Right Divider
Body part
The Father and the Son are BOTH the ONE LORD and the ONE GOD.
God is one.
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
I don't assume anything. I let the word speak for itself. The word ONE used there is a ONE of UNITY and not a ONE of ABSOLUTE SINGULARITY.
God says that He was ONE (UNITY).
Like this:
Gen 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:26) ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Echad can also mean FIRST.
Did you not read the definition at all?
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
1) God is the only true God.
2) The Father is God, and thus, 3) the Father is the only true God.
4) The Son is God, and thus, 5) the Son is the only true God.
Yet, 6) the Father is not the Son; and 7) the Son is not the Father.
1) [Water] is [the only true water].
2) [The Pacific Ocean] is [water], and thus, 3) [the Pacific Ocean] is [the only true water].
4) [The Atlantic Ocean] is [water], and thus, 5) [the Atlantic Ocean] is [the only true water].
Yet, 6) [the Pacific Ocean] is not [the Atlantic Ocean]; and 7) [the Atlantic Ocean] is not [the Pacific Ocean].
All seven of those propositions are true, and yet, according to anti-Trinity "reasoning", not all of them could be true.
It would be asinine to deny that the Atlantic Ocean is the only true water, since to do so would be to deny that the Atlantic Ocean is water.
2) The Father is God, and thus, 3) the Father is the only true God.
4) The Son is God, and thus, 5) the Son is the only true God.
Yet, 6) the Father is not the Son; and 7) the Son is not the Father.
1) [Water] is [the only true water].
2) [The Pacific Ocean] is [water], and thus, 3) [the Pacific Ocean] is [the only true water].
4) [The Atlantic Ocean] is [water], and thus, 5) [the Atlantic Ocean] is [the only true water].
Yet, 6) [the Pacific Ocean] is not [the Atlantic Ocean]; and 7) [the Atlantic Ocean] is not [the Pacific Ocean].
All seven of those propositions are true, and yet, according to anti-Trinity "reasoning", not all of them could be true.
It would be asinine to deny that the Atlantic Ocean is the only true water, since to do so would be to deny that the Atlantic Ocean is water.
oatmeal
Well-known member
That gathering together of waters is one place. One, not one consisting of separate places. One place, singular, not plural consisting of separate locations.The first day was indeed special, as indicated by the use of "echad" rather than "rishom."
It reads "day one," rather than "the first day"
All of the other days in the creation week use ordinals, but the first day uses echad instead of the ordinal rishom.
A grouping together of the waters into a united place (multiple of them, rather).
Same as with 1:5.
I'm not entirely sure on this one, but at best for your case, either way you look at it, it doesn't harm my (and RD's) position.
Yes, Echad also means and is used as "first."
There's no dispute there.
But you're stubbornly ignoring the fact that it ALSO means a unity of things.
That's what it means per Strong's Concordance.
You're literally arguing against the definition of the word, at this point.
GOD is the origin of the royal "we" because He is "ECHAD ELOHIM." ONE God. A united plurality.
Or would you rather make the argument that He is the "first" God instead?
That'll lead you to heresy.
God isn't saying Adam IS one with Him.
Read the verse again:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3:22 - New King James Version
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—www.biblegateway.com
God is comparing Adam post eating the fruit to Himself, not saying he has become God or part of God.
"LIKE" one of Us.
Please pay attention to the scripture you yourself quote.
"First"
Which is one of the definitions of Echad, and thus part of what RD said.
Again, "first," which fits what RD said.
Same again.
Same as the first example in this series.
This "one" actually does mean united.
All the people are speaking a united language. Their language is unified.
They are a united people, with a united language.
Thanks for giving those examples. They only strengthen our position.
Here's a few more examples that further prove our one position:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:24 - New King James Version
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.www.biblegateway.com
And one more:
So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do.”
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 24:3 - New King James Version
So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do.”www.biblegateway.com
And one more again:
The trespass offering is like the sin offering; there is one law for them both: the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.
Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 7:7 - New King James Version
The trespass offering is like the sin offering; there is one law for them both: the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.www.biblegateway.com
These three examples all show "unity" rather than "first."
That one day or first day was not a collection of individual days or first days, but rather, one day only.
The best foundation for understanding the meaning of a word is to look at the basic definition as used in the first place God uses it. That first use sets the patter for all subsequent uses. When God wants to add additional nuances to that basic meaning, that is certainly His prerogative.
