Thinking about what the Hebrew has to say about God in Genesis 1:1. #bible #deconstruction #evangelical #theology #apologetics #conservative #progressive #religion #history
Love this video! A key thing that I’m starting to understand: it’s not that Biblical scholars can’t/don’t believe doctrine that isn’t fully supported in the Bible, but rather they understand and admit that those doctrines aren’t fully supported in the Bible. That’s a freeing notion. I would be interested to hear how you handle this dynamic of facts vs faith in your own life, similar to how Pete Enns has shared in his books!
Dr Higashi, could it be that Elohim was seen by some as a collective noun? Is Hebrew consistent in using a singular (or a plural) verb with “collective” nouns?
@@scienceexplains302 Collective nouns are generally singular in form, not plural. The Hebrew words for people, nation, family, land, and men are all routinely singular when expressing a collective sense.
To make it simple let's just go with it's original meaning El is the father Eloah are one of the gods of El's children/council and the Elohim are multiple members of El's children/council. In Mesopotamian stories Anu is the father ki is the mother Aunna is one of the group Anunnaki could mean multiple or say that one of them is Anunnaki.
No. And I hear many evangelicals use passage and I don’t think it’s good for several reasons, if we were to take this translation as referring to the Trinity it would be referring to polytheism not trinitarianism, which would lead to heresy.
@ Because I low-key miss being used in the plural, and when Elohim is being used it usually refers to more than one spiritual being. Now it’s entirely possible it doesn’t have to but in almost every case it does. Im a trinitarian through and through for the record.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I am confused as to how you are trinitarian when it seems you are making the argument that the words used in the Bible to describe God describe more than one spiritual being
@ I’m talking specifically about Genesis 1:26-27, I think Michael S Heiser puts it pretty well. I do believe there’s many other places in the Bible where you can find Trinity for passages like this and Psalm 82 are not good passages to defend the Trinty.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 So when God says let US make man in OUR image. I know I am referencing the english translation but why the plurality? What's the purpose of that?
It fascinates me that language being translated from one word to another can be drastically different depending on the culture it comes from. Some words just cannot or do not have a sufficient translation from what I understand. Also, I have learned that Elohim can mean multiple things: like gods, judges, angels, demons, etc. is this true? And if yes, how would you identify the difference?
The original poster might not be pleased to discover why Elohim is likely a concretized plural. It likely has something to do with that 72-god pantheon.
Or its just an -im suffix coming from a different word from another language or from a different time. Like the Hebrew word for Jerusalem also sounds like a plural when there is no linguistic reason for it. Its like how there are words in English that end with "s", without being plurals.
Here is what I know: I have an arm. I also have a head. The arm is subservient to the head, but both are part of me. Similarly, Jesus is described repeatedly in Isaiah as the Arm of the Lord. And we know from 1 Corinthians that God is the head of Christ. So I can only offer that God, as a being way beyond our dimensional understanding, has parts that comprise one God. And some of those parts (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) are necessarily subordinate to others (the Father). I am as an ant trying to comprehend a towering human being before me!
@@jalontf2 The servant is explicitly identified as both the individual prophet (42:1) and Israel as a whole (44:1) and likely represents an idealized remnant of righteous people following Babylonian captivity (49:1-7). The servant is never identified as Jesus. If anything, Isaiah explicitly identifies the messiah as Cyrus of Persia (45:1)
@@jalontf2 No. It isn’t. What a later author writes about a passage does not change what a passage says. Christians saying “Jesus is in Isaiah” doesn’t mean Isaiah actually describes Jesus anywhere. It’s just a later, theological reinterpretation of a text, not the text itself.
But it is both in the Old as well as the New Testament, my dear friend. What do I do with the theophany of baptism? What do I do with the savior of Israel in the Old testament whom YHWH makes Him equal to Himself?
@@abhbible So we just read one basis of theology into the Bible? Additionally, the Ancient of Days title has been given to the Son, and it's a title unique to God, and that's just one example of many. Also, the Old Testament mentions that the Spirit creates, and who is THE creator but God? And why even into such depth? Simply, John 1:1 The Word was with God and the Word was God.
