Who is Jesus?

[Justice]

I am not aware of any reputable translation that renders Genesis 1:1 as "the "gods" created the heaven and the earth"?

How about the KJV?

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image...

By being plural, you either believe God is something undescribable, 3-in1, or that there was more than One being one in purpose.

All you have to do is interpret "one" to mean of will, as clearly described in John 17.

[volgadon]

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, consider there to have been more than one being involved in the creation of this earth. The Hebrew (I just got done looking this up for a church lesson) "elohim," as used in the original Hebrew Genesis 1:1, refers to the plural of "el" or "ayil" or singular God. In other words, in Genisis 1:1 the words should read the "gods" created the heaven and the earth."

Elohim is the plural of "elohah" divine being or divinity. It can be used as gods or as the title of a certain divinity, so a good way to tell is to check the verb. In Genesis 1:1 it is singular. Bara, not bareu.

[bytebear]

Hello jdf135

What is your understanding of Isaiah 43:10?

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,

“and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

and 44:6-8 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them. Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.’”

I am not aware of any reputable translation that renders Genesis 1:1 as "the "gods" created the heaven and the earth"?

Thanks

The speaker is obviously Jesus Christ, and not the Father (the "first and last" give it away - Alpha and Omega). So, as a redeemer, savior Jesus is unique and regardless of how many other "beings" are also God (i.e. the Father and the Holy Ghost) it is Jesus and only Jesus who is the savior. So, replace "god" with "savior" and you will see that it fits LDS theology perfectly.

“You are my witnesses,” declares [Jesus Christ], “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no [savior] was formed, nor will there be one after me.

and 44:6-8 “ Thus says [Jesus Christ], the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no [savior]. And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them. Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it You are My witnesses. Is there [savior] besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.’”

Edited October 4, 2011 by bytebear

[Vort]

Elohim is the plural of "elohah" divine being or divinity. It can be used as gods or as the title of a certain divinity, so a good way to tell is to check the verb. In Genesis 1:1 it is singular. Bara, not bareu.

I suppose the logical question would then be: Was this verb changed to "sanitize" the document into agreement with a monotheistic position? It's not as if we have an "original" to compare against. Seeing how many today take such delight in clubbing Mormons over the head with false allegations of "polytheism", I hardly think such tactics would not have been around 2000 or even 4000 years ago.

[volgadon]

I suppose the logical question would then be: Was this verb changed to "sanitize" the document into agreement with a monotheistic position? It's not as if we have an "original" to compare against. Seeing how many today take such delight in clubbing Mormons over the head with false allegations of "polytheism", I hardly think such tactics would not have been around 2000 or even 4000 years ago.

If it were sanitised, then why not change the incriminating "Elohim" to the singular?

[Vort]

If it were sanitised, then why not change the incriminating "Elohim" to the singular?

Don't know. Perhaps it was too well-known to change, or perhaps the tradition had already arisen to use it as a singular? The point is, we are so far removed from any "original" sources that we are pretty much dependent on revelation to tell us the important truths.

[volgadon]

Don't know. Perhaps it was too well-known to change, or perhaps the tradition had already arisen to use it as a singular? The point is, we are so far removed from any "original" sources that we are pretty much dependent on revelation to tell us the important truths.

If you are going to suggest that a text was doctored then you ought to be prepared to answer those questions. If it was too well known to change Elohim to a singular then why should we suppose that the verb wasn't? If the tradition had arisen to use the verb as singular then why isn't the verb written in the plural with tradition indicating that it be read in the singular?

[Vort]

If you are going to suggest that a text was doctored then you ought to be prepared to answer those questions. If it was too well known to change Elohim to a singular then why should we suppose that the verb wasn't? If the tradition had arisen to use the verb as singular then why isn't the verb written in the plural with tradition indicating that it be read in the singular?

You misunderstand me. I am not attempting a critical analysis. I am making a rather obvious observation: We do not and cannot know how "the original" read, so it is not out of the realm of speculation that the whole "plural subject/singular verb" construction was dreamed up well after the original revelation was recorded. Given that most scholars speculate the Genesis account was an oral tradition for a very long time before being written down, this is perhaps even more likely.

I do not read very much into the "Elohim as singular" construction. It may represent some profound eternal truth, or it may be an artifact of propagation. I am supposing the latter, but not as a point of critical analysis.

[volgadon]

You misunderstand me. I am not attempting a critical analysis. I am making a rather obvious observation: We do not and cannot know how "the original" read, so it is not out of the realm of speculation that the whole "plural subject/singular verb" construction was dreamed up well after the original revelation was recorded. Given that most scholars speculate the Genesis account was an oral tradition for a very long time before being written down, this is perhaps even more likely.

I do not read very much into the "Elohim as singular" construction. It may represent some profound eternal truth, or it may be an artifact of propagation. I am supposing the latter, but not as a point of critical analysis.

