of Scripture base don their own traditions? After all, Paul mentions walking in the Spirit, but they never seem to believe that he is referring to some odd, unknown, unidentifiable walk .
Additionally, isn't there a Psalm or other OT passage that refers to the redeemed rejoicing at the end/judgment of the wicked?
From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Praying in the Spirit
"Praying in the Holy Spirit" is explicitly commanded in Jude 20, but that does not mean what they claim. All that is done is to be done in the Spirit (John 4:24; Romans 7:6; 8:1-9; Galatians 5:16, 18, 25; 6:8; etc.), and praying is one of the many things we do.
Yes, see Psalm 52:5-7; 58:10; Proverbs 11:10. For God rejoicing, see Deuteronomy 28:63; Proverbs 1:25-27.
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Praying in the Spirit
So, is it correct to say that while God does not have pleasure in the death
of the wicked (Ezek 33:11), He does delight in exercising judgment
From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: Praying in the Spirit
Yes, and Lamentations 3:33 says, "He does not afflict willingly" (more literally, "from His heart"). But, it is not unbiblical to say He both does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezk), but will nonetheless rejoice (delight) in their death as well, as it clearly shows (Dt 28:63; etc.); and as Romans 9:22 says, "wanting to show His wrath."
Man has problems with "contradictions" and conflicting ideas, but Scripture doesn't. For example, I recently noticed on youtube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZBNUTJAmBQ
) there is a video that faults us because we believe two "conflicting" ideas. 1, It is God's purpose to save all; 2, It is not God's purpose to save all. That is a problem in man's mind. But, in the God whose ways are past finding out (Romans 11:33), it's not a problem, because both are explicitly taught in Scripture (1. Romans 11:32; John 1:29; 3:16-17; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2. Psalm 92:5-7; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 11:20-24/2 Peter 2:6/Jude 7; Romans 9:11-23; etc.).
When man sets up a standard of "logic" or "contradiction," he is judging by His own measure (Matthew 7:1-2) and relying on his own understanding (contrary to Proverbs 3:5). The standard is not man's logic or man's concept of contradiction. The standard is God's Word (Hebrews 4:12-13). If God "contradicts" Himself, He still speaks truth (Titus 1:2), and we are required to grope for the understanding (Proverbs 2; Acts 17:27). Man is so foolish to judge in his way of thinking ("contradiction" etc.), especially when the Lord has already warned us His ways and thoughts are not like ours (Isaiah 55:8-9). Do you think He will do and think infinitely beyond what we do and think? Of course, but man "changes the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man" (Romans 1:23).
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:55 PM
Subject: RE: Online Book, "Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved"
Have you ever read the book available to read online, "Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved"? It is a compilation of nearly 300 deathbed utterances of both saint and sinner, according to the author. Known atheists such as Voltaire and a few others I cannot recall now are described within who had very unpleasant deathbed experiences, as well as accepted men/women of God of that time that had joyful deathbed experiences. If you have time to read a few pages, I would like to know your conclusion of the book's credibility.
"The Cause of the South is the Cause of us all."
Vice-President Alexander Stephens, Confederate States of America
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Online Book, "Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved"
I believe the whole thing is bogus. Psalm 73:4 says of the prosperous wicked, "For there are no pangs in their death". This book claims otherwise. Moreover, the "saints" they speak of are not saints, but false Christians as this is what overwhelmingly prevails in the world, false Christianity (for more on that, see www.atruechurch.info/savednot.html
). This book well fits Satan's scheme to make the prevailing false Christianity look real as it claims to be in contrast to the "wicked". Yet, in truth, they are all wicked and sent to hell when they die.
For example, in the introduction on page iii the book propagates the common false Christian God and gospel:
Our Heavenly Father has done everything that divine wisdom, love and mercy can possible (sic) do for the salvation of mankind.
That is a lie, and not the God of Scripture. The God of the Bible could have saved the Sodomites (Matthew 11:23), if He so chose, in divine wisdom (1 Timothy 2:4), love and mercy. But He didn't, and they have been suffering in eternal torment for thousands of years now, because He chose instead, in divine wisdom (Psalm 115:3), to use them as an example (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7).
The Lord could have saved Eli's sons (1 Timothy 2:4), but instead He hardened their heart, "because the Lord desired to kill them" (1 Samuel 2:25). And so on and so forth. "He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens" (Romans 9:18).
Moreover, the very first supposed "saint" recorded in this book is Ignatius. He was an ungodly Catholic. See our report on the Early Church Fathers under IV. Ignatius for details on him (www.atruechurch.info/earlychurchfathers.html
). If what is recorded by history is accurate, then Ignatius, as a Catholic false teacher, certainly is burning in hell right now and not saved. What a classic deception by the devil. Get people to believe this garbage and they too will be in torment, because "they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2 Thessalonians 2:10); but instead loved and practiced a lie (Revelation 22:15).
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 9:49 PM
Subject: Nephilim On The Ark
Your idea about Nephilim on the Ark is interesting. However, have you considered this? If angels procreated with the daughters of men at during one period of time, in Genesis, what's to say they didn't do so again at a later time?
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Nephilim On The Ark
Nothing, except that God lets us know what He did with those who did it. Just before mentioning the flood Peter notes, "He did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment" (2 Peter 2:4). And Jude 6 notes, "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day". That's quite a warning to any who might give thought to doing it again!
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 7:10 AM
|Mr. Fisher it would seem that science has found evidence of humans and the world living for millions of years by way of evolution. Is there any scripture that would agree with this claim? I'm actually a bit skeptic about evolution because Genesis says differently. But is there anything agreeing in the scriptures or if evolution a lie.
