From: robarr@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 13 Oct 92 07:01:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

(Mark Fuller) writes:
[about the "true" meaning of elohim and jehovah]

I guess if we accept the notion that there is only "one" god and his
name is Elohim or Jehovah and he cannot devide himself or confer his
Honor, name or Glory to another, then we are faced with more than a
few scriptural absurdities.  If, as Mark suggests, there is only one
God and that Jehovah and Elohim are both proper names for the same
"person", then how do we explain the FACT that Elohim and Jehovah
mean different things?  Also, how do we explain the fact that the
word Elohim is a plural expression litterally meaning Group or
Council?  Now before you get all huffy and say that this is a simple
mormon mutilation of the un-mutible holy word, consider this
treatment of the issue given by a non-mormon a while back on s.r.c:


            ELOHEIM - Why is it Plural?
 
The word "God" (Hebrew - eloheim) has the typical masculine
plural "im" ending (cf. urim, thummim, churubim etc.).  In Gen 1 & 2
it is particularly noticeable that the word is plural
because of the "we", "us" and "our" used with it.  And this is
not the only place where elohieim requires the plural form.  See
Gen 3:5 where the construct, the plural participle "knowers of"
(Hebrew yodhe) modifies eloheim, which therefore must be plural; and
Gen 11:7, where "let us descend" (Hebrew  nerdhah) and "let us confuse"
(Hebrew nabhlah) are both plural verbs.
 
Hebrew scholars go to great lengths to try to show that eloheim
is not really plural, but what they call "plural form".  Nevertheless,
it is a pain in the neck to them and is never quite explained to their
satisfaction.
 
From (Keil and Delitzsch)'s Commentary on the Old Testament 1:62, we see:
 
  The plural "We" was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians
  almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity:  Modern commentators, on
  the contrary, regard iet either as pluralis majestatis; or as an
  address by God to Himself, the subject and object being identical; or as
  communicative, and address to the spirits or angels who stand around the
  Deity and constitute His council ... the last interpretation founders
  upon this rock: Either it assumes without sufficient scriptural authority,
  and in fact in opposition to such distinct passages as chap 2:7,22;
  IS.40:13, 44:24, that the spirits took part in the creation of man;
  or it reduces the plural to an empty phrase, inasmuch as God is made to
  summon the angels to cooperate in the creation of man, and then, instead
  of emplying them, is represented as carrying out the work alone.
  Moreover, this view is irreconcilable with the words "in our image,
  after our likeness;" since man was created in the image of God alone
  (ver. 27, chap 5:1), and not in the image of either the angels, or
  GOd and the angels.  A likeness to the angels cannot be inferred
  from Heb. 2:7, or from Luke 20:36.  Just as little ground is there
  for regarding the plural here and in other passages (3:22, 11:7,
  Is. 6:8, 41:22) as reflexive, an appeal to the self; since the
  singular is employed in such cases as these, even where God Himself is
  preparing for any particular work. (cf. 2:18, Ps. 12:5, Is. 33:10).
  No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as
  pluralis majestatis.
 
Also see farther comments in Kautzsche's Gensenius Hebrew Grammer 2nd Ed,
1910 Oxford 1910, page 398 para.124 g note #2.
 
What the Bible scholars refuse to consider is that eloheim is plural
because there is a plurality of Gods, and that the context here refers
to more than one personage.
 
  Pre-Hebraic Palestine is full of "ELs" (eloheim) and Ba'als (Adonai
  the Lord) and they all have consorts, at once wives, daughters and
  mothers - Asherath, Anat, Astarte, Ashtaroth.  Waite, The Holy
  Kabbalah p.11.
 
And hence we can deduce that there is a female God in a God-pair.
 
With this in mind, it should be noted that in Gen. God is represented
as creating man in his own image "male and female".  How can this
be, unless God is "male and female".
 
The Hebrew word for create "bara" in its root sense, means to cut or
carve, as in making a statue, or to produce something new.  When it
is people being produced, however, the proper translations is
"to beget, whence bar, a son".  We are more familiar with the
word in its Aramic usage in the NT, as in "Simeon bar Jonah",
which means Simeon begotten by Jonah.
 
Bible translators, being unaware that God had any physical form , did the
best they could in making a proper TRANSLATION ACCORDING to THEIR
UNDERSTANDING, but Gen 1:26, may therefore be correctly retranslated
[AND is SUPPORTED by Luke 3:37-8] as:
 
   "So God begat man in His own image, in the image of God begat He Him,
   male and female begat THEY them".
 
Here it might be noted ... begat He Him... the seed of the Father;
and ... begat They them ... is inclusive of the birthing by mother and
father of the childre (them).
 
 
[On the contrary, Bible scholars are well aware of the polytheistic
background behind the OT.  The claim is that the people who put
together the text as we have it now were monotheistic, and whatever
may have been the history behind the word, for the authors of the OT
it was singular.  --clh]

Others have also addressed the same issue in many Christian
Commentaries on the scriptures.  When Joseph Smith said that the
word Elohim meant many or a council of the Gods, he was right.  And
to suggest otherwise is simply bad scholorship, or a purposeful
avoidance of the truth.  Why else would God say "Let US make man in
OUR own image and in OUR own likeness". . .and  "Behold the man has
become as One of US."  Perhaps God's ultimate oneness and
"infiniteness" finally drove Him crazy and he began to talk to
himself from shear loneliness.  Perhaps you should consult a good
protestant commentary concerning the name elohim instead of reading
old Watchtowers and regurgitating their "logic."  The words Elohim
and Jehovah are simlpy titles and/or a personal name.  In and of
themselves they mean nothing.  For example Yahweh means "The self
sustaining one." (I am that I am etc.) This title would apply to
anything which could claim to be self-sustaining.  In mormon
theology both God the Father and God the Son could be called
Jehovah, Elohim, God, the Gods (See Abraham 4.1). And in order to
explain certain passages in LDS scriptures, this flexibility of both
name and title is readily apparent.  The father son and holy ghost
are one God and between the three persons in the Godhead they share
many names.

DAVID
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism