| Poster | Thread | dohzman
Member
Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132
| | Re: | | Alot of these type of discussions I have to print out and sit with them beside my bibles and compare what's being said with the references in black and white. But its all good stuff.
_________________
D.Miller
|
|  2005/11/3 22:55 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Hi Robert
Thanks for the Strongs numbers.
I have just searched for Yachiyd (Strongs 3173). The full search only produces the following references: Gen. 22:2,12,16; Judg. 11:34; Psa. 22:20; 25:16; 35:17; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech. 12:10 and it is interesting that in each of these the sense is 'a solitary one'.
Echad' (Strongs 259), on the other hand, is used 963 times (according the my Bible software) so I have not checked all of those.
Have you seen the Renn 'Expository Dictionary of Bible Words'. I have been using it for a few weeks and am impressed. It is much more comprehensive in the OT than Vines. It also has the advantage of coming with a full pdf file cd. He doesn't bring out the 'complex unity' of 'ehad' but some of the quotations make its use in that line pretty clear. I shall work my way though them to get the sense.
Thanks again for your input.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/11/4 4:17 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Hi Ron,
Quote:
Have you seen the Renn 'Expository Dictionary of Bible Words'
Actually I have not seen it. Where can I get it? Is it a module for esword? I have esword and use it occasionally. BTW the primary software I use is the full version PC Study Bible. I used to use Quickverse, but got used to PC version 3 and like it better. I have version 4, but don't care much for the format so I use the older version.
I have some other information on Trinity that I was able to find from when I used to teach essential doctrines, but wanted to wait to see what direction the thread goes.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/11/4 8:03 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Echad' (Strongs 259), on the other hand, is used 963 times (according the my Bible software) so I have not checked all of those.
Quote:
I shall work my way though them to get the sense.
Well, I spent a considerable amount of time looking at them myself last night; it is quite an undertaking. I would love to hear your observations. :-)
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/11/4 8:07 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | You can get Renn's Expository Dictionary of Bible Words from [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565636732/qid=1131113814/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9405375-2408829?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]Amazon.[/url] I do think at this price it is excellent value for money.
It's not a module to esword but the book comes with a CD with a few goodies on it, including a pdf of the whole book which makes searching for words or Strongs numbers very easy.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/11/4 9:19 | Profile | beenblake
Member
Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA
| | Re: | | Dear RobertW,
Your argument on "one" being plural falls apart in several applications of the word. In the scripture below, the "one" is refering to a single person.
Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
The word you are describing held many meanings depending on the usage (like many words do). It is not a word so specific to be used in the plural in every sense.
If it was that case, then we would run into a huge problem.
When we use the plural one, we are speaking of a collective or grouping. For instance, I would say "one" nation. When I say this, I am isolating a group. However, when we do use "one" in such a way, we do not refer to that group with the pronoun, "I." For instance, I wouldn't say, "I am one nation." We would say, "We are one nation." The same applies to a husband and wife. Pronouns such as "they" and "we" are used to describe them when together.
Whenever God spoke about Himself, the pronoun "I" is used.
echad
Definition
1. one (number)
a.one (number)
b.each, every
c.a certain
d.an (indefinite article)
e.only, once, once for all
f.one...another, the one...the other, one after
g.another, one by one
h.first
e.eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
According to this, "echad" is in reference to the number one, meaning that it can cover a broad range of uses.
Yachiyd
Definition
1. only, only one, solitary, one
a. only, unique, one
b. solitary
c. (TWOT) only begotten son subst
2. one
The difference between the two words is not to say one is used in the plural, and one is not. Rather, the word "Yachiyd" is used to signify that there is only one in all. For instance, if I had only one son.
And so, by using "echad" in duet 6:4, it is not saying that God is "plural" but rather that God is not the only God in the universe. God is one, but He's not the only one. Which makes sense, because there were many false gods.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while it still supports the trinity, it is not a good argument for the trinity.
This could just as easily be used to establish the "oneness" argument too.
Thanks for sharing,
Blake
_________________
Blake Kidney
|
| | 2005/11/4 9:27 | Profile | beenblake
Member
Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA
| | Re: | | Dear Philologos,
Quote:
Your statement 'Jesus is God' would be accepted by modalists but they would not accept the idea that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit AT THE SAME TIME. They are really saying that God is the Father, OR the Son, OR the Holy Spirit but is not Father, Son and Holy Spirit in communion. In this view there could be no 'communion'.
I definitely can see the error in that. I do believe in the "at the same" time theory.
This debate has been good, as I didn't know that much about the trinity before this. I had accepted it openly without scrutiny. However, after spending much time reading materials on the trinity, I find it problematic.
The Trinity states that God existed as three in one. There are three persons in the Godhead that make one God. These three can be said to be "one" because they are in perfect union. (Which more or less is the same as saying love that never fails.)
Here is the problem I have. The trinity states that God is three persons. This idea of three persons establishes that God is in fact three individuals. It is like saying that God is not one person, but rather a collective, or group, or nation.
I did some research into the theory of what a "person" is starting with the Catholic Encyclopedia. In all instances of study, the word "individual" stood out.
I do understand that the trinity establishes that God is perfectly united. It is the same as a marriage between a husband and wife when a marriage is as it should be. The two are united as one.
