Talk:Elohim/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe that Anon is hiding blatent holes in this debate that must be discussed. In Hebrew (like in English), you can have these cases where even the noun itself appears to be singular in grammar and form, but it is in fact referring to more than one object (such as a collective). There are many different examples that destroy any premise or assumption that a singular verb or adjective must mean that what is being spoken of must be understood as a single entity. Instead, a singular verb form simply means that it is acting as if it is a single entity, which is a concept that is quite easy to understand.::

Now, if I say, "the jury makes its decision", the apparent singular form and singular verb grammar usage by no means must indicate that there aren't many members of the jury. So you have:

1)singular noun with a singular verb -> plural concept (the jury has more than one person)

Now with Elohim, if you had "[Gods] makes a decision", then you have:

2)plural noun with a with a singular verb.

How could you possibly argue that grammatically example #2 must be less plural in concept than #1? You can't, but that is precisely what Anon is trying to do. Smpf38 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is spot-on. Nothing else to add here, you hit the nail on the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.76.230 (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You could also have "Divinity makes it's decision" singular noun and verb but the singular noun should apply to the whole pantheon of Gods and therefore is plural. ' The article appears to be avoiding the fact that the Elohim are the 'Gods'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This article as it stands now has a lot of problems from the point of view of scientific linguistics and systematic etymologies. To start with, Eloah is most definitely NOT "arguably feminine" -- this word has a He Mappiq (a breathily-pronounced final "h") which does not change to a "t" if suffixes are added, while Hebrew feminine words which end in "ah" have a silent "h" which changes to a "t" if suffixes are added. Furthermore, the "a" in Eloah is a late furtivum vowel which wouldn't have existed in the pronunciation of Biblical times.

See Names of God in Judaism#Elohim, which has much more solid information.

From the morphological point of view, Elohim is simply Elo(a)h with a plural ending. AnonMoos 11:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd also take issue with the recently added "but from a neutral point of view there is no evidence proving that this originally meant one rather than several acting in accord." I would think the use of singular verbs and adjectives is strong neutral evidence for a singular meaning. Some may try to explain the singular verbs and adjectives away, as in the "headquarters" argument in the article, but they are evidence nonetheless. --agr 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that much of the "information" currently contained in this article is beyond saving by means of small incremental edits. My current idea is to merge the "Etymologies" section with Names of God in Judaism#Elohim , rename the rest of the page as "Elohim in Non-Jewish Religions", and have Elohim be a redirection to Names of God in Judaism. If someone doesn't have a better idea, or this article isn't fixed in some other way, then eventually I'll get around to putting the process in motion...  ;-) AnonMoos 16:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

AnnonMoos, I have no objection, but I would kindkly ask that you make a sandbox and try your cleanup/edit before the merge/redirect. The Names of God in Judaism was already peer reviewed and given the coveted "feature article" status, so I would thread with caution. Why don't you make a sandbox at Talk:Names of God in Judaism/Elohim and show us how the new Elohim section would look on the Names of God in Judaism article? Happy editing! --ZappaZ 16:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry -- my saying that the "Etymologies" section of this article could be merged with Names of God in Judaism#Elohim is an attemptedly semi-polite way of saying that most of the content of the "Etymologies" section of this article would be junked -- and I'm not going to do anything hastily, and will give plenty of notice before I do do something... AnonMoos 02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

CODGEN, thanks for adding this article - it looks good and it has been much needed for a long, long time. -Visorstuff 08:25, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could it possibly be related to אלוה 'eloh' -- an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh? Alternatively, does الله 'allah' come from the Hebrew words listed in the article? -Zhen Lin 14:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anyone object to the removal of additions made by anonymous user 196.2.45.94? Sethoeph 23:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking the same thing when I read that...unless it can be made NPOV and incorporated into the article I would say delete

--Jon, Conqueror of Men 04:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The etymology of the word Elohim in an ancient Hebrew term meaning "Those who come from the sky". There are many theories, however,

Now who are the raelian : The world famous UFO cult ... ANd now the claim that ELOHIM mean "those who came of the sky" is nothing more that one of their belief with absolutely no scientific value ....

Note to above person:

Now who are you ? Have you studied ancient Hebrew ? The term "Elohim" means "those who came from the sky". This term survives to this day in many Hebrew translations.

Please stop changing this article so it says Elohim means "Those who came from the sky". This is a Raelian belief, not a Jewish one, thus this information should only go under the "Raelian" heading, since this is not a universally held belief. Thank you. [jon] [talk] 12:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your personal thought or speculation are irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, and that means you need to come up with

SYNTH. CUSH

10:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it. Just a note - I only brought it up here. Anyways... Thanks for the correction Cush. I do know that things need to not be speculation but I added that with my ignorance of the wiki talk page guidelines. I do apolgize... Samyael (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the recent edits by

I went ahead and removed them, placing them here for reference. Somebody else who supports their inclusion can put them back in if they choose. - Nat Krause 18:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed passage

While some may assert that some passages using the term Elohim clearly denote a singular "God" of the Israelites that is only an assumption with which we have become comfortable because the usage changed so long ago. The use of the different terms in conjunction; i.e. with YHWH speaking to the Elohim or Adonai being among the Elohim just as clearly shows that these terms were not originally interchangeable and have only recently in the last 2000 years come to be replaced in the modern bible by the substitution of the Greek word "God". This perhaps more than anything has contributed to the now common assumption that these names all indicated one and the same individual.

Genesis 1:26 "And the Elohim said let us make the adam* in our own image, after our likeness" Genesis 3:22 "And the Elohim said, behold, the adam has become as one of us." Genesis 6:1-2 "When men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of the Elohim (ben Elohim) saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose." Psalms 82:1&6 "YHWH stations himself in the congregation of the mighty: and judges the Elohim: And all of you are children of the most High...who die like men do." Isaiah 44:6 "I YHWH am the first and the last, there are no Elohim without me."

The first verse of the bible states; B-rasit** (By Wisdom) bara (regenerated, shaped, fashioned ) Elohim*** (the Gods) e-smim**** (the disposition) v'et ha aretz ( and the earth). see Hutchinson "Of the Trinity of the Gentiles" and Moses's Principia and "Anacalypsis" by Higgins.

* The word "adam" in Hebrew means mankind. Page 8 # 120, of the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary section, of the "James Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" The Bible states that the Adamic race was male and female in Gen. 1:27, before the supposed creation of Eve in Gen. 2:22. The Bible refers to humans as THE Adam, a generic term defining a multiplicity. Only in chapter 5 of Genesis...does the bible drop the "the"." it is as absurd to speak of an individual as "the Adam" as it would be to say "the John" or "the Tom".

**The first two words in the book of Genesis, B-RASIT; (for they are properly two not one word) [are rendered]; when first,.. before,... in power,... in order before all,... in the beginning.... , But an official accredited and admitted authority of the Jewish religion with an earlier translation (than that of the modern expositors) given during the time when Hebrew became a lost language, the “JERUSALEM TARGUM”; renders the words “by WISDOM.” Ras means “head” or thought.

***Al or El is the root of Elohim, "In the Old Testament...Yahweh is identified with this El (cf. Isa. 43:12, 44:9; Psalms 118:27; and further Numbers. 23:8, 24:8; II Sam. 23:5; Job. 5:8, etc.)...in the historical books, el is usually replaced by elohim... Al or El is recognized as the Hebrew word for the ALL, The Infinite ONE. see Godfrey Higgins "Anacalypsis" pages 73-80, 284,326,408,785 In the Bible we constantly meet with the expression the Aleim or Elohim, but in no instance with the expression THE Jehovih (alt. spelling). The word YHWH appears in Genesis 2:4, accompanied by the word "Elohim", as in "Yahweh Elohim" (Jehovih Gods; godlike beings, who in serving All, were one with YHWH, the INFINITE ALL ONE).

**** the two words, e-smim, in the first chapter of Genesis rendered; the heavens, comes from the root "sm", which means to fix, to enact, to place. The word rqio means space, air or firmament, it is absurd to speak of the air or space or firmament in the plural. see Hutchinson, "Of the Trinity of the Gentiles" and Moses's Principia.

Psalms 68:17 "The chariots (carriors, both terms are from the same root, to carry) of the Elohim are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: Adoni (the Lord) is among them." Corinthians 8:5-6 "There be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many. But to us there is but one God, the Father,of whom are all things, and we in him." John 10:34 "Know ye not that ye are Gods...He called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken"

God is a Greek word. "The event that triggered the creation of the (New Testament of the) Christian Bible (to be written in Greek) was the conversion of Constantine, he called the first council of Nicea in 325 CE." In a letter ...the emperor (Constantine) confessed he would feel secure "Only when I see all venerating the most holy God in the proper cult of the catholic religion [katholikos; universal, from Greek, kata in respect to & holos whole, page 149 "Thorndike Dictionary"] Pages 70-71&125 on Constantine and Councils: Christian "Encyclopedia of Religion".