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:39 AM
When one calculates the 1656 years of genealogies up to the flood (Genesis 5:3-32; 7:11), the 582 years of the Hebrew genealogies from the flood to the time Jacob came into Egypt (Genesis 9:28-29: 11:10-26; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), the 430 years Israel spent in Egypt (Exodus 12:40), the 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), the 427 years of the kings (1 Kings 6:1; 2 Chronicles 9:30-36:11), the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity (2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Jeremiah 25), and the prophesied 483 years ([62+7] x 7 ["weeks" = 7's literally in the Hebrew) of Daniel to the time of Christ (Daniel 9:25), it becomes evident that the heavens and the earth had only been in existence for approximately 4128 lunar years by the time Christ came (Scripture years are lunar, e.g. Hebrew word for "month" and "new moon" is the same word, e.g. Genesis 7:11 "month"; Numbers 29:6 "New Moon"). And, if history has any accuracy to it (which it may not, Ecclesiastes 1:11), adding an additional 2000 solar years reveals the present creation has only existed for approximately 6100 years. This figure is a far cry from millions of years!
Evolution is one of man's many schemes to reject God (Romans 1:18-23) as he seeks only to rebel (Proverbs 17:11) against His truth (Psalm 10:3-4). Because they say in their hearts, "There are no Gods" (Psalm 14:1-3; www.atruechurch.info/heisholygods.html
), they are left to nothing but folly as they reject wisdom (Job 28:28; Proverbs 1:20-33). When one rejects wisdom (God Himself, Job 28:28), there is nothing left but foolishness (1 Corinthians 3:19). Therefore, they are deceived by what they see.
The age old question exemplifies this: "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" The Chicken (Genesis 1:20-21)! God created a mature creation. Within six days, He completed a mature heavens and earth with animals, birds, sea creatures, etc., and a man and a woman (not babies). Even though the man and woman were only a few minutes or hours old on that 6th day, they would have appeared to be years old. So it is with the earth and the heavens (and the stars, sun and moon). So, man is deceived by what he sees, and his so called science is folly and "falsely called knowledge" (1 Timothy 6:20 NKJV; "science falsely so called" KJV).
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: evolution
|But what about the many fossils that have been found? Even the Lost sea scrolls were found through science. Which helped accurately put together the bible.
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:42 PM
Those are interpreted through the eyes of a fool (Psalm 14:1-3). It is just as I said. They misjudge the age of the earth, and they misjudge the age of things on the earth. Fossils are just one example of that. They also misjudge how they are formed. When was the last time anyone observed a fossil being created over millions of years? Last I checked, animal and plant life decay away shortly after they die. They don't become incased in stone (minus a cataclysmic event).
I think you may mean the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jews had the written texts of Scripture (Psalm 147:19-20) even up to the time of Paul (Romans 3:1-2), and the Lord has preserved His word just as He said (Psalm 12:6-7). It doesn't matter how He has preserved it. Most of the Biblical history of the Jews reveals they were wicked most of the time, yet they still possessed His word (even as wicked people, e.g. Jeremiah 2:8; Matthew 23:13; etc.) and the Lord kept it preserved.
Moreover, extra-biblical history is not to be trusted (Ecclesiastes 1:11). Newspapers with history only a day old have lies in them. How much the same or more ancient writings of the past?
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:36 AM
Hi, I was reading your site and noticed you use the NKJV, yu might want to take a min to read about that
The NKJV has a 666 logo on the cover, if you truley Love the Lord you should consider a KJV Bible... I'd love to discuss it with you if you would like.
"4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times."
I have seen this claim before, but I have never been given any proof. Do you have proof that this is done in the text itself (not footnotes)? Could you give me some examples please?
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:14 PM
Hey nice to see yourlike me and actually look into what others tell you rather than just thinking your always right....
For one though the 666 logo is more than enough but take a look at
I know it's alot to go though and all but take some time when you have it and check out a Bible vs Bible on your own, you will start noticing how they fouled it up.
I'm a odd guy I dont have a tv (by choice) and I dont watch any movies or any of that crap so I have the time to research important things..
Hope you don't mind if I use some of your material in regards to false profits and such.
Thanks and God Bless
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Hello
None of those links addressed my question. It appears you do not understand what I asked for.
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Hello
Well I don't have the time to do your work for you, like I said with the 666 logo,any Jesus loving person would not want it. Sorry I wasted my time with you
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Hello
You made the claim, and now you are unwilling to prove it; evidently because you can't. It's not my work. It's your lie. No such "1200 times" does the NKJV in the translation itself (not the footnotes) "ignores" the TR. You make this claim on your website, but are unwilling to even give any examples of this. Scripture says all liars go the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8).
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 2:36 AM
Subject: One last note about your question
After doing some reading for a little bit to make sure I am not the one in the wrong, here is what I figured out...
So lets say I omit that ""4. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.""
that's your only issue then for rejecting The Lords word then that would make you the liar not myself, but The Lord said basically if you want to believe a lie I will let you.
Seems like you will do anything you can to believe yourself over The Lords word.
Sad guy, I'll pray you figure yourself out, being a flase teacher as I'm sure you know is something to be worried about
I do agree, no evidence of the 1200 so I will remove that, there are plenty of reasons listed why your version is watered down muddy water, and not the milk nor the meat.
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: One last note about your question
I would indeed like to know what word of the Lord you think I reject. I don't want to reject any word of God. Yet, I see you reject His Word.
To continue to point out why the NKJV is so evil, examine https://atruechurch.info/heisholygods.html
"You are not able to serve Yehvah, because He is Holy Gods,
1 a Jealous God. He will not forgive your transgressions and your sins.