It is day one. One day only, singular, it is not a collection of days but one day only.
God did not take a collection of ribs but one of them. Adam was not left ribless. Since that would be a pair of ribs, the right rib and a left rib, here we see that it is one pair, not several pairs. We must consider that "one arm" does not mean both arms, but one only, whether it be right or left. The statement "one of his ribs" is not therefore literal, but is clearly a figure of speech where one represents the one pair. Synecdoche is the figure used.
One is referring to one of the two sons, not one pair or triplet or some larger collection of sons. One individual, one entity, not a collection of entities.
One language means one language, not a collection of languages. One speech means one language, not a collection of speeches.
"the people is one" here, it is clearly referring to the one entire body of people. Not one entire body of many peoples. They are not many people who is actually one person, but many people with enough similarities to be acting in unison. It is not many people in one people.
It is odd that you would think that these verses strengthen your position.
It is not a collection of languages, that not made of many differing components but literally one language.
Here's a few more examples that further prove our one position:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 2:24 - New King James Version
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
www.biblegateway.com
Notice that the man is to be joined to his wife. They were separate individuals previous to them being joined. But even so, the last phrase, "and they shall become one flesh" indicates that simply joining man and wife does not automatically make them one flesh. It takes time and effort and putting and keeping God first in their individual lives that enables them to become one flesh. Again, only one flesh, not one flesh and soul and spirit. One might claim that "one flesh" is the figure of speech synecdoche in use, and that may be true, but then it is a figure of speech, not a literal truth. When the husband is mowing the lawn and the wife is in the kitchen, there is no literal one flesh. Their two bodies are separated by a distance. They are not literally one body, but remain two separate bodies likewise with soul and spirit. Some people believe that "one flesh" refers to sexual intercourse, but even in sexual intercourse, two separate bodies remain, they do not blend together into one body copulating with itself.
And one more:
So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do.”
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 24:3 - New King James Version
So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do.”
www.biblegateway.com
One voice means one answer to the challenge. It is interesting to note that even though they answered in one voice, the subsequent history of these people indicate that those were words, not totally completed in action. They said words, but their heart was not one.
Exodus 32:1-10
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the Lord.
6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
Evidently, this unity of which you speak is rather shallow and fickle.
The trespass offering is like the sin offering; there is one law for them both: the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.
Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 7:7 - New King James Version
The trespass offering is like the sin offering; there is one law for them both: the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it.
www.biblegateway.com
These three examples all show "unity" rather than "first.
The issue is not whether or not the English translation is better served if translated "one" or "first" but rather is distinguishing correctly between "properly united" and one. Or more precisely, is "properly united" a viable definition.
Clearly Adam and Eve when sinning were not "properly united". The children of Israel when they rejected God and began to worship the idol of the golden calf were not "properly united" They were very "improperly united" against God and His laws and truths.
When echad refers to a unity of things, we see as in
Gen 2:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
that the components of the unity are listed. Man and wife. One flesh is composed of man and wife. One flesh is not composed of two fleshes, but two humans, one male and one female. As we learn from I Thessalonians 5:23, a believer is composed of three distinct components, spirit and soul and body (flesh). 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve had all three before they sinned. We might want to ask why man and wife would become only "one flesh" instead of "one spirit and soul and body". That unity is not complete. Man and wife are still separate in many ways. They did not have the same parents, they had different backgrounds, education, experiences, maturity in various degrees depending on the category of life considered. Thus we see that they are not the same, but different, yet as a man and wife there is a degree of oneness, but not complete oneness. They do not become identical copies of the other.
One rib is made of two ribs, that is clear from the context. (As a side note, I have heard that the word "rib" is best not taken literally, but should by synecdoche refer to the blood behind the rib. Why? Because the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
To make a proper help mate for Adam, that companion is better made with the life, the soul, rather than mere flesh if this help mate is be be truly useful as a companion to the man.
So we see in Deut 6:4 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
That there is only one component to the "one Lord". That one component is "The Lord our God" There is absolutely no mention of any other components. There is no mention of a separate "Holy Spirit" nor of a separate "Son" Thus there is no reason to assume that there is a need for a unity of several components
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That's false. The gathering together of the waters spoken of in Genesis 1:9-10 is Seas, not one place.
| 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. |
Read the text carefully. It is not said "and the gathering together of the waters called he one place"; rather, it is said "and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas". God said "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place"; He did not say "Let the gathering together of the waters under the heaven be one place".