I removed the following addition by 69.21.160.187 as original speculation. If it represents a major published view point a reference is in order:

(One might note that the "i" being 'yod" is often added to imply possession, or path to a source, such as "of". The "m" often pluralizes or implies a state of unifying, such as "us". May words, particularly names, in Hebrew are derived from active characteristics. [I new people that had the last name of WISE. Perhaps given to imply they tried to be wise or were "wise"-ing] Anyway, added to together one then gets Eloah: Might im: of us-ing. Exercising that to the fullest extent as an one in an oppressed condition might wish and one begins to grasp the idea of a supreme deity.)

--agr 18:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I splited the first frase and typed the words in hebrew with some clarification:

The aramaic-hebrew word aleh ('lhm) is found in the

• Joel Hoffman derives the word from the common Canaanite word אלים (elim) readed aleim with the mater lectionis ה (he) inserted to distinguish [...]

Note that א is readed in Israel today as A for aramaic words such as adon (adoni, adonai, etc.) and as "E" for this term and others.

--FlorinCB (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your edits did not seem to add any real clarity, and your spelling and capitalization don't follow usual English-language conventions (it's Yiddish, not "idish" etc.). Eloah is not a Yiddish word, and I have no real idea what "Aleh" is supposed to mean in this context. Elohim has a ħatef-segol diacritic after its first consonant letter, while Adon has a qames diacritic. AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Elokim redirects here, but it's not actually mentioned in the article. I think someone with more expertise than I should probably add a sentence or three about it.

It's a minor modern Jewish euphemistic form, like "G-d" etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed two recent edits, The first added ' the plural of "god,"' to the intro. The question of whether Elohim always has a plural meaning is central to the article.

The second edit says:

The only similar name between Allah and YHVH is when 'Lord' is used, but 'Lord' is used in place of YHVH (taken to be too scared to use)in Hebrew Scripture and is a title rather than name. Also the fact that "La ilaha illAllah." shows that indeed Allah is the name of the God of Islam. Note Allah on the end is not God as this statement says "there is no other God than Allah" obviously this transliturated arabic doesn't help but the transliteration shows that Allah appears once which means it isn't the arabic word for God. It would have to read "there is no other God but God". So Allah is the name and therefore not the same name as the God of the Jews and Christians.

Also the name Ar-Rahman is used to denote the Islamic God until Muhammed revealed the Satanic Verses, after this the name Allah was used instead. Some scholars feel this has to do with winning over some of the Meccan pagans to Islam.

Also the fact that Allah is hostile to Jews and Christians contradicts the Scripture, where the Jews are clearly shown as Yahweh's chosen people and were given an unbreakable convenant made between Yahweh and Abraham. Also the values and commandments in the Qur'an contradict those given in Scripture of Jews and Christians.

Finally the Muslim call to prayer "Allah, Hu Akbar" states that "Allah is greater", which many non-Islamic commentators feel is the adversary to Yahweh. This adversary wanted to be praised as Elohim and is commonly thought to be the fallen angel, referred to as Lucifer, Satan, the Shining One in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This also fits with the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian stance of Islam.

This seems a rather POV anti-Islam screed with no supporting references. It is only tangentially relevant to the subject of the article. --agr 19:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea on the Islamic part.

The word form itself is plural. It is as plural as "people" or "them" or "Gods" I've added in a compromising edit, but we may want to look at providing a literal translation in addition to the hebrew word. Margaret Barker and others scholars are much better at explaining why it was significant for the word to be plural to ancient Hebrews, but someone else can add all that into this article. It is sufficient that we state the word is plural in its form. -Visorstuff 20:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As i am writing this, I am wearing corduroy pants. They are brown. "Pants" is clearly a plural form and current English usage calls for a plural verb ("are") and pronoun ("they"). Some Wikipedia scholar 3000 years hence might therefore conclude that I was talking about at least two articles of clothing. However every native English speaker today understands I am talking about only one. Meaning does not always follow grammar. In the case of elohim, understanding the meaning is further complicated by the fact that the Hebrew test of the uses singular verbs and adjectives in those situations where elohim is translated "God" in, e.g., the King James version. Your edit "Elohim (אלהים) is the plural form of a Hebrew word related to deity" raises another question, namely what is the singular form: el?, eloah?, something else? These issues are hotly debated among Bible scholars. The article should present both sides and not prejudge the answer in the intro. I've edited the intro to include the plural issue in what i hope is a more neutral way. --agr 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pants (pantaloons) is not the best example, as pants refers to two legs. It is plural in that way, but no one would wear a pant, at the expense of exposing the rest of his body. In the same way, using your example you wouldn't create an article on Wikipedia about "Pant."

The simple answer is that the singular of Elohim is El. It gets more complex when you look at other contemporary ancient wrtings that used modified El words. Because it is key to the article, this needs to be introduced in the introduction. Too many religions believe that Judaism was originally not monotheistic, and new age religions believe that Elohim may be multiples.

The fact is that Elohim is plural. Perpaps it is a Plurale tantum, but should still be included and referred to as a plural word. I do not neccessarily believe that there is more than one "El" (I believe that Elohim is "Heavenly Father" or "God the Father" (not heavenly fathers), however, unless you were around when the word was created, you do not know if the originators of the word meant plural of singular. The point is that there is controversy because it is a plural word, and it needs to be mentioned. When Elohim says in genesis one "Let us make man in our image" why does every major English translation (in fact I'm unaware of any who do not) use the plural here (KJV, NIV, RSV, ASV, ESV, etc.)? It is a plural word, and I think the majority of biblical scholars agree on this issue.

In any case, it is obviouly more of a doctrinal issue to you than a scholarly issue, which is fine (it is disputed in your case becuase of the doctrinal ramifications). I like what you've done to the intro, and think it suffices. It is good work. Thanks for working with me on this point, I believe the article is stronger because of this. -Visorstuff 18:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

From the strictly morphological linguistic point of view, Elohim is the plural of Eloah with He Mappiq (אלוה), while the plural of El is actually Elim (אלימ), as in Psalms 29:1, Psalms 89:7, and possibly (in "defective" spelling without the yod) Exodus 15:11. Once you go beyond the relatively clear-cut facts of linguistic morphology, then you're entering into a realm of interpretation, which should not be presented here as categorical fact unless it's the mainstream scholarly consensus (which Elohim as the plural of El certainly isn't). AnonMoos 02:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article explains clearly that Elohim in the first line of the bible is not plural. But how can this be reconciled with Genesis 1:26 "Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image". I'd appreciate if someone can clarify this.

The explanation that I have heard (from someone with extensive religious education but who is not a rabbi) is that Elohim is talking with the angels. This makes perfect sense, since angels are anthropomorphic and do Elohim's bidding, it would also explain why Elohim is speaking. If this can be verified it should be added to the article.

Because Elohim is a plural word, but it denotes one person. Please read the threads above for more detail. Or as others would say pants is plural but denotes one, so is Elohim (i disagree with the parallell, but it is illustrative. -Visorstuff 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Elohim is the plural of Eloh or Eloah, isn't it? --Fantastic4boy (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While 'elohim is morphologically the plural form of 'eloah, the latter is generally viewed as a back-formation from the former. Every indication is that 'elohim far predates 'eloah. 'elim also may be singular with an enclitic /m/. This is an area of contention, though, given the enclitic mem is not clearly identifiable.

The word 'elohim is morphologically plural, that is true, but its cognates in the Syro-Palestinian lexicon were used with singular verbs and in reference to singular individuals for centuries before Hebrew existed as a language. It's not a plural of majesty, but a concretized abstraction. Originally it acted similar to 'abot (fatherhood) and other nouns whose abstractions were simple plurals. It meant "deity" or "divinity." It was used so frequently in reference to the Israelite deity (in Israelite literature and probably speech) that it became concretized, or became a proper noun through frequent usage. It was still used in its abstract sense, but also in its definite sense, as well as its adjectival sense and its literal plural sense. A good book that covers this theory is Joel Burnett's A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim. The article never cites this book, which is a critical oversight.

The trick is to figure out in which sense it is being used. Attempting to protect a monotheistic reading of the Hebrew Bible, however, is no way to approach this question. maklelan (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.48.201 (talk)

Does anyone else find it interesting that in the Hebrew Bible they refer to God in the plural form frequently? I mean, why would they use plurality if they (or he since many believe it was the work of one person). Just commenting and hoping for some good feedback

Lue3378 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As others here have pointed out, plurality in form does not necessarily indicate plurality in meaning. For example, the Hebrew word panim (פנים) is plural in form yet is used when referring to one person's face. What makes Elohim a conundrum is that, unlike panim, it often is treated as a grammatical singular, as in the first verse of Genesis. I would say that, despite the -im ending, Elohim functions much like the English word sheep, which may be either singular or plural, depending on the context (e.g. "the sheep walks" vs. "the sheep walk"). marbeh raglaim 18:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok here's the deal, everyone is obviously missing the fact the Hebrew has NO superlatives. So what's the logical shortcut call something a plural in order to show such grandness that the object is like a multitude. Also, in order for something to be plural it has to have plural case AND plural tense. Seeing as how it's only plural tense it's not referring to multiple. So in case you're all missing the point it's like saying our god is big it's like he's a whole bunch gods. If you can find a hole in my argument please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.250.92 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Allahumma in Arabic is a vocative form with no ascertainable plural morphology or meaning. In comparative Semitic terms, an "m" indefiniteness marker or plural ending in languages like Hebrew corresponds to an "n" indefiniteness marker or plural ending in languages like Arabic (the mimation/nunation contrast). For these reasons, the Allahumma connection remains somewhat speculative. Many Arabists might say that Allahumma is "energic", and leave it at that...

