Littlejohn

from "wise holy man":

The "santo uomo saggio" (if really you're referring to me) had, for his research, far fewer indications of how a common reader of this forum can have (at least on my part)

Let us, therefore, that whoever shows a minimum of curiosity about the topics covered, may reach its "discovery" personal, thanks to ideas and information, even if sometimes rather general, which I provided. I repeat: it is much, much more than what I had!


Littlejohn

.

gstafleu

Actually, it is not a true plural. It is not so much a pluralis maestatis as (a concept close to it) an intensivum. In English you would translate it as "the very god". In Latin you would use a superlative, "deissimus" (or something like that)--so maybe Italian has a similar mechanism? In Hebrew intensiva are formed by the same mechanism as the plural. But you can tell the difference: the accompanying verb is still in the singular! And, in this case, the verb seems to be singular, hence the creating god was singular, intensive. (I don't know Hebrew myself, all this I gather from previous discussions with people who do).

Gerard Stafleu

mg01

I tend to see the term as originating via Canaanite 'ilm and Akkadian ilu. By the time the Torah was redacted the "Elohim of Israel" referred singularly to YHWH. Even in the HB however the term is still found in it's generic reference simply to a divine being/beings identifiable most easily when in reference to a foreign deity. It seems evident the term had a broad range of meanings but always maintained a reference to the supernatural. 'ilm shows up in the Armana letters in reference to the Pharaoh with the same "personal god" conceptualization found in P in relation to YHWH.

I also think the context of its usage by various authors, particularly J and E, give indication to the process by which the usage morphed over time. For instance there are only a handful of instances of Elohim in J which beg the question is he meant YHWH why didn't he say YHWH? It seems clear that by context it's because he's not referring to YHWH but simply to the divine realm itself ("sons of elohim", "blessing of elohim", etc...). The literal Hebrew however with its singular verbs, pronouns, etc... indicates singular elohim, but to me the context in each case is vague rather than specific to YHWH. With P there isn't much doubt Elohim=YHWH, which coupled with the singular verbs shadows the usage in E, which is the most elusive of all. E's context around the term flips back and forth where sometimes it's obvious it's a reference to the YHWH and other times a possible reference to the divine realm in general. The case gets doubly interesting in E following the revelation to Moses.

I’m no expert, but it seems to me there is something useful here other than an issue over “what do we call God”. I’ve never seen anything however that addresses this, likely due to the singular verb issue makes the entire idea far to speculative.

WVIncagold

if i direct something at someone i quote them. this was directed at the rabbi and OP.

Littlejohn

Hi Gerard!

".. In English you would translate it as 'the very god'. In Latin you would use a superlative, 'deissimus'.."

I attended forums Israelites in Italian language, therefore I know perfectly this topic. This is a pseudo-justification invented by those who reformed Jewish worship of the origins to justify the plural "Elhoim", since of what it was originally. There are many things falsified in the Bible, compared to those which were the traditions of the origins' hebraism, whose original character was exquisitely polytheist (and this fully justifies the plural Elhoim!)

Jeremiah was a witness to these falsifications and still today his complaints appear in the actual Bible. It's just take a look at his book. The current ambiguity between the terms AMEYN and AMEN is also the result of such falsifications, designed to make forget Jewish faithful the real mean of the word "Amen".

The below text is quoted from the site: http://www.world-destiny.org/releas.htm

In Psalm 82:1 we have the absurd that God "Elhoim" takes place between the "Elhoim", ie among other gods, of which he is the supreme figure. Who are the others gods? ...

Since the second word Elhoim "ribadisce" (repeat for establish) Jewish grammatical rule that the suffix "im" added the names masculine singular transforms they in plural names, is more than obvious that the first Eloihm was a puerile forgery to pretend that Elhoim also was a "strange" "plural maestatis" or a superlative (God Most High!)

In Psalm 136:2 we have a likely track of how the singular "El" has been transformed into the plural "Elhoim."

Elohai, that is God (singular) can one be transformed into Elhoi (or Eli), as it appears in the canonical gospels: "Elohi, Elohi, lama sabachthani?". These are the last words that Jesus would have spoken on the cross.

Words that the authors of the Gospels stole to Psalm 22, attributed to David. In turn, the author of Psalm had stolen at the Phoenician mythology (or canaanean) regarding El, Anath and their children Mot and Elyon (*). The exact same sentence (God .. God why have you forsaken me?) was issued by Mot, after the mother-sister Anath had reported that the El father had abandoned he to his sad fate (death).


All best


__________________________

Note:

(*) - It 'very likely that this mythological story, now known thanks to the library discovery of Ugarit, has been the pattern for the Jewish myth of Adam, Eve and their sons Abel and Cain: the first representing mild Elyon and the second evil Mot. Anath also to being the wife of El, was yet his daughter. This justifies the fable of Eve created by a "rib" of Adam. (a "pious" lie for mystified primitive mythological semitic truth!)


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

Hi mg01!

See the answer that I gave to gstafleu.

"..The literal Hebrew however with its singular verbs, pronouns, etc... indicates singular elohim.."

On this I disagree. The suffix "im" in the hebraic words it indicates a male plural and not a singular! (suffix for plural female names is "oth").

As already I said, originally the word "Elhoim" was simply a plural, "gods" showing. After the original hebraism reform, which took place under Josiah in the seventh century BC, the original hebraic cult, essentially a form of polytheism, was trasformed in monotheism. The incident represents a "modest" copy of what happened in Egypt at the time of Akhenaten and the word ADON/ATON-ai is a clear testimony!