False: That gathering together of waters is one place.
True: That gathering together of waters is Seas.
False: That gathering together of waters is one place.
True: That gathering together of waters is unto one place.
God's Word: "[the gathering together of the waters] called he [Seas]"
.......................................................(singular)..............................................................(plural)
VS
Your word: "[that gathering together of waters] is [one place]"
......................................................(singular)......................................(singular)
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Did someone say the first day was "a collection of individual days or first days"? No. So, what's your "point"?
Did someone say God took a collection of ribs? No. So, what's your "point"?
Did someone say Adam was left rib-less? No. So, what's your "point"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Why do you choose to capitalize the initial L of your phrase "the Lord God", and choose to not capitalize the initial L of your phrase "the lord Jesus Christ"? If you had a quarter -- a 25¢ piece -- in each of your hands, would you consider it reasonable to write "I have two quarters; one is the Quarter in my right hand, and the other is the quarter in my left hand"? Would it be reasonable to write, "I bought a dozen eggs. Six of them are Eggs, and the other six are eggs"?
Probably the easiest way for you to deal with this question would be to say, "Oops...it was merely a typo born of sloppiness. I didn't intend the inconsistency between the uncapitalized L and the capitalized L. I meant to capitalize [or, to uncapitalize] them both." Which would be easily understandable by any of us fallible humans. But, I do not think that your inconsistency therein was a typo, and so, I do not think you could be honest about it by saying it was a typo. So, how exactly do you account for your choice to capitalize the one L, and to not capitalize the other L?
I note, also, that every instance of the phrase, "the Lord Jesus Christ", in the KJV, has the L capitalized, which makes the strangeness of your choice to write "the lord Jesus Christ" even more glaring, and begs all the louder for you to try to give an account for why you chose to depart from the capitalized usage.
Also, this language of yours seems strange at best:
OED: component: "a part or element of a larger whole"
Is this what you're trying to say:
If "The Lord our God" of which you speak is "one part or element of a larger whole to the "one Lord"" of which you speak, then what exactly is the "larger whole to the 'one Lord'" of which you speak?
Now, I'm aware you had said:
But, I can't find your word "component" in the Bible, and I don't know what (if anything) you mean by it, so I couldn't resist looking at another source, viz., the OED.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Wow, you enjoy contradicting God's own testimony of what He said.
What He said is what I repeated.
Show me from scripture. Opinions get old and are worthless compared to the written word of God. Show me from scripture.
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
Where was it gathered to? God says it was "gathered together unto one place."
That one place is where, there is only one "where" to which it was gathered. One place. Not many places. One place. There is only one component involved in what was gathered to that one location, that one place. Waters.
Since God wants to call "the gathering together of the waters called he Seas", that is his business. Why would God want distinguish different parts of that one places as "seas"? To be able to communicate better. How many seas were named? Not just two, not three, but we know of many seas that were distinguished from one another.
However, we see in later verses, that God uses the singular sea to indicate where fish live. How many "seas" do fish live in? One sea according to God.
Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
So God calls the waters that were gathered together in one place both the plural "seas" and the singular "sea" in those verses, but in other places He refers to "whatsoever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers" in the plural.
Lev 11:9
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
No doubt God has a reason to use the singular in some scriptures and the plural in other scriptures.
I do not know why, but I bet there are more than three seas included in what He regards as the sea. He does not make any suggestion as to how many seas there are when He refers to the plural, but we do know that when He uses the singular sea, He is refering to the one sea that is is the all encompassing body of water, generally speaking.
Again, God does not tell us how many seas there are.
Likewise, if the word "one" in
Deut 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
is a collection, God does not tell us how many other gods there are in the one Lord.
There could be scores of them.
Look at Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
We could play the multi lord game in this verse and come up with
1. rock
2. fortress
3. deliverer
4. God
5. strength
6. buckle
7. the horn
8. high tower
Lords. One of which is God but the others are objects.
Why three in Deut 6:4 why not those eight plus savior, redeemer, shepherd, etc......
Evidently, there are about 250 names, attributes and titles given to God in the Bible. Why not use what God uses? Note that God never uses the word "trinity" to describe himself. Who are you to try to tell God who He is?
Why just three?