Also, the bit about the Olympian pantheon was rather unclear, was integrated into the article text in an awkward way, and almost certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence of the article. AnonMoos 14:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Elohim is plural and it can be used collectively with either a singular or plural verb. But that does not change the fact that the Elohim is plural, not singular. The singular forms that were available at the time were not used. The best translation of Elohim is "the gods". -- LKS 5/10/06

Sorry, but Elohim is morphologically (internally) plural, but in its use to refer to the God of Israel, it's syntactically and semantically singular (i.e. externally singular). Nothing else makes too much sense.

There are many words which can be considered "collective" in Hebrew, but all of them which have plural morphology (i.e. an -im or -ot ending) take plural verb agreement and adjective agreement -- all except Elohim when referring to the God of Israel, that is. And the word for "we" takes plural adjectives and 1st. person. plural verb conjugations -- quite unlike Elohim referring to the God of Israel, which takes singular adjective and verb forms (as in breshit bara 'elohim discussed in the article, where the singular verb form bara is most definitely used). So I don't see that you've particularly explained anything. AnonMoos 04:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you ANON, but there are many examples of subjects that are not singular in meaning (or even not singular in morphology), but the singular verb/adjective is used with those subjects of the sentence anyways. When this type of sentence structure occurs, it occurs when two or more of something are acting as if they are one, while technically they are not. This is kind of like a collective noun in English (jury, team), but in Hebrew, in some cases it may still take the plural ending. Again, I give you some examples. Water, transliteration "mayim")מים has the plural ending "-im" but is used in a singular sense. This is because many waters (drops of water) can join together and act as one body of water. In fact, like Elohim, the single form of "mayim" is hardly used (if ever). But that doesn't mean that "mayim" cannot be understood as more than just singular. To the contrary, it is easy to see how water can be divided in two, over and over again, yet still maintains its essential characteristics. Eyes and ears act as one when serving as sensory organs (though technically we do have 2 eyes and 2 ears). Now, these are examples of "dual" roots, but a plural morphological form (like Elohim) is arguably more plural than just a dual root. In Hebrew (like in English), you can have these cases where even the noun itself appears to be singular in grammar and form, but it is in fact referring to more than one object (such as a collective). These are all different examples that destroy your premise and presumption that a singular verb or adverb must mean that what is being spoken of must be understood as a single entity. Instead, a singular verb form simply means that it is acting as if it is a single entity, which is a concept that is quite easy to understand. You know this fact: a singular noun or verb doesn't say squat about the actual number technically involved. Like if I say, "the jury makes its decision", the apparent singular form and singular verb grammar usage by no means must indicate that there aren't many members of the jury. So, quit pretending that the grammar absolutely must mean that Elohim must be understood as a singular concept when referring to "God". Smpf38 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and I would certainly quarrel with the statement that "The best translation...is 'the gods.'" There is no "best translation." The word has no single translation that would correctly apply to all contexts. As stated above, to translate Genesis 1:1 as "...the gods created the heavens and the earth" would be both incorrect and grammatically awkward. On the other hand, elohim acheirim is always translated as "other gods" (as opposed to "another god") because of the plural acheirim. marbeh raglaim 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To quote the last sentence in the topic "Elohim" in the article "Names of God in Judaism": "In many of the passages in which Elohim occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities..." -- LKS 5/13/06

That's nice -- and in such cases it is translated as "gods", as is made abundantly clear here in this very article Elohim. However, Elohim referring to the God of Israel and taking singular verb and adjective agreement should not be translated as "gods", for reasons abundantly explained... AnonMoos 00:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that's abundantly clear is the translator's bias. The word (and the myths) pre-date the Israelites' particular usage. No matter how vigorously one might insist that the word "committee" in the sentence "The committee speaks with one voice" is a singular entity, the fact remains that it explicitly denotes a collection of individuals. -- LKS 5/15/06

The translator's bias? From which language? It's singular in Hebrew: "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ". --Yms 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point about "committee" is a good one; however, I don't think you would ever hear someone say something like, "I am John, your committee." Yet you do find that sort of construction with Elohim in the Bible--see, for example Lev. 26:13. I don't see how you can interpret the word as anything but singular (in meaning, not just grammar) in that verse. "I am the Lord your gods" just doesn't make sense. marbeh raglaim 06:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Verse 13 uses Elohechem ("your God") not Elohim and I can envision critics claiming that is a different word. But the previous verse (12) "And I will walk among you, and I will be your God, and you will be my people." does use Elohim and, of course, flows right into v.13. And the Hebrew for v.12 clearly uses singular forms repeatedly for God and plural forms for the collective "people."--agr 14:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The -echem ending is the standard way of mutating the plural suffix -im to attach the possessive "your." For example, Deuteronomy 11:2 uses benechem (your children), which comes from banim (children). marbeh raglaim 11:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are so many examples in the text that imply a singular meaning. I'm just trying to point out one that requires as little appeal to Hebrew grammar as possible, on the perhaps uncharitable suspicion that some of those who argue that the word is invariably plural might have a limited knowledge of the language.--agr 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "Committee" analogy is very poor, since "Committee" does not have plural morphological form in English -- "The committee speaks" actually shows perfect morphological agreement in English (a singular noun subject is followed by a singular verb), while bara elohim shows superficial morphological disagreement in Hebrew (a noun with a plural ending is construed with a singular verb).

In any case, the aspersions on "the translator" are naive and pointless, since Hebrew Elohim has been translated into a singular form in other languages continuously from the Septuagint Greek translation of perhaps ca. 175 B.C. down to the latest translations of 2006 A.D. AnonMoos 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "committee", how about this: "Physics tells us nothing can travel faster than light." vs. "The doctor administered physics but they are not working."--agr 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Elohim means God. As in "I am God/Elohim, there are no other God(s)/Elohim.". Simple as that.99.246.242.251 (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)(Tetra Vega)

Suggest this article be combined with "Elohim (gods)", which curiously is not listed under "Elohim (disambiguation)". -- LKS 5/15/06

Why not with the jazz album? Don't you like jazz? :) --Yms 04:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added a link to Elohim (gods) to Elohim (disambiguation). As for the rest, if you don't know any Hebrew or linguistics, then you may not be the best person to speak authoritatively on the matter. AnonMoos 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a Hebraic bias in this article. The first paragraph states that Elohim and El are Hebrew words, when virtually every other source (including related Wikipedia articles) say that they are much more than that. To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections."

Suggest this article (as it currently exists) be placed under a subsection titled something like "Hebraic Usage" and the full history and meaning of the word be given precedence. (Again, the word pre-dates the Israelite's particular usage.) Also suggest this article be merged with "Elohim (gods)". By the way, using a singular verb to force the sense of a plural noun to a singular meaning does not obscure its underlying pluralness. -- LKS 5/19/06

Dude, 'LHYM (plene consonantal spelling) or 'LHM (defective consonantal spelling) is a common Canaanite word apparently found in several languages, but Elohim (with those particular vowels) is the particular form it takes in the Hebrew language -- there's very little evidence for the vowels of this word in the non-Hebrew Canaanite languages, so that the article "Elohim (gods)", which you're so fond of, is somewhat presumptuous in using the attested Hebrew vowels for non-Hebrew forms of the word. Furthermore, this article is mainly about the Biblical usage of Elohim and the ramifications and influences of its Biblical uses, because that's what has current relevance -- the polytheistic use of Elohim is an obscure footnote by comparison. In any case, the word "Hebraic" is somewhat awkward in the sense in which you're attempting to use it.