@@mickymusik3377 Giving divine titles to someone doesn’t make them divine. Even if it did, merely being divine is insufficient for the Trinity. You don’t seem to understand how specific the doctrine of the Trinity is. It’s not “there’s three divine things.”
@@abhbible Last time I checked my doctrine, the Trinity is one divine being who is 3 persons, not three divine things. Kindly, do not assume things about me. You have my argument. Feel free to argue against it, but I see no argument of yours. Of course, merely being divine is insufficient for "being Trinity". I mean, the angels can be said to be divine, yes? But then we see no angel referred to as Ancient of Days, or sitting on the right hand of the LORD, do we?
@@mickymusik3377 You don’t have an argument at all. Does God conferring a title on someone make them co-eternal and consubstantial? No. So there’s no argument.
To claim the trinity isnt in the old testament is partially understandable. You have to look really close to a handful of passages. To say its nowhere in the New testament is just plain lying.
Well I don’t know if I would say lying but I think to deny that the Trinity is at least in the New Testament is incredibly problematic, it leads to adopting views like Unitarianism which is just mostly goalpost moving and circular reasoning.
@@abhbible well I actually agree with your point to a certain extent. That the Trinity it’s self is not in the Bible,The Trinity like other theological doctrine this is a concept that is supposed to reflect what is taught in the Bible. It was developed to better understand the Godhead and to reflect a more accurate picture of the godhead. So I would agree that the trinity is in the terminologies is not in the Bible but I would argue that what it is supposed to reflect can be found in the Bible. I also agree the trinity is not based on any single passage and people trying to use passages like Genesis 1:1 to preclude that the Trinity is time in the Bible or simply just ignorant and missguided, the Trinty is not based on a single passage. But I would say the same thing about pretty much all biblical doctrine. But I can also see where you’re coming from a more higher critical biblical standpoint.
So… I’m a bit confused about the statement that the doctrine of the trinity isn’t present in scripture. If Jesus claimed to be G-d, as He did (and His apostles did as well), and we know that G-d in heaven is frequently referred to as the father in both the old and new testament, and the Ruah haKodesh from the OT and the corresponding Holy Spirit or Spirt of G-d in the NT, where does the claim come from? Do you reject those examples?
Jesus never claims to be God. The gospel of John might claim it via Thomas in John 20:24-29 and Paul might claim it on a few occasions, but the words are never put in Jesus' mouth. Regardless, "being God" is insufficient for the Trinity, which identifies are very specific relationship between its three divine persons. There are many ways to "be God" that were deemed heretical over the centuries. The New Testament has even less to say about the specific relation between God and the Holy Spirit, which is always nebulous at best.
Had you actually spoken Hebrew, you would have known that the word Elohim is not G_d's name per se. The singular form of it is El אל which means 'MIGHT'. The word Elohim אלוהים, is the plural version as in 'MANY MIGHTS' or 'ALL MIGHTS' to say that HE is the ALMIGHTY. Has nothing to do with trinity. Perhaps you should take the time to study the holy language, rather than waste it on misleading people!
![The Trinity Explained PERFECTLY - No Analogies REQUIRED! [MUST WATCH] | @shamounian](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LgKI5pu9s7M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Bro you're amazing at this. Reminds me of Dr. Dan McClellan.
Why compare?
Aaron is amazing in his own way. 🙏
He was on the Data over Dogma podcast WITH Dan in the early episodes. Both are great!
Love this video! A key thing that I’m starting to understand: it’s not that Biblical scholars can’t/don’t believe doctrine that isn’t fully supported in the Bible, but rather they understand and admit that those doctrines aren’t fully supported in the Bible. That’s a freeing notion. I would be interested to hear how you handle this dynamic of facts vs faith in your own life, similar to how Pete Enns has shared in his books!
Phenomenal video.
