Progetto Archippo - Seminari a domicilio
Benvenuto Visitatore. Fai Login o Registrati.   Regolamento Leggi il regolamento completo

Indice Indice   Help Help   Cerca Cerca   Utenti Utenti   Calendario Calendario   Login Login   Registrati Registrati

 
   I Forum di Evangelici.net
   Dottrina, storia ed esegesi biblica (partecipazione riservata a chi si identifica con i punti di fede di evangelici.net)
   Esegesi dell'Antico Testamento
(Moderatori: andreiu, Asaf)
   Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Topic Precedente | Prossimo Topic »
Pagine: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10  11 · vai in fondo · Rispondi Rispondi   Abilita notifica Abilita notifica    Invia il Topic Invia il Topic    Stampa Stampa
   Autore  Topic: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim  (letto 13214 volte)
Caste
Membro familiare
****



Give God a Chance

   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 1271
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #105 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:35:56 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


on 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:20:37, Stefanotus wrote:

 
Se invece dici "su elohim"... non so. Mattew Henry avrà avuto delle fonti no?

Sì, mi riferivo a elohim, ovvio che il fatto che la trinità sia un concetto vecchio quanto la chiesa non è in discussione.
Sul sito che hai messo, non so, già lo conoscevo, ma ovviamente non posso dare giudizi di valore a riguardo!   Sorriso
 

on 23.02.2015 alle ore 19:56:33, New wrote:

Parecchio ancor prima direi, questo è un copia e incolla tratto da LA GENESI ALLA LETTERA di Agostino, questo è il link:
 
http://www.augustinus.it/italiano/genesi_lettera/index2.htm
 
La Trinità operante nell'origine e nella perfezione della creatura.
(...)
 
Dio ama le sue creature perché esistano e sussistano.

Perfetto, questo ci da un altra linea temporale: Agostino non avrebbe evitato una citazione di Elohim se fosse stata disponibile al suo tempo. Quindi possiamo affermare che è da ricercarsi tra il 400 e il 1600.  
Una nota storica da considerare: questo è il periodo in cui la chiesa e il giudaismo sono stati più profondamente in distacco.  
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:39:24 by Caste » Loggato

"Il problema delle citazioni su internet è che non si sa mai se siano vere o no" Abraham Lincoln
Amenachos
Membro
***





   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 169
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #106 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:44:59 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


on 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:22:07, Stefanotus wrote:

Che ne dite di questo link?
Vladi, Caste, Kosher?
Mi date un riscontro?

 
Non è fatto bene. Dà Elohìm come plurale di El in primo luogo, quando il plurale di El è invece Elìm. Elohìm è il plurale di Eloah. Che poi si possa fare un discorso di linguistica storica per quanto riguarda la he va bene, ma l'autore dell'articolo non dà indizi di conoscere questo aspetto.
Un altro gravissimo errore è che dice che Elohìm, così come lo troviamo usato in ebraico, non è attestato nelle altre lingue semitiche. Come mostrato sopra nella discussione, le ricorrenze sono centinaia invece e provenienti da tutta Canaan.
Infine, come per il resto fanno tutti i sostenitori di questo tipo di teoria, viene gettato l'assioma Elohìm = Trinità senza motivazioni, ovviamente (perché inesistenti).
Un minestrone non tanto diverso da quello già propinatoci.
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:48:38 by Amenachos » Loggato
Caste
Membro familiare
****



Give God a Chance

   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 1271
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #107 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:46:05 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica

Allora, Matthew Henry si è basato su un commentario chiamato Synopsis Criticorum di Matthew Poole (1669) Poole ha prodotto il suo lavoro con John Lightfoot, uomo di chiesa inglese che era uno studioso rabbinico, tra le altre cose, che ha scritto vari testi sulla concordanza dei vangeli tra loro e con le citazioni dell'AT, quindi l'ebraico un po' doveva conoscerlo.
 
Per ora più indietro di così non sono in grado di andare.
 
Anzi no, aggiorno: Lightfoot non ha mai conosciuto alcun ebreo (al periodo erano banditi dall'inghilterra) e ha imparato da un altro inglese che lo conosceva. La cosa interessante è il fatto che abbia passato molto tempo a dimostrare che Gesù era identificabile con il Messia tramite gli scritti rabbinici.  
 
Potrebbe arrivare da lui. Sottolineando potrebbe
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:51:00 by Caste » Loggato

"Il problema delle citazioni su internet è che non si sa mai se siano vere o no" Abraham Lincoln
Amenachos
Membro
***





   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 169
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #108 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:47:51 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


on 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:35:56, Caste wrote:

Perfetto, questo ci da un altra linea temporale: Agostino non avrebbe evitato una citazione di Elohim se fosse stata disponibile al suo tempo. Quindi possiamo affermare che è da ricercarsi tra il 400 e il 1600.  
Una nota storica da considerare: questo è il periodo in cui la chiesa e il giudaismo sono stati più profondamente in distacco.  