And your a prioritistic declaration that Elohim must have plural meaning is flatly contradicted by the simple fact that it doesn't have plural meaning (in its use to refer to the God of Israel). Next you'll be telling us that "trousers" and "spectacles" have plural meaning! AnonMoos 22:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "trousers" and "spectacles" DO have plural meaning! Trousers are not made from one piece of fabric and spectacles are actually two lenses fastened together, as opposed to a monacle (smpf38 march 10 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpf38 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Many words denote composite objects with several parts or many parts, but that doesn't make them "plural" in meaning as such. I really don't see why the phrase "a pair of trousers" (referring to a single garment with two legs) has a meaning which is inherently more "plural" than the phrase "a Ford pick-up truck" (referring to a complex object with thousands of parts). See

pluralia tantum for the general article on words such as "trousers"... AnonMoos (talk

) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia policy on article names (

WP:NAME) suggests that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." I think it is fair to say the vast majority of readers who know the word "Elohim" recognize it in the context of the Hebrew scriptures and therefore the unqualified title should discuss the word's meanings in Hebrew. --agr

22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What you consider to be "the more interesting picture" is that you think that Elohim should be uniformly translated into English "gods" plural in every case. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who know more Hebrew than you do disagree with you -- which means that it's not so "interesting" after all... AnonMoos 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we're back to the Hebrew (as if that's all there is). And that's the problem. This article appears to violate the NPOV rule, Religious Bias.-- LKS 5/19/06

I'm confused about what point it is you're trying to make, and what you're arguing against. That Britannica quote supports the claim that the word is "singular in meaning" when used in the Bible to refer to the God of Israel. Do you agree or disagree? marbeh raglaim 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the disambig template at the top of the article to make it clear that the subject is the Hebrew word. I would also propose moving the

Elohim (gods) article to Elohim (Canaanite), as the title would more accurately reflect its subject and "gods" is one of the accepted translations of the Hebrew word.--agr

12:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. AnonMoos 14:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you now want to focus on the Hebrew use of the word (rather than its historic and linguistic origins), you should place this entry in a Hebrew dictionary. Otherwise, this article should emphasize the etymology of the word and not a particular, parochial usage.-- LKS 5/29/06

Since when was etymology the most important feature of describing a word? You've got it backwards: if there's any place that would "emphasize the etymology," it would be a dictionary, not an encyclopedia article. I should note, though, that even in a dictionary the etymology would hardly be as paramount as you seem to think it is. marbeh raglaim 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What you call a "particular, parochial usage" was basically the only one that was known about for many centuries prior to the 20th century discovery of the Ugaritic tablets of Ras Shamra, and the only one that any large number of people (outside of a tiny cadre of scholarly Ancient Near East specialists) really cares about. You're getting kind of boring, "LKS"... AnonMoos 07:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To focus on the Hebrew to the exclusion of virtually everything else does a disservice to the naive reader. To try to wall off the Hebrew use of the word from its larger historic, linguistic, and cultural context is misleading. --LKS 6/1/06

That's funny, I'm looking at the entry for Elohim in my Biblical Hebrew lexicon right this moment, and it's quite different from the Wikipedia article... (For anything else, see my comments of 07:05, 30 May 2006 and 23:24, 19 May 2006 above.) AnonMoos 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, LKS. I don't know about the others, but I am not here to "fight." The purpose of these talk pages is to help improve the quality of articles, not to debate for the heck of it. You are obviously unhappy at the way the article in its current form is presented, but you have been vague about what to do about this problem. If you want the article changed in any way, then be specific. What specifically does the article say which you consider inaccurate? And what specifically do you think the article should include that it doesn't already have? Currently, the article does contain one sentence referring to the Canaanite use of the word. If you think this is too minimal a treatment, what do you think should be added? Give us your version, and then we can discuss it. marbeh raglaim 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

His main "specific" suggestion so far has been that Elohim always means "gods" plural in all contexts... AnonMoos 22:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he really still defending that point? I assumed he had given up on it, or maybe that's not what he had meant in the first place. The Britannica article he quoted said outright that the Israelites attached a singular meaning to the word. His current complaint seems to be that the Wikipedia article should devote more attention to the pre-Hebraic usage of the word. I should point out, however, that the Britannica article devotes no more space to this matter (one sentence, to be precise) than the Wikipedia article does. Thus, I am eager to learn what he wishes to add that the professional encyclopedias lack. marbeh raglaim 23:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the key approaches to exegesis missing from the article is

Documentary Hypothesis. Some of what is puzzling about this word (i.e., the plural being paired with singular verbs) can be put in historical context, since the early Genesis Elohim passages are attributed to the Priestly source, not to the Jahwist or the Elohist. As an example, since the Priestly writer was supposed to have lived at a much later time than J or E, we might expect to see a one-God approach even in the face of an historically plural ending--that is, the singular verbs may have been added consciously by this source writer to bolster a contemporary doctrine of unity while using traditional language. While the JEPD hypothesis is by no means uncontroversial, it has a definite place in the tradition of interpretation, and also has solid footing in Wikipedia (well-documented, and balanced with opponents to the theory). An interesting corollary question for this article rises: If both names were known in his time, why would the Priestly source choose the term "Elohim" over "YHWH"--with all its complications? YHWH would have been a simple choice if a one-God doctrine were the primary objective, and yet we are left with a choice that was obviously complex. The word must have held some great significance in that century to that writer, but what might it have been? Jerekson

05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look again. The article does discuss the DH. If you feel that that section should be expanded, provide suggestions. However, let's stick to a basic description of the theory, not some personal extrapolation from it: otherwise it becomes original research. marbeh raglaim 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I shouldn't have said "missing." I was just hoping for a more thorough discusssion of why the name is considered significant by DH scholars. But at some point, I guess you have to let the links do the talking. As I thought about all I hoped to see on this page, I really couldn't think of anything that wouldn't be better kept on the DH page. I certainly had no plans to use the article as a stump for personal extrapolation--I thought the Talk page was the right place to do that?... Jerekson 04:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia users are discouraged from using the Talk pages to discuss for discussion's sake. The purpose of these pages is to find ways to improve the articles. But I don't want to sound like a glowering authority figure telling other people how to behave. I'm sure that I've violated this "rule" time and again. I only insist that the article remain as as neutral as possible, and stick to accepted definitions of things rather than unusual arguments. marbeh raglaim 09:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the discussion for discussion's sake thing. But if I'm talking about changing an article section, am I somewhat obliged to provid rationale? Or do folkls just get in there and change things without talking to the rest of the community that works on the article? Jerekson 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's really up to you. Anyone can change an article without discussing it, but if others don't like the change, they may change it back. That's why there are the discussion pages, so we can (hopefully) reach an agreement. I'm just not clear on what changes you want to make. marbeh raglaim 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting some recent edits that are serious enough to deserve an explanation. These include "Elohim subsequent to Eden was applied to all idols and images representing a god or gods. It was used by all Semitic tribes to denote a deity. Correct application of this name to the monotheistic deity of Israel stood opposed to all false uses by surrounding nations and religions." "(is a plural of majesty not that God is many gods)" and "Elohim never means plural gods or a plurality of personalities within God." The first two are viewpoints that many share, but not the only interpretations. The last is simply not true when the word is used with plural verbs and adjectives to mean "gods" as in, Ex. 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.--agr 03:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I had inserted a paragraph about the femininty of the Hebrew word Eloah, only to have it removed by AnonMoos because he belives his opinion to be flawless. He wrote me and said "Did you look at the article talk page, where I explained in mind-numbing detail over a year ago why "Eloah" is not feminine?" AnonMoos.

I did look at what he wrote and was not in the least bit convinced that his "mind-numbing detail" proved anything other than he is satisfied with the scope of his research, even if it has left him short of the truth of the matter. I suggest he look at book called the Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai. He is a well published Jewish anthropolgist, and a competent Herbrewist. In that book he quite clearly establishes his premise that the Jews never were truly "monotheistic" in their true worship of Elohim because they also worshipped the Shekinah (feminine) who dwelt between the cheribum. He also shows that the Shekinah is the Holy Spirit. He cites many Jewish sources to establish the feminine aspect of the diety, even bringing in the idea that Eloah is the feminine form of El, which AnonMoos doesn't seem to take into his reasearch or disregards because it doesn't fit into his conclusions.

The paragaph I inserted, and which I am now going to reinstate, is right in line with the broader view shown by Patai. I ask AnonMoos this - if Eloah is not feminine, then it must be masculine, for there is no neuter in Biblical Hebrew. That would mean that man and woman (who were both originally called "Adam")are made in the image and likeness of a male called Elohim who doesn't, according to AnonMoos, contain any feminine element.Anyone7 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you exhibit a fine ability to pontificate, but an apparent lack of knowledge of the necessary relevant specifics of the morphology and phonology of the Hebrew language. There's no doubt that Eloah as it is actually found in the Hebrew Bible has masculine grammatical gender (in its very first appearance in Deuteronomy 32:15, it's construed with a masculine singular verb). The question some have raised is whether Eloah might not have an originally feminine morphological form (though it's attested as masculine in the Old Testament). Unfortunately for those speculations, those who know most about Hebrew have answered the question negatively, for some of the same reasons I detailed above:

Eloah has a He Mappiq (a breathily-pronounced final "h") which does not change to a "t" if suffixes are added, while Hebrew feminine words which end in "ah" have a silent "h" which changes to a "t" if suffixes are added. Furthermore, the "a" in Eloah is a late furtivum vowel which wouldn't have existed in the pronunciation of Biblical times.

The first step is directly addressing the linguistic facts; higher-level speculations must be based on the correct linguistic facts. AnonMoos 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base your thinking that "those who know most about Hebrew" are those you have been studying? True researchers/scholars have found that the Masoretic text has around 200 changes in gender and numbers from the older manuscripts, yet many teach that that text is infallible. Just because some facts are not accepted by a consensus of similar scholars doesn't mean that their school of thought is without prejudice and private opinion.

But what are we to do? There are competent Herbrewists, such as Raphael Patai, who disagree with the majority of the Rabbis, yet ones such as yourself will not allow the other well researched position a free voice. Such is not the purpose of the Wiki forum. It was never intended to let the strong dominate the weak, but that is what it has become in some areas. -- Anyone7 00:41, 31 December 2006

From my knowledge of Hebrew morphology and phonology in the context of comparative

Semitic linguistics. For example, look at the article Ilah. An "H" sound (i.e. plain [h], not ta marbuta) is not a marker of feminine gender in the Arabic language. So the word Ilāh appears in Arabic with a pronounced "h", and without any feminine ending -- in other words, in a form perfectly cognate to Hebrew Elōah, which shows the Canaanite long [a] to long [o] vowel shift

. Of course, Elōah would have been Elōh before the insertion of the super-short gnuva vowel, which happened after Biblical times.

I've actually read the "Hebrew Myths" book (and it's on a shelf 15 feet away from me as I type), but both Robert Graves and Raphael Patai were known as individualistic (some would say eccentric) types who practiced a speculative-intuitivist approach with hit and miss results (sometimes great insight, but just as often great nonsense), and some aspects of their works are highly controversial to the present day ("The Arab Mind", for example) -- and neither of them had ascertainable specialist technical expertise in the area of the historical linguistics of Hebrew morphology and phonology. It's quite possible that there could be a section towards the bottom of the article stating that persons X, Y, and Z (including Patai) have speculated that Eloah might be originally feminine (of course, as actually found in the attested Bible, the word is not feminine), but this should not be stated as an unquestioned assertion up at the top of the article. AnonMoos 01:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's "Hebraist", not "Herbrewist"... AnonMoos 01:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction on Hebraist. There is another place where Eloah appears to be feminine, that being Daniel 11:37-39 -

"Neither shall he regard the God [elohim] of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god [eloah]: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God [eloah] of forces: and a god [eloah] whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. "Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god [eloah], whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain."

In the verses preceding those the masculine words El and Elohim are used. But the subject changes in introducing the "God of fortresses." That term is not found in history, but there was a "Goddess of fortresses" Cybele (or Rhea), who was a counterfeit of the holy Shekinah, the Holy Spirit. So, some see that those verses are referring to a false goddess, and describe how the one spoken of in those verses does not regard any god or goddess, but comes up with a new goddess after the likeness of the goddess of fortresses. The key to understanding the use of eloah in these text lies in understanding who is the "king" who is the subject therein. When one understands who that "king" is, then the goddess he worships becomes crystal clear.

But what is also telling in regards to the use of Eloah as the base for Elohim is that the man and the woman were made in the image and likeness of Elohim, not Elim (masculine base, masculine plural ending).Anyone7 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, this whole passage refers to non-Jewish conceptions of non-Jewish gods, so the relevance to Jewish conceptions of their own God is quite distant at best. The word Eloah was used probably for that reason.

Second, from a grammatical point of view, a noun or name can never be proved to have feminine grammatical gender in Hebrew by appearing in the "contruct state" (genitive) construction such as Eloah ma`uzzim in Daniel 11:38 -- but only by having feminine adjectives or feminine verbs agree with it, or by having feminine pronouns refer back to it. In fact, the construct state Eloah ma`uzzim reinforces the point I made previously, about Eloah not having a feminine morphological ending (which of course is not the same thing as syntactic feminine grammatical gender). If Eloah had a feminine ending (i.e. ended in long [a] vowel plus silent "h", instead of super-short [a] vowel plus breathy pronounced "h"), then this phrase would appear as Eloat ma`uzzim. But it doesn't.

Third, the extra-Biblical comparison with a goddess of fortresses is really speculative and quite remote. God is likened to a fortress in several passages in the Hebrew Bible (Jeremiah 16:19, etc.), so there's no ascertainable reason why there couldn't be an imagined god of fortresses in the prophecy of the future behavior of a future king delivered by Daniel.

The kind of exegetical speculations which you've offered could be expanded at length (and also opposed by counter-speculations of the same type at length), but without some solid basis in linguistic morphology or phonology, or in actual textual attestations, they won't convince most scholars in the field (in fact, so far they haven't). AnonMoos 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What say ye of this. Is this a gender accurate translation of Psalms 113:5-9? "Who is like unto YHWH our God, She that is enthroned on high [hamagbihi], She that looketh down low [hamashpili] upon heaven and upon the earth? She who raised up [mekimi] the poor out of the dust, from the dunghill will He lift up [yarim] the needy; That She may set [l'hosivi] him with princes, even with the princes of His people [ammo]. She who maketh [moshivi] the barren woman to dwell in the midst of the household, the joyful mother of children. Hallelujah."

What is just as interesting is how Elohim speaks in both the masculine and feminine gender -

In Hebrew all pronouns also have (had) gender. Today it is taught that the different forms of "I" and "We" are interchangeable. They make no attempt to explain why all other pronouns have definite gender. Could this be because the Holy Spirit has inspired the writers of the Scriptures to record Elohim as speaking in both forms?

ANI – this is what a man would generally use to say "I." ANOCHI – this is the FEMININE form of "I."

In Genesis 28:13 & 14, Elohim says, "...I [ANI – masculine] ...will ...give it [the land]." Yet in verses 15 & 16 Elohim says, "...I [ANOCHI – FEMININE] am with thee, and will keep thee."

From this it is easy to see that the One pronouncing the promise is speaking in the MASCULINE gender, while the One who promises to "BE WITH" and "WILL KEEP" us is speaking in the FEMININE. Here we are shown the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Genesis 7:4 "...I (ANOCHI) will cause it to rain..."

Genesis 15:1 "...I [ANOCHI] am thy shield,..."

Genesis 15:14 "...I [ANOCHI] Judge:..."

Genesis 31:13 "I [ANOCHI] am the God of Bethel,..."

Genesis 46:3, 4 "I (ANOCHI am God,...I will there make...

"I [ANOCHI] will go down with thee..."

Exodus 3:6 "I [ANOCHI] am the God of thy Father..."

Exodus 3:12 "...Certainly I [ANOCHI] will be WITH thee'..."

Exodus 4:11 "...have not I [ANOCHI] WILL BE WITH ...and TEACH..."

Exodus 4:15 "...I [ANOCHI] will be WITH..."

Exodus 4:23 "...I [ANOCHI] will slay thy son..."

Deuteronomy 5:6 "I [ANOCHI] am the Lord..."

Deuteronomy 31:23 ":and I [ANOCHI] will be WITH thee."

Isaiah 51:12 "I [ANOCHI], even I [ANOCHI], am HE [SHE] that COMFORTETH you:"

It is clear from these texts that the God who is to be "WITH" us" – the Holy Spirit – spoke in the FEMININE gender and is of WHOM woman is made "In the image and likeness."

Though there are places where females are recorded to have used the masculine pronoun "ani," the matter again comes down to character. That is, was the woman speaking in a masculine character? Nonetheless, Elohim uses both the male and female voices.Anyone7 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why you're getting into trouble here -- you have no first-hand knowledge of the Hebrew language, so you have no means of checking or verifying the more dubious third-party claims which you may encounter. Anôkî is NOT a "feminine" pronoun -- it's just an alternative longer form of the 1st. person singular pronoun. The Semitic languages do not have contrasts between masculine and feminine in the 1st person pronouns (the 2nd. and 3rd. person pronouns, yes; 1st. person, not so much). And hammagbihi (a definite Hiph`il participle form from root G-B-H) does not have an actual feminine suffix. In any case, even if those things were true, they would have no relevance to this particular article... AnonMoos 06:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the person whom you're copying this stuff from seems to be under the impression that a word-final -i suffix is a mark of feminine grammatical gender in Hebrew. Unfortunately, however, this is only true of 2nd. person singular finite inflected forms of the so-called "prefix" conjugations -- imperfect, imperative etc. -- and also sporadic archaic variants of 2nd. person singular pronominal forms (both independent pronouns and possessive / verb object suffixes). In all other contexts, an "-i" vowel does not have feminine meaning... AnonMoos 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent from what you have been saying that you have fully bought into the modern opinions of what the meaning of the words in question meant anciently. I say modern, even though that thinking has been around for well over a thousand years. Your use of the word "archaic" reveals that you, along with others, has cast aside the true history and nature of Biblical Hebrew. The very idea that there is not a feminine form of El (i.e., Eloah), nor of Ani (i.e., anochi) is not based on true history, but on the changes in thinking in regards to the Bible revelation of Elohim brought about by people trying to make "monotheism" mean only "one" (i.e., yacheed), rather than said "oneness" meaning an absolute unity (i.e., echad).

Whenever ancient Israel left the true worship of Elohim they fell not only into the worship of false gods (elohim) such as the masculine Baal, but also into the worship of false feminine goddess (i.e., Astarte). The matter didn't turn on the masculine-feminine issue, because the Israelites reverence the feminine Shekinah (the Holy Spirit), along with the Father, but on the character difference between the true and the false. All of the false were licentious or at variance with one another, while Elohim was holy and in perfect unity.

Adam and Eve are both in the image and likeness of Elohim, as is cleary admitted in the Pentatuch and Haftorah, but so many have bought into Mainmonides idea that Elohim has no form nor likeness at all that the average person who is infected with that notion usually doesn't even have the ability to know who or what they or their mates are, as they have no heavenly image nor likeness to look at. Thus, many have to go to psychiatrists, and marriage counselors in order to find an identity for themselves for they see no happy, united family image in heaven to emulate because people tell them there isn't one there.