(a more literal translation of Joshua 24:19, where both "Holy
" and "Gods
" are both in the plural)2"
That is not the NKJV. It is my translation of the Hebrew text of Joshua 24:19. Nonetheless, you call this "evil" and your only point on the matter is, "That's right he said GODS". So, you think the belief in the "Gods" is evil? Have you never read in the 1611 KJV, "You shall not revile the Gods" (Exodus 22:28)? You revile them!
It's evident you don't believe in the Gods. You call them "evil". Thus, you revile the Gods and disobey Exodus 22:28 (1611 KJV). The 1611 uses the capital "G" in Exodus 22:28, as it does in Genesis 3:5 ("Gods"); 1 Samuel 4:8 ("Gods"); and Daniel 4:8-9, 18 ("Gods"). These all speak of the true Gods (as opposed to the false "gods" as in Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2, 4; Exodus 12:12; etc.), thus the capital "G". Your post shows you reject the Word of the Lord and reject the "Gods" spoken thereof. Thus, you revile "the Gods" and regard them as false ("evil") as you disobey and reject Exodus 22:28. Yet, the Gods are true, even according to the 1611 KJV (and the Hebrew text as well, as our article shows). Thus, you reject the word of the Lord, and thus the Lord will reject you (as in Matthew 7:21-23).
You claim to believe the 1611 KJV, yet you don't believe what it says. Otherwise, if you did, you would believe in "the Gods" (Genesis 3:5; Exodus 22:28; 1 Samuel 4:8; and Daniel 4:8-9, 18 "the spirit of the holy Gods") and would not revile them and call them evil as you do.
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 4:28 PM
Sirs, thank you for writing with conviction on John MacArthur and the eternal Son of God. Have you written on
1) Ps. 2:7, Today I have become your Father. When was this? Today is not a timeless word.
2) in Luke 1;35 is it not clear that the sonship of Jesus is grounded in the miracle in Mary. To be called Son of God is to be the Son of God, as other passages in the NT show.;
Have you written on these two passages. Please direct me to this,
Prof of NT.
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 6:46 PM
"Today" is used one other time in the Psalms and it is found in Psalm 95:7 and quoted also in Hebrews 3:7, 15; & 4:7. This "Today" is a continual "Today," as in "while it is called 'Today'" (Hebrews 3:13). So, this illustrates "Today" can be used in a continual sense.
Christ has always been (Micah 5:2; John 1:1) and does not change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). Christ is wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24) and wisdom (Christ) was around at "the beginning of His way" (Proverbs 8:22). The beginning of His way is "from everlasting" (Proverbs 8:23). So it is with "begotten." "Today" is eternity (in which God inhabits, Isaiah 57:15).
Christ has always been begotten of the Father (Hebrews 13:8) having "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:47). In other words, Christ has always been a Man (in the flesh). He was not only begotten in eternity, but also "slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:38 PM
Thanks so much. Yes, “slain” Rev. 13 8, not literally but in promise.
When Mary heard “what is begotten in you (Matt. 1:20, genneethen, begotten) is the work of God’s creative spirit,” was that a timeless begetting?
Thanks for a brief answer if you can spare one.
”Today if you hear His voice” would still mean to each believer Today as actually in “today”! Not just any time you like to imagine!
Luke 1:35 “what is about to be begotten will be holy, Son of God”—is that a timeless begetting?
Just one other question: Are you saying “JESUS is YHVH” If so, since the Father IS YHVH, that counts up to two who are YHVH? Is that right?
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:23 AM
"“slain” Rev. 13 8, not literally but in promise"
That's what you say, not what God says. God says, "slain from the foundation of the world". We believe God. We do not believe any man who tells us otherwise (Jeremiah 17:5).
Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35 - "was that a timeless begetting?"
No, it obviously was not. It was at least the second begetting in time (www.atruechurch.info/twovirginbirths.html
). The begetting in eternity is recorded in Proverbs 8:22-26 of wisdom (Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:24) being brought forth
(begotten, as David uses the exact same Hebrew word in Psalm 51:5 for his birth [see also Job 15:7; 39:1; Psalm 29:9; 90:2; Isaiah 45:10; 51:2; 66:8]), "When there were no depths," etc. (Proverbs 8:23-25). That's "from everlasting" (Proverbs 8:23). That's eternity.
"“JESUS is YHVH”"
Yes, He is God (John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 20:28-29; Acts 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18/Isaiah 44:6; etc.).
"If so, since the Father IS YHVH, that counts up to two who are YHVH? Is that right?"
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:58 PM
Darwin, thanks so much, But you do not think Jesus was literally killed from the foundation of the world? You think he was killed in the first century.
Not sure what you mean.
Thanks for your clear announcement that “God (He) is holy GODS.” ie more than one YHVH.
I wonder what then is meant by Prov. 9:1 “WISDOMS has built her house.” More than one?
What about “the Lords (plural) of the land” in Gen 42:30? How many persons was Joseph?
Thanks for what you say about two begettings.
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:30 PM
"But you do not think Jesus was literally killed from the foundation of the world?"
That's what it says. Slain = killed. Like I said, we believe God.
"You think he was killed in the first century."
As He is begotten in both time and eternity, so is His death (Hebrews 13:8).
Proverbs 9:1 and Genesis 42:30 do not have plural adjectives or plural verbs with those plural nouns. Joshua 24:19 and the many other passages we point out at www.atruechurch.info/heisholygods.html
have either plural adjectives or plural verbs mandating a plural subject.
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:37 PM
Darwin, thanks for your help. When you say “He is Holy Gods,” (translation for the text in Joshua) I wonder if you agree that in English this is just nonsense, breaking the established rules of grammar. Can one believe a proposition that is grammatical nonsense?
