The Shema and the Trinity

[WolfBitn]

Actually Shiloh, this isn't how dahmim is used...Dahmim is used to describe the blood of many

I speak and read Hebrew and have been doing so for quite a while and I know what I am talking about.

There is no "plural of intensity" in the Hebrew language... and "dahmim" simply means the blood of many people

Yes there. Some may use a different term, but the fact remains that it is a nonnumeric plural.

Words like Rachamim, Elohim and Shamayim are all the same way. They are nonnumeric plurals and denote either intensity or greatness. In fact that is how those words always appear in Hebrew. Rachamim (mercy) is always in the plural sense as Shamayim (heaven).

I have been reading and studying Hebrew for over 15 years, and I know of what speak.

Well as you agree, there is nonthing in hebrew grammer called 'plural intensity'... this we agree on

Now lets look at your examples

Rechamim - Mercies.. To WHOM are these 'mercies' granted? just one person? Or many people? In the very same way Dahmim is the shedding of much blood (as in the murder of many people, or in battle) Rechamim means mercies extended to all or many

Shamayim - Being familliar with Hebrew youll know that there ARE in fact thoguht to be 3 heavens in Hebrew philosophy... so I'm afraid theres no 'nonnumeric' plurals. Youll certainly not find "nonnumric plurals" or "plural intensity" in any hebrew literature on grammer

[Guest shiloh357]

Well as you agree, there is nonthing in hebrew grammer called 'plural intensity'... this we agree on

No, we don't agree. I may not have used the exact term, but some Hebrews speakers use different terms. The concept is there I learned Hebrew from a conservative Rabbi who used the term. I did not make it up.

Rechamim - Mercies.. To WHOM are these 'mercies' granted? just one person? Or many people? In the very same way Dahmim is the shedding of much blood (as in the murder of many people, or in battle) Rechamim means mercies extended to all or many

You are mistaken. If I saw a lot of blood on the ground I would use dahmim. In English, it comes off as "bloods." Dahmim is used a variety of ways. It can mean the blood of many people, but even so, it is still not a numerical plural. Even in English if we denote the presence of a lot of blood, we use the term "bloody." Using dahmim as a numeric plural makes no sense in English or Hebrew.

Mercy (rachamim) in Hebrew is also a nonumeric plural. It is translated as "mercies" in some Bibles, but that is not how it appears in Hebrew. Rachamim only appears in the plural, but communicates deep, full and inexhaustible mercy. It is the same as Elohim. Elohim expresses a God great beyond our finite capacity to understand or explain. It denotes a God whose power, knowledge and wisdom are inexhaustible and uncontainable. It does not EVER denote more than one in reference to the God of the Bible.

Shamayim - Being familliar with Hebrew youll know that there ARE in fact thoguht to be 3 heavens in Hebrew philosophy... so I'm afraid theres no 'nonnumeric' plurals. Youll certainly not find "nonnumric plurals" or "plural intensity" in any hebrew literature on grammer

We dealing with the Hebrew language, not Jewish philosophy, Wolf. Heaven is always plural in Hebrew even when you are only talking about the sky or the heaven of God's abode. Even when only one "heaven" is being mentioned, shamayim is used meaning that it is not a numeric plural.

Again, I know what I am talking about. I know the language. You can kick against the goads all you want, but you are simply wrong.

[WolfBitn]

Well as you agree, there is nonthing in hebrew grammer called 'plural intensity'... this we agree on

No, we don't agree. I may not have used the exact term, but some Hebrews speakers use different terms. The concept is there I learned Hebrew from a conservative Rabbi who used the term. I did not make it up.

Where can i find this term or the proper term you say exists? If it exists i can surely find it on the internet... point me to a Hebrew site backing this please

Rechamim - Mercies.. To WHOM are these 'mercies' granted? just one person? Or many people? In the very same way Dahmim is the shedding of much blood (as in the murder of many people, or in battle) Rechamim means mercies extended to all or many

You are mistaken. If I saw a lot of blood on the ground I would use dahmim. In English, it comes off as "bloods." Dahmim is used a variety of ways. It can mean the blood of many people, but even so, it is still not a numerical plural. Even in English if we denote the presence of a lot of blood, we use the term "bloody." Using dahmim as a numeric plural makes no sense in English or Hebrew.

Everywhere ive ever seen dahmim used it is being used as in the blood of many peoples... can you show me where its NOT used this way?

Mercy (rachamim) in Hebrew is also a nonumeric plural. It is translated as "mercies" in some Bibles, but that is not how it appears in Hebrew. Rachamim only appears in the plural, but communicates deep, full and inexhaustible mercy.

Toward just one or toward many? Give me an example where its being used as mercies extending to just one person please

Shamayim - Being familliar with Hebrew youll know that there ARE in fact thoguht to be 3 heavens in Hebrew philosophy... so I'm afraid theres no 'nonnumeric' plurals. Youll certainly not find "nonnumric plurals" or "plural intensity" in any hebrew literature on grammer

We dealing with the Hebrew language, not Jewish philosophy, Wolf. Heaven is always plural in Hebrew even when you are only talking about the sky or the heaven of God's abode. Even when only one "heaven" is being mentioned, shamayim is used meaning that it is not a numeric plural.