So, if the knowledge you want to present to the world in this regards must be swayed by prejudice and tradition of bullies (and I do not use that word lightly), what can those who see the other side of the coin do?Anyone7 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my comments above:

The kind of exegetical speculations which you've offered could be expanded at length (and also opposed by counter-speculations of the same type at length), but without some solid basis in linguistic morphology or phonology, or in actual textual attestations, they won't convince most scholars in the field (in fact, so far they haven't). AnonMoos 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just did a search on the web under "eloah feminine in Hebrew" and came up with numerous sites which related that thought (both Jewish and Christian). I did the same with "anochi feminine in Hebrew" and had similar results. So, with all due respect to the sincerity of your beliefs, is there not room in this article for an opposing point of view, or are you so sure that what you have learned of Biblical Hebrew is infallible and things just cannot be any different? This reminds me of the argument which John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had over whether the correct word in the Declaration of Independence should be "inalienable" or "unalienable" rights, as they both were speaking from the education they had received from different schools. Anyone7 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I know for sure is that you seem to know a lot less about historical Hebrew phonology and morphology than I do. Maybe if you cracked open the Biblical Hebrew grammar books and tried to learn some actual concrete specificities of Biblical Hebrew grammar and language, then you wouldn't have to rely quite so heavily on cutting-and-pasting from third parties.

P.S. I just searched for mango screwdriver and got 72,700 Google hits! AnonMoos 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following addition: "However, in the majority of these cases where the

I don't feel like setting up an electronic word-count on the Hebrew text right at the moment, but my Biblical Hebrew lexicon (Holladay) indicates that the presence or absence of the definite article doesn't seem too make too much difference of meaning in most cases (and in particular can be present in both some plural polytheistic uses and in some syntactically singular monotheistic uses), so you're probably right... AnonMoos 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One example of polytheistic use is Exodus 18:11. "Now I know the Lord is greater than all the gods,..." --agr 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article only about the Hebrew word? What is the rationale for this? -- TimeDog 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same as "LKS" above? AnonMoos 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. What is your rationale? Please explain. -- TimeDog 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then do you have anything new to add beyond the remarks you made previously as "LKS" (which were mostly rejected by the editors who seemed to know more about Semitic languages than you did)? AnonMoos 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Your arrogance is stunning. -- TimeDog 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You took up a fair amount of people's time last time around on issues which mostly proved not to be relevant to improving article Elohim (which is the actual purpose of this discussion page in the first place), so it's natural to inquire whether you have anything new to say, or are just planning to drag up the same old material yet again. AnonMoos 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the last part of this section trying to say?

"In some of eastern languages unlike latin origin languages, the plural is used for a respect of single person also. Therefore Elohim is a single but used as a plural only for respect."

It's a pretty bold claim that the only reason for the plural form of Elohim is formal tone, and it contradicts the rest of the article. Not to mention that polite/formal pronouns used in other languages (what exactly are "eastern" languages, anyway?) don't seem to be all that relevant to a plural noun form acting as both a singular and a plural, depending on context.

The whole thing reads like a haphazard dig at the doc-hyp and is, at the very best, original research. Not to mention that the wording needs some work.

Unless someone can come up with good references for this claim, I'm inclined to drop everything starting with "Elohim is a plural from..." and emphasize the link to the main documentary hypothesis article as the place for arguments against using the YHVH/Elohim differentiation in source criticism. --Dmitri Bichko 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote Maimonides: Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, "and ye shall be like Elohim" (Gen. iii. 5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence "and ye shall be like princes." Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration.

Part 1, chapter 2. This article is just plain inaccurate and arrogant. 203.217.48.231 05:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article, in the introduction says:

In some cases (e.g. Exodus 3:4, "... Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush ..."), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar (see next section), and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel.

How does one presume that it "acts as a singular noun?" It seems to me that this is a way to wrangle out of a polytheistic view of the creation story (i.e. "Let us go down and we will make man in our image"). Have read some info recently (can't remember where) that suggests that Judaism was not monitheistic, but rather more

It acts as a singular noun in HEBREW GRAMMAR, as explained in the Hebrew grammar section directly below -- it takes singular verb and adjective agreement (i.e. the verb bara ברא found in Genesis 1:1) as opposed to plural verb and adjective agreement (i.e. the verb form bar'u בראו which would be expected to be used in Genesis 1:1 if Elohim acted as an ordinary plural noun in that verse). AnonMoos 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No Anon, the verbs act in a singular way. The noun is still plural. Furthermore, if "the President's cabinet creates a document", the noun is singular (cabinet) and the verb is singular (creates), but that doesn't mean there aren't many members within the cabinet. In other words, while the verbs may be in a singular agreement, you go too far by saying that Elohim must be referring to a single God.Smpf38 (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

From the title:

In other cases, Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.").

This is incorrect. The verb associated to םיִהֹלֶא (Elohim) in this passage is הֶיְהִי (he-shall-become) which is singular. By contrast Genesis 17:16 uses the plural of the same verb, ּויְהִי (they-shall-become) while speaking of םיִּמַע (peoples).

However common translations retain the basic meaning of Exodus 20:3 in that םיִרֵחַא (other-ones) is plural and this is likely the reason the translators chose 'other gods' here.

Here is my own translation into English based on a transliteration cited below: "No others casted upon my faces shall become God to you."

Referenced transliteration: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo20.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.129.156 (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, all your vowel-pointed Hebrew forms are showing up backwards, so your software seems to be having a problem with "logical order" vs. "display order". Second, it's not absolutely clear that "Elohim Acherim" is the direct and immediate subject of the verb in that verse -- a more impersonal parsing of the verse would give a quasi-literalistic translation such as "There shall not be to you other gods before me". However, you're right that the verse can easily appear as if Elohim simultaneously takes singular agreement as a verb subject but plural adjective agreement, which could be confusing, so probably a clearer example should be chosen... AnonMoos 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the fact that the software is putting the Hebrew letters into the clipboard backwards, I had not even noticed. As for a clearer example, I think I've found one for you if you would care to do the edit. Exodus 32:1 contains the noun אֶלֹהִים (Elohim) which is clearly the subject of the verb יֵלְכוּ (they-shall-go) with no other words associable to the noun. Indeed I believe the word Elohim in Exodus 20:3 is linguistically both singular and plural simultaneously in the sense of the verse. The verb is indicating (an arbitrary) one (Elohim) of the many (Elohim) indicated by the adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.129.156 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Elohim#Elohim in the Latter Day Saint movement gives an interesting account of the word "Berosheit", but what does it have to do with the word "Elohim"? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as well as a blurb about Kolob which is also not relivent to this article. Bytebear (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it forbidden to create an image of Elohim? Why is there an image of a bird man representing this Almighty God? --121.218.151.64 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that is how William Blake decided to portray Him in that image. As for it being forbidden, I would assume either Blake was unfamiliar with such a prohibition or did not recognize it as legitimate or important, but I'm afraid in the end I do not know. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words italicized.

1.Among orthodox Trinitarian Christian writers it is sometimes used as evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This is regarded as fanciful by some secular linguists and some biblical scholars.
2.In another view that is more common among a range of secular scholars, heterodox Christian and Jewish theologians and polytheists, the word's plurality reflects early Semitic polytheism. They argue it originally meant "the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being. They claim the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods of the Canaanite or Semitic pantheon with the Hebrew singular patron god YHWH alone. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In the source I appended "Jews in the Greek Age" by Elias J. Bickerman beginning on page 262 of chapter 24 "Old and New in Religion", is a presentation of the transformation from using the Jewish Deity's proper name ("disclosed to Moses in the burning bush") to disusage of the Jewish Deity's proper name. According to the text, the transition period occurred between "539 B.C.E." and "520 B.C.E." with referrence to Cyrus' usage as "YHWH, the God of Heaven" and "YHWH, the God of Israel" and its absense from Persian records by the time of Darius I via the reference to the Deity of Zion as "God of Jerusalem", "God of Israel", the "Great God", or most often, the "God of Heaven". It is because of the Persian documents that the change can be dated exactly. This means that "from the time of the Restoration of the Temple, the authorities of Jerusalem refused to use the proper name of their Deity in dealing with pagan authorities." The next paragraph goes into the reason behind the disuse using the "Elephantine documents" as the source for determining that reason. Following the reason for disuse is some of the variations used instead of the Diety's name such as "'Theos', a term which used absolutely, had rather a predicative force, meaning something like 'devine power'". By "124 B.C.E., the official message of the Jews of Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt referred to the Deity as 'Ho Theos' in the Greek version, which means that in the original the Lord was called 'Elohim' or 'El'". That presentation is followed by the use of another device to call "Him the 'Most High' (Hypsistos), the equivalent of the Hebrew title 'El Elyon,' used in the Bible from Genesis 14 on". There is also a presentation of how Heaven became associated with the sky via the growing popularity of pseudo-pseudo science (astrology) and pseudo-religion at the time. Further references cited in the book regarding this subject are "Kyros als Gottesname" by W. Baudissin, vols I-IV; "Anonymous Gods" by E. Bickerman, vol III, pp. 270-281; "The Origins of the Pharisees" by L. Finkelstein, Conservative Judaism, 23 (1969) 25-35; "The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God" by A. Marmorstein, pp 17-148; and "The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew Characters for the Devine Name at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources" by J. Spiegel, HUCA, 42 (1971), 159-173. In the body of the text are references to the writings of Ben Sira, the Masada scroll of Ecclesiasticus, the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon, the works of teh Covenanters of the Dead Sea, III Maccabees, IV Maccabees, Josephus, and in Jewish incriptions in Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopic4141 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what the relevance of this "proper name change" stuff is to Elohim specifically. In referring only to the God of Israel when taking unusual syntactic agreement, Elohim always had certain name-like characteristics, but I don't see how this changed over the course of history -- it was true at an early period, and it was also equally true later on. Elohim actually has little direct relationship to the Tetragrammaton YHWH (which some of your references seem to mainly be devoted to). It's true that in the post-Biblical period, the Masoretes annotated a relatively small number of occurrences of the Tetragrammaton YHWH to be pronounced as "Elohim" when the Bible was recited aloud (while the great majority of the occurrences of the Tetragrammaton YHWH were annotated to be pronounced as "Adonai" when the Bible was recited aloud), but this doesn't mean that the Tetragrammaton YHWH and Elohim have a close relationship in meaning, or that Elohim replaced the Tetragrammaton YHWH, or anything of the kind.