Dr Higashi, could it be that Elohim was seen by some as a collective noun? Is Hebrew consistent in using a singular (or a plural) verb with “collective” nouns?
@@scienceexplains302 Collective nouns are generally singular in form, not plural. The Hebrew words for people, nation, family, land, and men are all routinely singular when expressing a collective sense.
@ thank you
What's even worse is that pluralizing "god" would violate the Athanasian Creed.
To make it simple let's just go with it's original meaning El is the father Eloah are one of the gods of El's children/council and the Elohim are multiple members of El's children/council. In Mesopotamian stories Anu is the father ki is the mother Aunna is one of the group Anunnaki could mean multiple or say that one of them is Anunnaki.
Thanks!
Awesome breakdown! You deserve more subscribers!! 🫶
No. And I hear many evangelicals use passage and I don’t think it’s good for several reasons, if we were to take this translation as referring to the Trinity it would be referring to polytheism not trinitarianism, which would lead to heresy.
Why would it point to polytheism instead of trinitarianism.
@ Because I low-key miss being used in the plural, and when Elohim is being used it usually refers to more than one spiritual being. Now it’s entirely possible it doesn’t have to but in almost every case it does. Im a trinitarian through and through for the record.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I am confused as to how you are trinitarian when it seems you are making the argument that the words used in the Bible to describe God describe more than one spiritual being
@ I’m talking specifically about Genesis 1:26-27, I think Michael S Heiser puts it pretty well. I do believe there’s many other places in the Bible where you can find Trinity for passages like this and Psalm 82 are not good passages to defend the Trinty.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 So when God says let US make man in OUR image. I know I am referencing the english translation but why the plurality? What's the purpose of that?
It fascinates me that language being translated from one word to another can be drastically different depending on the culture it comes from. Some words just cannot or do not have a sufficient translation from what I understand.
Also, I have learned that Elohim can mean multiple things: like gods, judges, angels, demons, etc. is this true? And if yes, how would you identify the difference?
@@Grauenwolf wow that’s new info to me.
The original poster might not be pleased to discover why Elohim is likely a concretized plural. It likely has something to do with that 72-god pantheon.
Or its just an -im suffix coming from a different word from another language or from a different time.
Like the Hebrew word for Jerusalem also sounds like a plural when there is no linguistic reason for it.
Its like how there are words in English that end with "s", without being plurals.
It's not in any of the Bible
Nothing screams: "I don't understand Biblical Hebrew or its surrounding context" quite like this stupid argument I see waaaaaaay too much on X.
Quick answer no
Longer answer also no
Here is what I know: I have an arm. I also have a head. The arm is subservient to the head, but both are part of me.
Similarly, Jesus is described repeatedly in Isaiah as the Arm of the Lord. And we know from 1 Corinthians that God is the head of Christ.
So I can only offer that God, as a being way beyond our dimensional understanding, has parts that comprise one God. And some of those parts (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) are necessarily subordinate to others (the Father).
I am as an ant trying to comprehend a towering human being before me!
@@jalontf2 Jesus is never described in Isaiah at all.
Who is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?
@@jalontf2 The servant is explicitly identified as both the individual prophet (42:1) and Israel as a whole (44:1) and likely represents an idealized remnant of righteous people following Babylonian captivity (49:1-7).
The servant is never identified as Jesus. If anything, Isaiah explicitly identifies the messiah as Cyrus of Persia (45:1)
That isn't what Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 when he was reading Isaiah 53.
@@jalontf2 No. It isn’t. What a later author writes about a passage does not change what a passage says. Christians saying “Jesus is in Isaiah” doesn’t mean Isaiah actually describes Jesus anywhere. It’s just a later, theological reinterpretation of a text, not the text itself.
But it is both in the Old as well as the New Testament, my dear friend.
What do I do with the theophany of baptism?
What do I do with the savior of Israel in the Old testament whom YHWH makes Him equal to Himself?
@@mickymusik3377 Neither of these stories describe three co-eternal, consubstantial divine persons, so no, it’s not the Trinity.