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:39 PM
"I wonder if you agree that in English this is just nonsense"
It's nonsense to the carnal mind (1 Corinthians 2:14; Isaiah 55:8-9), because no such concept is allowed for those who rely on their own understanding (Proverbs 3:5). Truth (God) is not bound by man's grammatical rules (Matthew 15:8-9). You have just argued that God's Word is nonsense, for "He is Holy Gods" is exactly what it says.
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:41 PM
In the link you gave it says, "The Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) always used the article "the" (o with a tiny "c" above it in NT Greek: oJ ) with theos when they intended 'God.'"
Luke 20:38 has theos without the article.
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:12 AM
I see, thanks. Begotten twice once in eternity and then brought into existence (begotten) in Mary.
Killed in the past and then killed in first century.
Thanks for the point about the plural adjective. Yes. Prov. 9:1 has the plural noun, but do you render it “wisdoms” Why not?
You translated Elohim as GODS.
I see, so if there is a plural adjective AND a plural noun then the right translation is GODS as you said.
“he is holy GODS” is your translation and this shows that GOD is plural, and you translate it as GODS.
Does any commentary support you on this translation, please. Just wondered.
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 2:43 PM
The begotten twice is in time (Isaiah 7:1-16; Matthew 1:18-23; Hebrews 1:6 "when He again brings the firstborn into the world"). For more on that, see www.atruechurch.info/twovirginbirths.html
. The begotten in eternity is outside of time, thus it's relation to time is not a prescribed "once" in eternity and a second in time.
"Killed in the past and then killed in first century."
Actually, killed in eternity and killed in time. This equals killed "once" (Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10).
"Prov. 9:1 has the plural noun, but do you render it 'wisdoms' Why not?"
The verb is singular dictating a singular.
"Does any commentary support you on this translation"
1. "Scholars" (false teachers of the past) typically acknowledge this Hebrew phrase (and other plural passages) indeed says, "He is Holy Gods," but believing it is another matter.
Ye cannot serve the Lord, for He is a holy God, or as it is in the Hebrew, He is the holy Gods, intimating the mystery of the Trinity, three in one; (Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume II (Joshua to Esther), by Matthew Henry, commentary on Joshua 24:19)
Joshua xxiv. 19, "And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve Jehovah; for he is Holy God, Elohim Kedhoshim." He is the Holy Gods. Not only is the word Elohim properly plural, the very same that is used, verse 15, the gods which your fathers served, &c. - but the adjective Holy is plural. A plural substantive and adjective are used here concerning the True God, just in the same manner as in 1 Sam. iv. 8, "Who shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods." And in Dan. iv. 8, "In whom is the Spirit of the Holy Gods." So vs. 9, 18, chap. v. 11. (found in "Reasons Against Dr. Watt's Notion of the Pre-existence of Christ's Human Soul" e.g. on p. 536, Vol. III in The Works of President Edwards, in Four Volumes, 1851, published by Leavitt & Allen, 27 Day Street, New York)
And Joshua also said unto the people, chap. xxiv. 19, "Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is holy Gods." Here, we not only have "Gods," (ELOIM) but "holy" also: signifying, that there are more than One: and yet he says, that the Lord is One God. (quote is from "The Three Creeds or Confessions of the Christian Faith, Used By Full Consent in the Church." by Martin Luther, found e.g. on p. 363 of Vol II, Select Works of Martin Luther: An Offering of the Church of God in "The Last Days" translated from the works of Luther by the Rev. Henry Cole, of Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1826)
Midrash Tanhuma - For an example of Jewish teaching, in Midrash Tanhuma, Translated Into English With Introduction, Indices and Brief Notes by John T. Townsend, in the context of "How many deities created the world?" it says,
Hence < the plurals > (Josh. 24:19): FOR HE IS HOLY GODS, in < the sense > that he is holy in all types of holiness.
This same page footnotes regarding Joshua 24:19,
19. While "God" in the Bible is commonly plural, here the adjective "holy" is plural as well.
20. Thus the text reads literally: FOR HE IS HOLY GODS. (p. 5, copyright 1989)
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:17 AM
Thanks again. So you would agree with Erickson that a good Trinitarian must say “HE are ONE and THEY IS three.” Yes?
God is not bound by grammatical rules, you say, quoting Matt 15.
So then in the statement “the Lord our God is one Lord,” “one” actually does not mean what “grammatical one” means, but in God’s language one means three?
Have I understood you?
Again, thanks for your help,
If God inspired Scripture, did HE decide not to use the grammatical rules of Hebrew or Greek?
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 2:54 PM
We believe Erickson is a false teacher. We also believe the Trinity, as traditionally taught by Catholics and Protestants alike and summed up in the Athanasian Creed (see point V. An Unholy Creed in the "He is Holy Gods" article), is a false God. We would say, "They are one," as Jesus described Himself and His Father as one and prayed believers would also be one (John 17:11, 21-23).
"So then in the statement 'the Lord our God is one Lord,' 'one' actually does not mean what 'grammatical one' means, but in God’s language one means three?"
I have never seen any statement in Scripture that says, "'the Lord our God is one Lord" as you quoted. What translation do you find that in? 1 Corinthians 8:6 & Ephesians 4:5 indeed say "one Lord," but I haven't seen the quote you gave anywhere.
Also, I said nothing about three. There are more than three (see the end of our article "He is Holy Gods"). Furthermore, the "one" found in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the same "one" Jesus and His Father have as spoken of in John 17.
"If God inspired Scripture, did HE decide not to use the grammatical rules of Hebrew or Greek?"
We only know "grammatical rules" by observation and study of the language. Since we are talking about the grammatical rule Maker, and we are talking about the Hebrew text itself in which establish any rules that exist, and since He is both the author of the text and the author of the language, how does your question make any sense? It is what it is, and any rules (true rules, not man's rules) are understood by what is found in the text, not outside the text (Scripture).
