CJD

I sincerely do not mean to offend. Some days I get more fed up with what I perceive to be completely empty back-slapping. Presuming that I even consider the words debate, thrashing, etc., as plausible descriptions of what goes on here at iidb, I do not see where the good Apikorus thrashed me. Please do us the favor and point it out. Keep in mind, he has on more than one occasion sympathized with my readings, while only disdaining what he sees as my "rose-coloured" approach to the biblical text (usually with respect to how I regard it to be authoritative). I daresay your recollection is faulty. Apikorus' work on turning typological "fulfillments" on their respective ears is anything but a sound counter-argument. Plausible? Maybe. But more so than what I offered? Hardly.

Even though what I have offered thus far has only taken place in a few threads, the content was foundational. I cannot go about engaging one in conversation regarding prophecy until we at least come to some conclusion on how to approach the text. That is why I hyper-link the appropriate threads, so I don't have to repeat myself. My complaint is simple, Joel (and others), scholars do not continue wasting their time debunking the obvious. If and when they know of a more plausible counter-argument to their own position, it is their responsibility to engage it. I mean, who gains satisfaction in refuting something as weak as that? I would be overjoyed to see someone take what I have already written and engage it; problem is, Joel, that has rarely occured on a level worth much. Could it be that there are not many scholars here whose interests and/or expertise includes the Tanak (and biblical literature in particular)? That might be the case, and that's okay.

Most of us would have no problem deferring to our doctors' prognoses on whatever illnesses comes about, after all, they are the experts. What's so different with respect to simple textual analysis?

Regards,

CJD

Celsus

Hi CJD,

I hope you realised that my comment about thrashing was firmly tongue-in-cheek. Moving on...
That is correct. It's a pity that most people here aren't as interested in the Old Testament as they are in the NT. Even I am more interested in archaeology than hermeneutics and exegesis. I doubt many atheists would be truly interested in hermeneutics for the simple reason that the meanings of the authors are inconsequential to daily life, being already considered a fiction (unless, of course, the hermeneutic has some bearing on the truth or falsity of the statements, in an obvious way). So you will be stuck in a bit of a bind here if you really want to discuss hermeutics. However, I would still be interested if you start any threads on these subjects.

Joel

Magus55

You're right, didn't look it up - was thinking it was from genesis.



Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The plural pronouns refer to the Trinity.

keyser_soze

One could read it literally to state that there are other gods, but one could hardly find justification for stating it the trinity. You are making a rather acrobatic leap from the scripture to your rather myopic needs.

Godless Dave

They could refer to the Trinity. They could also refer to other gods Yahweh was addressing, if Genesis developed out of an earlier polytheistic tradition. Or it could be a grammatical marking of the importance of the speaker, the same way the Queen of England refers to herself as "we".

The polytheistic origins of Judaism are well documented. Unfortunately I know nothing about Hebrew grammar. Can someone who does tell me if kings or other important personages ever used the royal "we" in Hebrew?

Evangelion

Ah, just what I was waiting for.

Alas, no. That is a mere assertion.

If you want to go down this road, I could just as easily claim that it refers to a multiplicity of gods - and then where would you be? You can't just assert these things. You actually have to prove them.

How do you intend to do it in this case?

CJD

Joel, thanks for clearing up that "sound thrashing" bit. I admit I didn't see it at first due to my own posturing. My apologies. As far as the heremeneutics is concerned, if I were to start a thread on OT prophecy, I would at least have to start with exegetical principles, come to a working consensus, and then move on to the actual texts. I will look forward to your involvement.

I must now weigh-in on this whole Trinity bit. As Godless pointed out, Genesis 1:26 could refer to the Trinity, or to other "gods." More importantly, however, he makes reference to what I believe is actually the case—a reference to royalty. But it is not singular royalty in view here. God is addressing the heavenly court (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:19–22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1–3; 89:5–6; Dan. 10:12–13; Luke 2:8–14). In the other OT texts that employ the pronoun "us" for God (Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), the Trinity does not seem to be in view. In each of these four occurrences, God refers to "us" when humans have impinged upon the heavenlies, and he then begins to decide their fate. For example, in Gen. 3:22, humans grasped at autonomous knowledge. In Gen. 11, the heavenly court comes down to see the misguided earth-bound builders building to attain heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, wherein the prophet, through visions, has entered. All this to say that the Genesis pericope is not intended to be a Trinitarian proof-text. But take comfort, Magus, it does not undermine the existence of the Trinity, or its Scriptural warrant elsewhere. You should also know to whom you are speaking (not me!): Christadelphians are practically Arian.

Regards,

CJD

Magus55

Except, if you verify it with the rest of the Bible, you see that God quite clearly states He is the only God, and all other "gods" are false, and worshipping them is a sin. The second of the 10 commandments states no other gods, but Yahweh. I hardly think God would make such a rule, and in Genesis be mingling with the gods that he strictly forbids. God said He is sovereign, the highest of the High - there are no other gods but Him.

There is no way that that verse in Genesis is referring to multiple Gods - it is completely contradictory with the rest of the Bible - whereas that verse implying the Trinity, matches with the rest of the Bible.

Godless Dave

Yes, but Genesis is based on earlier stories from cultures that did have mutliple gods, and the Hebrews were polytheistic at one time. It is possible the priests who put the Old Testament together ca. 500 BC neglected to correct the plural to singular. Contradictions didn't seem to bother them; after all there are two contradictory creation stories right at the beginning of Genesis. Although I would think it more likely that they left it in on purpose, and it either refers to the Heavenly host of angels etc. or is a use of royal "we" - although again I don't know if royal "we" was a feature of ancient Hebrew.

Celsus

I think this would make a good thread and would be interested in seeing you make an opening post on this.
Magus, the Bible was not written in one shot or as a whole. Recognising this simple fact will let you grasp a wider understanding of what it does and doesn't say. The fact that redaction has taken place is not a difficult one to grasp, and the fact that elohim is a plural form in Canaanite and Hebrew usage is simple enough to grasp.
Uh, that would have been fairly difficult given that most of the Old Testament didn't exist ca. 500 BCE.

Joel