Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

by zagor 92 Replies latest watchtower bible

hmike

Looks like it pasted in fine.
I'd appreciate your comments, Zagor--and anyone else.
LittleToe

Hmike:If I recall correctly my second diagram, in the thread referenced, bears some relation to what you've described, in connection with "the Son".
I really do need to get around to writing a thread on "Three"...
Will Power

Zagor's comment on my comment.

Your point misses the target. IT is not about what our minds can comprehand about god but about how he revealed himself through his word, i.e. how HE himself wanted us to know him. So what you are saying is really beyond the point

Remember when you were 2 or 3 years old and your mom was trying to teach you how the the picture came to be shown in that box in the living room called the television? What was it about the things she was revealing that were a child's level - and what was beyond comprehension?

You were asking for opinions & dialogue on this and other threads but shut down & change direction to those who aren't on the same page. Maybe a few have already finished that chapter?

Just thinking out loud.
will p
M.J.

As an observer of this thread, I am really enjoying it and have gained insight from all of you guys. Just want to throw in my $.02:
Bible doesn’t differentiate between nature of different spiritual bodies only between corresponding rank and power. We certainly cannot understand the nature of spiritual body because it is quite simply outside of our space-time continuum (1 Corinthians 15:39-54).
I agree. You are absolutely correct in placing the rank of the Father above the Son. Just as Adam was placed in rank above Eve. Yet they were to be viewed as "one". The reason A&E could be viewed as one was because in a perfect condition Eve was to be in perfect agreement (and subjection) to Adam's untainted will.
I agree that the Bible does not elaborate much on nature, at least not enough to make any difinitive statements on it that we should be dogmatic about. But it does give a pretty straightforward direction to honor the Son just as you honor the Father (John 5:23) and I think following that should suffice, no matter what your position.
zagor

Hi Hmike, LittleToe and whoever else is still reading this thread

I thought no one was interested in this thread anymore, in fact I told one person privately already that thread was closed. Apparently not
Just one request please if possible, I know that this is highly controversial subject and it is easy to get fired up emotionally so let just try discussing this academically. I personally do not hold any strong beliefs at the moment anyway, I’m just going by what I know or have studied. When I left WTBS I even stopped believing in god all together. It took me quite awhile to realize that the God is bigger than any human organization or any framework we as humans would like to put him in, he must be bigger than universe itself.
Along the same line of reasoning I’ve realized I had to let him talk through his word and not listen someone else’s interpretations (WTBS or other official "Christian doctrines").

I’ve come to realize that even when talking about spiritual realities that are far beyond our three-dimensional world he tries to bring it down to earth so that we small people can understand it. That was also a sole purpose of Jesus’ many illustrations – to make us understand better.

I'm tired of typing, (I do that whole day as a part of my business ) So I'll just paste what other Hebrew experts are saying. Yes I’ll try to type as little as possible. So here it is ....

--------------------------------------------------
"ECHAD" (Proof that YaHWeH is NOT a compound unity)

Unfortunately some who masquerade as Messianic Jews are promoting not the teachings of the historic Hebrew faith but rather a blend of truth intermingled with Roman paganism. One such erroneous teaching is that YAHWeH is a compound unity of three distinct persons (ika Trinity). These false-Messianic deceivers twist the Shema of Israel to prove their false assumptions. The Jewish Shema is the strongest statement of YaHWeH's absolute Oneness in the whole of Scripture. It is recited as: "Shema Israel YaHWeH Eloheinu YaHWeH Echad."

The last word "echad" literaly means one, however some have attempted to mislead others into thinking that "echad" means a compound unity. The word "echad" in Hebrew is translated as one, only, and alone in the Tanahk. It occurs 962 times in the Bible and is translated 903 times as the word one, five times as the word alone, and one time as the word only. Those who believe that "echad" refers to a compound unity, believe that since "elohim" is a uniplural noun describing three members of this supposed compound unity as the one YaHWeH, and "echad" is a uniplural adjective describing several items in one unit or group, that the Shema is a perfect description of a triune being. The triune interpretation results in Deut. 6:4 ceasing to be a verse supporting the onliness of YaHWeH; it becomes a verse supporting the characteristics of their triune god.

They interpret it to say: "Hear O Israel, our three distinct YaHWeH's, is one unit of YaHWeH." The triune god theorists will try and prove their usage of the term "echad" by alluding to a couple of Scriptures that the compound unity is truth. The first is Num. 13:23; "Then they came to the valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one (echad) cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs." The second verse is Gen. 1:5, which reads, "...and there was evening and there was morning, one (echad) day."

