Are we careful to abide by rules of interpretation?

[Dylan569]

From: Principles of Interpretation

Chapter I
It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presuppose ability in him who would use them. "Rules of interpretation can no more make a good interpreter than rules of poetry can make a good poet"; yet it is a poor interpreter or a poor poet that observes no rules. Rules without genius and genius without rules are alike unsuccessful; while only moderate talents wisely directed often achieve remarkable success.

It is likewise impossible that rules can be given that will adequately meet every demand. Even if they could be provided for every passage, literary and historical materials could not be found sufficient to remove every difficulty. Rules cannot supply materials; but they render a priceless service if they lead the interpreter to seek the necessary materials,and guide him to a proper use of them. It sometimes occurs that the data necessary to understand a passage have been lost or are inaccessible to the interpreter. An infallible exegesis of every utterance, therefore, even on
the basis of a perfect system of hermeneutics, is unattainable.

https://www.icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17 NRSV)

How can anyone arrive at the truth of God by not using common sense, and then ignoring rules of interpretation. That textbook I quoted above is online, and I've used it for years, and I've not found a theological bias or slant in the book. How can we study the Bible seriously without first studying the rules of interpretation?

 

[Charlie24]

From: Principles of Interpretation

Chapter I
It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presuppose ability in him who would use them. "Rules of interpretation can no more make a good interpreter than rules of poetry can make a good poet"; yet it is a poor interpreter or a poor poet that observes no rules. Rules without genius and genius without rules are alike unsuccessful; while only moderate talents wisely directed often achieve remarkable success.

It is likewise impossible that rules can be given that will adequately meet every demand. Even if they could be provided for every passage, literary and historical materials could not be found sufficient to remove every difficulty. Rules cannot supply materials; but they render a priceless service if they lead the interpreter to seek the necessary materials,and guide him to a proper use of them. It sometimes occurs that the data necessary to understand a passage have been lost or are inaccessible to the interpreter. An infallible exegesis of every utterance, therefore, even on
the basis of a perfect system of hermeneutics, is unattainable.

https://www.icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17 NRSV)

How can anyone arrive at the truth of God by not using common sense, and then ignoring rules of interpretation. That textbook I quoted above is online, and I've used it for years, and I've not found a theological bias or slant in the book. How can we study the Bible seriously without first studying the rules of interpretation?

The rule of interpreting Scripture is Scripture interpreting Scripture. This is how Doctrine is determined.

There are rules of hermeneutics, but they are applied differently and there is some of the problem.

In the end, the truth is to be confirmed in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit.

But we all know that truth is not confirmed by the Holy Spirit in all, there is only one truth in Scripture, but many according to the wisdom of man.

 

[Bill]

From: Principles of Interpretation

Chapter I
It is not hoped that any number of axioms and rules of interpretation will compensate the unfortunate interpreter who is lacking in good judgment and sound common sense. Laws of all sciences presuppose ability in him who would use them. "Rules of interpretation can no more make a good interpreter than rules of poetry can make a good poet"; yet it is a poor interpreter or a poor poet that observes no rules. Rules without genius and genius without rules are alike unsuccessful; while only moderate talents wisely directed often achieve remarkable success.

It is likewise impossible that rules can be given that will adequately meet every demand. Even if they could be provided for every passage, literary and historical materials could not be found sufficient to remove every difficulty. Rules cannot supply materials; but they render a priceless service if they lead the interpreter to seek the necessary materials,and guide him to a proper use of them. It sometimes occurs that the data necessary to understand a passage have been lost or are inaccessible to the interpreter. An infallible exegesis of every utterance, therefore, even on
the basis of a perfect system of hermeneutics, is unattainable.

https://www.icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." (John 17:17 NRSV)

How can anyone arrive at the truth of God by not using common sense, and then ignoring rules of interpretation. That textbook I quoted above is online, and I've used it for years, and I've not found a theological bias or slant in the book. How can we study the Bible seriously without first studying the rules of interpretation?

You do know there's a problem if you try to make rules for interpretation.

That would be the same as trying to keep a certain principle about things even if you're wrong.

Kind of like the left's notion of gender ideology. No matter what you say to them they are right and you are wrong plain and simple. And even if you try to interpret any of that stuff you're still wrong no matter what.

Or try talking to a Jehovah Witness on scripture. You have to understand one little detail before you even get into the conversation with them. That over 4,000 words have been deleted out of their Bible, that you have in your Bible if you use the King James as a basis.