Again, I know what I am talking about. I know the language. You can kick against the goads all you want, but you are simply wrong.

I bolded the above... Heavens is ALWAYS plural i agree... how many heavens do the Hebrew recognize? 3? 5? or 7?

[Guest shiloh357]

Where can i find this term or the proper term you say exists? If it exists i can surely find it on the internet... point me to a Hebrew site backing this please

Elohim.

The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim (), plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. This is, most probably, to be explained as the plural of majesty or excellence, expressing high dignity or greatness: comp. the similar use of plurals of "ba'al" (master) and "adon" (lord). In Ethiopic, Amlak ("lords") is the common name for God. The singular, Eloah (), is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and in Aramaic (elah). The singular is used in six places for heathen deities (II Chron. xxxii. 15; Dan. xi. 37, 38; etc.); and the plural also, a few times, either for gods or images (Ex. ix. 1, xii. 12, xx. 3; etc.) or for one god (Ex. xxxii. 1; Gen. xxxi. 30, 32; etc.). In the great majority of cases both are used as names of the one God of Israel.

Above from the Jewish Encyclopedia

.

Toward just one or toward many? Give me an example where its being used as mercies extending to just one person please

It doesn't matter whot is extended to or how many. The word stands on its own. Like Elohim, it is a plural of greatness.

I bolded the above... Heavens is ALWAYS plural i agree... how many heavens do the Hebrew recognize? 3? 5? or 7?

Irrelevant. Again, we are talking about a language, not philosphy.

It is also important to note that Elohim is not a "name of God." It refers to essence or being. Elohim is what He is, not "who" He is. God is ONE God. His Name is YHVH and this refers to personage. Elohim never refers to God's personage, only to His being.

Again, this is not something we have any earthly frame of reference to compare it to. It is a mystery and always will be until the Lord gives us more light.

[WolfBitn]

Where can i find this term or the proper term you say exists? If it exists i can surely find it on the internet... point me to a Hebrew site backing this please

Elohim.

The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim (), plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. This is, most probably, to be explained as the plural of majesty or excellence, expressing high dignity or greatness: comp. the similar use of plurals of "ba'al" (master) and "adon" (lord). In Ethiopic, Amlak ("lords") is the common name for God. The singular, Eloah (), is comparatively rare, occurring only in poetry and late prose (in Job, 41 times). The same divine name is found in Arabic (ilah) and in Aramaic (elah). The singular is used in six places for heathen deities (II Chron. xxxii. 15; Dan. xi. 37, 38; etc.); and the plural also, a few times, either for gods or images (Ex. ix. 1, xii. 12, xx. 3; etc.) or for one god (Ex. xxxii. 1; Gen. xxxi. 30, 32; etc.). In the great majority of cases both are used as names of the one God of Israel.

Above from the Jewish Encyclopedia

My point Shiloh, with all due respect is that this is just a theory to explain away the fact that Elohim is plural, and from what i see, its only held by those who feel insecure about the plural of God being used by God Himself

So how do you explain a trinity without a plural?

Why does this same word Elohim, also apply in the hebrew to OTHER godS, again in the plural.

Heres why your arguement just doesnt work... i know you can present the theory from other web sites, thats fine... what you CANT find is this 'plural in greatness' or 'plural in intensity' mentioned in hebrew literature concerning their grammer. Presenting a theory with maybes doesnt at all b ack your assumption with all due respect

.

Toward just one or toward many? Give me an example where its being used as mercies extending to just one person please

It doesn't matter whot is extended to or how many. The word stands on its own. Like Elohim, it is a plural of greatness.

And all im asking is you prove this with a biblical example... ^^^can you give me an example of the bolded above?

I bolded the above... Heavens is ALWAYS plural i agree... how many heavens do the Hebrew recognize? 3? 5? or 7?

Irrelevant. Again, we are talking about a language, not philosphy.

Of course its relevant... you just said that the Hebrews use this word to imply plural of 'intensity' and its not a 'numerical' plural... . I point out that the Hebrews in fact count THREE heavens so you have no point here, thats how its relevant

It is also important to note that Elohim is not a "name of God." It refers to essence or being. Elohim is what He is, not "who" He is. God is ONE God. His Name is YHVH and this refers to personage. Elohim never refers to God's personage, only to His being.

Again, this is not something we have any earthly frame of reference to compare it to. It is a mystery and always will be until the Lord gives us more light.

No no... Elohim is plural just like cherubim or seraphim meaning more than one Cherub or more than one seraph

From a Christian Hebrew:http://kenkleintv.com/blog/?p=83

Within Hebrew grammar when God speaks of Himself, he often uses the plural pronoun:

Gen 1:26-

[BlindSeeker]

So how do you explain a trinity without a plural?

With other verses . . . if you can.

And all im asking is you prove this with a biblical example... ^^^can you give me an example . . .

We just went through that didn't we. lol

[WolfBitn]

So how do you explain a trinity without a plural?