From these verses they contend, it is clear that the Hebrew word "echad" can only mean a fusion of a number of many things into one. Of course they neglect the other 909 times when "echad" is refering to a single unit. How convenient. Although this "proof" is as flawed as the doctrine it seeks to support, for those who lack an elemeterary knowledge of the Hebrew language, this argument can be puzzling. The word "echad" in the Hebrew language functions precisely the SAME manner as the word "one" does in the English language.

In the English language it can be said "these four chairs and the table constitute one dinette set," or alternatively, "There is one penny in my hand." Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the English word "one" can mean either many things in one, as in the case of the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny. Although the Hebrew word "echad" functions in the same manner, evangelical Christians will never offer Biblical examples where the word "echad" means one alone.Thus, by only presenting Scriptural verses where a compound unity is denoted, it creates the illusion that ther word "echad" is somehow synonymous with a compound unity. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. For example, Deut. 17:6 states; "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one (echad) witness he shall not be put to death." Ecclesiastes 4:8 reads; There is one (echad) alone, without a companion; yes he has neither son..." In the above two verses the exact same Hebrew word is used, and clearly the Hebrew word "echad" is refering to one alone, not a compound unity.

The question that immediately comes to mind is: "If "echad" can mean either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell wich definition is operative when studying a verse?" The answer is: "In the exact same way the word "one" is used in the English language, that is from the CONTEXT." "Four chairs and a table make up one dinette set"- is a compound unity. "Hear O Isreal, YaHWeH our Elohim is ONE"- is unsullied monotheism. When studying any portion of Scripture- CONTEXT- is key to unlocking proper understanding. In the context of the Shema we can be assured that "echad" is refering to YaHWeH's aloneness by looking at other Scriptural descriptions of His existence: * "O YaHWeH of hosts, Elohim of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the Elohim, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth." (Isa. 37:16). * "I am YaHWeH, and there is none else, there is no Elohim beside me.... That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am YaHWeH and there is none else....For thus saith YaHWeH who created the heavens, Elohim himself who formed the earth and made it.... I am YaHWeH and there is none else....There is no Elohim else besides me; a just Elohim and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am Elohim, and there is none else." (Isa. 45:5-6, 18, 21-22). * "Elohim is One" (Mk 12:29).
-------------------------------------------------
As I've demonstrated in my previous post words unity and one are very much related but it all really boils down to one thing, that is, what precedes what, is word one derived from word unity or word unity derived from word one. As I’ve already demonstrated it is word one that is the core. If word unity is ever used it is used in figurative and not literal sense. It is used to describe (often rather desired than real) compactness and synchronous cooperation of various part that work together on common task.

Hence, Adam and Eve have rightfully been joined in marriage union so that two of them can become “one flesh”. Here is a perfect example of figurative speech. In fact, it says that two of them will become “one flesh” or “one body” they will be so united and synchronized as different parts of the same body are in sync with one another.

Similarly in 1 Corinthians 12:12-17, Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth:

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

In Ephesians 4:11-16, Paul wrote to the Christians in the city of Ephesus.

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

In Romans 12:3-8, Paul wrote this to the Christians in Rome:

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness
Hence Jesus appropriately prayed to God in John chapter 17

20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
M.J.

Zagor, I don't agree with your position, but I respect your approach.
"O YaHWeH of hosts, Elohim of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the Elohim, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth." (Isa. 37:16). * "I am YaHWeH, and there is none else, there is no Elohim beside me.... That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am YaHWeH and there is none else....For thus saith YaHWeH who created the heavens, Elohim himself who formed the earth and made it.... I am YaHWeH and there is none else....There is no Elohim else besides me; a just Elohim and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am Elohim, and there is none else." (Isa. 45:5-6, 18, 21-22). * "Elohim is One" (Mk 12:29).
BTW, I think these are perfect scriptures if you're a Jew, but somewhat problematic when you put the Son of God in the mix.
hmike

Just one request please if possible, I know that this is highly controversial subject and it is easy to get fired up emotionally so let just try discussing this academically.

No problem here.
Thanks for the reply and the article. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I cannot comment on the linguistic issues directly, but I do have some questions raised by this piece:
1. How can someone "masquerade" as a Messianic Jew? You either are or you aren't. The only issue is, does one believe the Messiah has already been here, or will arrive in the future, right?
2. The reference to "three distinct YaHWeh's" sounds too much like the three Gods idea that the WT attibutes to Christianity. I'm not sure the author is clear on the concept.
3. In the reference to "One" as in "one penny," the word denotes a quantity, regardless of whether it is a composite or not. It merely distinguishes between "one penny" and "two or more pennies." There is nothing in the English definition that differentiates what makes up that one. By the way, if I cut up that penny into two or more pieces and hold all the pieces in my hand, can I still say I have one penny in my hand?
4. The author cites context as the basis for how to properly understand the word. But context is subject to interpretation, is it not? The word "Elohim" is regarded by all as a plural, right? And Bible translators use context to determine whether it should be translated as "God" or "gods." But remember what Narkissos and Leolaia wrote earlier? To some, certain texts of the OT have their origins in polytheism, so for them, it should always be translated as "gods."
My personal feeling about Deut. 6:4 is that YHWH wanted to make it clear that He shares the highest point with no one or nothing else: "...YHWH is God; besides him there is no other" (Deut. 4:35). In Deut. 6:5, immediately after our verse, we have, "Love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." In other words, hold nothing back for the idols. So, in this sense, the alternative translation suggested by some: "YHWH is our God, YHWH alone" might be more suitable to this context.
zagor