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:48 AM
Darwin, sorry about the link saying that God is always o theos. That link is nothing to do with us,
Obviously God is without the article even as nominative, sometimes. You cite an example
I don’t know why that link got on my email.
I have read your article on GODS, etc.
You give us good Heb and Greek info, but you don’t comment on the second lord of Ps 110:1. (you do mention the verse)
Can you clarify please. The Hebrew word and what does it mean?
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 2:58 PM
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 6:09 PM
Thanks. but you do not say what ADONI means except that God speaks to God.
Is adoni God?
Read your bio too, interesting ex methodist!
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:40 PM
Yes, adoni there in Psalm 110:1 is God. This same term (Adon) without the pronominal suffix ("my") is used of God in Joshua 3:11, 13; Psalm 97:5; Zechariah 4:14; 6:5; Micah 4:13. Christ (God) points out it is a reference to Himself (Christ) in Matthew 22:42-45.
The meaning, "my Lord," is given in the Endnotes.
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:06 PM
Thanks for your trouble here. So then in Deut 7:4 you would insist on “ Gods so near” (the adjective plural). and Ps 88:11 Gods judging (plural adjective).
I Sam 17:26 living (plur) God. If I understand you you render Elohim as GOD but when the adjective is plural then GODS.
You say that it is fine to say Three (or more?) Gods. How GODs are you thinking of
Thanks again. In Ps. 110:1 (very often cited as you know) you have God speaking to God?
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:22 AM
I think you must mean Deut. 4:7 and Psalm 58:11. Yes, we have those specifically quoted in our article. And, yes we also have 1 Sam 17:26 there also.
"If I understand you you render Elohim as GOD but when the adjective is plural then GODS."
As it says in our second endnote, "2. The plural noun אֱלהִים ('elohiym, "Gods," "God," "gods," or "god" depending on context) . . .". If there is a singular adjective or verb it would be singular. If there is a plural adjective or verb, it would be plural. If there is neither and context is not demanding, it could be translated either way (e.g. Psalm 10:4; 14:1; 53:1).
"You say that it is fine to say Three (or more?) Gods."
"you have God speaking to God?"
Yes, that is found throughout Scripture (e.g. Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Zechariah 1:8-13; John 17; Hebrews 1:8; etc.).
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:47 AM
Thanks, Have you not noticed the difference between ADONAI, Lord God, and Adoni which is never God, (195 times, the non-deity title)?
Thanks again, Where does ADONI ever refer in the Hebrew Bible to the Lord God?
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:31 AM
In our endnote number 24 in the article "He is Holy Gods" we have:
"This same word, אֲדוֹנִי ('adoniy), is used for addressing God as "my Lord" in Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:13; Psalm 110:1; Zechariah 1:9; 4:4-5, 13; 6:4 ("the angel who talked with me" in Zechariah is identified as the Angel of the Lord in Zechariah 1:12-13, who is God, Zechariah 3:1-2; 12:8)."
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:47 AM
Darwin, Thanks so much, but adoni is expressly never a ref to God, while ADONAI always is.
Adon without suffix is indeed as you say for God and Man, but adoni is never for God. (195 times)
For your info:
Adonai and Adoni (Ps. 110:1)
The NT’s Favorite Old Testament Proof-text
Why is the Messiah called adoni (my lord) and never adonai? (Lord God)
“Adonai and adoni are variations of Masoretic pointing to distinguish divine reference from human. Adonai is referred to God but Adoni to human superiors.
Adoni—ref. to men: my lord, my master [see Ps. 110:1]
Adonai—ref. to God…Lord” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, under adon [= lord], pp. 10, 11).
“The form ADONI(‘my lord’), a royal title (I Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title ADONAI(‘my Lord’) used of Yahweh.” “ADONAI—the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adonai [with short a vowel] = my lords[found in Gen. 19:2]” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Lord,” p. 157).
“Lord in the OT is used to translate ADONAI when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word…has a suffix [with special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction. Sometimes it is uncertain whether it is a divine or human appellative…The Masoretic Text sometimes decides this by a note distinguishing between the word when ‘holy’ or only ‘excellent,’ sometimes by a variation in the [vowel] pointing—adoni (I vowel], adonai [short a vowel] and adonai [long a vowel]” (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, “Lord,” Vol. 3, p. 137).
“Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the OT…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen. 44:7, Num. 32:25, II Kings 2:19 [etc.]). We have to assume that the word adonai received its special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e., adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai, [with long a vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short a vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords” (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 531).
“The lengthening of the ā on Adonai [the Lord God] may be traced to the concern of the Masoretes to mark the word as sacred by a small external sign” (Theological Dictionary of the OT, “Adon,” p. 63 and Theological Dictionary of the NT, III, 1060ff, n. 109).
“The form ‘to my lord,’ l’adoni, is never used in the OT as a divine reference…the generally accepted fact [is] that the Masoretic pointing distinguishes divine references (adonai) from human references (adoni) (Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the OT, p. 22)” (Herbert Bateman, “Ps 110:1 and the NT,” Bibliothecra Sacra, Oct.-Dec., 1992, p. 438).
Professor Larry Hurtado of the University of Edinburgh, celebrated author of a modern classic on Christology: “There is no question but that the terms Adonai and adoni function differently: the one a reverent way of avoiding pronouncing the word YHVH and the other the use of the same word for non-divine figures” (from correspondence, June 24th, 2000.
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:38 AM
The quote you gave claims, "Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel." Then the three men in Genesis 18 are the God of Israel, for this is the term Abraham uses in Genesis 18:3 in addressing them. Likewise, in Genesis 19 the two angels are the God of Israel, because that is the term used by Lot for them in Genesis 19:18. I do agree the three men and the two angels are indeed the God of Israel, as my article details (www.atruechurch.info/gen18.html).
