a study in the understanding yhwh & elohim

[mee]

Some may argue that it does not really matter whether you address Almighty God by a personal name or not, and they are content to speak of and address God as Father or simply as God. Both these terms, however, are titles rather than names and are neither personal nor distinctive. In Bible times the word for God (’Elo·him´, Hebrew) was used to describe any god—even the pagan Philistine god named Dagon. (Judges 16:23, 24) So for a Hebrew to tell a Philistine that he, the Hebrew, worshiped "God" would not have identified the true God whom he worshiped.

[bananabrain]

i'm sure i've pointed out elsewhere that just because you refer to someone a multiple number of ways they are all different people. my mum is my mum, she is my father's wife, she is my son's grandma, she is her father's daughter, all of these people would talk to her differently, using different names. she's still one person, so all this talk of many names for G!D implying different accounts, different writers, or even different gods, G!D forbid, is utterly pointless and misleading. furthermore, nobody has ever produced any of these so-called source texts or accounts - all they are is conjecture and pretty flimsy conjecture at that when you consider that even a non-academic like me can drive a cart and horses through the arguments. scholarly consensus, my bottom.

as i am sure some of you are probably aware, when jews talk about G!D or talk to G!D we do so in ways that do not indicate anything about G!D other than our own experience. in other words, when G!D is acting like a "Father", that is the term we use. when G!D is being nurturing and motherly, we use the term "El-ShaDaY", which is related to the term for breasts or sometimes "Ha-Rahaman", which is related to the term for womb. we are referring to G!D's *attributes*, not G!D G!DSelf which is of course unknowable. the "Tetragrammaton" or Y-name is used when G!D Is Manifesting the Divine attribute of mercy and the E-name is used when G!D Is Manifesting the Divine attribute of stern justice. if you read through the various genesis accounts you will find that the relevant name is used 100% in accordance with that interpretation. in fact, where G!D Is Acting in a way that combines the two, the two are used together. so, mr clever-pants academic, who wrote that bit then, "j" or "e"?

furthermore, the idea that the Tetragrammaton refers to the "premanifested jesus" or whatever is quite simply ridiculous to me, with all due respect. i don't care what so-called "jews for jesus" have to say, they're not jews but christians who don't even have the common decency to admit it - and their theology and activities are paid for by the southern baptists. find me one - ONE! - instance of the hebrew word "yahshu'a" in the hebrew bible. and i don't mean "yehoshu'a", nor do i mean "yoshi'a", or any of the related roots. i mean the name itself, used as a *proper name*. without that, the idea that "the Name of G!D" refers to jesus or christianity has absolutely no basis in the Text.

Originally Posted by mee

In Bible times the word for God (’Elo·him´, Hebrew) was used to describe any god—even the pagan Philistine god named Dagon. (Judges 16:23, 24) So for a Hebrew to tell a Philistine that he, the Hebrew, worshiped "God" would not have identified the true God whom he worshiped.

mee, the reference you've just quoted at no point uses the word "ELo-HIM" to refer to dagon. it says "eloheihem" - "their god", which is their opinion, or "eloheinu" - "our god", which is reported speech, so it's their opinion, not the Text's opinion. besides, there are a number of different meanings of this root, as in "benei elohim" - which can also mean "the sons of the princes". where you get "el"-this and "el"-that, for example, the word "el" means "god" generically in that language group, this can sometimes refer to a god of something, or to G!D proper, as it were. as far as the bible is concerned, you can't tell whether the reference to *actual* G!D is or not without reference to the actual text and the tradition around it.

as for the "plurality" of "Elohim", that's called the "royal we" in english, as in "let us make man".

and, furthermore, "AL-LaH" is the same bloody root as "Elohim". G!D Is G!D Is G!D. the islamic G!D Is the same One as ours and the same One as the christian One. where i have a problem is when people who don't know anything about biblical hebrew spout ill-digested claptrap to falsify what the Torah says. as for the trinity, it is as problematic as the attributes of G!D, or even the ten sefirot if you make that mistake.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I have the Bible.

If so, I wouldn't argue with Him...lol

Which part Cyberpi? The story of the wayward sheep?, with the broken legs? lol. no problem...

What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

--Luke 15:4-7

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

--Luke 15:4-7

I see rejoicing... an important word missing from your story. I do NOT see your story of breaking legs. Where did you get your story? From a church?