Hmike
Thank you for your comments.
I was really tired yesterday. Didn’t feel like going again into detailed semantics of Hebrew, and above article was the best I could find that encapsulated the meaning of ECHAD without getting too academic.

I was hoping you guys would ignore couple of “spirited” sentences. I couldn’t be bothered to tone down few sentences and besides it wouldn’t be fair to the original author.

The fact remains that ECHAD occurs over 900 times and in every instance it meant literal number 1.
I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I cannot comment on the linguistic issues directly
I can appreciate that you don’t know Hebrew, but I’ll have to be bluntly honest about that.

It is precisely the Hebrew semantics that Christian scholars are using as a vehicle that support their Trinitarian thesis. The fact is though that they are literally abusing Hebrew language. There are academic papers that dispute their theses but unfortunately these are not so widely available to general public, and general public tend to listen ones that are most vocal not those that are quiet experts. By the same token WTBS was able to deceive many of you for number of years and you simply took their word for it most of the time. What makes you think that same thing cannot happen in other churches?
I love both Narkissos and Leolaia but I’m afraid that in this instance they are both wrong. When discussing Hebrew you do not chop one word or phrase out of context and make a theory about it. You have to take the whole context. I would challenge them to reconsider doing it and then trying to prove their point.

There are few other members on this board who know Hebrew (one is a born Jew) if I’m wrong I would love them to speak out.
On the other hand I’ve provided you with at least a dozen of other scriptures that clearly state that God and Jesus are separate beings. Would you care to comment on those in the light of Trinitarian doctrine?

Also even in Greek scripture there is clear explanation that reoccurs several times what it means to be in one body, I’ve given some of those scriptures last time. Would you care to comment on those please?
Here is one more article. It is not too long. Try seeing what it speaks of Hebrew grammar. It wasn't written to offend christians but to make them reconsider Trinity.

"To whom then will you liken G-d, or what likeness compare with him?"

Isaiah 40:18 (NRS)
One of the most desperate (and often offensive) attempts to give Christianity the air of validity is trying to find evidence of plurality in the Creator. There are a variety of problems with this theory, which we shall explore below.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)

In the beginning, who created the heaven and the earth? (Note: most translations use a plural of "heavens.") G-d did. No help from Jesus or a Holy Ghost is indicated here. However, some Christians can’t let it go right there. So, they pore over the Hebrew, trying to find evidence that will support their beliefs, trying to find evidence that the Jews were wrong.

Genesis 1:1 Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Christians point to the name of G-d used in this first verse of the Bible: Elokim. This word ends in "im," which is an indication of plurality. Obviously, there must be a plurality to G-d, right? Absolutely not! If the meaning of this word were to be plural, then the verbs would agree, also being in the plural. The word for "created" is "barah," in the singular.

Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (KJV)

The word for "god" used in this verse from Exodus is "elokim." How strange! Did the Almighty reconfigure Moses to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Did Moses become more than one person? Of course, not! According to some Christians, because a plural suffix is used, the G-dhead must be plural. Therefore, every time you find a word with a plural suffix, that word will be plural. So, there must have been a plurality in Moses, wasn’t there? The Lord is infinite and perfect. "Elokim" is simply a name that shows His very magnitude by using a plural form of the word.

I’m sure some people who read this essay know of the traditional Jewish toast, "L’Chaim!" To life! "Chaim" means life (singular), yet it uses a plural suffix. The word for "water" is "mayim," which uses a plural suffix. The word for "face" is "panim." Even the word for "heaven," "shamayim" used in the first verse of Genesis has the plural ending. Clearly, not every word in Hebrew that employs a plural suffix is actually a plurality. Just as it is not true that every word in English that ends in "s" is a plural word, not every word in Hebrew that ends with "im" is plural.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: (KJV)

In Judaism, we call this verse the "Shema," which is the word for "hear." It is our fundamental declaration of faith.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: HASHEM is our G-d, HASHEM is the One and Only. (Artscroll)