Discussion of shades of meaning or use between Elohim vs. other names of God in Judaism mainly belong on the Names of God in Judaism article, unless they're fairly directly relevant to the basic meaning of Elohim taken by itself.

P.S. You should very clearly distinguish between Greek and Hebrew, because Jews in Judea were very little influenced by anything Greek until after the start of the Hellenistic period, and the possible Greek influences on the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Old Testament are relatively few and indirect, with very little relation to theology or conceptions of divinity... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the development of ancient astrology into a kind of fatalistic pseudo-religion (see Franz Cumont etc.) chronologically postdates the writing of the vast majority of the text of the Hebrew Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Relevance as I see it is in the question of trying to determine Elohim's meaning in referencing the Jewish Diety. Once the various circumlocutions began to take hold, the circumlocutions became the source from which everything else is derived including the issue of using the plural and singular forms of Elohim. If the proper noun (name) had continued to be used, then this issue would not have arisen because the diety would have had a single specific identifier. Even YHWH is a derivative of that proper name disuse. This Wikipedia article has been used to promote the question of singular/plural referencing of the Jewish Diety as well as the Islamic Diety; therefore, providing the impetus of throwing in a third usage (proper noun) of Elohim. Nouns throughout history have cropped up as proper names to identify specific individuals and it is no different with the usage here. My understanding is that Wikipedia is suppose to be a sort of encyclopedia which would include such obscure items as Elohim being used as a proper noun if sufficient references could be provided showing such usage. I think that I have shown sufficient references for doing so. Now, it may well be that the article should be in Names of God in Judaism; however, this article is being used as a reference for the continued discussion of the plural vs singular usage.

According to Elias Bickerman (there were other historical reference works elsewhere; but, I will stick to the one I still have at hand), contact between the Greeks and Jews came long before Alexander. At Babylon, the Jews of the Captivity had rubbed shoulders with Ionians, the Greek Mercenaries in the army of Nebuchadnezzar among whom was the poet Alccaeus of Lesbos in 604 B.C.E.. Shortly after Daphne was garrisoned by Greek Mercenaries settled there by Psammetichus II (594-588 B.C.E), Jews fled to Tahpanhes. Jeremiah delievered his last admonintions in this Egyption town. Durning the Jewish diaspora where the Jews had spread from the Etheopan frontier to the Caspian Sea, the Jews had come accross Greek traders, craftsmen, and mercenaries. All are relevant in that a certain amount of influence would occur at the lower cultural level which would eventually work its way up to the upper echelons of a society. The object of his book is to show the stability and change in Jewish society during the first centuries of the Greek Age from the 4th century until approximately 175 B.C.E. For that, there has to some understanding of events beforehand in that such events are relevent to understanding the peroid under examination. Things do not happen in a vacuum nor do they happen at a single instance of time; but, evolve over long periods and usually have a lot of roots that sometimes seem annocuous.

The reference to pseudo-science and psedu-religion was only to show how the centuries earlier disue of the proper name eventually evolved the circumlocutions to refer to the sky; therefore to a cosmic diety of the philosophers. User:Myopic4141 01:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, in the text of the Hebrew Bible itself, Elohim doesn't replace the Tetragrammaton YHWH, is not a euphemism for the Tetragrammaton YHWH, and is not in really in competition with the Tetragrammaton YHWH in any very direct or obvious way. According to the

JEPD

theory, some early texts of Israelite religion predominantly referred to God as YHWH, while other early texts of Israelite religion predominantly referred to God as Elohim (this was long before the later practice of not pronouncing YHWH out loud arose). These originally separate sources were combined and edited together to produce the Pentateuch or Heptateuch as we have it today. In a number of passages in the Bible, YHWH and Elohim stand together side-by-side in the text...

Second, the pre-Hellenistic contacts between Greeks and Jews were almost all precisely outside Judea. The kingdom of Judah between ca. 721 B.C. - 586 B.C., and the Persian sub-province of Yahud afterwards, were small landlocked entities, whose core territory was the southern half of the West Bank hill chain (from roughly modern Ramallah south to a little north of Hebron). Post-721 and pre-Hellenistic Judea was not directly on any major trade routes, and was not particularly "cosmopolitan" in prevailing attitudes or economic structure. Furthermore, the people who were the guardians of the traditions of Israelite/Jewish religion and its sacred texts (later to be assembled as the Hebrew Bible) were some of the most culturally insular Judeans, and therefore the least likely to have any interest in talking about philosophy or comparative religion with some passing Greek mercenary soldier. It's perfectly true that some ethnic Jews outside Judea, such as those at

Elephantine

probably had substantial contacts with Greeks in the pre-Hellenistic period. But so what? The Jews of Elephantine had zero influence on the subsequent development of Judaism, precisely because (partly due to extensive cultural contacts with Greeks and others) they did not practice monotheism.

There are only a few books of the Hebrew Bible (such as perhaps Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes) which are accepted by the consensus of mainstream scholarship to have been originally written or very substantially revised at a date which might possibly hypothetically theoretically allow for significant Greek influences -- but in reality none of them shows meaningful Greek influence in the area of theology or conceptions of divinity (the Hebrew version of Esther barely mentions God at all).

The conception of a sky-god is ancient and widespread (see

Dyeus, etc.), and El, the high god of the Semitic pantheon might have originally been a sky-god in part, and the word Elohim is presumably related to the name of El -- but this doesn't mean that Jews of the Biblical period borrowed anything from "a cosmic diety[sic] of the [Greek] philosophers", or that Elohim is used as any kind of substitute or euphemism for the Tetragrammaton YHWH in the text of the Hebrew Bible... AnonMoos (talk

) 13:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding AnonMoos' removal of my edits on the grounds that there are supposedly errors in it. Most of what he has contributed to this article is POV, especially regarding the use of only "singular verbs and adjectives" with the word Elohim. There is no doubt but the references I supplied in regards to the plural word "hayyim" are correct, and are proof that all that he is doing is interpretting the text to suit the fancy of a certain class of folks who deny that there has always been a plurality inherent in the Hebrew Scriptures in regard to Elohim. Even though I supplied many references to the fact that said plurarity has been addressed by prominent Jews, AnonMoos wants to hide those facts from this encyclopedia in the interest of promoting his POV interpretations. The very fact that the word plural "hayyim"" is used in direct connection with Elohim, proves that his assertion that that Elohim is only used with singular adjectives is not only wrong, but POV, and even evidence of his using his editting privileges to bully others. He has often boasted of his supposedly great knowledge of Hebrew, but when it comes down to it, his position is no different than a well trained Jesuit who uses what he has been taught to disprove a Protestant's point of view. Recently the Pope has had a statement issued that the Protestant churches are not even "real churches" because they do not have the "priesthood" and "sacrifice" that the Catholic Church has. What AnonMoss is doing is of the same nature. It does not seem to matter to him that I backed up my overview of the differing opinions among Jews regarding the pluraity issue of Elohim with many references from Jewish sources, he even wants to suppress those in order to put forth his POV. That type of action is wholly unfit for this forum. What I presented was a fair, overall view of issues people seeking truth should be aware of. Though he addressed his removal of my edits somewhat privately in a "talk" response to me, he did not do it here so that others can easily weigh his evidence or lack thereof, for his actions. Though he may be correct in the possible error of my using an "i" instead of a "e" in some words, that is all he should have changed without removing the all of my edits in favor of his POV interpretation of what "hayyim" means, and how Jews in the past have addressed the issue. Will this ever stop so that people can investigate all of the evidence available?Anyone77 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude,

1) If you don't have some level of functional working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, then that may be an indication that you may not be the best one to DOUBLE in size an article which is devoted to a word of Biblical Hebrew.

