Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why doesn't the NT Greek use plural words for G-d?
#11
(12-23-2013, 01:53 PM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Deut 6:4 - Mark 12:29 - ο θεος is used in both the LXX and the NT (probably because one is a quotation of the other) the point of the matter is that 'in translation' one would interpret the meaning of the word from the original into the translation sooo this is why elohim is translated God when it is referring to YHVH. I have been adamant in stating that there is only one true God and His name is YHVH. The fact that I believe that echad and elohim 'imply' or 'suggest' that there is a 'plurality' within the 'unity' that is YHVH does not detract from my belief in YHVH as the one and only true God.
There is no unity or the Greek LXX would have used theoi or some other plural term for god to show that your assumption was true. The fact that the singular theos is used shows your assumption wrong, and shows that the Greek translators understood the Jewish and Hebrew position of a singular, and absolute one G-d. 1 Kings 18:39.

You need to start looking at the facts because what you think is implied has been overcome by the reality of the context both in Hebrew and Greek.
#12
(12-23-2013, 01:58 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-23-2013, 01:53 PM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Deut 6:4 - Mark 12:29 - ο θεος is used in both the LXX and the NT (probably because one is a quotation of the other) the point of the matter is that 'in translation' one would interpret the meaning of the word from the original into the translation sooo this is why elohim is translated God when it is referring to YHVH. I have been adamant in stating that there is only one true God and His name is YHVH. The fact that I believe that echad and elohim 'imply' or 'suggest' that there is a 'plurality' within the 'unity' that is YHVH does not detract from my belief in YHVH as the one and only true God.
There is no unity or the Greek LXX would have used theoi or some other plural term for god to show that your assumption was true. The fact that the singular theos is used shows your assumption wrong, and shows that the Greek translators understood the Jewish and Hebrew position of a singular, and absolute one G-d. 1 Kings 18:39.
Not true - there is only one true God therefore ο θεος is the perfect translation - the suggestion / implication of 'plurality in unity' is in the Hebrew and need not be emphasized in translation and this is a later understanding stemming from the teachings of Jesus concerning 'the Father' 'the Son' and 'the Holy Spirit' - the LXX Torah translators were true to the understanding that there is only one true God and His name is YHVH - as am I.
#13
(12-23-2013, 02:15 PM)HumblePetitioner Wrote:
(12-23-2013, 01:58 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-23-2013, 01:53 PM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Deut 6:4 - Mark 12:29 - ο θεος is used in both the LXX and the NT (probably because one is a quotation of the other) the point of the matter is that 'in translation' one would interpret the meaning of the word from the original into the translation sooo this is why elohim is translated God when it is referring to YHVH. I have been adamant in stating that there is only one true God and His name is YHVH. The fact that I believe that echad and elohim 'imply' or 'suggest' that there is a 'plurality' within the 'unity' that is YHVH does not detract from my belief in YHVH as the one and only true God.
There is no unity or the Greek LXX would have used theoi or some other plural term for god to show that your assumption was true. The fact that the singular theos is used shows your assumption wrong, and shows that the Greek translators understood the Jewish and Hebrew position of a singular, and absolute one G-d. 1 Kings 18:39.
Not true - there is only one true God therefore ο θεος is the perfect translation - the suggestion / implication of 'plurality in unity' is in the Hebrew and need not be emphasized in translation and this is a later understanding stemming from the teachings of Jesus concerning 'the Father' 'the Son' and 'the Holy Spirit' - the LXX Torah translators were true to the understanding that there is only one true God and His name is YHVH - as am I.
There was never an implication of a plurality in the Hebrew as the Jews who wrote the Tanakh understood G-d is an absolute one. The Greek LXX further solidifies this point.

Why isn't a plural form of god in the Greek used in the NT or the LXX to support your contentions of a triune god? Please show me your support in your scriptures for this using the Greek?

YKVK is shown as being an absolute one in 1 Kings 18:39, and in many other places.

It's rather funny seeing you do flip-flops when the facts do not support you. You rather rely on an english translation with its known subjective Christian translations to support non-biblical ideas than the Hebrew and Greek which show that your ideas are flawed. Nice.
#14
(12-23-2013, 08:18 AM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-23-2013, 08:02 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: At the moment I cannot speak to the Greek "Theos" but we do see the Triune God dispensing Himself into man.
If that were true, you would see a plural reference to G-d in the NT, which is not explicity stated.

