DanBZ

My school's pastor was giving another BS-riddled lecture today. On epoint he said piqued my curiosity. He mentioed that the word for God used at the beginning of Genesis is "elohim", which is a plural Hebrew word. He then goes on to claim that this refers to the Trinity.

Is this a common interpretation, or is he forcing meaning where it doesn't exist?

Thanks.

Loomis

He is forcing meaning where it doesn't exist.

TrueMyth

*sigh* Why must it always be an all or nothing situation? Why must Christians be malevolent ignoramouses and freethinkers be the intellectual William Wallaces? Can't there be room for rational disagreement or misunderstanding?

Elohim, taken solely by itself, is plural in the Hebrew. This is evidenced by the ending -im. However, there is a difference between the form of a word and its sense. The argument is pretty compelling that in the context, the sense of Elohim is singular. We can see this by the verb following, bara, which is the singular form of the verb "created". Thus, Gen 1:1 is "he created," not "they created". Thus, it is entirely possible to see how some laypersons can be correct in a straigtforward sense but incorrect in a more subtle sense. This does not mean they are trying to force meaning where something doesn't exist. Whenever one tries to force something, one is aware of resistance. The pastor in this circumstance probably wasn't aware of any resistance to stating that Elohim was plural, it seems to do violence to both English and himself to claim that he was trying to force meaning. Uncritically accepting the opinion of others, maybe. But certainly not a directed and conscious attempt to create truth where there it is known none exists.

Loomis

Yawn.
Yawn.
If the pastor wasn't aware of any resistance to stating that Elohim was plural then a better choice would be the “winds/ messengers” and “flaming attendants” over in Psalm 104:4.

WishboneDawn

I haven't heard of that interpretation Dan bt it seems stupid to me. Another instance of reading christianity into what's an ancient hebrew text.

Jedi Mind Trick

It's a common fundamentalist interpretation or, at least I used to hear it said.

TrueMyth

I'm confused: are you yawning b/c you are tired or b/c I didn't roll over and play dead and join you in your throw-the-Xians-to-the-intellectual-lions witch hunt? Do moderate positions bore you, whereas only rabid extremism excites you? Help me understand.


A better choice for what? The pastor obviously read or heard from some book or person that Elohim was plural in the Hebrew. From this, it was concluded that this verse was textual evidence for the Trinity. He wasn't aware of any resistance to this interpretation, so it is wrong to claim that he forced meaning where it doesn't exist. In this case, how does Ps. 104:4 play in, since he already has (to his mind) adequate justification for the proof of the assertion?

John Kesler

It is a common, but incorrect, interpretation among some Christians. In context, the elohim are probably either vestiges of polytheism or Yahweh's heavenly court (1 Kings 22:19 ff). It is also my understanding that elohim is akin to the English words sheep, deer, etc. in that it can be either singular or plural.

Sheshbazzar

The fault with that pastor's claim lies in the insertion of the word "Trinity", a non-Scriptural term fraught with a load of X-ian theological baggage.
While Genesis does often employ the term Elohim in the plural sense, as indicated by, The number of Elohim involved is not at all evident.
"Trinitarian" Chistianity arrived at the conclusion of it being "three" by a theological process seeking to support their erroneous foregone conclusion, and then began a pogrom of murder and mayhem to suppress any dissent from the orthodox catholic opinion.
Those who are well acquainted with the record of The Scriptures are aware that Ha'Elohim (THE Elohim), as described within The Scriptures could not be any less than four-fold in nature, that is a Quadra-Unity, without neglecting or doing violence to the record.
Consider this;
Has any man other than The Son, seen The Father face to face?

"Trinitarian" X-ianity say no, (as does a majority of Judaism) But a full consideration of all relevant texts indicates otherwise.

Note that in the above quoted passages it is specifically "Yahweh" who reasons with Abraham face to face, and even joins in consuming a meal that is not "kosher" under latter "Jewish Law" (*butter, milk, and meat- dairy and flesh at the same time! What! Has YHWH changed? seems He didn't have much respect for those latter"Jewish" enactments -which it is also alleged that He would have fully foreknown.)
If therefore The Scripture may not be broken, then that "Yahweh" that spoke and ate with Abraham could not have been the YHWH that is the Father, whom X-ianity and Judaisim (and Islam) profess to be invisable and whom no man may look upon and live.
Yet The Scripture clearly attests to the physical presence of "YHWH" in three individuals eating and drinking with Abraham, for the remainder of Scripture to remain valid, there must needs still have been an additional "YHWH" (The Father) who was not present in the flesh.
The "three" visable manifestations of "YHWH", plus that additional "YHWH" The Father, which no man has seen at any time, adds up to a minimum of four persona's within The YHWH Elohim Unity.
There are numberless millions of elohim, but only one Elohim whose name alone is YHWH, as such the Name of The Elohim of Scripture signifies a family grouping, headed by a Father bearing the family Name, and all of His children, upon whom His Name is called.

Diogenes the Cynic

The short answer to the OP is that Elohim was originally a plural word for "gods." At some point (it's debatable when) It became a singular proper name for "God."

At NO point was it ever a reference to a trinity. That's just making stuff up. The Trinity isn't even found in the NT, much less the Hebrew Bible.