But that is not the definition of 'numeric'. You aren't using the word correctly. That aside, you're also making a false claim regarding the Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew grammar, elohim is used with singular verbs and pronouns. When it does so, it refers to only one person (not two or more people).By numeric I mean what you wrote quoted here - Bible uses elohim with singular verbs and pronouns. When it does so, it refers to only one person (not two or more people)
To keep this post from being pages long, I'll list here a number of false statements you've made:
* 'Also note that what you stated does not follow so easily in Hebrew as the verb and predicates, adjectives etc, can vary between singular and plural': Quite apart from the fact that this sentence of yours doesn't actually make logical sense, what I said was that in Hebrew grammar elohim (and other nouns of the same type), is used with singular verbs and pronouns. When it does so, it refers to only one person (not two or more people). That is true. You are falsely saying it is wrong.
* 'Let's see, since America is a plural noun': The word 'America' is not a plural noun.
* 'According to you, this cannot be the case as Plural noun can only refer to one thing': I have never said any such thing. On the contrary, I have said that plural nouns in Hebrew refer to plural subjects, and singular nouns in Hebrew refer to singular subjects (just as in other languages).
* 'in any language we can use Plural Nouns in a singular case but its meaning still retains its plural meaning and function': That is completely untrue. In any language, when we use plural nouns we are referring to plural subjects. This sentence of yours doesn't even make logical sense, let alone being an accurate description of grammar. Even if you do use a plural noun 'in a singular case' (which is wrong grammar), if it does 'retain its plural meaning and function' then you are using it incorrectly.
* 'Egypt is a Plural': No, 'Egypt' is not a plural.
* 'Why use a Plural Elohim to denote just one person': No 'Plural Elohim' is ever used to denote 'just one person'. I have already explained this.
* 'Plurals refer to collectives': No, plural nouns refer to plural subjects. Typically a collective is referred to using a singular noun. Thus a collective of sheep (plural), is called 'a [singular] herd [singular]'. A collective of sheep is not called 'some herds'. It's the same in Hebrew, as in other languages.
* 'But if I say, 'America was at was with Japan during 1942' in Classical Hebrew, then accordingly to your definition this would mean only one person named America fought against some other person named Japan': No it wouldn't. I haven't said any such thing.
* 'Remember what a Plural Noun is — A collective, either, describing one person, place or thing, belonging to some collective identity or used to identify a collective entity as a group': That is not what a plural noun is. A plural noun does not refer to 'one person, place or thing, belonging to some collective identity'. It refers to more than one person, place or thing. This is Grammar 101. Likewise, a plural noun is not used 'to identify a collective entity as a group'. Collectives are referred to using singular nouns.
* 'This is a confusing grammar construct and more confusing when the Word EL could have been used': It is not 'a confusing grammar construct', it's standard Hebrew grammar which applies to a list of other nouns of the same type as 'elohim'.
* 'If God were just only a numeric intense majestic alone one as you contend': I have never said any such thing.
* 'There is no need for the plural used in reference to the one true God over 2000 times in the Bible': The plural is not used in reference to the one true God. This is one of the fundamental flaws in your argument.
* 'Theological Word Book of the Old Testament states that Elohim is the plural form of Eloah and EL — section 93': I actually own TWOT', and that is not what it says. Here is what it says:
(’ĕlōah). God, god (ASV, RSV similar). The exact relationship between this name for God in Scripture and ’ēl or ’elōhîm is disputed and far from settled.
ASV American Standard Version of the Bible
RSV Revised Standard Version of the Bible
Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (043). Chicago: Moody Press.
So what it says is:(’ĕlōhîm). God, gods, judges, angels. (Generally, agreement is found in ASV and RSV, however in some passages where the meaning is not clear they differ from KJV: Ex 31:6, where RSV has “God” but KJV “the judges”; similarly in Ex 22:28 [H 27] where RSV has “God” but KJV “the gods” or as a margin “judges.”) This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of ’ĕlōah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either ’ēl or ’ĕlōah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun ’ĕlōhîm is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.
ASV American Standard Version of the Bible
RSV Revised Standard Version of the Bible
KJV King James Version of the Bible
Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (044). Chicago: Moody Press.
* The word 'elohim' is generally viewed as the plural of 'eloah' (not 'el'), but the relationship between these words is 'disputed and far from settled'
* When used of God, the word 'elohim' is not intended as a true plural (as I have said)
* The singular use of 'elohim' is identified by the 'singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular' (as I have said)
If you're going to quote or cite reference works, please do so accurately.
Now on to specific details of your post.
You spent a lot of time speaking inaccurately about nouns with a single morphology for plural and singular subjects. For example:
Leaving aside the logical incoherence and grammatical errors, this is factually wrong. But in the end you said 'There is only-one morphology for the Plural noun and the singular and plural referents serve to identify this', which (if I understand you correctly), is true. Certain nouns have only one morphology for plural and singular use, and it is the singular or plural verbs (not 'referents'), which serve to identify this. This single sentence of yours contradicted all you had previously said about plural nouns. I suggest you make up your mind about what you believe regarding plural nouns, and stick with it.The verbs, predicates, adverbs, adjectives, etc only identify a plural noun how it is identified with a group either alone or with others. The group is still there — in the meaning of the word!