That is a criteria that you arbitrarily insist upon.

The one Name of Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit into which the believers in Christ are baptized signifies that the one God is Father - Son - Holy Spirit, because it is the one name.

That you attempt to force every NT passage to be exactly the same in structure of every OT passage concerning God, is simply your concocted criteria.

And if it were the case you no no doubt would find some other reason to "prove" the difference.


(12-23-2013, 08:02 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: In Genesis we have God referring to God as "Us" for example, 1:26.

I answered this already in the thread "Gen 1:26 - What is going on here?". Also, examine the Greek from the LXX. The term for G-d in the Greek I believe is singular. [/quote]

I have seen many of your arguments. I know that you think you refuted this or that teaching. But they have not been conclusive to me.

So I only agree that you have argued contrary to many things written in the New Testament or repeated here by some of us.

There are many utterances about God in both the Tanach and the New Testament. We do not need to insist on one for one exact equivalence in all respects.

For certain, the overall picture in the Bible is that God would incarnate and dispense His life into man.


(12-23-2013, 08:02 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: In the New Testament the Son of God says that He and the Father as the Divine "We" will come to make an abode with the lovers of Christ.

"Jesus answered and said to him, if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

It doesn't matter what else the NT says when no Greek plural terms for the word god are used for the G-d of Israel. [/quote]

What the New Testament says matters of course. And what kind of Person this Jesus turned out to be also matters.

What He believed about Himself matters. Whether He demonstrated the validity of those things which He said about Himself matters.

With all the passages about God in both the Old and New Testaments one could always construct an artificial case that because all passages on God are not completely equivalent in all linguistic respects, therefore there is a difference.

You could say a certain name for God is not used in the New Testament.
And based on that the New Testament is not talking about the God of the Hebrew Bible.

I expect that that is what you see as your mission - to invent rationales for rejecting the testimony of Jesus Christ. I expect that you have this and other invented rationales lined up to justify your unbelief.

But some of us are persuaded of the Son of God for sure.


(12-23-2013, 08:02 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: I definitely take this as an indication that the Divine "Us" of Genesis is also the Divine "We" of the Gospel of John.

Again, we see the Son of God and the Father refered to as "Us" in John 17:21.

"That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me." (John 17:21)
Actually you hurt your case because if we are all one, then there are mulitple gods, not just a trinity. [/quote]

No it does not hurt my case. But I tell you what it does do. It exposes how customarily Christians under estimate the extent of God's full salvation.

I believe the passage as Christ prayed it. But in this utter oneness between the saved and the Triune God, the Triune God retains the Headship. He is one from eternity. We are united to Him not from eternity but through salvation.

He remains the Source of this union.
And He remains the Head as the Head of a Body.

So this utter oneness with the Father and the Son in God's concluded salvation does not mean we become objects of worship, or creators of universes, or share an some non-communicable attributes of God.

But it does mean some communicable attributes of God are dispensed into the corporate Body of Christ for a mingling of God and man. So I would say that according to Christ's own words, the profound extent of His full salvation is far beyond what the unenlightened religious mind typically conceives.

But that is not God's fault. That shows man's need to be unveiled and see true revelation.


According to the prayer of Christ the oneness is in three aspects -

Oneness with the Triune God in His life.
Oneness with the Triune God through His Word.
Oneness with the Triune God in His glory.

The mighty answer to this prayer is seen symbolically as the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22.
#15
(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote:
(12-23-2013, 08:18 AM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-23-2013, 08:02 AM)Feedmysheep Wrote: At the moment I cannot speak to the Greek "Theos" but we do see the Triune God dispensing Himself into man.
If that were true, you would see a plural reference to G-d in the NT, which is not explicity stated.
That is a criteria that you arbitrarily insist upon.
Not at all. You're the one who insisted that the Tanakh implies a plural. If you can't prove it in the context and grammar of the language, then your idea is false. The NT doesn't support your notion at all given specific Greek words that refer to a plural god.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: That you attempt to force every NT passage to be exactly the same in structure of every OT passage concerning God, is simply your concocted criteria.
Nope. I gave you 6-7 verses in the NT that uses plural Greek words for god, and not one of them refers to Hashem. Please go back and review what I gave you. The findings are not concocted, but refure your words.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: I have seen many of your arguments. I know that you think you refuted this or that teaching. But they have not been conclusive to me.
The Hebrew and Greek grammar and context support my opinion. Singular G-d in both cases in Gen 1:26. Please see the thread "Gen 1:26 - What is going on here?".

