Sheshbazzar

More poster children for MonoYahwhisim.

"You were shown these things so that you might know that YHWH is The Elohim, there is no other besides Him." Deut. 4:35

mirage

So very like the English waters and heavens then?

Descriptions of large expanses of stuff with often illdefined borders that may be considered in whole or in parts. A bit like "lands" or "winds" too.

Gods would still not fit well into this type of usage.

Phlox Pyros

The word El can mean God (and was also used for a specific Canaanite deity), however, there is no female ending "ohim". In fact, the ending "im" is the plural part and it is masculine. If it were feminine it would end in "ot" or "oth".

Well, I won't put it like that, but....

Phlox Pyros

In fact, God fits in quite well with this "large expanses" and "illdefined borders".

Either way, it is a fact found in most Hebrew grammars. It is one of the first things that you will encounter. If you would like, I can quote a section from one or two grammars...

Chili

But to confuse mankind with humankind is the height of ignorance that no bible translator should ever make. Our humanity is our shadow existence that became ours in Gen.3 when our eyes were opened as the serpent said they would be.

mirage

I agree, but this amorphous mass "Gods" doesn't fit well will the single agent Creator emphasised in later Scripture, does it?

I don't doubt it, but does it always apply in the English-like way I suggested or can you use it on words like: event, man, house?

Phlox Pyros

I don't think it is necessarily inconsistent with later scripture (whatever that might refer to)... Elohim is rendered "God" (singular) in the ancient Greek Septuagint as well. If it was ever indicitive of a belief that many Gods created the heaven and earth, then it must have lost the pluralism a very, very long time ago.

For those particular words, I do not believe so. Otherwise, I am not absolutely sure.

Sheshbazzar

Agreed, One of the problems, or deficiencies, with the terms "god" and "gods", is that both have their origins in an entirely different culture, with a foreign 'baggage' of a different set of ideas and paradigms as to what the terms describe, and what they mean.
The word "god" is just a really absolutely lousy substitute to serve as a translation of the ancient word "elohim".
If men are serious about getting a clear understanding of how the Scriptural writers intended their writings to be understood, the first step would to be to stop imposing foreign words and idioms upon the text under the guise of "translating" it.
"El", "Elohim", "Eloah", "elim", and "ele'leem", are the original and proper Scriptural terms, and are not (properly) replaceable by generic alien words out of different cultural paradigms such as "god", "theos", "dios", "bog" etcetera, capitalized or not.
Get the name YHWH back into the text where it was (as The Jerusalem Bible, and some other modern versions do) and also restore the original descriptive terms to their rightful positions, and begin to learn and recognize the meaning of the original terms.
This will accomplish two things, first, it will restore to the text its original terms, and indicate what these early writers actually believed, (or perhaps just wrote)
Second, It will be the most effective way of extracting and separating the ideas of the original text, from ideas imposed upon it by latter "Jewish", "Christian" and "Muslim" 'theologians' under the guise of just "translating".
Being able to quote the text accurately without accepting or imposing foreign idioms upon it, is an effective method of indicating just how far their 'man-made' religious 'theology' actually varies from the original texts, and just how 'alien' and 'different' the original text is, compared to their modern theological interpretations.
Tell 'em what The Books really say, instead of the manipulated text that they have been pushing on us all of these years.

mirage

That is interesting, then. I was thinking more in terms of a plurality of Gods in earlier oral traditions leaving a trace in the terminology than the more radical idea of a very recently monotheistic Judaism. By "later Scripture" I should have said more Yahwist.

Sheshbazzar - I agree, and it would be much more interesting for us heathens.

Well man wasn't a good choice anyway as it can mean mankind.

I was just enquiring if the use of a plural as singular tends to reflected a vagueness about the singularity or plurality of the thing refered to, as it does with examples in English.

Phlox Pyros

I totally agree with your view about getting YHWH back into the text.

I do not agree, however with your views on Elohim, etc. The reason I do not is because I do not think that those words carry the extra weight you believe them to carry.

Questions for you...Why did the Hebrews translate Elohim into Greek Septuagint as Theos(singular) and not Theoi(plural)? Don't you think that ancient Hebrews who could read Greek would have pitched a fit had they thought it incorrect? Can you point to any ancient documents that mention a problem with this translation (genuinely curious)?