Last edited:
oatmeal
Well-known member
My point is that we cannot assume that the word echad always means a plural of unity, we must look at each use of the word in the context in order to rightly divide what we are reading.
oatmeal
Well-known member
Because the Lord God is superior and antecedent to His son. The son of the Lord God, ie. the Father, is the lord Jesus Christ, the son is derived, inferior and subordinate to the Lord God.
There are things that contain only one component. One Bible is composed of one Bible. That one Bible is the sole component of that one Bible. If I have one fork to eat with, that one fork is composed of only one fork, there is only one. The only component of that one fork is that one fork. When you decide to boil water to make some tea, how many ingredients are you heating up to a boil? Only one, the water.
If you wish to critique my choice of English words that is fine. English is my second language, technically speaking.
factor,
ingredient,
item,
peripheral,
piece,
segment,
unit
The KJV is not what Moses wrote down, Moses wrote in Hebrew, not English. The New Testament originals were written in Aramaic not Greek nor English.
Someone didn't read the teeeexxxxt!Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9-10 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Or did you think there was only one Sea?
Duh.
You seem to have completely missed the point.
Here it is again:
The first day was indeed special, as indicated by the use of "echad" rather than "rishom."
It reads "day one," rather than "the first day."
All of the other days in the creation week use ordinals, but the first day uses echad instead of the ordinal rishom.
Echad means BOTH "first" when used as an ordinal (which is how it's used in Genesis 8:5), AND "one" (a plural unity), when used in verses such as Genesis 1:9, 2:24, Exodus 24:3, and Leviticus 7:7.
Which is exactly what @RightDivider said.
So.... a PLURAL UNITY of "one" rib. Got it. Thanks for strengthening our position.
You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying, are you?
Nowhere did I say that it was being used to refer to a plural unity.
I literally referred you back to what I said in response to your quote of Genesis 4:19, which was:
| "First" Which is one of the definitions of Echad, and thus part of what RD said. |
Read the verses again:
Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 4:19 - New King James Version
Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.
To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 10:25 - New King James Version
To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
Echad means BOTH "first" (the ordinal number) and "one" (a plural unity).
It's usage, just like every other hard to understand word in the Bible, is determined by the context.
In BOTH of these two verses, the one being Genesis 4:19, and the other being Genesis 10:25, the usage of echad is "first." If you were to translate my previous sentence in this paragraph into Hebrew, you would use the word "ECHAD" as the translation for the word "one," because "one" here is used as an ordinal, not a plural unity.
This does not mean that "echad" does not EVER mean "one" as in "a plural unity," it just means that in this context, it does not mean "a plural unity," but rather it means "first," as an ordinal number.
A plural unity.
A language is a collection of words.
ONE language is a plural unity of words.
TWO languages is multiple plural unities of words.
There was ONLY ONE LANGUAGE before Babel. There was only ONE plural unity of words. After Babel, there were multiple languages, and no longer a single, plural unity of words, but multiple plural unities of words.
"The people" in 11:6 is a group of individual persons.
Literally a plural unity.
And thus, "echad."
Straw man.
But it IS many people in one GROUP, referred to by God as "the people."
[Said YHVH "Hen 'am 'echad wesapah ahat lekullam,"...]
Which literally translates as "indeed people one all language one."
It's not odd because they do, in fact, strengthen my position.
Straw man.
One language, made of many different words of the same language.
Huh, almost as though them becoming one is... wait for it.............
...
A plural unity...
What happens when a man and a woman get married?
They become husband and wife, two people who have become and act as one unit.
You seem to be, once again, missing the point.
Nowhere does scripture say that when a man and woman marry, they become a single person, unable to be differentiated.
What Scripture says is that, when "a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, . . . they shall become one flesh."
A plural unity.
Two people, united.
Did you forget that when a man has sex with his wife, the normal result is a baby?
In this case (and in this case alone, the only exception to the rule of mathematics): 1 + 1 = 3
One man + one woman => father, mother, and child.
"The two shall become one flesh."
Such a beautiful and elegant way of putting it!
Once again, missing the point, this time seemingly of the passage itself...
Why are you quoting a passage from 6 chapters later?
We're dealing with Exodus 24, which was BEFORE Moses, et al, went up the mountain, to receive the tablets of stone.
They all agreed to what God had told Moses to say to them. Thus, "they spoke with one voice."
It's a figure of speech that means they were in agreement with one another.
