Would discovery of the story behind Genesis 1:1-6 annul the Creation concept ?

the qabala talks about a god with three facets, male, female, and neutral. each has a name, and a function. yet it is still one god, singular. this is kind of the hebrew trinity.there is a strong monotheistic bias in the book itself, which forbids other gods ("before me" is misleading. i'm pretty sure it translates as "in my presence" instead of "ahead of me." the kjv translation can be confusing)

not going to duplicate the arguments made previously by amlodhi, who obviously speaks hebrew. qal is the mood of that particular verb in hebrew, part of the grammar. it was not "added later" it's always been that way, in the hebrew. are we concerned with strong's work? or the hebrew torah? but he doesn't say the things god says in the book of genesis, does he? nor is the picture of the god talking. that makes no sense whatsoever. the hebrews took a singular god from a group of five gods as evidence of no other gods? and you said the same origin, and then provided a DIFFERENT ONE for the other cultures. and who would worship a windrose as a god? it's a divine symbol in some cultures, i'll grant you that much. but it's not a god.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amlodhi

​

THE SUBJECT - Elohim (technically plural in form but used here to describe a singular entity as indicated by the verb "bara" = "he" created, not "they" created) thus, God;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WILLOWTREE

​

Care to substantiate this ?

​

Why say "Elohim"/plural if it is not meant ?

​

Are you bringing a monotheistic bias into this rendering ?

---

Hello WILLOWTREE,Thank you for the kind words. As to the above quoted part of your post, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for.The term "elohim" is, quite simply, grammatically plural in form. This is made evident both by the "im" suffix and by the fact that at various places in the bible it is used to designate plural entities, such as "mighty ones" or "gods" (in the "false gods" sense).The possible reasons as to why this grammatical plural is sometimes used to designate a single entity, (i.e. the ONE GOD of Israel), have already filled multitudinous volumes, both scholarly and otherwise.As to the grammatical construction, some have speculated that elohim is the plural of El. Others contend that elohim is the plural of Eloah (including the subset of those who contend that Eloah is a feminine form of El).Others assert that El is the most primitive form and was the original term used as either (or both) a common name and/or the proper name of a diety. The "proper name" group tends to assert that the subsequent usage of "elohim" was in recognition of the multifaceted nature of said deity. Another subset of this group asserts that the term "eloah" was only derived a posteriori to elohim in order to create a more proper derivative root.The truth is, no one has a sure claim to knowing. What is clear is that at the time Genesis was penned, (assuming we have something close to the original), context and singular modifiers identify those places where the authors intended the term elohim to refer to a singular entity.The question of whether the use of the grammatically plural "elohim" is indicative of an entrenched prior history of polytheism would, I'm sure, spark a long, complex, and spirited debate. Unfortunately, in the end, I'm afraid that it would be long on speculation and come to little resolve.Sorry there is no cut&dried all-encompassing answer to what (I think) you are questioning. I will, however, be glad to discuss any particulars you have in mind provided that you keep the focus narrow enough to be manageable.namaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

The question of whether the use of the grammatically plural "elohim" is indicative of an entrenched prior history of polytheism would, I'm sure, spark a long, complex, and spirited debate. Unfortunately, in the end, I'm afraid that it would be long on speculation and come to little resolve.

​

Sorry there is no cut&dried all-encompassing answer to what (I think) you are questioning. I will, however, be glad to discuss any particulars you have in mind provided that you keep the focus narrow enough to be manageable

---

I completely agree.What I asked is the subject of infinite debate since the eternal word became the written word.

quote:

---

The truth is, no one has a sure claim to knowing.

---

As a christian I disagree.The whole of God's revelation - Genesis to Revelation answers this question about "Elohim".It says Elohim/plural because Gods created the heavens and the Earth.Genesis goes on to say the "Spirit...." The Holy Spirit.The gospel of John and Colossians informs us that Christ existed eternally and that "all things were made by and through and for Him"Christ was the speaking agent by which God created the universe.Genesis 1 says "Gods" because the whole of God's book evidences this statement.I believe Elohim means what it says - that Gods created - the triune God which is one in unity not literally which is then made senseless by the things I just referenced.Anyway.....late,WT