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

there are two books. The book of life.. everyone alive has their name in that book... and the Lambs book of life.

rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

rev 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

We know that there are more than 1 book in the end because it says

rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

I have no knowledge of any lists or what is on God's list, a Lamb's list, Santa's list, Satan's list, or Death's list, etc... I only know a few names on Life's list... and I am told in the Gospels to NOT discriminate by it... to Love even my enemy as I Love myself. So even if I had knowledge of any other list, it is NOT mine and I am not going to discriminate by it.

[17th Angel]

Awesome I love this story....

On another christian site we went through this story... It's basically saying like ok my son (sheep) I am his father.... He wants to go out back yard and play with a ball or the dog or something... I think there is a possibility there is something out there that could harm him..... I could supervise him as he roams... hmmm I could just say fudge it he's only going to go so far and come back.. OR WAIT! Even freaking better!? I could break his legs!! That'll teach the lil menance to obey and LOVE me... and wow... my whole family sure will respect me and see me as a big man for busting a childs legs up...

Why stop there? Awesome this is good...

The wife "going out shoping"
Me... out of love something could happen... "Oh wait best not go love!!" *breaks her legs too* "there you go... You know I did that because I love you right honey? Hey while you're here you can do the dishes!! OH The dogs running up and down the stairs!! be right back love, gotta fix the dog!"

--EDIT--

Also even if you are going to say this for sheep... They are just SHEEP they will not learn from breaking it's leg that it isn't supposed to wander off... :\ But then having the bible comparing sheep to christian worshipers... I'd be offended to be seen as low as a sheep.... ;\

[Quahom1]

[quote=cyberpi;78380]

I see rejoicing... an important word missing from your story. I do NOT see your story of breaking legs. Where did you get your story? From a church?

Psalm 23...The Shephard's Psalm. It is quite specific about what a shephard does for his sheep. But one has to know how a shephard actually tends his flock.

I have no knowledge of any lists or what is on God's list, a Lamb's list, Santa's list, Satan's list, or Death's list, etc... I only know a few names on Life's list... and I am told in the Gospels to NOT discriminate by it... to Love even my enemy as I Love myself. So even if I had knowledge of any other list, it is NOT mine and I am not going to discriminate by it

Revelation, and Daniel refer specifically to the two books to be opened at the end of time. One is the book of recordings of our deeds, and the other is the book of life. Also, I don't think whether one discrimiates, accepts or rejects any lists or books will matter. That's kind of like standing in court before a judge and claiming one does not accept the courts laws or athority...one still gets tried.

v/r

Joshua

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Awesome I love this story....

On another christian site we went through this story... It's basically saying like ok my son (sheep) I am his father.... He wants to go out back yard and play with a ball or the dog or something... I think there is a possibility there is something out there that could harm him..... I could supervise him as he roams... hmmm I could just say fudge it he's only going to go so far and come back.. OR WAIT! Even freaking better!? I could break his legs!! That'll teach the lil menance to obey and LOVE me... and wow... my whole family sure will respect me and see me as a big man for busting a childs legs up...

Why stop there? Awesome this is good...

The wife "going out shoping"
Me... out of love something could happen... "Oh wait best not go love!!" *breaks her legs too* "there you go... You know I did that because I love you right honey? Hey while you're here you can do the dishes!! OH The dogs running up and down the stairs!! be right back love, gotta fix the dog!"

--EDIT--

Also even if you are going to say this for sheep... They are just SHEEP they will not learn from breaking it's leg that it isn't supposed to wander off... :\ But then having the bible comparing sheep to christian worshipers... I'd be offended to be seen as low as a sheep.... ;\

The Soldier/Shepard/King David's Psalm

1 The LORD is my shepherd;
I shall not want. (makes us watched over )
2 He makes me to lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside the still waters. (sheep need green grass and still water to drink, they will no drink from rough and turgid water)
3 He restores my soul;
He leads me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake. (a shepard's reputation rests on his ability to keep the flock from harm)

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil; (the wayward sheep/the lost one)
For You are with me; (carrying the one on the shoulders, feeding and taking care of the one, to the point that the one trusts the shepard and stays close to his side)
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. (the rod and staff had two purposes, one to guide sheep along the path and the other to hook the hind legs, and break one if needed, in order to keep a wayward one from leading the rest of the flock astray)

5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; (protection from the wolves on the fringes, while the sheep graze in peace and safety)
You anoint my head with oil; (marking one as the shepard's own)
My cup runs over. (good blessings in abundance behind the safety of the shepard)
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell[a] in the house of the LORD
Forever. (pretty much self evident)

Like I said before, there are docile sheep, and then there are stubborn and dangerous Rams. Both are sheep, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to take on a pissed off Ram...

v/r

Joshua

edit: to reinforce the shepard's tactics in protecting his sheep:

Hosea 6: 1-2 "Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn, that he may heal us; he has stricken, and he will bind us up."
Isaiah 38: 17 "Lo, it was for my welfare that I had great bitterness; but thou has held back my life from the pit of destruction, and now thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back."