And there are a couple of Jehovah Witnesses in this chat line. Or people that have Mormon thinking or something because if you ever try to have any kind of discussion with them they're off in left field somewhere.

And then there's the other problem with making limitations on interpreting the Bible. That is the crowd mentality. And that's not meaning that the people are bad people because everybody in the crowd all agree to the one type of thinking. It just means that they have been swayed to think a certain way and they all could be wrong.

You can find this particular type of thinking in scripture even when you have Elijah being confronted by all these other prophets and the prophets saying to Elijah when did the word of God leave us and go to you.

I experience this very same thing one time, when I went to a charismatic conference was a large group of people.

Someone had a vision and they spoke what the vision was, and then another interpreted it. But I knew the interpretation that was given was incorrect that it was something completely different.

So I'm not really sure that there should be rules of interpretation, because in these so-called rules aren't you limiting God

 

[Dylan569]

There is an important topic that is important to interpretation and that is "grammar". That I find on these threads is sadly too often distorted. Maybe it is evidence of our government school failure. Again from this "Principles of Interpretation" by Clinton Lockhart, I quote from page 85:

"An author may be known to be habitually careless of his thought and speech, so that an interpreter cannot depend upon the grammar, or consistency of his production; but among creditable speakers and writers an example of this kind is very rare. Even a good author may err; but as a rule such an author must be presumably grammatical and consistent.Accordingly, the interpreter will naturally take language at its full grammatical and rhetorical value, and expect the correct interpretation to be logical and consistent, till he is forced by the nature of the case to regard it otherwise."

 

[Bill]

There is an important topic that is important to interpretation and that is "grammar". That I find on these threads is sadly too often distorted. Maybe it is evidence of our government school failure. Again from this "Principles of Interpretation" by Clinton Lockhart, I quote from page 85:

"An author may be known to be habitually careless of his thought and speech, so that an interpreter cannot depend upon the grammar, or consistency of his production; but among creditable speakers and writers an example of this kind is very rare. Even a good author may err; but as a rule such an author must be presumably grammatical and consistent.Accordingly, the interpreter will naturally take language at its full grammatical and rhetorical value, and expect the correct interpretation to be logical and consistent, till he is forced by the nature of the case to regard it otherwise."

Well that is understandable, my error probably comes from using voice to chat and then not going back over too often, LOL

 

[Dylan569]

You do know there's a problem if you try to make rules for interpretation.

That would be the same as trying to keep a certain principle about things even if you're wrong.

Kind of like the left's notion of gender ideology. No matter what you say to them they are right and you are wrong plain and simple. And even if you try to interpret any of that stuff you're still wrong no matter what.

Or try talking to a Jehovah Witness on scripture. You have to understand one little detail before you even get into the conversation with them. That over 4,000 words have been deleted out of their Bible, that you have in your Bible if you use the King James as a basis.

And there are a couple of Jehovah Witnesses in this chat line. Or people that have Mormon thinking or something because if you ever try to have any kind of discussion with them they're off in left field somewhere.

And then there's the other problem with making limitations on interpreting the Bible. That is the crowd mentality. And that's not meaning that the people are bad people because everybody in the crowd all agree to the one type of thinking. It just means that they have been swayed to think a certain way and they all could be wrong.

You can find this particular type of thinking in scripture even when you have Elijah being confronted by all these other prophets and the prophets saying to Elijah when did the word of God leave us and go to you.

I experience this very same thing one time, when I went to a charismatic conference was a large group of people.

Someone had a vision and they spoke what the vision was, and then another interpreted it. But I knew the interpretation that was given was incorrect that it was something completely different.

So I'm not really sure that there should be rules of interpretation, because in these so-called rules aren't you limiting God

Your last line "So I'm not really sure that there should be rules of interpretation, because in these so-called rules aren't you limiting God" makes no sense whatsoever! God had his word "written", and when many competent scholars translate that into English for us, there are rules of grammar and English composition by which we come to understanding. If you have no rules of grammar, English composition and interpretation; the written word becomes meaningless. God gave his message in language, and language has rules of composition. If not the following become meaningless:

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not [to go] beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6 ASV)

"To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them." (Isa 8:20 ASV)

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Exod 34:27 ERV)

 

[Bill]

There is an important topic that is important to interpretation and that is "grammar". That I find on these threads is sadly too often distorted. Maybe it is evidence of our government school failure. Again from this "Principles of Interpretation" by Clinton Lockhart, I quote from page 85:

"An author may be known to be habitually careless of his thought and speech, so that an interpreter cannot depend upon the grammar, or consistency of his production; but among creditable speakers and writers an example of this kind is very rare. Even a good author may err; but as a rule such an author must be presumably grammatical and consistent.Accordingly, the interpreter will naturally take language at its full grammatical and rhetorical value, and expect the correct interpretation to be logical and consistent, till he is forced by the nature of the case to regard it otherwise."