It means both.
So Echad doesn't mean "first"?
Not what we've been saying.
You sure do like making straw man arguments.
The word ECHAD means ONE (a plural unity (iow: properly united)) and FIRST (when used as an ordinal number).
Missing the point and irrelevant.
This is literally what we've been saying the entire time. Thanks for conceding the entire discussion!
The "components" do not have to be explicitly listed.
"YHVH [our God] YVHV [is one]"
"YHVH elohenu YHVH ehad"
Elohenu = elohim <= plural word
echad <= plural unity
There is a plural unity in the ONE God, who is YHVH.
YHVH (N-proper-ms)
Elohim (N-mpc)
YHVH (N-proper-ms)
ehad (Number-ms)
In order:
Noun, proper name, masculine singular
Noun, masculine plural genitival pronoun
Noun, proper name, masculine singular
Number, masculine singular
Echad is the only word for "one" (because there is more than one word for "one" in ancient Hebrew, something you probably didn't know) that fits this sentence, because it is the only word that agrees with "Elohim" and still remains "one."
"YHVH our God (PLURAL), YHVH is ONE (plural unity)."
Get it?
There is ONE YHVH. He is God.
YHVH is a plural unity.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That's obviously false, as even you know. You clearly did not repeat what God wrote. Again, what God wrote:
| the gathering together of the waters called he Seas |
VS
What you wrote:
What God wrote is clearly not what you wrote.
That would be you, actually...
You said:
This is false, because Scripture says:
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9-10 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
"One" being "echad."
A plural unity.
That plural unity being MULTIPLE "Seas."
Or do you think that there was only one Sea?
True. "Seas." Plural.
False.
True.
"Seas." Plural.
Yup. Guess what God called that place?
"Seas." Plural.
Was there only one Sea? or multiple Seas?
How many seas are there?
Do pirates sail the "seven seas"? or the "seven sea"?
Yup. And in every single one of those verses, God was not referring to a specific sea, but rather, "whatever body of water those creatures live in."
Indeed.
And it wasn't because Moses made a typo in Genesis 1:9-10.
So, in other words, a plural unity called "one place" which He called "Seas."
Thanks for conceding the discussion. Again.
Who said anything about a collection?
"Echad" means, in this context, a "plural unity."
One, yet plural.
Not [one of singularity].
God is one God.
You're treading on some extremely thin ice. Stop before you commit blasphemy.
None of those are God. Or gods, for that matter.
David is comparing YHVH to those things, using them as metaphors to describe God's relationship with David.
Three?
"Elohim" is plural.
"Echad" is a plural unity.
The Lord our God, the Lord is ONE.
YHVH Elohenu, YHVH EHAD
Note that the Bible never uses the word "Bible" to refer to itself.
Who are you to try to tell us that God is not who He is?
Because there are only three Persons.
Father.
Son.
Holy Spirit.
There are no other Persons referred to as YHVH God in Scripture.
Straw man.
No one ever made that argument.
Duh.
Yes. And?
Uh.... what?
You realize that the Bible is made up of MANY books, right?
I could destroy your entire argument by saying that the fork is made up of many atoms and/or molecules (depending on the material it's made up of). A plural unity of those atoms/molecules that make up ONE fork...
Same argument as above.
Water is made up of many molecules (and even contains hydrogen and oxygen atoms that have not formed molecules).
Uh... no. The New Testament CONTAINED Aramaic, but was primarily written in Greek.
Either way, we don't speak Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.
We speak English.
The translators of modern English Bibles spoke/speak English.
The English Bibles we use follow English rules of grammar and spelling.
The capitalization of the English words used is based on context. Who are you to say that the capitalization should be different for "The Lord Jesus Christ"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Did anyone say God does not say it was "gathered together unto one place"? No. So, what's your "point"?
Even though you have no point in saying that, and your saying it does in no way, shape, or form even put a ding in, or have any relevance to the truth of the Trinity, I will point out the fact that, contrary to your falsehood, every place, without exception, is many places.
To gather waters unto one place is, necessarily, to gather them unto many places. Water gathered together on the screen of your smartphone, covering the entire rectangular surface thereof, is gathered together unto one place; and yet, it is thereby gathered together unto many places, just the same. For example, that water is therein gathered together unto one place, at which you now see this bold-text phrase, and that water is also gathered together unto another place, at which you now see this bold-text phrase, and so on -- which (among countless other entailed truths) necessitates that that water's being gathered together unto one place consists of (rather than militates against) its being gathered together unto two places. So, you're asserting falsehood when you say "not many places."