[Quahom1]

Hey, BB. Glad to see ya here.

v/r

Joshua

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Psalm 23...The Shephard's Psalm. It is quite specific about what a shephard does for his sheep. But one has to know how a shephard actually tends his flock.

Nope, still nothing about breaking legs or hobbling. Again, where did your story come from?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Revelation, and Daniel refer specifically to the two books to be opened at the end of time. One is the book of recordings of our deeds, and the other is the book of life. Also, I don't think whether one discrimiates, accepts or rejects any lists or books will matter. That's kind of like standing in court before a judge and claiming one does not accept the courts laws or athority...one still gets tried.

A law that requires me to discriminate against people by what I do NOT know is a law that I will rightfully be disrespecting.

[Quahom1]

[quote=cyberpi;78424]

Nope, still nothing about breaking legs or hobbling. Again, where did your story come from?

Psalm 23. Now, if you want to know what a shepard's rod and staff are for, or how they control their flocks, go read about it. Breaking a leg is a standard practice for shepards who wish to keep one of the wayard sheep from continuing to go wayward.

The Bible talks about sex and having children, but doesn't give graphic details on sexual intercourse either, but we know how that is done.

A law that requires me to discriminate against people by what I do NOT know is a law that I will rightfully be disrespecting.

But you aren't the one who will be reading from the books and judging men. Therefore you don't have to worry about discriminating against anyone. And if you don't know what a law is, you can't possibly disrespect it knowingly. So the logic here is circuituous.

[mee]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

[


mee, the reference you've just quoted at no point uses the word "ELo-HIM" to refer to dagon. it says "eloheihem" - "their god", which is their opinion, or "eloheinu" - "our god", which is reported speech, so it's their opinion, not the Text's opinion. besides, there are a number of different meanings of this root, as in "benei elohim" - which can also mean "the sons of the princes". where you get "el"-this and "el"-that, for example, the word "el" means "god" generically in that language group, this can sometimes refer to a god of something, or to G!D proper, as it were. as far as the bible is concerned, you can't tell whether the reference to *actual* G!D is or not without reference to the actual text and the tradition around it.

as for the "plurality" of "Elohim", that's called the "royal we" in english, as in "let us make man".

and, furthermore, "AL-LaH" is the same bloody root as "Elohim". G!D Is G!D Is G!D. the islamic G!D Is the same One as ours and the same One as the christian One. where i have a problem is when people who don't know anything about biblical hebrew spout ill-digested claptrap to falsify what the Torah says. as for the trinity, it is as problematic as the attributes of G!D, or even the ten sefirot if you make that mistake.

b'shalom

bananabrain

At Genesis 1:1 the title "God" is translated from ’Elo·him´, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, "The LORD our God [from ’Elo·him´] is one LORD."
The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·him´ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the "lord" (’adho·neh´, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.
The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The·os´ (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo·him´. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The·os´ is similarly used.

At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by mee

Some may argue that it does not really matter whether you address Almighty God by a personal name or not, and they are content to speak of and address God as Father or simply as God. Both these terms, however, are titles rather than names and are neither personal nor distinctive. In Bible times the word for God (’Elo·him´, Hebrew) was used to describe any god—even the pagan Philistine god named Dagon. (Judges 16:23, 24) So for a Hebrew to tell a Philistine that he, the Hebrew, worshiped "God" would not have identified the true God whom he worshiped.

