- This topic has 1,826 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:45) In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary, seeing how the word was often applied to mere humans. 
This is laughable. Mike have you actually counted how many times in the Bible the word “Elohim and Theos” refer to the One True God in contrast to men?
You want to flip that upside down.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:01) The above is actually what you said, Keith. You said “YES”, the word itself doesn't mean one is God.
But I also said context didn't I Mike.You have totally denied this fact.
WJ
Hi Keith,
Do I know more than Strong?
Is what I posted wrong? Did I misspeak about Dagon and Molech? Address the POINT I made instead of DIVERTING that point into a false accusation that I think I know more than Strong.Address the POINT, Keith…….and show me how I'm wrong about what I said.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:58)
How does his statement disagree with you…Second, Strong's says that the word “elohim” applies to the SUPREME GOD and “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates” (# 430).
Are Dagon and Molech either “The Supreme God” or “magistrates who have had elohim applied to them in deference of the Supreme God”? This is frustrating Keith. Why won't you stand and defend your claims and address my actual points instead of diverting around them with silliness?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:58)
Just as the word “Light” in context can mean different things.
Thank you. “Light” is a very good example. Scripture refers to God and Jesus as “light”, right? Yet you will find no dictionary anywhere that lists “God” or “Jesus Christ” in their literal definition of the word “light”, will you? So again, just because a word is APPLIED to God doesn't mean that word now MEANS “God”. And because the word “light” is applied to God doesn't mean that everyone the word “light” is applied to IS God. Jesus said his disciples are now the “light” of the world…………are they “God”?Thank you for helping me to prove MY point.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,03:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:45) In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary, seeing how the word was often applied to mere humans. This is laughable. Mike have you actually counted how many times in the Bible the word “Elohim and Theos” refer to the One True God in contrast to men?
You want to flip that upside down.
WJ
It wouldn't matter if it only referred to a human being once, Keith. The fact is that “elohim” does NOT literally MEAN “God”……..and you KNOW that fact.mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:50) Mike Does “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1 mean “Supernatural Supreme Being”?
No Keith, it doesn't. “Elohim” in Gen 1:1 means “leader” and that word is APPLIED to the One who we know from context is the “Suprenatural Supreme Being”.If you can't understand the diffence in those two things, then this discussion is as much above your intelligence as it seems to be above Dennison's.
Answer to my post about “light”. Let's see if you feel the same about that word. Does the word “light” literally mean “God”, Keith? Or is it a word that simply means “light” and is APPLIED to God?
mike
You know what, guys? I thought I could have an intelligent discussion with you. You have failed me.
Let's just nip this in the bud:
We know from scripture that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT necessarily mean you are God Almighty. We know the same thing from Strong's definition of “elohim”. And that's really all there is to it.
Francis had made the claim that Jesus must be “God” because “elohim” was applied to him in Hebrews 1:8. And we all now know that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT make you God. End of story and end of one of your most famous Jesus is God “proofs”.
peace and love to you all………I will now address Francis about this subject. Thank you all for causing me to delve even farther into the subject, making me even more able to solidly refute his claim. (Keith, watch for your “light” example in my response to Francis!
)mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2011,10:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2011,18:43) So……………DO YOU AGREE that the word in and of itself doesn't mean one is “God”?
Yes, Context Mike.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:01)
The above is actually what you said, Keith. You said “YES”, the word itself doesn't mean one is God.
Mike please stop your misrepresenting me and taking me “Out of context”. You are good at doing that. I said context didn't I?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:01)
Let me ask you guys a very simple question that you have been avoiding.Psalm 89:18 NIV
Indeed, our shield belongs to the LORD, our king……..Does this mean the Hebrew word “melek” now has the literal definition of “Supernatural Supreme Being”? YES or NO?
No because no one is saying that the word “king” (melek) by itself identifies God.Throughout the scriptures there are literally thousands of scriptures where the word “elohim” by itself identifies the One True God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:01)
Exodus 3:18 NIV
Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.Does this mean the Hebrew word “elohim” now has the literal definition of “Supernatural Supreme Being”? YES or NO?
Yes because the context says so.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:01)
Context defines OUR UNDERSTANDING of what the sentence means. Context does NOT change the literal definition of the word “elohim” itself.
Says who Mike? Is Hebrew the only language in the world where words only identify one thing? Prove it Mike.The word “Light” has several meanings that identify a certain thing when put in its context. You remember saying I was “Reaching”, man you are stretching out in no mans land.