@@abhbible So we just read one basis of theology into the Bible?
Additionally, the Ancient of Days title has been given to the Son, and it's a title unique to God, and that's just one example of many. Also, the Old Testament mentions that the Spirit creates, and who is THE creator but God?
And why even into such depth? Simply, John 1:1 The Word was with God and the Word was God.
@@mickymusik3377 Giving divine titles to someone doesn’t make them divine. Even if it did, merely being divine is insufficient for the Trinity. You don’t seem to understand how specific the doctrine of the Trinity is. It’s not “there’s three divine things.”
@@abhbible Last time I checked my doctrine, the Trinity is one divine being who is 3 persons, not three divine things. Kindly, do not assume things about me. You have my argument. Feel free to argue against it, but I see no argument of yours.
Of course, merely being divine is insufficient for "being Trinity". I mean, the angels can be said to be divine, yes? But then we see no angel referred to as Ancient of Days, or sitting on the right hand of the LORD, do we?
@@mickymusik3377 You don’t have an argument at all. Does God conferring a title on someone make them co-eternal and consubstantial? No. So there’s no argument.
To claim the trinity isnt in the old testament is partially understandable. You have to look really close to a handful of passages.
To say its nowhere in the New testament is just plain lying.
I'm sorry the truth is difficult.
Well I don’t know if I would say lying but I think to deny that the Trinity is at least in the New Testament is incredibly problematic, it leads to adopting views like Unitarianism which is just mostly goalpost moving and circular reasoning.
@ Most doctrine isn’t in the Bible.
@@abhbible well I actually agree with your point to a certain extent. That the Trinity it’s self is not in the Bible,The Trinity like other theological doctrine this is a concept that is supposed to reflect what is taught in the Bible. It was developed to better understand the Godhead and to reflect a more accurate picture of the godhead. So I would agree that the trinity is in the terminologies is not in the Bible but I would argue that what it is supposed to reflect can be found in the Bible. I also agree the trinity is not based on any single passage and people trying to use passages like Genesis 1:1 to preclude that the Trinity is time in the Bible or simply just ignorant and missguided, the Trinty is not based on a single passage. But I would say the same thing about pretty much all biblical doctrine. But I can also see where you’re coming from a more higher critical biblical standpoint.
So… I’m a bit confused about the statement that the doctrine of the trinity isn’t present in scripture.
If Jesus claimed to be G-d, as He did (and His apostles did as well), and we know that G-d in heaven is frequently referred to as the father in both the old and new testament, and the Ruah haKodesh from the OT and the corresponding Holy Spirit or Spirt of G-d in the NT, where does the claim come from? Do you reject those examples?
Thank you, Grauenwolf. I was hoping for a reply from OP, though. Hope you have a wonderful day.
Jesus never claims to be God. The gospel of John might claim it via Thomas in John 20:24-29 and Paul might claim it on a few occasions, but the words are never put in Jesus' mouth.
Regardless, "being God" is insufficient for the Trinity, which identifies are very specific relationship between its three divine persons. There are many ways to "be God" that were deemed heretical over the centuries.
The New Testament has even less to say about the specific relation between God and the Holy Spirit, which is always nebulous at best.
Had you actually spoken Hebrew, you would have known that the word Elohim is not G_d's name per se. The singular form of it is El אל which means 'MIGHT'. The word Elohim אלוהים, is the plural version as in 'MANY MIGHTS' or 'ALL MIGHTS' to say that HE is the ALMIGHTY. Has nothing to do with trinity. Perhaps you should take the time to study the holy language, rather than waste it on misleading people!
@@romanfreiter7943 Who are you talking to?
@@abhbible Almost 100% to the person you are responding to. Or he is making a My Hero Academia reference.
@@abhbible אני מדבר אל זה שמציג את הווידאו. אין לך שמץ של מושג על מה אתה מדבר. הנתונים המוצגים, פשוט אינם נכונים בשפת הקודש.