A slightly different wording, but the meaning is the same. When I was a child, the translation I was taught was "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our G-d, the Lord is One!" Believe it or not, some Christians try to prove that the Trinity is in this verse from Deuteronomy! Let us observe the Hebrew rendering:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Shema, Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem Echad. (Hebrew Transliteration)

Literally, the verse reads "Hear Israel Hashem Our G-d Hashem One." The word "echad" in Hebrew means "one." There are instances, as some Christians are quick to point at, where the word "echad" denotes a compound unity. They point to passages in Genesis, for instance:

Genesis 1:5 G-d called to the light: "Day," and to the darkness He called: "Night." And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Artscroll)

The word "one" used here is "echad." Christians point to other instances where "echad" is used to denote a compound unity, and as such, they declare that every time "echad" is used, that it denotes a compound unity, and therefore, The Lord must be a compound unity, proving that the Trinity is in the Torah! Correct? No, this is totally incorrect. The word "echad" in Hebrew actually works in the same way the word "one" does in English. It can mean either a single unity or a compound unity. These Christians are very quick to point to Genesis 1:5, but you’ll never see them point at verses like these:

Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go. (KJV)
2 Samuel 13:30 And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that tidings came to David, saying, Absalom hath slain all the king's sons, and there is not one of them left. (KJV)
2 Samuel 17:12 So shall we come upon him in some place where he shall be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground: and of him and of all the men that [are] with him there shall not be left so much as one. (KJV)
Ecclesiastes 4:8 There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith he], For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is] also vanity, yea, it [is] a sore travail. (KJV)

The word for "one" used here is "echad." "Not one of the cattle" Was each cow a compound unity? Were the king’s sons more than one person each? Of course, not. Just as "one" in English can work both ways, so can the word "echad."
In trying to prove a plurality, all that a Christian does is create the possibility of a 2-part, or even a 2-thousand part G-d. The fact remains:

Nowhere in the Torah will you find that G-d is comprised of a Trinity.

At the Council of Nicea (325 CE), the doctrine of the Bianity became canonized, equating Jesus to the substance of G-d in Christian theology. The Council of Constantinople in 381 CE added the Holy Spirit to the Bianity and the Trinity was canonized. These councils contradicted the Torah of Moses. See Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (13:1) for instructions regarding changes to the Torah. Who are we to believe? Moses, or these councils?
p.s. didn’t have you in mind when I asked if we can have only academic level discussion. Fact is, there were few outburst in this thread as well as some even nastier ones privately, so that's why now days I refuse to discuss it unless every side can hold their horses in place
zagor

M.J.
Thank you for your comments, appreciate them very much. I suppose your biggest stumbling block is that JaHVeH is called savior (you didn’t state it explicitly but it certainly sounds like it).
To understand scriptures quoted from the book Isaiah you have to understand to whom those words were addressed. Precisely. They were addressed to wayward Jewish nation at the time when there was really no other savior that could save them from punishing hand of Babylon and Assyria.
That warining was meant to bring those people to attention that they have had no one else to call upon to save them. Hence JaHVeH was precisely their savior.
hmike

Hi zagor,
I glanced over your post. It was rather lengthy, so I copied it. I am not familiar with some of the things you mentioned, and will need time to look them over.
In the meantime, I can say that although I'm not a Hebrew scholar, there are some who are that hold to the position on ehad that I proposed. I could post more references, but they say basically the same thing, and ones you will post will probably be basically the same as the one you put up. I will look into it further for my own info, but I think I can see what's happening here.
That ehad is translated as one is not in question. Neither is the fact that it can mean a single unit, or a collection of individual units that make a whole one. What seems to be the issue is, "What does it mean here?" and, if it’s a collective unit, "Does it support the trinity or, at least, a plurality within one God?" The conclusions drawn by the scholars look like they depend on each person's preconceived idea. Those supporting Jesus as in one with YHWH would translate ehad as a collective one to show that there is a plurality within YHWH--that ehad supports the deity of Jesus. Jewish scholars will insist the word should be understood to mean singularity, and, therefore, cannot be used to support Jesus as divine. Since both sides have historically been at odds on this and other issues, their interpretations may even be somewhat affected by their rejection of the other's overall perspective--"If the other side believes this, then we must take the opposite position because, of course, they are wrong and we are right." Consequently, I don't think anything can be accomplished here after all. It wouldn’t do any good to turn this into “dueling experts” where each side attempts to justify itself by the number and significance of credentials their experts have. It appears to be, like so much else, open to interpretation. That also means we cannot know for certain what the author of the original manuscript meant by the use of the word. Also, if we allow for divine influence in the choice of the words, then the author could have chosen this word without understanding the all ramifications of it. It’s just another one of those issues on which we will have to agree to disagree.
This text is not essential to supporting the case of Jesus as one with YHWH anyway.

Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

Share this