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
If you wish to continue in your failure to defend against my criticism of your choice of the word ('component') you chose, that is fine. Or, rather, truth be told, whether you wish to do so or not, it's inevitable.
No one asked, and, true or false, it's irrelevant.
When you boil three quarts of water, you're boiling one ingredient: water. Also, you're therein boiling three ingredients: 1) a quart of water, 2) another quart of water, and 3) another quart of water. Also, you're therein boiling six ingredients, each ingredient being half a quart of water. One quart of water is an ingredient of three quarts of water, since you can never fill a container with three quarts of water without filling it with one quart of water.
Tea on the brain, eh? LOL What's your first language? British?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
As you admit, God also never uses the word "unity" to describe Himself:
So, what's your "point"?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9-10 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.www.biblegateway.com
Or did you think there was only one Sea?
Duh.
You seem to have completely missed the point.
Here it is again:
The first day was indeed special, as indicated by the use of "echad" rather than "rishom."
It reads "day one," rather than "the first day."
All of the other days in the creation week use ordinals, but the first day uses echad instead of the ordinal rishom.
Echad means BOTH "first" when used as an ordinal (which is how it's used in Genesis 8:5), AND "one" (a plural unity), when used in verses such as Genesis 1:9, 2:24, Exodus 24:3, and Leviticus 7:7.
Which is exactly what @RightDivider said.
So.... a PLURAL UNITY of "one" rib. Got it. Thanks for strengthening our position.
You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying, are you?
Nowhere did I say that it was being used to refer to a plural unity.
I literally referred you back to what I said in response to your quote of Genesis 4:19, which was:
"First"
Which is one of the definitions of Echad, and thus part of what RD said.
Read the verses again:
Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 4:19 - New King James Version
Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah.www.biblegateway.com
To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 10:25 - New King James Version
To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.www.biblegateway.com
Echad means BOTH "first" (the ordinal number) and "one" (a plural unity).
It's usage, just like every other hard to understand word in the Bible, is determined by the context.
In BOTH of these two verses, the one being Genesis 4:19, and the other being Genesis 10:25, the usage of echad is "first." If you were to translate my previous sentence in this paragraph into Hebrew, you would use the word "ECHAD" as the translation for the word "one," because "one" here is used as an ordinal, not a plural unity.
This does not mean that "echad" does not EVER mean "one" as in "a plural unity," it just means that in this context, it does not mean "a plural unity," but rather it means "first," as an ordinal number.
A plural unity.
A language is a collection of words.
ONE language is a plural unity of words.
TWO languages is multiple plural unities of words.
There was ONLY ONE LANGUAGE before Babel. There was only ONE plural unity of words. After Babel, there were multiple languages, and no longer a single, plural unity of words, but multiple plural unities of words.
"The people" in 11:6 is a group of individual persons.
Literally a plural unity.
And thus, "echad."
Straw man.
But it IS many people in one GROUP, referred to by God as "the people."
[Said YHVH "Hen 'am 'echad wesapah ahat lekullam,"...]
Which literally translates as "indeed people one all language one."
It's not odd because they do, in fact, strengthen my position.
Straw man.
One language, made of many different words of the same language.
Huh, almost as though them becoming one is... wait for it.............
...
A plural unity...
What happens when a man and a woman get married?
They become husband and wife, two people who have become and act as one unit.
You seem to be, once again, missing the point.
Nowhere does scripture say that when a man and woman marry, they become a single person, unable to be differentiated.
What Scripture says is that, when "a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, . . . they shall become one flesh."
A plural unity.
Two people, united.
Did you forget that when a man has sex with his wife, the normal result is a baby?
In this case (and in this case alone, the only exception to the rule of mathematics): 1 + 1 = 3
One man + one woman => father, mother, and child.
"The two shall become one flesh."
Such a beautiful and elegant way of putting it!
Once again, missing the point, this time seemingly of the passage itself...
Why are you quoting a passage from 6 chapters later?
We're dealing with Exodus 24, which was BEFORE Moses, et al, went up the mountain, to receive the tablets of stone.
They all agreed to what God had told Moses to say to them. Thus, "they spoke with one voice."
It's a figure of speech that means they were in agreement with one another.
It means both.
So Echad doesn't mean "first"?
Not what we've been saying.
You sure do like making straw man arguments.
The word ECHAD means ONE (a plural unity (iow: properly united)) and FIRST (when used as an ordinal number).
Missing the point and irrelevant.
This is literally what we've been saying the entire time. Thanks for conceding the entire discussion!
The "components" do not have to be explicitly listed.
"YHVH [our God] YVHV [is one]"
"YHVH elohenu YHVH ehad"
Elohenu = elohim <= plural word
echad <= plural unity
There is a plural unity in the ONE God, who is YHVH.
YHVH (N-proper-ms)
Elohim (N-mpc)
YHVH (N-proper-ms)
ehad (Number-ms)
In order:
Noun, proper name, masculine singular
Noun, masculine plural genitival pronoun
Noun, proper name, masculine singular
Number, masculine singular
Echad is the only word for "one" (because there is more than one word for "one" in ancient Hebrew, something you probably didn't know) that fits this sentence, because it is the only word that agrees with "Elohim" and still remains "one."
"YHVH our God (PLURAL), YHVH is ONE (plural unity)."
Get it?
There is ONE YHVH. He is God.
YHVH is a plural unity.
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9-10 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Or did you think there was only one Sea?
Oh, I read it. It is clear what it states.
Genesis 1:9-10
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
The waters under the heaven were gathered together into
a. multiple places?
b. one place
One place, the place where the waters were gathered together. On this planet, that would be everywhere not considered dry land. We have two distinct places, the place where the waters were gathered together and the dry land which appeared once the waters were gathered together into one place.
That is why one place is singular because it is one place, the place where the land is not dry. We have place with water and another place which is dry. Two distinct places.
Wet place vs. dry place.
Two distinct places. One place is wet, one place is dry.
The word echad is one, singular and the word place, maqom, is also singular. Double emphasis of singularity. It is one place, not many places.
The dry, yabasa, is likewise singular. The dry is one place.
Yes, God calls it "seas" plural here, as I already pointed out, but in other places, God refers to these "seas" as "sea" singular. Why? to distinguish the dry from the wet. Fish live in the sea, not dry land. Thus sea is singular, because only the sea is wet, the dry land is dry.
Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Sea is singular in this verse. Because the sea is the one place where fish live. They do not live in any other place but the sea. The one place where the waters were gathered together into one place. ONE place.
It couldn't get any simpler.
Context reveals the proper understanding.
Yes, it was day one. It was the only day one in all eternity in that context. There is no other day one in that context. It is the only day one that had those specific events take place. God spoke and the light appeared and God saw the light, and God considered it good and God divided the light from the darkness and God called the light day and the darkness He called night. That is the only day in scripture that those specific events took place. It is a singular day in God's plan and in history. There is no other day one that is remotely similar.
Thus there is no unity of multiple days in that day one. It is singular.
Both one and day are singular.
Second is ordinal because it was the second day. The word second is likewise singular because it is still one day, not a multiplicity of days. It is only one day. There can only be one second day in this sequence of days, these unique seven days that God shares with us.
Dream on. God can make sons of Abraham out of stones. He could have made Eve from a rock, but instead chose to make it from a component of Adam.
As I pointed out. the life of the flesh is in the blood. Thus rib is used to signify blood near the heart. God did not make Eve from the flesh which would have been shallow. Eve was not some soulless blow up doll. Eve was made from the life blood of Adam. Eve had soul, nephesh, from Adam. God did not create new soul for Eve. All animals have soul. Eve was made from the soul of Adam. That would be the best companion for Adam, the best help mate for Adam. Not one made from Adam's flesh but one made from Adam's soul, soul which is the life of the flesh which is in the blood. God did not make a dirt companion for Adam, He made a soul companion for Adam.
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
All humans subsequent to Adam have the same blood, the same soul in them, that Adam had.
When we look at the depth of what is represented by the singular word rib, we can see that is appropriately singular. God clearly did not literally refer to a rib but the life blood of Adam. The rib appropriately represents that life blood because of its proximity to the heart of Adam. We see in Proverbs 31 that the heart of the husband of a virtuous woman safely trust in her.
Prov 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
The woman is close to the heart of the husband and his heart is safe with her.
That is enough for now.
I may address the rest of your post later.
It was a unity ---- morning and evening.