With other verses . . . if you can.

Then explain the Trinity and show it through those other verses without using disputed texts please... if this cant be done then we are believing an unproven undocumented doctrine and claiming it to be fact... the trinity then becomes unsound doctrine

And why be ashamed of the plural usage of GOD in the hebrew, when God Himself used the plural to describe Himself?

[BlindSeeker]

So how do you explain a trinity without a plural?

With other verses . . . if you can.

Then explain the Trinity and show it through those other verses without using disputed texts please... if this cant be done then we are believing an unproven undocumented doctrine and claiming it to be fact... the trinity then becomes unsound doctrine

And why be ashamed of the plural usage of GOD in the hebrew, when God Himself used the plural to describe Himself?

Sounds like a problem . . . .

[WolfBitn]

So how do you explain a trinity without a plural?

With other verses . . . if you can.

Then explain the Trinity and show it through those other verses without using disputed texts please... if this cant be done then we are believing an unproven undocumented doctrine and claiming it to be fact... the trinity then becomes unsound doctrine

And why be ashamed of the plural usage of GOD in the hebrew, when God Himself used the plural to describe Himself?

Sounds like a problem . . . .

it IS a problem if we remove all the verses (like 1 Jn 5:7) and change the language (like Elohim is plural but it really isnt

[Guest shiloh357]

My point Shiloh, with all due respect is that this is just a theory to explain away the fact that Elohim is plural, and from what i see, its only held by those who feel insecure about the plural of God being used by God Himself

No, it simply relfects the fact that you don't know Hebrew.

So how do you explain a trinity without a plural?

If you understood the doctrine of the trinity, you would know that it teaches that God is ONE God in three persons. He is Elohim which speaks of being or essence. He is ONE (numerical) being, but also three persons who are ONE (echad).

Why does this same word Elohim, also apply in the hebrew to OTHER godS, again in the plural.

The grammatical construct is different when the word elohim is used to refer to false gods. When Elohim is used to refer to the one true God, the accompanying verbs are singular. When elohim is used in reference to false gods, the accompanying verbs are plural. In Gen. 1:1 for example, the verb created is singular and this necessary in order to show that He who did the creating did so alone. It is necessary to have singular verbs wth Elohim in Hebrew because unlike English, Hebrew has no lower case letters and the singular verb distinquishes Elohm from elohim; it tells the Hebrew reader that we are talking about the one true God.

Heres why your arguement just doesnt work... i know you can present the theory from other web sites, thats fine... what you CANT find is this 'plural in greatness' or 'plural in intensity' mentioned in hebrew literature concerning their grammer. Presenting a theory with maybes doesnt at all b ack your assumption with all due respect

I know Hebrew, so I don't have to rely on copying and pasting someone else's work. I showed you a Jewish site from the Jewish Encyclopedia which backs me up. You asked for evidence and I provided it from a standard Jewish reference work. I don't know of any sites that teach Hebrew grammar because I have never had to use them.

My argument works just fine. Until you learn Hebrew for yourself, you are really hamstrung in any refutation of what I have presented.

No no... Elohim is plural just like cherubim or seraphim meaning more than one Cherub or more than one seraph

Says the guy who doesn't know Hebrew. YOU are just going to have to understand that Elohim is unique.

And all im asking is you prove this with a biblical example... ^^^can you give me an example of the bolded above?

Mercy or mercies depends on the translator. It is all rachamim in Hebrew. There is no singular version of the word. I can show you where "rachamim" is extended to one person such as King David when he prayed and received mercy from God. It would not be wrong to say He received "mercies." All of that is irrelevant, though. Rachamim is not a numerical plural in Hebrew and when it comes from God is still accompanied by the singular verb. The grammatical construct in Hebrew is the same no matter how it reads in English.

Of course its relevant... you just said that the Hebrews use this word to imply plural of 'intensity' and its not a 'numerical' plural... . I point out that the Hebrews in fact count THREE heavens so you have no point here, thats how its relevant

It is irrelevant because even when we refer to just ONE of those "heavens," we use the word "shamayim." If it were a numerical plural, then there would not be a plural suffix when referring to just one of those heavens. When a plural suffix is used when only one of those heavens is being referenced, that defies the notion that it is a numerical plural.

So Shiloh, tell me... you do believe in the Trinity i assume... HOW is the TRinity a Trinity if God is not plural? Why is it a surprise to anyone that God would refer to Himself in the plural if we are to believe He is a trinity? Why would this scare someone? Are we afraid people will say we worship more than one God?

The thing is, Wolfbtn, I understand the doctrine of the Trinity AND I know the Hebrew. The Trinity refers to God's personage, not His essence or being, which is why He can be ONE God. And yes, if we were to subscribe to your view, it would come across as worshpping three gods. That is why it is wrong.

Then why are we afraid to say our Eternal One is Gods who are ONE eternal one? Isnt this the very thing we believe?

No, it is not the very thing we believe. Because to say "our Eternal One is Gods who are one" is not what the Bible teaches, is not supported by Hebrew and is sloppy theology to boot. He is ONE God in three persons.