However, even in marriage, the wife must willingly submit unto her husband in love. This means that the Godhead also must have two parts that willingly submit unto one.
I find the trinity a huge problem in this idea of being three persons. It opens the door for many different problems.
Firstly, a person is an individual with distinct features and functions. Two people can come together in a perfect union, as demonstrated by marriage. However, each person in the marriage still has an isolated presense, will, and nature. We never refer to anyone in such union as "I".
The problem I have is that three people are divisible. A person is distinct and can be isolated from the group, even if this person is dependent on the other. A person, in a more modern sense, has an established sense of self. Each person in the world has thier own autonomy, and are aware of thier difference from the rest of humanity.
In my belief, God has one nature. God has one will. God is one. He cannot be divided or seperated in anyway. God is one person. He has one thought and one mind. He is one, so much so, that when He speaks, He says, "I." God does not say, "We."
Lastly, whether God is three persons or not, God has chosen to reveal Himself to us through one person named Jesus Christ.
Jesus said the only way to the Father is through me. More or less, Jesus is saying that the only way to God is through me.
If we want to know God, we must turn to Jesus. If we wish to be saved, we must turn to Jesus. If we want anything, it must be through Jesus.
This makes the trinity problematic in my mind. If there is three, then the other two have lost thier godliness to Jesus. For Jesus has made it clear that He is our judge, our redeemer, our life, our King, our Lord, our savior, our master, our everything.
I am trying to understand and accept this possibility of the trinity. However, it has yet to make any sense to me.
Thanks,
Blake
_________________
Blake Kidney
|
| | 2005/11/4 9:54 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Hi Beenblake,
Quote:
The word you are describing held many meanings depending on the usage (like many words do). It is not a word so specific to be used in the plural in every sense.
It doesn't have to be. We are not trying to establish the word as being used in the plural sense every time, as it is used in [u]many[/u] different ways. What is suggested in this argument is that if God wanted to reveal Himself as absolute 'one' or one in solitary he had used yachiyd and not echad'. The Rabbi's were privy to this problem and altered the Shema in certain Jewish bibles. Maimonides (Rambam) in the 12th century switched the word from echad to yachiyd in the Shema in response to the Christian view of God as a Trinity. This is similar to the argument that Elohiym also denotes God's plurality of majesty and not the plurality of His persons. They are long standing argumets and positions held between the Church and the Jews. They have their positions and we have ours.
The word echad can mean "one" numerically [u]and[/u] it can also mean a plural unity. In the case of the passage below there are both meanings in the passage:
So the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; then He took [u]one (echad)[/u] of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this cause shall a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become [u]one (echad')[/u] flesh.
Quote:
If it was that case, then we would run into a huge problem.
When we use the plural one, we are speaking of a collective or grouping. For instance, I would say "one" nation. When I say this, I am isolating a group. However, when we do use "one" in such a way, we do not refer to that group with the pronoun, "I." For instance, I wouldn't say, "I am one nation." We would say, "We are one nation." The same applies to a husband and wife. Pronouns such as "they" and "we" are used to describe them when together.
This is because as a nation we do not all possess a collective 'what'. We are individuals and make up a plural unity. Remember, we are not trying to divide God into three gods and then unify them, we are attampting to demonstrate that there are three who's and one what; and that 'what' is an indivisible substance that is eternally unified.
The Shema cannot stand alone in the defense of Trinitarian doctrine. It is one of many points that can be made to butress the New Testament teaching.
In summary, God did not reveal Himself as a solitary one, but as a plural one. You may not be able to prove the Trinity from the Shema; but it has to be pointed out that God chose to reveal Himself using a word (echad') that in its first occurances in scripture and later on meant a 'plural unity'. It is used some 900+ times in the Old Testament. He also used elohyim which is also plural.
Hope that helps.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/11/4 11:05 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
In my belief, God has one nature. God has one will. God is one. He cannot be divided or seperated in anyway. God is one person. He has one thought and one mind. He is one, so much so, that when He speaks, He says, "I." [u]God does not say, "We."[/u]
Does God ever refer to Himself using plural pronouns?
"Then God [plural elohim] said, "Let [u]Us[/u] [plural pronoun] make man in [u]Our[/u] [plural pronoun] image, according to [u]Our[/u] [plural pronoun] likeness" (Genesis 1:26)
"Then God [plural elohim] said, "Behold, the man has become like one of [u]Us[/u] [plural pronoun], knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22)
"Come, let [u]Us[/u] [plural pronoun] go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one anothers speech." (Genesis 11:7)
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord [plural elohim], saying, "Whom shall [u]I[/u] [singular pronoun] send, and who will go for [u]Us[/u] [plural pronoun]?"" (Isaiah 6:8)
Who is the [u]Us[/u] and the [u]Our[/u] in these passages?
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/11/4 11:19 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Hi Beenblake,
Quote:
I am trying to understand and accept this possibility of the trinity. However, it has yet to make any sense to me.
To help you along here I wondered if you could tell us if you believe in the Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit? or maybe give us your current view of God to help understand where you are coming from.
Thanks!
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/11/4 11:45 | Profile |
|