You have to reinvent words to adapt to your doctrine. Now once again I have answered your questions then why don’t you answer mine. I have plenty here that you have not answered.
Blessings Keith
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:22) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:50) Mike Does “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1 mean “Supernatural Supreme Being”?
No Keith, it doesn't. “Elohim” in Gen 1:1 means “leader” and that word is APPLIED to the One who we know from context is the “Suprenatural Supreme Being”.
MikeSo Moses said “In the beginnig a leader created the Heavens and the earth?
So to Moses the “Elohim” was not the “Suprenatural Supreme Being”?Funny Mike!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:22) If you can't understand the diffence in those two things, then this discussion is as much above your intelligence as it seems to be above Dennison's.
Uh oh, frustration, so its time for the ad hominems.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:22) Answer to my post about “light”. Let's see if you feel the same about that word. Does the word “light” literally mean “God”, Keith? Or is it a word that simply means “light” and is APPLIED to God?
No because the word light is never used by itself to identify The One True God. But the words “”elohim and theos” are.WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:31) You know what, guys? I thought I could have an intelligent discussion with you. You have failed me. Let's just nip this in the bud:
MikeYes of course you are the “Only One” around here that can carry on an intelligent conversation. In fact you know more than James Strong, Mathew Henry, AT Robertson, the Apostles most of the Forefathers, the thousand of commentators and Hebrew and Greek scholars.
Do you realize how arrogant this seems Mike?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:31) We know from scripture that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT necessarily mean you are God Almighty. We know the same thing from Strong's definition of “elohim”. And that's really all there is to it.
Context Like Genesis 1:1 tells us “Elohim” is God almighty.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:31) Francis had made the claim that Jesus must be “God” because “elohim” was applied to him in Hebrews 1:8. And we all now know that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT make you God. End of story and end of one of your most famous Jesus is God “proofs”.
Context again Mike because the context of Hebrews chapter one shows Jesus is the creator of the worlds and “his throne is forever and ever” and that the Angels were commanded to worship him and that the Heavens and the earth were created by his hands.Try again Mike.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,11:31) peace and love to you all………I will now address Francis about this subject. Thank you all for causing me to delve even farther into the subject, making me even more able to solidly refute his claim. (Keith, watch for your “light” example in my response to Francis! : )
You are welcome Mike. But it does no good for you to delve deeper in the subject if your mind is already set does it?Sorry Mike but you are loosing the debate with Francis.
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,02:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,10:45) And if the word never meant “Supernatural Supreme Being”, the the bottom line is that having this title applied to one did not make that one the “Supernatural Supreme Being”.
MikeDoes “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1 mean “Supernatural Supreme Being”?
Case and point. Jesus is a “Supernatural Supreme Being” is he not?
BTW Jack is right about the word “Despotes”.
Blessings Keith
Keith,Mike is in denial as usual.
Despotes: ABSOLUTE RULER (Strong's# 1203)
Despot: A RULER with ABSOLUTE power and authority (Webster's)
This is why Mike's treatment of the word “elohim” works against him. If it simply means “ruler”, then Christ is “elohim” by His being our “despotes” which means “ABSOLUTE Ruler.”
Thus the word “elohim” and “despotes” are synonomous.
Jack
WJ said to Mike:
Quote Yes of course you are the “Only One” around here that can carry on an intelligent conversation. In fact you know more than James Strong, Mathew Henry, AT Robertson, the Apostles most of the Forefathers, the thousand of commentators and Hebrew and Greek scholars. .
Hello Mike…
Quote Francis had made the claim that Jesus must be “God” because “elohim” was applied to him in Hebrews 1:8. And we all now know that having the word “elohim” applied to you does NOT make you God. End of story and end of one of your most famous Jesus is God “proofs”. peace and love to you all………I will now address Francis about this subject. Thank you all for causing me to delve even farther into the subject, making me even more able to solidly refute his claim. (Keith, watch for your “light” example in my response to Francis!
I don't think you are correctly characterizing my arguement for the use of Hebrews 1:8, and by extension, your burden of proof to defend your translation of Hebrews 1:8.
I am not an expert in Greek or Hebrew… and neither are you… so whether we like it or not… we both are dependent on the “experts” or the scholars who do translations as their profession. That is just the way it is.
Now… I've listed over 20 translations which shows that all these professional scholars and experts have concluded that in Hebrews 1:8, God with a capital “G” is calling Jesus God with a capital “G”. None of these professional scholars have felt that the verse should simply be translated to refer to Jesus as just a “leader” or “ruler” or “god” (with a little “g”) or anything else. They all felt that Hebrews 1:8 should be translated as God calling Jesus God with a capital “G”.
All the translators also agree that when they use “God” with a capital “G”… they are referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc. So… whenever these translators use the word “God” with a capital “G”, they are making a distinction from “god” with a small “g”.
To all these translators, God does not equal to god. To them, when they use “God”, they are referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.
Now… this is where you come in.
I am a simple person who is not all that bright… and who is not an expert in Greek or Hebrew… and as I read all these translations, over 20 of them, I can plainly see that they all have Hebrews 1:8 saying that God is calling Jesus “God”.
Now, this does not PROVE that they are correct. But that is not the point. (only in math is absolute proof possible) The point is that it is you who is disagreeing with the vast majority of scholars. So it is you who has the burden of proof to demonstrate conclusively (you have irrefutable logic on your side, remember?) that all these scholars and translators are wrong, and you are right.
And you can't dismiss these scholars work as a product of bias, because that can be used against you as well. Not only that, but to attack a person and call them biased and thus dismiss their opinions without looking at their work, is a clear ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether a person is biased or not because their work stands or falls on it's own merits. So what matters in this discussion is not whether your or they are biased, but what matters is the reasoning behind your translation and the reasoning behind why you reject their reasoning.
As I see it… since you keep claiming that theos and elohim can mean different things or be applied to different beings, then you have no choice but to demonstrate that it is the context of Hebrews 1:8 which FORCES US THROUGH BRUTE LOGIC (you have irrefultable logic, remember?) to acknowledge that all these translators were wrong in their opinion that God was calling Jesus God.
That is why I am especially interested in seeing what context you are going to use for and from Hebrews 1:8, and what irrefutable logic you will be employing to back up your translation.
Keep this in mind… it is apparantly your opinion that God is NOT calling Jesus God in Hebrews 1:8. I don't hear you arguing that Hebrews 1:8 MAY or COULD be interpreted as something else… but THAT IT SHOULD BE interepreted a certain way… your way. And thus if all you can argue is that it is linguistically REMOTELY POSSIBLE that Hebrews 1:8 has God calling Jesus a leader/ruler… or whatever else you can come up with… then you have not carried the day by demonstrating through irrefutable logic or context that your translation is the correct one and all these other translations (over 20 of them) are wrong.
Because if that is all you can argue, then why should I accept your translation when BOTH translations (yours and theirs) are POSSIBLE?
In such a case, in such an eventuality, then the things that Keith and Jack and others have brought up in this thread, would come into play. Like the opinions of the early Church fathers who were closer to the event than we who are coming at this thousands of years later. And other secondary evidence as well.
So your burden of proof goes beyond just trying to argue that your translation is POSSIBLE. Your burden of proof is to show us why your translation is CORRECT and how the other translations are INCORRECT. Anything less than that is a failure because it is you who has made the claim that your translation is correct and the other translations are incorrect.
Respectfully
FrancisQuote Context Like Genesis 1:1 tells us “Elohim” is God almighty no it does not, in the beginning el created heaven and earth. there is no description given that reflects who el is? just states this el created heaven and earth, i could pull from multiple texts where the passage is the same just with a different title attached.
so at first hearing the beginning of the story who is el? chpt 2 states the spirit of el, then begins to tell how heaven and earth were created by el, no real definition of el is presented at first.
it is taken throughout that one automactically knows who el is, for one to stop at this time, el would be still be left up for grabs, perhaps by one that is a follower of zeus, then their take on the matter is el is reflecting zeus, and they would agree ect. ect.
so el is really an applied title. with context involved.
Hi All
In the debates thread Mike asked Francis a quesiton which I am quiet sure Francis can answer even better than I. But I will answer his question even though it is a loaded question…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,12:32) Does having the word “elohim” applied to one necessarily mean that one is God Almighty? YES or NO?
No it depends on context that determines whether it is defined as “God Almighty”.Question for you Mike…
Does having the word “elohim” applied to one necessarily mean that one is “NOT” God Almighty? YES or NO
WJ
Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) Quote Context Like Genesis 1:1 tells us “Elohim” is God almighty no it does not, in the beginning el created heaven and earth. there is no description given that reflects who el is?
