- This topic is empty.
- Posts
TO ALL:
I cannot use Barnes' Notes in my debate with Mikeboll because our rules require that we each provide the link to our sources. I cannot find Barnes Notes online so I provide the information from my books here.
Barnes on Genesis 1:26 says:
“The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of the monarchs in the ancient East. Pharoah says, “I have dreamed a dream” (Gen. xli 15). Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” (Dan. vi 26). Darius the mede, “I make a decree” (Dan. vi. 26). Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me alll the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). Darius, “I make a decree” (Ezra vi. 8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to style of the heavenly King.
(Excerpt taken from Barnes' Notes on Genesis page 62, Baker Book House)
Mikeboll insists that because grammarians call the use of “elohim” the “plural of majesty” then it must be true. But Barnes points out that the MOST SKILFUL GRAMMARIANS have abandoned the plural of majesty theory.
Barnes on Isaiah 6:8:
But the existence of this pluralis majestaticus has never been proved. Its defence is now abandoned by the MOST SKILFUL GRAMMARIANS. Ewald repudiates it. And it is not a little remarkable, that some of the examples most relied on for proof of this dignified plural, are found, on examination, to possess nothing of the dignity, while more exact scholarship has reduced their plurality also.
(Excerpt taken from Barnes Notes on Isaiah page 143, Baker Book House.)
So when it comes right down to it Mikeboll has no undisputed examples of his plural of majesty theory from scripture. And his argument that some grammarians call it the “plural of majesty” is a total wash because other grammarians repudiate the theory.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 19 2010,10:41) TO ALL: I cannot use Barnes' Notes in my debate with Mikeboll because our rules require that we each provide the link to our sources. I cannot find Barnes Notes online so I provide the information from my books here.
Barnes on Genesis 1:26 says:
“The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of the monarchs in the ancient East. Pharoah says, “I have dreamed a dream” (Gen. xli 15). Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” (Dan. vi 26). Darius the mede, “I make a decree” (Dan. vi. 26). Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me alll the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). Darius, “I make a decree” (Ezra vi. 8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to style of the heavenly King.
(Excerpt taken from Barnes' Notes on Genesis page 62, Baker Book House)
Mikeboll insists that because grammarians call the use of “elohim” the “plural of majesty” then it must be true. But Barnes points out that the MOST SKILFUL GRAMMARIANS have abandoned the plural of majesty theory.
Barnes on Isaiah 6:8:
But the existence of this pluralis majestaticus has never been proved. Its defence is now abandoned by the MOST SKILFUL GRAMMARIANS. Ewald repudiates it. And it is not a little remarkable, that some of the examples most relied on for proof of this dignified plural, are found, on examination, to possess nothing of the dignity, while more exact scholarship has reduced their plurality also.
(Excerpt taken from Barnes Notes on Isaiah page 143, Baker Book House.)
So when it comes right down to it Mikeboll has no undisputed examples of his plural of majesty theory from scripture. And his argument that some grammarians call it the “plural of majesty” is a total wash because other grammarians repudiate the theory.
the Roo
So!?
Scripture uses it.
Barnes missed it.
Your grammarians missed it.
People familiar with figures of speech would call it heterosis of number.
Laban referred to himself as a “we.” Genesis 29:7
Daniel referred to himself as a “we” in 2:36.
Scripture is it's own best evidence.
Thanks barley! I did not know about Laban and Daniel, although I wonder why they would consider themselves “grandiose”.
What Jack is pretending to ignore is that Nebuchadnezzar (twice) and Artaxerxes (once) were referred to as “kingS of kings”.
Canaan was told he would become the “slaveS of slaves”.
Solomon's ONE song was called his “songS of songs”.
The most holy place in the tabernacle was called the “holieS of holies”.
He only started this thread to further push his “reliable expert source” who apparently wasn't enough of a Bible scholar to even know there are at least 6 times the plural of grandiosities is used in the scriptures that are NOT “elohim”.
What do you say Jack? Was Nebuchadnezzar a “plurality of kings in a king-head”?
ps I only posted here once to say kudos to barley. I will not indulge your diversion thread while the debate is on-going.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 19 2010,10:41) TO ALL: I cannot use Barnes' Notes in my debate with Mikeboll because our rules require that we each provide the link to our sources. I cannot find Barnes Notes online so I provide the information from my books here.
Barnes on Genesis 1:26 says:
“The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of the monarchs in the ancient East. Pharoah says, “I have dreamed a dream” (Gen. xli 15). Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” (Dan. vi 26). Darius the mede, “I make a decree” (Dan. vi. 26). Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me alll the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). Darius, “I make a decree” (Ezra vi. 8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to style of the heavenly King.
(Excerpt taken from Barnes' Notes on Genesis page 62, Baker Book House)
Mikeboll insists that because grammarians call the use of “elohim” the “plural of majesty” then it must be true. But Barnes points out that the MOST SKILFUL GRAMMARIANS have abandoned the plural of majesty theory.
Barnes on Isaiah 6:8:
But the existence of this pluralis majestaticus has never been proved. Its defence is now abandoned by the MOST SKILFUL GRAMMARIANS. Ewald repudiates it. And it is not a little remarkable, that some of the examples most relied on for proof of this dignified plural, are found, on examination, to possess nothing of the dignity, while more exact scholarship has reduced their plurality also.
(Excerpt taken from Barnes Notes on Isaiah page 143, Baker Book House.)
So when it comes right down to it Mikeboll has no undisputed examples of his plural of majesty theory from scripture. And his argument that some grammarians call it the “plural of majesty” is a total wash because other grammarians repudiate the theory.
the Roo
I do believe that you are wrong in your conclusion and quote.
Besides of which the Hebrew language is very specific in it's use of the plural of Eloah.
The Hebrew word translated as “God” is elohiym. It is the plural form of elo'ah. While elohiym is plural. this does not mean that it is more than one. In Hebrew, a plural word may indicate quality as well as quantity. As an example, the Hebrew word ets is a tree. If there are two trees this would be written as etsiym meaning trees, qualitatively large. A large tree such as a Redwood could also be written etsiym, qualitatively large. As elohiym is plural, it can be translated as “gods” (quantity) or a very large and powerful “god” (quality). The creator of the heavens and the earth is far above any other god and is therefore elohiym, not just an eloah. The context the word is used will help to determine if the plural is qualitative or quantitative. If the plural noun is the subject of a verb, the verb will indicate if the subject is singular or more than one. For instance in Genesis 1:1 the verb bara (created) identifies the subject of the verb as masculine singular. The next word is elohiym (the subject of the verb) and is understood as a singular qualitatively large noun, God and not gods.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