If we "do not and cannot know how "the original" read" then everything is fair game. Who is to say that Elohim was even in the original? This gets to the point of being utterly silly. We work with what we have. Let us, for the sake of convenience, call it the earliest recoverable text. If it was altered in Gen. 1:1 so as to hide that the text speaks of gods, then why not alter the most damning piece of evidence? Oral texts were often considered more reliable than written ones, so that by itself is no indication of accuracy.

There is a really simple explanation which doesn't require wild assumptions of textual tampering, which tend to be cop-outs unless clearly supported. The simplest explanation is that Elohim is singular, but this does not mean that the role of others is excluded! The ancient world wasn't too concerned with the artisans and workers. Solomon declares that he built the temple. We know that he didn't build it with his own two hands!

[Soninme]

If God exists everywhere, then He exists no where.

I don't understand what you mean.

God is a living Being, with body parts as mentioned in the scriptures: a face, hands, feet.

I believe these are anthropomorphisms or personifications that reveal God to us in ways we can understand. God is also said to have feathers and wings. (Ps 91:4) (Ps. 57:1)

Also John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me"....

If the Father has a physical body then how could He dwell within Jesus?

He is omnipresent because His presence is felt everywhere.

Yes , but the verses I quoted before says He really is everywhere present.

But, that does not mean He exists as the universe.

I didn't say that He did.

For God to exist for an eternity, then create man, would require a change. It is different that the eternity He existed prior to creating man. If you don't admit to seeing this then we really can't discuss much else. To exist alone (as 3) then to create a physical universe and man for the first time is a fundamental change.

Well I guess His scenery would be different but then, no, since He in fact created time and is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient, then He would see the end from the beginning (Is. 46:10). No matter what part of eternity we talk about He is the "I AM".

Okay I confess I don't understand all that I know :unsure:about eternity.

I just don't see how any of God's attributes would change because He created something.

Nothing can be added to God to make Him more majestic or knowlegable or more anything.

So, God can't have a beginning if He is eternal, but we can be eternal and have a beginning?

There has to be an uncause cause of all that is. An infinite regression of causes doesn't answer the question of sourse; it merely makes the effects more numerous.

The point being here is that there is no beginning to God. There never was a first and there never will be a last.

But God is the first and the last. Is. 44:6 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,

And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

‘ I am the First and I am the Last;

Besides Me there is no God.

Either you claim not to understand eternity, or God. Your view is that we can't understand God. Mine is that we can't understand eternity.

Is. 55:9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

So are My ways higher than your ways,

And My thoughts than your thoughts.

My friend you are right, I don't understand eternty either.

Thanks

[LeKook]

My problem, in Mormonism, if you believe Jesus is a God then that makes mormonism a polytheistic religion. Because you deny the trinity.

So maybe someone can clear that up for me.

-Tim

Hi Tim,

Sometimes you have to let things speak for themselves. The scriptures teach a trinity in the sense of purpose, not in the sense of three beings actually being one being. If that's supposed to be Monotheism, that's a problem, LOL! :) It's also a bit of a math problem and a multiple personality problem I think.

Instead of defining religion (polytheism, monotheism, deism, whatever) I ended up having to throw all those concepts out the window and let scripture speak for itself. Just saying, this has been my personal experience. When I did that, I found that God (Heavenly Father), and Jesus, his son, both clearly spoke for themselves and said who in fact they are, what type of being they are, and what their natures truly are.

All the labeling (taught to me by sincere people who basically were over-thinking everything) of concepts in scripture gave me a huge headache that lasted, oh, about 28 years. I'll call it Excedrin headache #10,819, LOL!!!

One day fairly recently I threw my figurative hands up in the air and decided to just let scripture do the talking. To my amazement I discovered it was all very clear. I committed my amazement to prayer and that came back clear, too.

All I'm suggesting is, suspend whatever inclination you might have to label things if you can. Just read the Book of Mormon and the Bible for what they are, as if you just came down to earth with the rain and have never read them before. The clarity you'll have will blow you away.

I found for myself that trying to label things as this or that or as being orthodox doctrine or not set me up for a monumental course of frustration and mental gymnastics, LOL!!! I was TIRED!!!

Anyway, nice to meet you! :)

-LeKook

[Justice]

Okay I confess I don't understand all that I know about eternity.

There has to be an uncause cause of all that is.

This second statement is only one of many possibilities, or only one of many ways to interpret the words of scripture. Many millions of Christians believe in the Bible but do not believe there "has to be" an ultimate beginning. Just as you say God has always existed, there was no beginning to Him, I say there was no beginning to His Kind.

So, "there has to be" isn't true at all. Only for you to understand it does there "have to be."

In fact, many of the early Church fathers taught that God is the Father of Spirits, including the fact that Christ is His literal Son.

It's very difficult to get anything specific from the Bible, as can be seen by all the many different beliefs that arise from it. The Bible teaches that Christ is the Son of God, while many read it and don't even believe that.

A careful reading of John 17 leads one away from a Trinity belief. Give it a try.

[Blackmarch]

If it were sanitised, then why not change the incriminating "Elohim" to the singular?