Princess first off “el” is not the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1, ” elohiym” was. Secondly are you saying Moses didn't know the “One True God” by the word “elohiym”?Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) just states this el created heaven and earth, i could pull from multiple texts where the passage is the same just with a different title attached.
Exactly “elohiym” created the heavens and the earth and we know who “elohiym” is by context don't we?WJ
Quote (francis @ Jan. 15 2011,12:50) Now, this does not PROVE that they are correct. But that is not the point. (only in math is absolute proof possible) The point is that it is you who is disagreeing with the vast majority of scholars. So it is you who has the burden of proof to demonstrate conclusively (you have irrefutable logic on your side, remember?) that all these scholars and translators are wrong, and you are right. And you can't dismiss these scholars work as a product of bias, because that can be used against you as well. Not only that, but to attack a person and call them biased and thus dismiss their opinions without looking at their work, is a clear ad hominem. It doesn't matter whether a person is biased or not because their work stands or falls on it's own merits. So what matters in this discussion is not whether your or they are biased, but what matters is the reasoning behind your translation and the reasoning behind why you reject their reasoning.
Hi FrancisExactly! Mike puts himself again the Apostles, the Forefathers, and the cream of Hebrew and Greek scholarship.
Blessings Keith
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,05:15) Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) Quote Context Like Genesis 1:1 tells us “Elohim” is God almighty no it does not, in the beginning el created heaven and earth. there is no description given that reflects who el is?
Princess first off “el” is not the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1, ” elohiym” was. Secondly are you saying Moses didn't know the “One True God” by the word “elohiym”?Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) just states this el created heaven and earth, i could pull from multiple texts where the passage is the same just with a different title attached.
Exactly “elohiym” created the heavens and the earth and we know who “elohiym” is by context don't we?WJ
easy there wj,by going from creation to mosheh, your morphing.
in context no, one does not know who el or elohim is until later in the text.
by faith, yes. a whole different world isn't it.
Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,14:57) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,05:15) Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) Quote Context Like Genesis 1:1 tells us “Elohim” is God almighty no it does not, in the beginning el created heaven and earth. there is no description given that reflects who el is?
Princess first off “el” is not the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1, ” elohiym” was. Secondly are you saying Moses didn't know the “One True God” by the word “elohiym”?Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) just states this el created heaven and earth, i could pull from multiple texts where the passage is the same just with a different title attached.
Exactly “elohiym” created the heavens and the earth and we know who “elohiym” is by context don't we?WJ
easy there wj,by going from creation to mosheh, your morphing.
in context no, one does not know who el or elohim is until later in the text.
by faith, yes. a whole different world isn't it.
PrincessWhatever!!!
If all we have is Genesis 1:1…
“In the beginning “God” (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth“, then we know that “God” (elohim) is God Almighty.
BTW, do you ever answer any questions?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,07:02) Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,14:57) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,05:15) Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) Quote Context Like Genesis 1:1 tells us “Elohim” is God almighty no it does not, in the beginning el created heaven and earth. there is no description given that reflects who el is?
Princess first off “el” is not the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1, ” elohiym” was. Secondly are you saying Moses didn't know the “One True God” by the word “elohiym”?Quote (princess @ Jan. 15 2011,12:52) just states this el created heaven and earth, i could pull from multiple texts where the passage is the same just with a different title attached.
Exactly “elohiym” created the heavens and the earth and we know who “elohiym” is by context don't we?WJ
easy there wj,by going from creation to mosheh, your morphing.
in context no, one does not know who el or elohim is until later in the text.
by faith, yes. a whole different world isn't it.
PrincessWhatever!!!
If all we have is Genesis 1:1…
“In the beginning “God” (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth“, then we know that “God” (elohim) is God Almighty.
BTW, do you ever answer any questions?
WJ
wj,your adding.
we have went from elohim
to 'god' elohim with genesis 1.such a wonderful teaching tool isn't it, just like all the others, since man cannot understand these things, the great and mighty all knowing will place these little dots to ensure they understand what the subject is.
tisk tisk wj. i will say you have been taught well. however, i have not changed my prior thoughts on the matter.
did i miss something of importance you needed addressed,
oh, just noticed are you calling me crazy wj, insults are a skill you have been well taught.
take care wj, once again. we come to an end of our discussion, so few and far between they are.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