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:12 AM
Thanks so much for your clarity. So your belief is in GODS, plural without saying how many—certainly not THREE and not one.
You see Elohim with plural adjectives as just plural without saying how many I see.
Where is God speaking to God in Jn 17? (your list below)
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:17 AM
"certainly not THREE and not one"
There are Three (e.g. Genesis 18; Matthew 28:19), but there are more than Three (e.g. Seven Spirits, Jerusalem, etc.).
Moreover, "these mighty Gods" (1 Samuel 4:8 KJV), "the Gods that smote the Egyptians" (1 Samuel 4:8 KJV), is the "God" (1 Samuel 4:7 KJV) of Israel. Gods in one God, as it is written, "He is Holy Gods" (Joshua 24:19).
In John 17 Jesus (God, John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 20:28-29; Acts 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18/Isaiah 44:6; etc.) is talking to His Father (God, John 6:27).
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:24 AM
Darwin, Abraham addresses ONE (singular) of the three as ADONAI and later when more than one angel is mentioned we have a different vowel (patach not quametz).
Why the difference in the pointing (patach for the plural of adoni and quamez for the Lord God; yes the one angel has the divine title here as rep God.
But what about ADONI: You think there is no difference between 195 occs of adoni and 440 or so ADONAI? No difference meant!
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:18 AM
In Genesis 18 it does not say nor indicate Abraham addresses only one of the three as Adonai, since it says the Lord appeared to Abraham, and three men appear. It does not identify anyone else in any specifics in the entire chapter. Abraham uses Adonai for both the singular "your sight" and "your servant" and the plural "your feet" and "yourselves" in the same Adonai address (Genesis 18:3-4).
"yes the one angel has the divine title here as rep God."
You've added that concept to the text. It says no such rep thing. Lot addresses "them" (Genesis 19:18), not "him," and uses Adonai for "them."
There is a difference. Adonai is plural. Adoni is singular. Both are used for God (Scriptures already given).
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:20 AM
Appreciate your time: Adoni in J 5:14 is addressed to a man v. 13, not God.
Jud is the angel of the Lord who distinguishes himself from YHVH in 13:16.
Ps. 110 is adoni, and this is the regular title for NON-Deity.
Zech 1:9 is an angel addressed as adoni, not YHVH. So 4. 4-5; 6;4 an angel is addressed.
David will be like God and the angel of the Lord is like God.
So then you see no difference between ADONAI and ADONI.’
Where are human beings called ADONAI.
The Son of God is expressly NOT an angel, because angels are not begotten (the whole argument in Heb 1).
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:32 AM
If Joshua 5:13 is not YHVH, the "Man of war" (Exodus 15:3), then why is the place holy (vs. 15), just as in Exodus 3:4-5?
In Judges 13 the angel of the Lord is identified as God in verses 21-22, as the angel of the Lord is identified as God in Genesis 16:11-13; 22:11-12; Exodus 3:2-6; Numbers 22:32-35, 23:5; Judges 2:1; 6:12-14.
You say, "not YHVH" for Zechariah, but the text does not. I explain how it can be seen that the angel is God in the article "The Horses of Zechariah 1 Are God" (www.atruechurch.info/horses.html
"David will be like God and the angel of the Lord is like God."
That's not what it says. It says, "and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord" (Zechariah 12:8). Both "like"s refer back to the house of David.
Finally, both in the Hebrew OT and Greek NT the words for angel is simply the word for messenger (e.g. Malachi 3:1/Matthew 11:10). It is not a technical term. Men are called "angels" (messengers, e.g. Genesis 32:4; James 2:25). So, being called an "angel" or messenger does not mandate the same messengers that are spoken of in Hebrews 1.
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:47 PM
Thanks, to save your time, do you acknowledge the distinction adoni/ adonai? ( I sent you five authorities making the point.)
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 9:32 PM
If Joshua 5:13 is not YHVH, the "Man of war" (Exodus 15:3), then why is the place holy (vs. 15), just as in Exodus 3:4-5?
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:48 PM
Thanks so no difference except sing and plur for adoni and adonai?
So then human beings can be adonai just as much as adoni?
You see no difference?
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:51 PM
Darwin, I read your life and you are pastoring a small church believing that the ONEGOD exists in multiple persons.
Have I understood?
MK 12:29 “the Lord our God is one Lord” = the Greek of the NT and LXX
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:58 PM
So your Jesus is 100% God an eternally existing SON and 100% mortal Son of God who died?
Is that a fair description of your thinking?
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 8:04 PM
Thanks, again for your trouble.
Darwin, you said Furthermore, the "one" found in Deuteronomy 6:4 is the same "one" Jesus and His Father have as spoken of in John 17.
The Greek of Deut is eis ONE person. but the word in John 17 is EN one thing, a very great difference!
Abraham was one person, Ezekiel said. The Hebrew of course, echad (the numeral one) and Gk eis, the numeral one, not EN, one thing.
The LORD our God is nicely defined then as one Lord.
God is EIS, Paul said, which is one Person.
You and I agree that singular personal pronouns define a singular Person?
“there is not other except HE’ The Jew said to Jesus. HE is one person.
“Do we not have all one Father has not one God created us?”
A nice parallel, Malachi 2:10.
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:35 AM
Do you see now the translations which give us correctly “the Lord our God is one Lord”? (Mk 12;29).
Darwin, You stated that the word for ONE in Deut 6 is the same form as in Jn 17. But the masculine eis (one person) is not at all the same in meaning as the EN one thing,
I don’t think at all that an angel is God! That is why he is addressed as adoni, my lord. In Jud 13:16 the angel distinguishes himself from YHVH.