I would try to add and reflect on the issue as I understand it, and I think many would agree to it. To me it is not that important as to what is the proper/personal name of God. We shall have to start from the basics. Like we say a word “chair” ,leaving one’s preferences or bias of language and nationality aside; if one says the word chair, and the other one understands what it denotes, for all practical purposes the problem is solved. Say an Englishman goes to the market where the shopkeepers are Urdu speaking and he sees a beautiful chair, he likes to purchase it, he points it out to the shopkeeper and pays the price and purchases it. It does not matter to him if in the shopkeeper’s language the thing he has purchased is called ‘kursey’ instead of chair. The difference is only nominal the utility of the chair or kursey is the same, it is a convenient article used for humans for comfortably sitting. So both understand its usage or utility, and they won’t create a fuss on nomenclature. The Jews, the Muslims, the Sikhs and the Zoroastrians understand God is one, there would hardly be any dispute on it amongst them; and if there would be that would be about the attributes of God .The Christians are different. Now what is the difference between a chair and a table; the difference is in their usage and utility. Now we cannot give a table the nomenclature of a chair or vice versa as that would create a lot of trouble for the common man. This is about the common nouns; and now about pronouns or propernouns or propernames. These could have two/three/or multi dimensions; usage, utility and identification etc. All children born are alike, if one does not given them a name, it would be difficult for others of whom one is talking. When grown up if one commits a crime the other one could be innocently caught and punished; so identification and convenience play their part here. Now a child is born and his parents give him the name Abraham. Now why they gave him this name; there may be many reasons, they like the sound of the name or one of their friend whose name was this, they liked him most or perhaps they liked the character (you may say attributes/characteristics) of the person mentioned in their religious book and that they wish that their son should be one like him, though there is no surety, may be the boy turns out to be a druggist and ends up in a jail. At least the intent of the parents was good, though they could not mould him to be Abraham of their conceptual person.
In the very first chapter of Quran, called Al-Fatihah or Opener, Allah introduces Himself with four distinct attributes
1. Rabb-ul-Alameen, Lord of all the worlds
2. Al-Rehman, The Gracious
3. Al-Raheem, The Merciful
4. Malik-e-Youm-ud-Din, Master of the Day of Judgment
This immediately follows a covenant from the believers: only thee, O’ Allah (God) having the prime and distinctive attributes just mentioned we worship and only thee we would pray for help. This can also be put in this way that the above four attributes form allegorically the logical Throne of Allah, which makes His kingdom on all the worlds, known to man or yet unknown to man. These are the attributes which concisely distinguish Him from mythical gods, and provide logical and meaningful identification of a Propername Allah. Allah is a propername yet is meaningful. It makes no difference if it was used in pre-Islamic period also.
These four attributes when elaborately defined in Quran consist of ninety nine good names/attributes; and then again it is mentioned in Quran that all good names/characteristics belong to Him irrespective of language barrier or any boundary, his attributes are absolute, and none can limit Him, place or time.
This is my submissions ; others could have differently, no compulsion.
I am an Ahmadi- a faith in Islam
Thanks

[E99]

Hello Bananabrain ( Which you are not)

Your quote:

i'm sure i've pointed out elsewhere that just because you refer to someone a multiple number of ways they are all different people. my mum is my mum, she is my father's wife, she is my son's grandma, she is her father's daughter, all of these people would talk to her differently, using different names. she's still one person, so all this talk of many names for G!D implying different accounts, different writers, or even different gods, G!D forbid, is utterly pointless and misleading. furthermore, nobody has ever produced any of these so-called source texts or accounts - all they are is conjecture and pretty flimsy conjecture at that when you consider that even a non-academic like me can drive a cart and horses through the arguments. scholarly consensus, my bottom.


Interesting post in all BB.
Do you contest the original language and words used are the words of God, or do you see that the words are purely from a mans point of view ? And at Genesis 1:1, Do you think that the first verse is specifically making reference to a singular God ?
The singular verb 'create' is implying that the plural word Elohim chosen in this verse has made the plural term Elohim into a singular attribute. To me it is specific and carefully chosen as such. E.g. Elohoikhim....‘Your God’ could have been used. Why wasn’t it ? There is no point putting in El-ShaDaY or similar. Elohim is used because the context of the sentence allows Elohim to be the most appropriate word to use and gives an indication of what God wanted us to see regarding his substance, creative powers and the pre-human beings that were with him at the time. Hence the plural word and the singular verbal attribute.


Your quote:

as i am sure some of you are probably aware, when jews talk about G!D or talk to G!D we do so in ways that do not indicate anything about G!D other than our own experience. in other words, when G!D is acting like a "Father", that is the term we use. when G!D is being nurturing and motherly, we use the term "El-ShaDaY", which is related to the term for breasts or sometimes "Ha-Rahaman", which is related to the term for womb. we are referring to G!D's *attributes*, not G!D G!DSelf which is of course unknowable. the "Tetragrammaton" or Y-name is used when G!D Is Manifesting the Divine attribute of mercy and the E-name is used when G!D Is Manifesting the Divine attribute of stern justice. if you read through the various genesis accounts you will find that the relevant name is used 100% in accordance with that interpretation. in fact, where G!D Is Acting in a way that combines the two, the two are used together. so, mr clever-pants academic, who wrote that bit then, "j" or "e"?