There is no 'plural of delegation' here. One single judge can be referred to as 'elohim' using the singular sense of the word, identified by singular verbs. The word 'elohim' is not used of judges 'since it recognizes that two or more are needed to decide legal matters'. You are still under the misapprehension that 'elohim' is only a plural noun.Human elohim — human judges, angelic beings — denotes a plural of delegation since it recognizes that two or more are needed to decide legal matters — Is it by the testimony of one or two or three witnesses shall a matter be established?
I already told you what the word 'ha' is that is 'attached to Elohim'. I told you that it is the Hebrew definite article 'ha'. Perhaps you don't know what a definite article is. It's the Hebrew equivalent of the word 'the'. So you are completely incorrect here. You said this was one of the spellings of 'elohim'. You also claimed there were more. But there is only one spelling of 'elohim', and it is 'elohim' (unsurprisingly). You were not 'using the word how it is actually spelled'. You were quoting the word 'elohim' with the definite article in front of it. You were quoting two words, not one. But because of your ignorance of Hebrew, you thought you were quoting another spelling form of 'elohim'.What does the word ha that is attached to Elohim mean? I am not incorrect here — only using the word how it is actually spelled - האלהים
The Purpose was to demonstrate how Elohim is spelled for a future post when we get there.
No it doesn't. The Hebrew words simply means 'old age' and 'youth'. They have nothing to do with 'one out of a group' or 'those associated by common age'.Old age and youth refers to those associated by common age — one out of a group!
This is completely untrue, and demonstrates an ignorance of plural nouns. When I say 'the sheep is white', I am referring to one sheep, not an entire species. The singluar form of the verb ('is', not 'are'), is what identifies the usage as singular rather than plural.Wrong — no matter the usage, when you say 'the sheep is white' or t'he fish is blue' - a sheep and a fish are a species — there are a lot of blue fish in the sea. What the Plural does in cases like this is simple; it picks one out from amongst all the many blue fish and white sheep one of its kind. The word still retains its plural function — like it or not it does.
This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Firstly there is no 'majestic plural noun', only the majestic plural usage of nouns. Secondly, you had claimed that the majestic plural came 'much later in history as a response devised to counter Trinitarian view of God'. That is completely untrue, as I have pointed out. Thirdly, when I said that the plural of majesty was a later grammatical development in Hebrew, I was correct - and I pointed out that although later it was hundreds of years before the time you claimed. We don't expect to find it in older books like Genesis, since they were originally written in proto-Hebrew, or palaeo-Hebrew.So you admit that the Majestic Plural Noun came later! When you stated —“The plural of majesty was simply a later grammatical development in Hebrew?” So you admit that latter Hebrew came up with the Majestic Plural, yet is not later Hebrew grammar/ syntax far different than modern, medieval, and Rabbinic Hebrew?
I have never argued that Genesis contains the majestic plural. Ironically, you have argued that Genesis contains the majestic plural. So on the one hand you claim it was used in Genesis, and on the other hand you claim it was invented later. Again, you need to make up your mind which argument you're going to go with, and stay with it.
Finally, yes there are differences between various different forms of Hebrew (though not all of the categories you list actually exist), but that's irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing the Hebrew used in the Old Testament, which precedes all forms of Hebrew subsequent to the Christian era.
Yes I can, because none of those fit here.Are you so sure you can really say Ezra 4:18 contains a Plural of Majesty rather than any of the common nuances of Plural were used such as a plural collective noun, a quantitative plural noun, a plural of delegation, a plural of distribution, and the many other plural forms?.
Given that this text is the first recorded instance of the majestic plural in early Hebrew, this isn't surprising. But if you are going to argue that it's not a plural of majesty, and at the same time you are going to argue that the king isn't using the 'us' to speak on behalf of his people, then what is left? It has to be one or the other (and it doesn't affect my argument whichever way it is, since I am not appealing to the plural of majesty in my arguments - you are).Also, the usage you site is in fact irrelevant as it proves nothing as the King was read a letter and was not speaking on behalf of his people as 'us' or 'we' which in itself 'is' not the proper of the usage of a Pluralis majestatis. The 'us' mentioned comes before the letter was read and denotes a collection of people in the room with the king and afterward in verse 19 the king is not speaking on behalf of the people but rather for himself denoted by the usage of I. If true majestic plural - the word 'us' or 'we' should replace I.
These statements do not contradict each other. In the first instance I am speaking of the usage of the word elohim with singular verbs and pronouns. In the second instance I am correcting your misunderstanding of the plural of majesty. These statements are talking about two completely different subjects, and do not contradict each other. My statement 'The singular verbs used when 'elohim' is used to describe God (as well as the singular pronouns), inform us that God is one person, not the 'majestic plural” is completely accurate.You just said this earlier: “Bible uses elohim with singular verbs and pronouns. When it does so, it refers to only one person (not two or more people)”
This a contradiction to your own statement: “No that was not the use of the majestic plural - [RE: numeric oneness] The use of the majestic plural is to emphasis the majesty of God (hence 'majestic plural').”
Then you stated, “The singular verbs used when 'elohim' is used to describe God (as well as the singular pronouns), inform us that God is one person, not the 'majestic plural”
No that is not the very first sentence in the Bible. You have wrongly translated 'elohim' as 'gods'. That is a completely inaccurate translation. The word 'elohim' here is singular, as identified by the singular verb. There is no 'confusing usage of grammar' here.In the beginning [Elohim] Gods created heaven and earth — this is the very first sentence in the bible. Should it not instead read - In the beginning [El] God created heaven and earth? Wow — such confusing usage of grammar when another would have easily backed your claims.