2) If you add controversial or contested material to a Wikipedia article, the burden is on you to ensure that it is free from major errors, and in a form which satisfies Wikipedia requirements. It's rather unfortunate that you didn't make any attempt whatsoever to correct any of the factual errors I pointed out on your user talk page, but instead just indiscriminately reverted wholesale.

3) Wikipedia is

not

a "forum" in any usual meaning of this word.

4) The majority of material you added to this article was actually devoted to issues of polytheism vs. monotheism in Judaism, but was not very directly about the word Elohim. As I already said on your user talk page, that material might have a place on an article about that particular subject (though probably only after further significant revision), but its presence is overall highly disproportionate on an article devoted to the word Elohim.

5) Your user talk page is accessible to any person looking at Wikipedia.

6) The word חיים has plural morphology without clear plural meaning, like מים, שמים and אלוהים itself, so it's hard to draw broad sweeping conclusions from the morphology of חיים to the meaning of אלוהים.

7) If you want to get into Wikipedia policies like "POV", you very notably did not include any sources for the linguistic assertions (as opposed to the exegetical) in the material you added.

8)

Apostolicae Curae appeared in 1896 (not "recently"), though I entirely fail to see how it is connected with this article in any way whatseover.... AnonMoos (talk

) 16:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Are you the same person as User:Anyone7 in the discussions above? If so, then Wikipedia etiquette strongly recommends that you include some notice to that effect on your user pages... AnonMoos (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am the same person as Anyone7. I could not login under that ID because I forgot my password, and could not get another one, so I had to create another ID. I did it as close to the first one as possible to identify myself. I do not have a User Page. I will address AnonMoos' point as they are numbered -

1) Does it take a vast knowledge of Hebrew to see that AnonMoos has wholly avoided addressing the issue that the word Elohim is used in conjunction with plural pronouns (i.e., "us" and "our')? He feels that it is justified to explain (without any references at all) about how Elohim is supposedly used with only singular verb and adjectives, but any discusion of its use with plural pronouns (as I tried to supply, with references) is not fit for people to know. Moreover, he brushes off the fact that the word hayyim is the plural form of hay without any attempt to offer a translation for the phrase "Elohim hayyim." He says that it (hayyim) means "life," but fails to use his purported vast knowledge of Hebrew to explain why that plural word is used in conjunction with Elohim. As this article is about that word, why should some prominent uses of it be ignored? Is he embarrassed by the fact that there is such a diversity of opinion among Jewish rabbis and scholars as to its use with plural pronouns, as I pointed out?

2) He accuses me of not taking pains to see that what I contributed was free from errors. The references I gave for most of the point I presented are sound. His main compliant about inaccuracies is in my use (or misuse) of an "i" instead of an "e" in some places. He could have made those minor edits without trashing all of my work, but that is, apparently not his MO. Where are the so-called "major errors?" Does he disagree with some of the many rabbis and Hebrew scholars I qouted or referenced? Does he disagree with the Zohar, or with Raphael Patai in their explanations of the feminine aspects of God (the Shekinah), and how those points relate to the word Elohim? I am sure that he disagrees with the Mormon's point of view presented in the article, but he doesn't complain about it being "free from major errors." It seems that he only wants to ascribe errors to things which shake the foundation upon which he has chosen to stand. This situation is analogous to a situation in which a bully knocks someone down and then says, "Oh, by the way, your shoe is untied." Then, when that person gets up without tying his shoe, the bully knocks him down again, and repeat that his shoe is untied. From my point of view, what good would it have done for me to change the complained about "i"s to "e"s, only to have him dump the whole addition again. But, he seems to think his pointing out the fact that I didn't correct those minor problems is worthy of a feather in his cap.

3) From the context of my use of the word "forum," it is clear that I was using it rather loosely. Yet, he has chosen to "make a man an offender for a word." Isaiah 29:21.

4) Exactly how is the use of Elohim in conjunction with the plural pronouns "us" and "we" not directly relative to the meaning and use of the word? Moreover, how are the comments of the many Jewish rabbis and commentators I quoted or referenced in regards to the use of the word Elohim with those plural pronouns unimportant to a true understanding of the historical thinking regarding the word. There are opinions of others in the article which seem to okay to be there, but those that I presented are not worthy of consideration by the readers of the article. AnonMoos wants us to believe that his presentation of a few facts are all that needs to be known about the word, and that another discusion about other prominent points should be relegated to a discussion about "monotheism" and "polytheism." I thank God that neither of those words are in the Bible. Again, why would the supposed use of the word Elohim with only singular verbs and adjectives (which is not true) be relevant to this article, while it use with plural pronouns not be? Is he now going to attempt to explain their relevence to the word Elohim, or it just a minor matter, unworthy of discussion?

5) I wasn't aware that one's User Page was an open forum. I have learned something new.

6) He can present us with any kind "conclusion" he wants to in regards to the use of the plural form of hay (i.e., hayyim) with the word Elohim, rather than just brushing mine off as being a "broad sweeping conclusion." I provided a historical context of why it was so easy for the ancient Israelites to slip from the worship of Elohim to the worship of others gods in my explanation of the apparent plurality of Elohim (which was well commented on by prominents Jews over the centuries), so I would like to hear his explanation of why he thinks it was so easy for them to, supposedly, go from the worship of one singular, male Diety, to that of male and female ones if it didn't have something to do with both the apparent plurality of Elohim, and even the feminine aspect that some prominent Jews say is also present in the holy Scriptures. The point I brought out about the statement in the Zohar about God being male and female is not conjecture, it is there. It is truly sad that AnonMoos is so easily satisfied with such a shallow look at the overall matter, and wants the article to be so limited. It seems like he wants the article to be as it would if this were a Jewish encyclopedia article written from the view of only a few carefully selected Jewish source, while ignoring many others.

7) He complains about me not giving linguistic references, when he has done that exact thing himself. Many of the reference I gave contain specific linguistic explanations, but he has not given us anything at all (except his boasting) to support anything he has written, so that we may examine and possibly challenge the foundation of his assertions. As noted in one of my referenced points, Jewish tradition says that the translators of the Septuigant manipulated the text in order to avoid problems of the implied plurality, and I have read of the same thing happening in the standardizing of the current Hebrew text (that is, that there around two hundred changes made in gender and number in words relating to God).

8) While it is understandable how he may not be aware of the "recent" statements from the Catholics about how they think that the Protestant churches are not true churches, his rashness of ascribing an error in my statement to his thinking that I was speaking of the "Apostolicae Curae" is another example of his "shooting from the hip." What I was referring to was statements to that effect that were issued under the authority of the Pope in July of 2007, which can be correctly called "recent."

It appears that I am going to have to call for more senior editors to resolve this issue, as it doesn't appear that AnonMoos will allow any thinking but his own to define this article.Anyone77 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, it's somewhat annoying that your remarks are addressed directly at me, yet you insist on referring to me in the third person, as if you were making a show of talking to someone else about me and pretending I wasn't also there listening. I find this to be rather poor discussion etiquette (and if you think it lends a distinguished academic tone to your remarks, then you are thoroughly mistaken).

As for ħay, it occurs as both a noun singular and a suffixed noun plural, and as both an adjective singular and a suffixed adjective plural (which are all morphologically related forms derived from the same

consonantal root

). However, the relevant facts in the current context are that 1) Sometimes the singular adjective form does in fact occur with the word Elohim, as in the verse 2 Kings 19:4 already mentioned on your user talk page, and 2) The word ħayyim "life" has plural morphological form without ascertainable plural meaning, so it (and the closely connected and identically-pronounced related adjective form which is apparently influenced by it) are a poor test-case for evaluating the alleged syntactically plural characteristics of Elohim.

And if the main problem with your edits had been just a few typos, then I probably would have just corrected those typos (considering that I certainly commit my own share of typos) -- but that was not the case. The confusion of "e" and "i" may not have been of overwhelming significance in and of itself, but in the particular context in which it occurred, it seems to be a manifestation of a problem which also presented itself in your last round of remarks on this talk page above -- namely, that you possess little direct knowledge of ancient Hebrew, so that you get all your strikingly "bold" or non-mainstream hypotheses at second or third hand, and they sometimes end up somewhat garbled in the details by the time you present them on Wikipedia. Also, Raphael Patai is not any kind of expert on ancient Hebrew linguistics or textual philology (as I explained at length above the last time around).

We can certainly present traditional Jewish views of the word Elohim in this article, but the problem of Elohim is not the same as the problem of first person plural pronouns, and this is not a general article on questions of monotheism and polytheism in Judaism.

When a long-established, fairly stable, and moderately lengthy article is suddenly doubled in size, that's usually a warning signal that there's some better way to handle the situation...

As for references, I could cite standard lexicons and grammars of Biblical Hebrew, but the problem is that such works are generally valueless for those who don't have significant knowledge of the language, while those who do have significant knowledge of the language already know all about them. In any case, since the conclusions you present tend to be somewhat out of the mainstream (what respected recent scholar in the field of ancient Hebrew linguistics advocates a view of Elohim or closely related words as originally feminine??), therefore the required standard of proof would appear to be higher for you... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I really have little idea what "bully pulpit" is supposed to mean in the current context. AnonMoos (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)