By Mr Pegg noting that "In the Hebrew text, when an interlinear edition is consulted, it is found that the original text (written right to left) follows this order - In the beginning created God the heaven and the earth", he has found for himself from the original textual order, the 'rule' that you quote above. Mr Pegg is not saying that the original Hebrew order of the text is mysterious, he is saying that the English representation of it shows a different syntax - being the word order.
(But we all knew of this different order anyway - except for Pegg ?)His deduction that "in this verse, the singular verb refers to the (two) singular nouns" is also correct.I see that his use of the technical plural "gods" and their use as a direct object (instead of as the subject) are the two main points in conflict.I have two questions:
(1) When were the QAL designations added to the Hebrew translations ?
(2) Who decided these QAL designations ? Mr Pegg is concerned that the English KJV Bible may not represent the original Hebrew meanings of the Torah. As the KJV Bible is translated into and written in English, and Strong's Concordance is written in English specifically for the KJV Bible, then it is logical and reasonable to use this English concordance to learn the original meanings of the Bible.The opposition that Mr Pegg is finding on this forum, is where he is utilizing a copy of the original work written by Dr James Strong, while others are using 'modern concordances' that have had their meanings 'updated' to provide different or amended modern meanings.

Hello Eddy,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eddy Pengelly

​

Mr Pegg . . . is saying that the English representation of it shows a different syntax . . .

---

Of course, it uses English syntax. If you look at your interlinear edition you can see the English words arranged in the same order as the Hebrew.Where you will get into trouble, then, is that you will read the English in the Hebraic syntax but then turn around and attempt to understand using the rules of English syntax.Take this phrase from Gen. 1:4 as an example: ויבדל אלהים בין האור ובין החשךויבדל (and separated) אלהים (Elohim) בין (between) האור (the light) ובין (and between) החשך (the darkness)Thus, the English word translation while retaining the Hebrew syntax would be:". . . and separated God between the light and between the darkness."Then if we turn around and apply the rules of English syntax to this Hebrew order, what do we mean?Did something separate God?Did God separate himself, half in the light and half in the darkness?Did God make a gap between the light and another gap between the darkness?No, the rules of Hebrew syntax and grammar, (which are the rules we must use to determine the English translation), dictate that "Elohim" (the subject), made a separation (the verb), between the light and the darkness (prep. phrase containing the objects).Thus, in order to make this clear (and avoid the misconceptions discussed above), the English translation is constructed with English syntax and rendered as:". . . and God separated between the light and the darkness".or more clearly still:". . . and God separated the light from the darkness".

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

I see that his use of the technical plural "gods" and their use as a direct object (instead of as the subject) are the two main points in conflict.

---

As has been explained, regardless of how the technically plural term "elohim" may have originated, we must be concerned here with how the author intended it. The use of the singular verb "bara" (he created) answers that question concisely. Regardless of its origin or construction, the noun (elohim), as used here, is intended to denote a singular entity.As to subject vs. object, if the term "elohim" is a direct object in this sentence, what is the subject? Who or what did the creating? Do you think that this sentence means to say that "the heavens and the earth (as subject), created (verb), God (as direct object)? Or perhaps it was "In the beginning" (prep. phrase as subject) that created (verb) God (as direct object).No, the Hebrew grammar and syntax is clear, God did the creating, therefore, God is the subject of this sentence.

quote:

---

Eddy Pengelly:

​

I have two questions:
(1) When were the QAL designations added to the Hebrew translations ?
(2) Who decided these QAL designations ?

---

There are no "QAL designations added to Hebrew translations". The term QAL is simply an abbreviation of the Hebrew word קלל (Qalal) which means "it (or he) was light", in the sense of not heavy.The term QAL is only used to designate a specific type of verb. And as the word Qalal implies, QAL indicates the simplest form of the verb, i.e. the QAL form is the simple active form of the verb.The stem (which in Hebrew is the 3rd pers. sing. masc.) of the Qal form of the verb usually consists of 3 consonants, as in the Qal (or simple active) verb ברא, whereas different conjugations of the Qal verb and the other stems (listed below) are recognizable by various prefixes and suffixes which are attached.There are seven stems of Hebrew verbs:Qal (simple active)Nif'al (simple passive or reflexive)Pi'el (intensive active or causative)Pu'al (intensive passive)Hitpa'el (reflexive)Hif'il (causative active)Hof'al (causative passive)The verb ברא (bara) in Gen. 1:1 is in the 3rd person, singular, masculine conjugation of the Simple Active (or Qal) form; i.e. "he created".Hope that answers some of your questions.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-08-2004 03:47 PM

the people who wrote the torah, when they wrote it. it's a verb tense. people didn't make it up later on, for the last time. kjv is modern english. atiquated, yes, but modern english. who cares about english? we're after the hebrew. because strong was inspired by god and infallible?hey, duke it out with amlodhi below, who apparently actually know hebrew.