 
Attenzione che Agostino ha parlato di Trinità in Genesi 1 non sulla base di Elohìm. Ma sul fatto che:
 
- Dio (Elohìm) = Padre
- Principio = Figlio
- Spirito = Spirito Santo
 
Ai fini della discussione su Elohìm la citazione di New non serve a nulla.
Loggato
Caste
Membro familiare
****



Give God a Chance

   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 1271
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #109 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:52:16 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


on 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:47:51, Vladi91 wrote:

 
Attenzione che Agostino ha parlato di Trinità in Genesi 1 non sulla base di Elohìm. Ma sul fatto che:
 
- Dio (Elohìm) = Padre
- Principio = Figlio
- Spirito = Spirito Santo
 
Ai fini della discussione su Elohìm la citazione di New non serve a nulla.

 
Sì, la mia era più che altro un'assunzione: considerando Agostino, se ai suoi tempi fosse esistita l'argomentazione Elohim=plurale l'avrebbe sicuramente usata, quindi non esisteva. Sorriso
Loggato

"Il problema delle citazioni su internet è che non si sa mai se siano vere o no" Abraham Lincoln
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #110 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:55:34 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio

Grazie Caste e Grazie Vlad.  
Gentilissimi.
 
New, grazie anche per i tuoi interventi. Fa niente che non siano tanto utili, davvero... non da niente. Apprezzo moltissimo lo sforzo che stai facendo nell'aiutarci nella ricerca.
Ti chiedo solo di cercare di rimanere "in tema".
 
Vi voglio bene colleghi di forum!
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:55:54 by Stefanotus » Loggato
Amenachos
Membro
***





   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 169
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #111 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:00:59 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


on 23.02.2015 alle ore 20:46:05, Caste wrote:
Allora, Matthew Henry si è basato su un commentario chiamato Synopsis Criticorum di Matthew Poole (1669) Poole ha prodotto il suo lavoro con John Lightfoot, uomo di chiesa inglese che era uno studioso rabbinico, tra le altre cose, che ha scritto vari testi sulla concordanza dei vangeli tra loro e con le citazioni dell'AT, quindi l'ebraico un po' doveva conoscerlo.
 
Per ora più indietro di così non sono in grado di andare.
 
Anzi no, aggiorno: Lightfoot non ha mai conosciuto alcun ebreo (al periodo erano banditi dall'inghilterra) e ha imparato da un altro inglese che lo conosceva. La cosa interessante è il fatto che abbia passato molto tempo a dimostrare che Gesù era identificabile con il Messia tramite gli scritti rabbinici.  
 
Potrebbe arrivare da lui. Sottolineando potrebbe

 
John Lightfoot riteneva che Elohìm indicasse la trinità.
 
"Moses, all along the story of the creation, called God "Elohìm", by a word plural, to denote the distinction of persons: but, at last, in Gen. 2.4, he calleth him "Jehovah Elohìm", to signify, also, the unity of essence".
(The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, Vol. IV, pag. 120)
 
Solita pappina.
Loggato
Marmar
Admin
*****



Dio è buono

   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 7943
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #112 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:04:38 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


Quote:
Sì, mi riferivo a elohim, ovvio che il fatto che la trinità sia un concetto vecchio quanto la chiesa non è in discussione

 
Ne abbiamo parlato già fino alla noia. Non è possibile che il concetto di trinità in 3 persone sia nato con la chiesa, poiché il concetto di persona come lo conosciamo oggi allora non esisteva.
Loggato

Aiutiamoci gli uni gli altri a liberarsi da quello che ritarda il nostro cammino.
Caste
Membro familiare
****



Give God a Chance

   
WWW    E-Mail

Posts: 1271
Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #113 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:07:37 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica


on 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:00:59, Vladi91 wrote:

 
John Lightfoot riteneva che Elohìm indicasse la trinità.
 
"Moses, all along the story of the creation, called God "Elohìm", by a word plural, to denote the distinction of persons: but, at last, in Gen. 2.4, he calleth him "Jehovah Elohìm", to signify, also, the unity of essence".
(The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, Vol. IV, pag. 120)
 
Solita pappina.

 
Allora forse abbiamo identificato un "colpevole"?
 

on 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:04:38, Marmar wrote:

 
Ne abbiamo parlato già fino alla noia. Non è possibile che il concetto di trinità in 3 persone sia nato con la chiesa, poiché il concetto di persona come lo conosciamo oggi allora non esisteva.