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: So I only agree that you have argued contrary to many things written in the New Testament or repeated here by some of us.
Please show me a plural god reference in the Greek NT to Hashem. Even your NT refutes your ideas.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: There are many utterances about God in both the Tanach and the New Testament. We do not need to insist on one for one exact equivalence in all respects.
No, we just insist on grammar and context, and on both counts you are wrong in both languages, Hebrew and Greek.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: What He believed about Himself matters. Whether He demonstrated the validity of those things which He said about Himself matters.
Really? Obama thinks a lot about himself too.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: With all the passages about God in both the Old and New Testaments one could always construct an artificial case that because all passages on God are not completely equivalent in all linguistic respects, therefore there is a difference.
There's context and grammar and rules in both languages and all of it together doesn't support your claims.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: You could say a certain name for God is not used in the New Testament.

And based on that the New Testament is not talking about the God of the Hebrew Bible.
If there's no continuity, then there's no fulfillment of prophecies, messiah, and a different G-d. That's fine with me because I know that's the case, the NT is not authoritative.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: I expect that that is what you see as your mission - to invent rationales for rejecting the testimony of Jesus Christ. I expect that you have this and other invented rationales lined up to justify your unbelief.
My desire is to pull fellow Jews and G-d fearing non -Jews out of apostasy. I haven't invented anything, just presented the facts regarding the Greek and Hebrew choice of words for G-d, which support a singular, absolute notion.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: But some of us are persuaded of the Son of God for sure.
Son of G-d doesn't mean divinity. That's for sure.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: Oneness with the Triune God in His life.
Oneness with the Triune God through His Word.
Oneness with the Triune God in His glory.
Flowery words with no evidence. Please show me again a plural Greek word for G-d in the NT.

(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: The mighty answer to this prayer is seen symbolically as the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22.
Rev 21 nowhere says J-sus is G-d, and the singular words for god theou, theos, are used.
Rev 22 nowhere says J-sus is G-d, and the singular words for god theou, theos, theo, are used.
#16
(12-23-2013, 03:48 PM)Feedmysheep Wrote: In the New Testament the Son of God says that He and the Father as the Divine "We" will come to make an abode with the lovers of Christ.

"Jesus answered and said to him, if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)
The context of these verses are the commandments, John 14:15,17,21,23-24. This agrees with Ezek 36:26-27, the spirit leads one to keep the commandments. J-sus was advocating keeping the commandments as in Matthew 5:17-20.

Isn't it contradictory to claim support for a trinity because of the Greek wording for "We", and fail to look at the evidence in the Greek words for god used to show Hashem is singular? Surely you see the double standard you're using?
#17
Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?"
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Mar 12:31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.
Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
#18
(12-24-2013, 07:34 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?"
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Mar 12:31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.
Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
All of the verses that mention G-d, use the singular Greek words for god, theon, theos, theou. Why is there no plurality to support your trinity?
#19
(12-24-2013, 08:15 AM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-24-2013, 07:34 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Mar 12:28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?"
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
Mar 12:31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.
Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
All of the verses that mention G-d, use the singular Greek words for god, theon, theos, theou. Why is there no plurality to support your trinity?
Matt 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

There is only one true God - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one true God - they are 'the name'.
#20
(12-24-2013, 08:29 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Matt 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"
J-sus was saying he couldn't serve the satan because he himself only worshiped G-d. The Greek singular term for god, theon, is used in this verse. Also, the Greek term mono is used showing that there is only a singular G-d, Mat 4:4, Luke 4:4,8, Romans 16:27, 1 Tim 1:17 (immortal and invisible, this is not J-sus), Jude 1:25 (G-d is the only saviour, not J-sus; this agrees with Psalms 20:6).

(12-24-2013, 08:29 AM)HumblePetitioner Wrote: Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Psalms 83:18 since one person alone has the name YKVK, we know that Hashem is one, and that this verse in the NT is false. Thanks for pointing it out.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)