More than one YHVH I find impossible since thousands of singular personal pronouns define Him as one Person!
Thanks for your time,
(Yes, the one angel, not the three initially in Gen 18 is addressed as adonai, representing God.
Otherwise adoni is the address to non-Deity, ie to the king of Israel and the Messiah in Ps 110:1 where ADONI means that the Messiah is human.
The Jews got this right. God is one Person. Luke 1:35 is very clear about the begetting of the Son.
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:43 PM
Darwin, Thanks The presence of YHVH is in the angel, as we know. But adoni refers nearly 195 times to men as reps of God not to God who is ADONAI/
ADONAI is singular in meaning as being parallel to O theos in the LXX and to YHVH who is always ONE Person, I think.
Do you disagree with the 5 lexical authorities I sent explaining the diff between ADONI, my lord, and not the LORD. (Afformative suffix for intensity, the chief Lord, ie God.)
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:47 AM
If Joshua 5:13 is not YHVH, the "Man of war" (Exodus 15:3), then why is the place holy (vs. 15), just as in Exodus 3:4-5?
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:05 AM
Darwin, absolutely agreed: we know of grammar by observation and the Greek Scripture knows nothing of a plurality in ELOHIM/ theos, for the One God.
I observe the clear difference in the Massoretic use of adoni, (angels and men) and adonai (which is singular as observable in grammar) for God only (once a rep. angel in Gen 18.
The Massoretes are very precise with the three diffferent vowels under the Nun of ADNY, (ie qametz for God, hireq for man and angel and patach for plural of adoni.).
This is observable grammar I think as reported by all the the lexicons.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:32 AM
Thank you for answering my question.
You called the man in Joshua 5 an "angel." How can you justify this? Where is the man (the text calls him a man) identified as an angel in Joshua 5? Also, where do we find (in the Bible) this idea of yours - that the place is holy because God is in a man at that location? Wouldn't this dictate that every place where a man of God is found the place is holy? So, where is this doctrine found? Or, is this just your idea?
Regarding "authorities," we don't trust the authorities (Jeremiah 17:5). I know the languages and have seen "authorities" wrong, as the link you gave argued erroneously regarding the article (or lack thereof), and as you have argued in the matter of the Greek word EN (it's actually, HEN).
For example, the "one [EN] child" in Matthew 18:5 and Mark 9:37 is a thing? The child there is not a person? Since when is a child not a person? Likewise, is the Spirit not a person in 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Ephesians 4:4 where it says, "one [EN] Spirit"? And since, "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:17), do you believe the Lord is not a person? EN is also used in Revelation 4:8 (translated "each") and 15:7 ("one" EN) for the living creatures who say, "Holy, holy, holy, Who was and is and is to come!"
I really would like to know from what "authority" you got this info about EN. Or, is this simply your error?
Regarding Adoni and Adonai, I believe I have made my position clear on those from prior emails.
Thank you for the info on Mark 12:29. I see the KJV, AKJV, NAS, ISV, NLV, WE, Darby, Jay P. Green, BBE, and Webster's all translate it that way. The NKJV, NIV, ESV, ASV, ERV, WEB, HCSV, LEB, and Young's Literal translate it, "the Lord our God, the Lord is one," which is what the Hebrew says in Deuteronomy 6:4. The latter translation follows the Hebrew wording from which the Greek NT and LXX is a translation of.
Moreover, you wrote, "Jud is the angel of the Lord who distinguishes himself from YHVH in 13:16."
If that kind of language "distinguishes" (as you claim), then God distinguishes Himself from Himself in, for example, Genesis 9:16; Exodus 19:11, 21-22, 24; 24:1-2; Amos 4:11; Isaiah 13:19; 48:14; Jeremiah 50:40. In these passages God talks about Himself, but it is God talking! This kind of thing is found throughout Scripture.
Finally, you asked, "So your Jesus is 100% God an eternally existing SON and 100% mortal Son of God who died?"
The first part indeed, but not the second regarding mortality. Jesus, the Son of God, being God Himself, was/is not inherently mortal. He is life itself (John 14:6). His comparison with Melchizedek who is noted as having "neither beginning of days nor end of life" (Hebrews 7:3) points to this fact as well. Also, Jesus has incorruptible blood (1 Peter 1:18-19). It is the blood of God (Acts 20:28) and is eternal (being incorruptible blood of God). Also, in John 10 Jesus points out that no one takes His life (John 10:17-18), but He willingly submitted to death in obedience to His Father (Philippians 2:8). Thus, He was not subject to death (mortal) as we are, but willingly submitted Himself to death nonetheless for us.
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:36 PM
A little more on Adonai: You have argued (via an "authority") that "Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel" (which I have no problem with, minus possibly Ezra 10:3). But when confronted with the Adonai in Genesis 19:18 you back away from this and claim the angel (it's actually addressed to both of "them") is a "rep" of God. Since when is a representative in Scripture called by the name (or title) of the person they represent? So, if a person (who is not God) represents God, they can be called "God" (Adonai)? This is the substance of your argument, and I would really like to see this elsewhere in the Word. If that's the case, how could it be known who is being addressed? If an angel or a man can be called God (Adonai), how would you know it's not Adonai (God) Himself? If this is truly the case, then the text could actually identify the person there as "Adonai" (God), but you would need more than just that to know it is truly Adonai (God).
Therefore, even though "Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel," Adonai can also denote His representative. This is your argument. I do not see this in agreement with the authority you quoted.
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:42 AM
found your website interesting,
As I did not see you include Jews in the groupings of false religions, does this mean the Jewish faith is a special category?
I am from a Jewish background, but not religious. I would be interested in your opinion on where the Jews will fit into the picture? Also there are many Jewish sects, so which is the better - orthodox or ?