I think the reason we use "Elohim" is partly the same reason we use "Jesus" rather than Joshua or Yeshua.

Another may be that in old English, royalty sometimes was denoted witha plurality, or a plural aspect.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

I am not aware of any reputable translation that renders Genesis 1:1 as "the "gods" created the heaven and the earth"?

From Justice

Quote:

How about the KJV?

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image...

My answer would be that the three Persons of the Godhead did the creating and the One Being of God did it alone all by Himself.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,

And He who formed you from the womb:

“ I am the LORD, who makes all things,

Who stretches out the heavens all alone,

Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Thanks

[Vort]

My answer would be that the three Persons of the Godhead did the creating and the One Being of God did it alone all by Himself.

Not sure I understand. Granted you can invent some interpretation that accords the scripture with your belief -- so what? We do the same thing. So does every other Christian sect out there. Such proves nothing.

[Vort]

I think the reason we use "Elohim" is partly the same reason we use "Jesus" rather than Joshua or Yeshua.

Another may be that in old English, royalty sometimes was denoted witha plurality, or a plural aspect.

The Hebrew term "Elohim" was used many thousand years before Old English even existed. While it is possible that ancient Hebrew used a "royal plural", I have never heard of such a thing. English "royal plural" usage is derived from Norman French. I would be more inclined to consider ancient plurals as plurals and not as special-use singulars. Using a singular conjugation is an important evidence, of course.

[Justice]

My answer would be that the three Persons of the Godhead did the creating and the One

You asked for any evidence... I gave you some. You, of course, are free to interpret it any way you like, however, you must admit it is not the only way to interpret it.

[JohnnyRudick]

Elohim is the plural of "elohah" divine being or divinity. It can be used as gods or as the title of a certain divinity, so a good way to tell is to check the verb. In Genesis 1:1 it is singular. Bara, not bareu.

I will be the first and never the last to say I do not know much about this subject.

I only know what I read and have learned from discussions such as this and I try to retain as much as I can.

But I fall very short.

I have understood that our Old Testament taken from the Masoretic Text texts and not the old Greek texts. and the Masoretic Text has Gen.:1 as (bar'u). Elohim in verse 1 and had been translated as singular in all English Bibles because it behaves as a SINGULAR noun they say that Elohim is the subject of the verb bara' which is singular so that is the way we have it.

This is the text that Joseph Smith used in the King Follet Sermon where he gave new meaning to even the word "Bar'u.

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Roch—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

He combines this with Job and what God had told him and it becomes quite fascinating.

[volgadon]

I think the reason we use "Elohim" is partly the same reason we use "Jesus" rather than Joshua or Yeshua.

I'm afraid that I don't follow. Jesus is the Anglicised version of the Latin Iesus, taken from the Greek for Yeshua. Elohim, OTOH, is transliterated Hebrew appearing instead of the more usual English equivalent "god."

Another may be that in old English, royalty sometimes was denoted witha plurality, or a plural aspect.

You can scour the OT in vain for the royal pronoun. Pluraity was however used as a superlative, such as behemoth.

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

I am not aware of any reputable translation that renders Genesis 1:1 as "the "gods" created the heaven and the earth"?

How about the KJV?

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image...

You asked for any evidence... I gave you some. You, of course, are free to interpret it any way you like, however, you must admit it is not the only way to interpret it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

My answer would be that the three Persons of the Godhead did the creating and the One Being of God did it alone all by Himself. Is. 44:24

You asked for any evidence... I gave you some. You, of course, are free to interpret it any way you like, however, you must admit it is not the only way to interpret it.

Not sure I understand. Granted you can invent some interpretation that accords the scripture with your belief -- so what? We do the same thing. So does every other Christian sect out there. Such proves nothing.

I certainly agree there can be many interpretations of Elohim in Genesis 1:1 and elsewhere and for sure I am no part of a expert.

My thought though is whenever God speaks to us He uses a singular word to refer to Himself ( I, My, Me etc.) and when He speaks to the other Persons of the Godhead He uses a plural form (our, us, we). (Gen 1:26) (Is. 6:8)(John 17:11)

I don't see in the scriptures any writer referring to the Godhead as "they" or "them" or "the Gods" or any other plural form, only in the singular.

Mal. 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?

So, my opinion, one Father in number, one creator God in number. I understand others will see it differently.

Thanks

[volgadon]

Do you know what Abraham Avinu means?

[Soninme]

Do you know what Abraham Avinu means?

If you are asking me then I think it means "Abraham our father"

[volgadon]

If you are asking me then I think it means "Abraham our father"

Right. Called such by people at many removes from Abraham.

[Soninme]

Right. Called such by people at many removes from Abraham

Why do you ask?

Are you implying Abraham is the subjectt of Mal. 2:10?

[volgadon]

Why do you ask?

Are you implying Abraham is the subjectt of Mal. 2:10?

No, I am saying that the verse you quoted doesn't mean what you want it to mean.