BB, I’d like to know what you are saying in more detail, some of what you say is new to me. I’m not certain what you’re implying here. Are you quoting the ‘documentary theory, that there are several writers of Genesis “J” (Jahwist), “E” (Elohist), and “P” (Priest Codex) ? (Which can be contested.)
Please quote some of the scriptures that use the J/Y and E names in Genesis and the J/E combination scriptures. If the E-name is always 100% used for reference to ‘stern justice‘, why is the E name used at Genesis 1:1, where it speaks specifically about the creative power of Jehovah God ? (Although the documentary theory puts this down to the P writer.)


Of course God is unknowable. "His ways are unsearchable", (As a whole) but he has given us just a taster regarding some of his abilities through his word, the bible, enough for us to get a small inkling of what he is about. Its part of the reason that Jehovah God had his inspired scriptures so prolifically put before us. His word also asks us to search out his ways and to take in accurate knowledge of the true God. Obviously this is done via the bible.


Your quote:

The reference you've just quoted at no point uses the word "ELo-HIM" to refer to dagon. it says "eloheihem" - "their god", which is their opinion, or "eloheinu" - "our god", which is reported speech, so it's their opinion, not the Text's opinion. besides, there are a number of different meanings of this root, as in "benei elohim" - which can also mean "the sons of the princes". where you get "el"-this and "el"-that, for example, the word "el" means "god" generically in that language group, this can sometimes refer to a god of something, or to G!D proper, as it were. as far as the bible is concerned, you can't tell whether the reference to *actual* G!D is or not without reference to the actual text and the tradition around it.


Looking at 1 samuel 5:7 ...."And the men of Ash´dod came to see that it was so, and they said: “Do not let the ark of the God of Israel dwell with us, because his hand has been hard against us and against Da´gon our god".

Usage of Elohehnu (our god) is used in the above scripture; and Eloheihem (their god) is used at Judges 16:23 for Dagon, but the usage of false gods, in which Dagon is one, is used as Elohim at Exodus 12:12 (Alei.... Elohim of.) Elohim can be transliterated and recognised to mean false gods.


The Phrase “Ani Yahweh Eloheihem” translates as I Jehovah am their God. Please note that. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·him´ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. The point is, the reference to Elohim derivatives and variations, singular or plural are appropriately used terms where the context allows it to be so and can be determined wether the true God or false god/s etc is recognised. The term Elohim, variation or not, is still the word that is being used for false gods where it should be specifically used. It is also the specific word referring to the one and only God Jehovah found at Genesis 1:1 as he is the Almighty creator God and not a prince, spirit being or false god etc.


Your quote:

Furthermore, "AL-LaH" is the same bloody root as "Elohim". G!D Is G!D Is G!D. the islamic G!D Is the same One as ours and the same One as the christian One. where i have a problem is when people who don't know anything about biblical hebrew spout ill-digested claptrap to falsify what the Torah says. as for the trinity, it is as problematic as the attributes of G!D, or even the ten sefirot if you make that mistake.


The root word might be the same... El, but as a good dictionary will show you, “Allah” is a shortened form of the Arabic term meaning “the god.” Obviously, this is not a name. Some think that "Jehovah / Yahweh" in Hebrew means “Allah” (God). But “Allah” corresponds, in Hebrew, to ´Elo·him´, the plural of majesty of the word ´eloh´ah (god). Not a name. By this reasoning Allah is not the same as the Christian God ( Especially if the Christian God is the triune one )

[Thomas]

Hi Wil - you seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness on this one...

... It is my understanding that we have two groups of authors that were merged in the early books of the bible. The Yahwists, and the Elohists...hence we get Gen1 and Gen2 versions of creation, and the two versions of the animals on the ark.

That's how I understand it.

Also that the J and E traditions stem from when Israel was two kingdoms - which did not happen until about 1,000BC. The J tradition belongs to the Southern Tribes of Judah, the E Tradition to the Northern Tribes of Israel.

In the end the Northern were obliged to seek refuge with the southern, and the two traditions were subsequently conflated.

Then we have the P (Priestly) Tradition, evident in the editing of both J and E, then the D (Deuteronomic) Tradition, from which Hebraic theology emerges in its fullness.

Thomas

[mee]

The Hebrew word ’elo·him´ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning "be strong." ’Elo·him´ is the plural of ’eloh´ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ’Elo·him´ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ’Elo·him´ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [’Elo·him´] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [’Elo·him´] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.