ReverendRV
Well-known member
Why cannot Deuteronomy 6:4 be translated "Hear O Israel, our LORD, our Plural God; is One LORD"?
❓Deuteronomy 6:4
- Thread starter ReverendRV
- Start date
Because it has made no grammatical sense to do as you suggest since the Greeks, who translated [elohim with a singular verb] as singular theos.
Theos is closely aligned with the English word god / God (depending on context).
Even if the singular verb is implied (in the Hebrew) in Deut 6:4, it is singular by analogy with other usages of Elohim.
Theos is closely aligned with the English word god / God (depending on context).
Even if the singular verb is implied (in the Hebrew) in Deut 6:4, it is singular by analogy with other usages of Elohim.
Last edited:
ReverendRV
Well-known member
Someone told me the use of the words Yahweh and Elohim are a Hebrew Parallelism, they are meant to pronounce we are to Worship God Alone; and they said the Verse is not meant to be an Ontological Statement. Is this correct?
Last edited:
Of equal significance to Deut 6:4 are the numerous verses stating simply "I [singular] am God [Elohim - Plural]" Ps 46:10.
There can be no doubt that these all teach that God is to be treated as one, and not more than one.
But one person? No: rather "one God." This is a major problem in Trinitarianism: God is "God," and not "a person." If God is "God," how can God be anything other than "God?"
ReverendRV
Well-known member
I am currently in the position of acknowledging the Verse is first not meant to be an Ontological statement, but its Plural God meaning is not ruled out as having some significance. Moses didn't have to use the word Elohim; he could have left it out. The person who told me the Verse is not Ontological, also told me that the Plural God meaning is not dismissed from significance...
Last edited:
I would read the significance only as ruling out any other God.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
“I” is one “someone,” one “individual,” one “person” ( if you like). So the plural ( more than one) “someones” or plural “individuals” are indeed ruled out. Just as when you say “ I am ReverendRV” you are ruling out that you are more than one person/individual, etc.
Enough of this Trinitarian nonsense, it is simply not biblical.
Enough of this Trinitarian nonsense, it is simply not biblical.
Judaism 101: The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other. (The Nature of G-d)
The Nature of G-d - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)
Discusses fundamental Jewish beliefs about the nature of G-d and His relationship with the universe and with humanity.
www.jewfaq.org
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Can someone explain to me how “I” can mean more than one “person”?
It's why Trinitarianism and Sabellianism are different sides of the same coin.
Because the proper recipient of prayer applies to more than the Father.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Not true, but beyond that your statement does not address my question.
It does address your question.
1. "Only God" is the proper recipient of prayer (1 Kings 8:38-39).
2. The Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 1:24-25).
3. Therefore, the Lord Jesus is God.
Thus, the proper recipient of prayer applies to more than the Father.
Which proves Jesus is God.
Acts 1:24-25
(24) And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
(25) to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
When the appellation "Lord" appears without reading "Lord Jesus" in Acts 1:24 it is important to keep in mind that whenever the following key words from this prayer are found elsewhere in Scripture in association with the "Lord," the Lord always refers to the Lord Jesus.
The passages in boldface are from the same author (Luke).
1. The "Lord" occurs along with the same Greek word for "show" (anadeiknymi) in Acts 1:24 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Luke 10:1).
2. The "Lord" occurs along with the same Greek word for "chosen" (eklegomai) in Acts 1:24 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:2; cf. v. 6; Luke 6:13; cf. vv. 5, 46; John 6:70; cf. v. 68 and John 13:18; cf. vv. 13-14).
3. The "Lord" occurs along with the same Greek word for "ministry" (diakonia) in Acts 1:25 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:17; cf. v. 21; 20:24; 1 Corinthians 12:5; Ephesians 4:12; cf. Ephesians 4:5; Colossians 4:17; 1 Timothy 1:12).
4. The "Lord" occurs along the same Greek word for "apostleship" (apostolē) in Acts 1:25 - in reference to the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:5; cf. Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 9:2).
Due to the unitary nature of God (Deut 6:4 etc), and the Qere perpetuum which substitutes Adonai (Lord) for YHWH (which is seen many times in the gospels e.g. Matt 2:19 where "Lord" must refer to the Father as Jesus was then a baby) and to verses such as 2 Peter 3:8 which quotes from Ps 90:8, and where "Lord" is ambivalent as between YHWH (Ps 90:13) and El (Ps 90:2), it is perverse to suggest that the Father of Jesus is excluded by the address "Lord". Rather, it is because Jesus is united with his Father that he is able to hear and respond to prayer addressed to God. "Lord" is an appropropriate form of address to God. Jesus did not hear, accept or respond to prayers whilst he was on earth.
Strawman.
In fact, I previously asserted otherwise.
- The fear of the Lord (YHWH) = The fear of the Lord (Jesus)
I don't need to offer excuses. You claimed Mounce is a Trinitarian bigot, but even John Schoenheit (a Unitarian) affirms the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer in 2 Corinthians 12:8.
forums.carm.org
The evidence in Acts 1:24-25 demonstrates the "Lord" to whom they addressed was the Lord Jesus.
Fed up with this sophistry. God is the proper addressee of prayer, in the OT as in the NT, as affirmed by Jesus in many places. Jesus receives prayer because he, the Word of God (Rev 19:13), is re-united with God. End of. Whether God is called "Lord" or "Father" or "God" isn't material, except that the injunction is to use the term "Father" (Lord's prayer).
Which means your position rots.
Agree.
And yet you haven't refuted the evidence that I gave in post 15 that the Lord Jesus was being prayed to in Acts 1:24-25. He is the addressee of this prayer.
You haven't refuted it, because you can't refute it.
Thanks
I did. I showed you clearly that unqualified "Lord" refers to YHWH, to the God of the Old Testament, many times in the gospels and in other places. Moreover there are approximately 220 verses in the OT connecting YHWH with knowing the heart etc. Unqualified Lord thus has the same connotation as unqualified theos, except that it is more personal.
Qualified Lord in the NT, i.e. "Lord of an individual man / men in general" does however refer to Jesus, because "Christ is the head of man" 1 Cor 11:3. Perhaps in this day and age, "The Lord" (title) would also connote the Lord Jesus. But in the bible, and amongst the Jews, and certainly during Jesus's human life, it is clear that "Lord" was not specific to Jesus.
Also, deference to the "Lord Jesus" must of necessity be in consideration of his being united with God, his Father, in heaven.