"P", "E", "J"......Sorry, I don't know they... Who are?.....


Best greetings


Littlejohn

.

HaRaAYaH

Not correct. In Hebrew the verb indicates if the noun is singular or plural. The equivalent in English would be fish. There is no plural for fish.

The fish swims..... Singular
The fish swim...... Plural.

It is clearly singular in Hebrew as the verbs are all singular.....

Littlejohn

There are actually singular hebraic names ending in "-im", such as:

panim: the face
tzawarim: the neck
achorim: the back

etc.

However, they are exceptions that do not cancel the rule, but rather they confirm!

In English to form the plural of names you add a "-s" in the singular. However, there are words like 'news' that express also a singular. This would mean what? .. What there is no rule of "s" to form the plural of English names? ..

In ebraico per formare il plurale dei nomi singolari maschili si aggiunge "-im" e la regola è valida anche se esistono delle eccezioni singolari che terminano in "-im". A questo punto rimane solo da definire se Elhoim rientra nel campo delle eccezioni, rappresentando cioè un singolare, oppure si tratta di un genuino nome maschile plurale. Vediamo quanto riportato nel post con cui rispondevo a gstafleu:

In Hebrew to form the plural of singular masculine names one add "-im" and the rule is valid even if there are exceptions singular ending in "-im". At this point remains to be defined only if Elhoim fall within the field of exceptions, that is, representing a singular name, or it is a genuine name masculine plural. Let's see what I said in the post with which rispondevo to gstafleu:

"...Elhoim" takes place between the "Elhoim"

Here is most obvious the absurdity according which with the same term one indicates a singular and a plural, because it is clear that the second "Elhoim" expresses a plural, irrespective of the verb (a rule that comes new to me).

Names like:

sefarim, perushim, Neviim, Nebiim, cohanim, etubim, ebionim, ossim, seraphim, Tsaduqqim, Qinna'im, yehudìm, talmidim, berionim, chabirim, etc.

are plural male names and so these remain, whatever be the form of the verb to which they accompany. I'm not an expert in Hebrew, this is what was explained to me.

Elhoi was the true singular they showed God. Then it was transformed into "Elhoim" to mystified the real meaning of this later term.


Littlejohn
.

HaRaAYaH

You will have to cite a Jewish source to back up your claim. To the best of my knowledge, Elohim is singular, at least according the Hebrew experts I have consulted on this.

It is also not true that adding the ending "im" is the ending that makes it plural. The "ot" also makes things plural shofarot, talliot, etc.....
Again,unless you read and understand Hebrew, you are spouting misinformation. Google is your friend here:

From Wikipedia

So it's clear as I pointed out earlier, it depends on the VERB. If the verb preceding Elohim is singular than Elohim is singular and if the verb preceding Elohim is plural Elohim is plural. That's Hebrew grammar and the fish example is a perfect analogy. The word fish can be singular or plural depending on the verb. So as pointed out above in Genesis 1:1 Elohim is CLEARLY SINGULAR. In fact through the OT, any time the text is referring to the God of Israel, it is singular and when it refers to gods generically it is plural.

Littlejohn

Now I know what you wanted to say with this sentence.

All occurrences in the Bible in which the verb associated with Elhoim was in the plural (as is natural that it was) were turned by counterfeiters of Josiah at the singular. However, in some points remained in the plural, which counteract, of course, with the concept "singular" one to pretend associate to Elhoim. However, as I know, there is no rule in grammar Jewish to establish that the plural or singular kind of a name is the verb associated with it. As in any other language (since it is a rule that flows from the logical sense) verbs have to agree with the kind of names.

As already I said, in a past not too distant I compared on a forum Israelite in Italian language, with Israelites who still live in Israel. Among them there were many scholars experts not only in biblical arguments, but also in Aramaic and Arabic. How easy was expected, they have tried to justify the "strange" singular Elhoim in a thousand ways, but none of them ever said that to specify the kind of male names (singular or plural) is the verb of the sentence!

The suffix "oth" specifies the kind plural of the female names. This is a rule and remains such although there are exceptions, like the plural of male names is formed by adding "im" in the singular, although there are exceptions in this respect.

The archaeological findings have confirmed what non-partisan scholars had guessed, by now a long time ago, from the same biblical content, namely that there was a time when the hebraic religion was a polytheism, then transformed into a monotheism .

King Solomon and others, both before him, (the grandfather Saul) and after him, did build temples dedicated to various deities: mainly to Asherat (Astharte of the Phoenicians and Isthar of the Babylonians), "paredra" of Yahweh, as witnessed by the archaeological finds. How could do this if the religion of the Jews of the time had been monotheistic? ... The people would immediately raised against the king "heretic" and Solomon would not be remembered today in the way he is remembered: a positive and prestigious figure in the history of the hebraism!

Having been a polytheism the origins' hebraism, namely that of Moses, the plural Elhoim one accords perfectly with everything.

All the forgery and puerile lies introduced by Jewish counterfeiters into fabric of the Jewish worship, could work for the populace at that time, illiterate in the overwhelming majority and therefore easily "tamely" by the "foxes" of the Temple of Jerusalem. Today these falsehoods go up rather "close" to the third millennium man, albeit modest intellectual preparation, thanks to the redundancy of the media (see Internet). It's clear that for Christianity the same speech it is valid.


Littlejohn

.