Difference between revisions of "Elohim - one or many"
From Sensus Plenior
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''[[Elohim - one or many]]'' | ''[[Elohim - one or many]]'' | ||
| − | Some say that Elohim is a plural noun for ''eloah'' meaning 'gods' and conclude that there are many gods, or it is like the 'royal we' when the king speaks of himself in plural form. But | + | Some say that Elohim is a plural noun for ''eloah'' meaning 'gods' and conclude that there are many gods, or it is like the 'royal we' when the king speaks of himself in plural form. But these are secondary meaning which cannot be applied to all instances. |
| + | |||
| + | :The metaphor of "Waterloo" says many things. It can be used to speak of being ill-prepared or arrogant. These are both secondary meanings which, by themselves, do not express the true meaning of Waterloo. | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can see how this causes problems, since God calls men ''elohim'', and there is only one singular God. How do we make sense of this? We will use notarikon <ref>One of the methods of interpretation used by New Testament authors</ref>. | ||
Latest revision as of 06:32, 21 September 2021
Elohim - one or many
Some say that Elohim is a plural noun for eloah meaning 'gods' and conclude that there are many gods, or it is like the 'royal we' when the king speaks of himself in plural form. But these are secondary meaning which cannot be applied to all instances.
- The metaphor of "Waterloo" says many things. It can be used to speak of being ill-prepared or arrogant. These are both secondary meanings which, by themselves, do not express the true meaning of Waterloo.
- ↑ One of the methods of interpretation used by New Testament authors