Well there is an automatic error when it comes to grammar especially if you're translating from ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew itself isn't the problem, the problem is is that the Israelites used specific words when God was speaking and we do not have correct translations for those in English. A good example of this is when God says to Moses I am who I am - this is the English translation but it's incorrect. Because we do not have a singular plural noun. If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am ".

The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God

 

[Dylan569]

There is an important topic that is important to interpretation and that is "grammar". That I find on these threads is sadly too often distorted. Maybe it is evidence of our government school failure. Again from this "Principles of Interpretation" by Clinton Lockhart, I quote from page 85:

"An author may be known to be habitually careless of his thought and speech, so that an interpreter cannot depend upon the grammar, or consistency of his production; but among creditable speakers and writers an example of this kind is very rare. Even a good author may err; but as a rule such an author must be presumably grammatical and consistent.Accordingly, the interpreter will naturally take language at its full grammatical and rhetorical value, and expect the correct interpretation to be logical and consistent, till he is forced by the nature of the case to regard it otherwise."

The address for the textbook I've used in this thread has changed. The new URL link is:

https://icotb.org/books/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

 

[Dylan569]

Well there is an automatic error when it comes to grammar especially if you're translating from ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew itself isn't the problem, the problem is is that the Israelites used specific words when God was speaking and we do not have correct translations for those in English. A good example of this is when God says to Moses I am who I am - this is the English translation but it's incorrect. Because we do not have a singular plural noun. If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am ".

The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God

Bill, you wrote: "If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am "...."The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God". I cannot find that idea in any reference work that I can find on my bookshelf or searching online. From what recognized scholarly reference work can we find what you have stated in that? The following is what I can find on Exodus 3:14 -

"God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' He said further, Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exo 3:14 NRSVue with the following translator's note
"Or I AM WHAT I AM or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"

From the Septuagint: from an up to date English translation
"And God said to Moyses, 'I am the One Who Is.' And he said, 'Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, 'The One Who Is has sent me to you.'"

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf

From the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 3:14:
"And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE, hath sent me unto you."

Targum Jonathan on Exodus 3:14

And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM...

www.sefaria.org

*"Jonathan ben Uzziel (Hebrew: יונתן בן עוזיאל) was one of the 80 tannaim who studied under Hillel the Elder during the time of Roman-ruled Judea." In other words from 6 AD to 132 AD.

The Orthodox Study Bible of 2008, as customary for the Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint and the annotation on Exodus 3:14 reads:

"The name I AM the Existing One is the name for the Essence of God, which is one and undivided (AthanG, JohnDm). This Essence is like a boundless sea, containing all things yet not contained by anything. The Son is eternally begotten from the Essence of the Father. When Jesus said He was the Existing One, the Jews who were listening took up stones to stone Him, for they knew this passage in Exodus (Jn 8:57-59). He is acknowledged as the Existing One in every Vespers service of the Church." *I have underlined in the statement in the Orthodox Study Bible that directly contradicts what you wrote, "...God as two separate entities and yet one God"

I take the word of God, the translations, and meaning very seriously, so I want to know what such 'off the wall' sounding teaching you've written comes from, so that I can check it out.

 

[Bill]

Bill, you wrote: "If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am "...."The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God". I cannot find that idea in any reference work that I can find on my bookshelf or searching online. From what recognized scholarly reference work can we find what you have stated in that? The following is what I can find on Exodus 3:14 -

"God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' He said further, Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exo 3:14 NRSVue with the following translator's note
"Or I AM WHAT I AM or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"

From the Septuagint: from an up to date English translation
"And God said to Moyses, 'I am the One Who Is.' And he said, 'Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, 'The One Who Is has sent me to you.'"

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf

From the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 3:14:
"And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE, hath sent me unto you."

Targum Jonathan on Exodus 3:14

And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM...

www.sefaria.org

*"Jonathan ben Uzziel (Hebrew: יונתן בן עוזיאל) was one of the 80 tannaim who studied under Hillel the Elder during the time of Roman-ruled Judea." In other words from 6 AD to 132 AD.

