The Hand Writing:

[Guest Bro David™]

Common Mis-conceptions in the Bible.

Why we need to re-visit the Scriptures in the Original Languages.

Why we need to read the Bible has a whole book before making our minds up.

We did not have the original Chapters and Verses in the Original Text.

How did we get it then ?

Chapters:

Hugo de Sancto Caro created Chapters in the Bible, roughly around 1240 after he decide that it would ease the reader in finding certain phrases in the Bible.

Verses:

Over two centuries later in 1445 a famous Jewish Rabbi, Mordecai Nathan subdivided the Chapters into the Verses we have today.

He was also the one who created the Jewish Concordance of the Bible.

What I am trying to say here is that although we take certain verse to mean certain things in a very personal way.

We need to look at the whole book the time line, the language, the traditions and the way it was written.

Example:

In Genesis 1:1 we read,

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

That is how we have known it all along.

But If we read it in Hebrew there lies a deeper Message.

We find that the Hebrew word for God used in that verse is "Elohim" (Gods)

Not God.

Reading it in Hebrew does reveal the real meaning of the Verse.

"In the beginning" "Created" "Gods" "The heavens and the Earth"

The first words of the Bible Declares the Trinity !.

The reason we need to look at the Bible has a whole book and not just has a verse when expounding doctrine or trying to learn the Word is that we miss certain things when we read it "Only" has verses.

Example:

Genesis 22:11

And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

Now if we were to only read the verse and decide that it was only an Angel that stoped Abraham.

We are then wrong in our understanding of that one verse.

Genesis 22:12,13,14,15,16,17

And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Now we see that the Angel of The Lord was not just any Angel.

But a part of the Trinity.

The Angel was God !.

We need to get to know our Bibles better.

Don't you think ?

YBIC

[Guest Fluffy the Cactus]

???

[Leonard]

Heck, I've got one where the placing of the comma changes the meaning of the verse in English:

1. (As it appears in KJV) Let him that stole steal no more, rather working with his own hands the thing that is honest.

2. (As written in the 'Wierd New Paraphrased Edition) Let him that stole steal, no more rather working with his hands the thing that is honest.

[Guest shiloh357]

We need to look at the whole book the time line, the language, the traditions and the way it was written.

right on!! I think sometimes the verse and chapter divisions cause people to subconciously assume that a new chapter is the beginning of a new line of thought. I have always believed that Romans 5, 6, 7, and 8 should have been one chapter.

About Elohim. Elohim is not really a plural in the absolute sense. It is what we call a "plural of intensity," which does not come across well in English without some explanation. In English it looks like "Gods." But that is not really how it should be read.

Another plural of intensity I have used often on this board, is the word for blood, "dahm." If I say there is blood on the floor, I use the word "dahm." If I want to say there is a lot of blook on the floor, I would use dahm as a plural, and say, "dahmim." It comes across in English as "bloods."

Elohim really means, "The Great God." To put in a more humorous way, Elohim doesn't just mean "God," it means, "GOD!"

[Guest Bro David™]

Elohim really means, "The Great God."

[Work in Progress]

Thanks Bro David, great post and very interesting.

[nebula]

Heck, I've got one where the placing of the comma changes the meaning of the verse in English: 

1.  (As it appears in KJV)  Let him that stole steal no more, rather working with his own hands the thing that is honest.

2.  (As written in the 'Wierd New Paraphrased Edition)  Let him that stole steal, no more rather working with his hands the thing that is honest. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's funny!

Reminds me of another verse, only a bit more serious.

Which is correct?

"When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him."

OR

"When the enemy comes in, like a flood the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him."

Got me puzzled.

[Guest shiloh357]

"Elohim" Is it not Plural for God ?

Not in the absolute or numerical sense.

One in going through the Targums and the Zohar will find that all the times Moses used "Elohim" in the Torah [500 or more I think] all of it were understood to be the Plural form of "Elohim" "Gods"

All their writings in that day claimed this to be so by understating a clear fact.

"There is one God, who is revealed in three persons"

Rabbi Simon ben Jochai and Rabbi Eliezer the writers of the Zohar have in their other writings used this term. The mystery that God is one and only, but He is also Gods"

The Zohar is pagan. It is the chief volume of the Kabbalah, which is nothing more than Jewish mysticism, and it not reliable for good insight into Jewish culture. The Zohar is rife with error, in that it promotes reincarnation, and other heretical teachings. You would be better off staying away from that. Depending on where you are getting your info, the authors of the Zohar may not be saying exactly what you think they are saying.

Specifically which Targums?

Elohim would be incorrectly translated "God's" As there is only one God. He is manifested in three distinct persons, but He is only one. Deut. 6:4 says, "Sh'ma Ysrael! Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad!!" Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is ONE. The word for ONE is echad. It is not an absolute "ONE" but means that God is a unity. It is the same word used for declaring that man and wife are ONE flesh (echad). Just as Elohim is not an absolute plural, Echad is not an absolute singularity.

Even the current latest print of their teaching show it has such.

Judaism at least Orthodox Judaism does not hold to the teaching that Elohim means more than one God or God's. At least not to my knowledge. It would be interesting to know what exactly you are reading as far as currently authored Jewish books are concerned. I am not talking about Messianic Jewish books, but rather books from Judaism itself.

[EricH]

The first use of the divine plural occurs a little later when God says "Let Us make man in Our image"

[Guest Bro David™]

Hi Shiloh,

In class I am learning about The Shema and Jewish History.

I on my own am Reading "The Propositions of the Zohar" By Rabbi Simeon.

I am also trying to get some better insight into the early Churches teachings so I am reading some late Jewish Works.

Not so much for gaining Doctrine or anything because I only trust the Bible.

I am trying to understand the amount of culture that went into the early Christian teachings.

Right now I am at the part of study that is researching into "The Council of Sirmium" Which was dealing with the heresies that were evident in the teachings.

I only quoted them because they show that they believed that the word "Elohim" was indeed plural.

That is all.

Why do you ask bro ?