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Just wondering?
What is commonly known as Judaism is false (all the different Jewish sects, including orthodox). It was false in the past (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8-9) and is still false (as in Revelation 2:9; 3:9), as they do not believe their own Scriptures (as they didn’t in the past, e.g. John 5:46-47). But, true Judaism is true (e.g. Romans 2:25-29). "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). The Savior (Jesus, or Joshua) is a Jew, and all who truly believe the Bible (Old Testament & New Testament; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13) are sons of Abraham (Galatians 3:7). In other words, the only true religion in the world is true Judaism. All the others are false.
Christianity is the same. What is known as Christianity (all the different sects) is false (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 4:3-4). But, true Christianity (which faithfully believes what Scripture says) is true and is actually true Judaism, for salvation of the Jews.
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 7:45 PM
Subject: A few questions
I recently sent a question about drinking and read the Bible verses your site provides. I don't believe drinking is sinful but have still been confused by one verse which your site doesn't mention-1 Peter 4:3, this verse is sometimes translated to say drinking parties are sinful yet other translations say otherwise. Which is the correct translation? My other questions are is it a sin to use instruments in worship, and does 1 Timothy 4:7 condemn studying other religions?
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: A few questions
Thank you for your email. I am very thankful you mentioned 1 Peter 4:3. It's a pertinent verse and I have added it to the article (www.atruechurch.info/alcohol.html
). I have copied what I added below for your convenience.
Studying other religions? It matters why you would be studying. You can reject what you are "studying" while you study. But, why would you study? For what reason?
1 Peter 4:3:
Finally, some may wonder about 1 Peter 4:3 - "drinking parties" (NKJV, NAS, ESV, NSV; "banquetings" KJV; "drinkings" Darby; "drinking-bouts" Young's Literal; "carousings" ASV, ERV; "wild parties" NLT). The Greek word translated "drinking parties" is ποτοις (potois) which is only found in 1 Peter 4:3 in the NT. In the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) it is used a few times to translate a few different Hebrew words.
The LXX uses this word in 1 Samuel 25:36 (2x); Ecclesiastes 7:2; and Job 1:5 all for a translation of the Hebrew word מִשְׁתֶּה (mishteh) "feast." In 1 Samuel 25:36 the context is Nabal feasting his way into drunkenness.
In Ecclesiastes 7:2 it simply says,
Better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; and the living will take it to heart.
The context of Job 1:5 is the days of "feasting" of the children of Job.
In Job 8:11 the LXX translates מָיִם (mâyim) "water" with the singular of this word, πότου (potu).
In 1 Kings 10:21 the LXX also uses this word to translate the Hebrew word מַשְׁקֵה (mashqâh) "drinking" for Solomon's "drinking vessels."
In Esther 1:8 the LXX translates שְּׁתִיָּה (shetiyyâh) "drinking" in the context of the feast of king Ahasuerus.
In Proverbs 23:30 the LXX translates מִמְסָךְ (mimsâkh) "mixed wine" (more literally, "mixed drink"). There the context is speaking of drunkards.
As can be seen from reading the verses and their contexts, context has much to do with how this word is to be understood. The context in 1 Peter 4:3 is "drunkenness" and "revelries" which are obviously evil. The context is clearly evil in Proverbs 23:30, but the use of the word in 1 Kings 10:21; Job 1:5; 8:11; and Eccesiastes 7:2 imply nothing inherently bad. Esther 1:8 is indeed in the context of the feast of a king, but note what it says regarding the "drinking" (LXX, πότος) there.
In accordance with the law, the drinking was not compulsory; for so the king had ordered all the officers of his household, that they should do according to each man's pleasure. (Esther 1:9)
This gave them freedom to drink little or much.
Thus, the "drinking parties" spoken of in 1 Peter 4:3 is not talking about a gathering of moderate drinkers, and the context bears this out. In the very next verse it says,
In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. (1 Peter 4:4)
Here is a clarifying statement. What Peter is talking about is "dissipation," "excess" (KJV), as Ephesias 5:18 says,
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit (KJV, "excess" is a translation of ἀσωτία [asôtia] from the same root as in 1 Peter 4:4 for "dissipation" [NKJV] or "excess" [KJV], ἀσωτίας [asôtias]).
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: He is Holy Gods
Do you view Elohim as Majestic plural or numerical plural?
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: He is Holy Gods
In the "He is Holy Gods" article we point out several scriptures in which Elohim receives a plural verb or a plural adjective which marks it (as the article you gave notes) as a numerical plural. The article you gave claims,
Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb.
That is a lie. The following Scriptures all have Elohim with a plural verb - Genesis 20:13; 35:7; 2 Samuel 7:23; Psalm 58:11 All these are noted in our article and they all speak of the true God (Gods).
Likewise, the article claims,
The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for Elohim is singular, not plural.
And the last sentence of the article claims,
. . . the fact that the verbs and adjectives connected with Elohim are always singular . . . .
That is not a fact. It is a lie. In the following Scriptures the adjective for Elohim is plural - Deuteronomy 5:26; Joshua 24:19; 1 Samuel 17:26, 36; Jeremiah 10:10; 23:36; Daniel 4:8-9, 18; 5:11 (Daniel is Aramaic with the similar plural noun Elahin). All these are noted in the article and they all speak of the true God (Gods).
In the article you gave they ask,
Moses declares to the children of Israel, "YHWH is our Elohim, YHWH is one" (Dt 6:4). Were YHWH a multiplicity of gods or personalities what would be the point of saying that He is "one"?
The answer to that question is found in John 17:11, 21-23 where Christ describes Himself and His Father as One, yet they are two (John 8:17-18).