The Orthodox Study Bible of 2008, as customary for the Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint and the annotation on Exodus 3:14 reads:

"The name I AM the Existing One is the name for the Essence of God, which is one and undivided (AthanG, JohnDm). This Essence is like a boundless sea, containing all things yet not contained by anything. The Son is eternally begotten from the Essence of the Father. When Jesus said He was the Existing One, the Jews who were listening took up stones to stone Him, for they knew this passage in Exodus (Jn 8:57-59). He is acknowledged as the Existing One in every Vespers service of the Church." *I have underlined in the statement in the Orthodox Study Bible that directly contradicts what you wrote, "...God as two separate entities and yet one God"

I take the word of God, the translations, and meaning very seriously, so I want to know what such 'off the wall' sounding teaching you've written comes from, so that I can check it out.

Look up actual translation from Hebrew to English

You may not find it nowadays as everything is going through AI. It is the literal translation and not the actual translation. I got it from Webster's

 

[Bill]

Bill, you wrote: "If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am "...."The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God". I cannot find that idea in any reference work that I can find on my bookshelf or searching online. From what recognized scholarly reference work can we find what you have stated in that? The following is what I can find on Exodus 3:14 -

"God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' He said further, Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exo 3:14 NRSVue with the following translator's note
"Or I AM WHAT I AM or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"

From the Septuagint: from an up to date English translation
"And God said to Moyses, 'I am the One Who Is.' And he said, 'Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, 'The One Who Is has sent me to you.'"

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf

From the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 3:14:
"And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE, hath sent me unto you."

Targum Jonathan on Exodus 3:14

And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM...

www.sefaria.org

*"Jonathan ben Uzziel (Hebrew: יונתן בן עוזיאל) was one of the 80 tannaim who studied under Hillel the Elder during the time of Roman-ruled Judea." In other words from 6 AD to 132 AD.

The Orthodox Study Bible of 2008, as customary for the Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint and the annotation on Exodus 3:14 reads:

"The name I AM the Existing One is the name for the Essence of God, which is one and undivided (AthanG, JohnDm). This Essence is like a boundless sea, containing all things yet not contained by anything. The Son is eternally begotten from the Essence of the Father. When Jesus said He was the Existing One, the Jews who were listening took up stones to stone Him, for they knew this passage in Exodus (Jn 8:57-59). He is acknowledged as the Existing One in every Vespers service of the Church." *I have underlined in the statement in the Orthodox Study Bible that directly contradicts what you wrote, "...God as two separate entities and yet one God"

I take the word of God, the translations, and meaning very seriously, so I want to know what such 'off the wall' sounding teaching you've written comes from, so that I can check it out.

Every hit thing you have is already translated into English, so of course you're never going to find it that way I suggest trying to get an actual manuscript of the Jewish writing and then translate that for yourself directly versus going through a computer to do it. Because the auto correct and the computer will kill you every time when you try to do actual translations

 

[Bill]

Bill, you wrote: "If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am "...."The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God". I cannot find that idea in any reference work that I can find on my bookshelf or searching online. From what recognized scholarly reference work can we find what you have stated in that? The following is what I can find on Exodus 3:14 -

"God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' He said further, Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exo 3:14 NRSVue with the following translator's note
"Or I AM WHAT I AM or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE"

From the Septuagint: from an up to date English translation
"And God said to Moyses, 'I am the One Who Is.' And he said, 'Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, 'The One Who Is has sent me to you.'"

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/02-exod-nets.pdf

From the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 3:14:
"And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE, hath sent me unto you."

Targum Jonathan on Exodus 3:14

And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM...

www.sefaria.org

*"Jonathan ben Uzziel (Hebrew: יונתן בן עוזיאל) was one of the 80 tannaim who studied under Hillel the Elder during the time of Roman-ruled Judea." In other words from 6 AD to 132 AD.

The Orthodox Study Bible of 2008, as customary for the Orthodox Church, uses the Septuagint and the annotation on Exodus 3:14 reads:

"The name I AM the Existing One is the name for the Essence of God, which is one and undivided (AthanG, JohnDm). This Essence is like a boundless sea, containing all things yet not contained by anything. The Son is eternally begotten from the Essence of the Father. When Jesus said He was the Existing One, the Jews who were listening took up stones to stone Him, for they knew this passage in Exodus (Jn 8:57-59). He is acknowledged as the Existing One in every Vespers service of the Church." *I have underlined in the statement in the Orthodox Study Bible that directly contradicts what you wrote, "...God as two separate entities and yet one God"

I take the word of God, the translations, and meaning very seriously, so I want to know what such 'off the wall' sounding teaching you've written comes from, so that I can check it out.

By the way to give him even more of an example of this translation issues. There are actually two languages in the world that I'm aware of that have the same issue. I can't remember the name of the one other language that does that but Hebrew is one of the two. Where they're talking about God in the singular plural

 

[Twistie]

You do know there's a problem if you try to make rules for interpretation.

That would be the same as trying to keep a certain principle about things even if you're wrong.

Kind of like the left's notion of gender ideology. No matter what you say to them they are right and you are wrong plain and simple. And even if you try to interpret any of that stuff you're still wrong no matter what.

Or try talking to a Jehovah Witness on scripture. You have to understand one little detail before you even get into the conversation with them. That over 4,000 words have been deleted out of their Bible, that you have in your Bible if you use the King James as a basis.

And there are a couple of Jehovah Witnesses in this chat line. Or people that have Mormon thinking or something because if you ever try to have any kind of discussion with them they're off in left field somewhere.

And then there's the other problem with making limitations on interpreting the Bible. That is the crowd mentality. And that's not meaning that the people are bad people because everybody in the crowd all agree to the one type of thinking. It just means that they have been swayed to think a certain way and they all could be wrong.

You can find this particular type of thinking in scripture even when you have Elijah being confronted by all these other prophets and the prophets saying to Elijah when did the word of God leave us and go to you.

I experience this very same thing one time, when I went to a charismatic conference was a large group of people.

Someone had a vision and they spoke what the vision was, and then another interpreted it. But I knew the interpretation that was given was incorrect that it was something completely different.

So I'm not really sure that there should be rules of interpretation, because in these so-called rules aren't you limiting God

Interpret the Truth that's funny
＼⁠(⁠◎⁠o⁠◎⁠)⁠／

 

[Dylan569]

By the way to give him even more of an example of this translation issues. There are actually two languages in the world that I'm aware of that have the same issue. I can't remember the name of the one other language that does that but Hebrew is one of the two. Where they're talking about God in the singular plural

Bill, I've known that Elohim is in the plural all my adult life because Pastors mentioned it so often in expository sermons. My concern was your two statements -

If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am ".

The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God

The most detailed discussion of the plural name online for all to read is in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is 'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (Ge 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Gen alone approximately 200 t. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also 'El and 'Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic."

God, Names of in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Information on God, Names of from the classic Bible reference encyclopedia.

www.internationalstandardbible.com

I was concerned that the reliability of our English translations would come into question, and the idea of Israel in any way thinking of God as more than One seemed to be quite a reach.

 

[Bill]

Bill, I've known that Elohim is in the plural all my adult life because Pastors mentioned it so often in expository sermons. My concern was your two statements -

If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am ".

The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God

The most detailed discussion of the plural name online for all to read is in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is 'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (Ge 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Gen alone approximately 200 t. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also 'El and 'Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic."

God, Names of in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Information on God, Names of from the classic Bible reference encyclopedia.

www.internationalstandardbible.com

I was concerned that the reliability of our English translations would come into question, and the idea of Israel in any way thinking of God as more than One seemed to be quite a reach.

As I told you trying to get things off the internet is highly unlikely to give you what you're looking for because it does too much autocorrect before you have a chance.

You would have to go directly to read the Hebrew scripture and then do the direct translation of it not using a computer because the computer will auto correct everything as it is anyways.

For me when I did it I went to the library and I looked it up in the Webster's not the dictionary but the other one I can't think of the name of it. It stated that the words I am who I am cannot be translated correctly into the English language because we do not have a singular plural noun.

 

[Bill]

Bill, I've known that Elohim is in the plural all my adult life because Pastors mentioned it so often in expository sermons. My concern was your two statements -

If you were to translate that correctly it would be this " I's am whom am ".

The Israelites recognize that God was one but they also recognize that there is a God and then there's the Spirit of God as two separate entities and yet one God

The most detailed discussion of the plural name online for all to read is in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
"The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is 'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (Ge 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Gen alone approximately 200 t. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also 'El and 'Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Ps 96:5; 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic."

God, Names of in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Information on God, Names of from the classic Bible reference encyclopedia.

www.internationalstandardbible.com

I was concerned that the reliability of our English translations would come into question, and the idea of Israel in any way thinking of God as more than One seemed to be quite a reach.

What part of this are you not listening to? Did I not tell you that they believe in one God, but they recognize that God is two beings in one.

And we already know via scripture that Jesus was not revealed to the Israelites.

So it makes a lot of sense to me anyways when I think of the Trinity.
Knowing that the Jews saw God has God and the spirit of God being one God and the Christians who Jesus has been revealed to as having the Trinity