 
Schhhhhhh cambia thread presto!  Sorridente (comunque questa devi chiarirmela perché non ricordo affatto che ne avessimo parlato!)
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:09:33 by Caste » Loggato

"Il problema delle citazioni su internet è che non si sa mai se siano vere o no" Abraham Lincoln
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #114 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:10:40 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio

Marmar ma tu ci stai facendo compagnia?
Wow.
Ma tu sei trinitario giusto?
 
Raga, ho trovato questo link. Sembra interessante.
 
Faccio degli estratti:
Marmar ma tu ci stai facendo compagnia?
Wow.
Ma tu sei trinitario giusto?
 
Raga, ho trovato questo link. Sembra interessante.
 
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
Quote:

od.—Heb., Elohim. A word plural in form, but joined with a verb singular, except when it refers to the false gods of the heathen, in which case it takes a verb plural. Its root-meaning is strength, power; and the form Elohim is not to be regarded as a pluralis majestatis, but as embodying the effort of early human thought in feeling after the Deity, and in arriving at the conclusion that the Deity was One. Thus, in the name Elohim it included in one Person all the powers, mights, and influences by which the world was first created and is now governed and maintained. In the Vedas, in the hymns recovered for us by the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, whether Accadian or Semitic, and in all other ancient religious poetry, we find these powers ascribed to different beings; in the Bible alone Elohim is one. Christians may also well see in this a foreshadowing of the plurality of persons in the Divine Trinity; but its primary lesson is that, however diverse may seem the working of the powers of nature, the Worker is one and His work one.

 
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
Quote:
Elohim: LXX ὁ Θεός: Lat. Deus. See Introduction on “The Names of God.” The narrative begins with a statement assuming the Existence of the Deity. It is not a matter for discussion, argument, or doubt. The Israelite Cosmogony differs in this respect from that of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, &c. The Cosmogonies of the ancients were wont to be preceded by Theogonies. The existence and nativities of the creating divinities were accounted for in mythologies which were often highly complicated, and not seldom grotesque. The Hebrew narrator, by beginning with the Creation, emphasizes his entire freedom from, and exclusion of, polytheistic thought. If Polytheism had existed in the earliest Hebrew times, it had been abandoned in the growing light of the Israelite religion. “God” is infinite; He was before all time: “In the beginning God created.” Upon the subject of the Divine Existence prior to “the beginning” the writer does not presume to speculate. That Israelite imagination did not wholly avoid the subject, we know from Job 28:25-28, Proverbs 8:22-30, Wis 9:9, Sir 24:9.
 
Concerning the Israelite conception of God (Elohim), we learn (1) from the present verse, that He (i) is a Person, and (ii) exists from all eternity; (2) from the whole passage, Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a, that He is (i) supreme in power, and (ii) perfect in wisdom and goodness. The attribute of power is shewn in creative omnipotence; that of wisdom in the orderly sequence of creation; that of goodness in the benevolent purpose which directed its successive phases.
 
created] The word so rendered (bârâ, LXX ἐποίησεν, Lat. creavit) is used especially of the acts of God, in doing, or calling into existence, something new or marvellous: cf. Exodus 34:10, “I will do marvels such as have not been wrought (Heb. created) in all the earth”: Psalm 51:10, “Create in me a clean heart.” In the present section it occurs again in connexion with (1) the creation of living organisms (Genesis 1:21); (2) the creation of man (Genesis 1:27); (3) the creation of the whole universe (Genesis 2:3-4). It is used in Psalm 148:5, “He commanded, and they were created,” where the reference is to this section.
 
A different word, “made” (‘âsâh), is used in connexion with the “firmament” (Genesis 1:7), the heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:16), the terrestrial animals (Genesis 1:25).
 
It is, however, a mistake to suppose that the word bârâ necessarily means “to create out of nothing.”
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:20:18 by Stefanotus » Loggato
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #115 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:20:33 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio


Barnes' Notes:
Quote:
אלהים 'ĕlohı̂̂ym, "God." The noun אלוה 'elôah or אלה 'eloah is found in the Hebrew scriptures fifty-seven times in the singular (of which two are in Deuteronomy, and forty-one in the book of Job), and about three thousand times in the plural, of which seventeen are in Job. The Chaldee form אלה 'elâh occurs about seventy-four times in the singular, and ten in the plural. The Hebrew letter ה (h) is proved to be radical, not only by bearing mappiq, but also by keeping its ground before a formative ending. The Arabic verb, with the same radicals, seems rather to borrow from it than to lend the meaning coluit, "worshipped," which it sometimes has. The root probably means to be "lasting, binding, firm, strong." Hence, the noun means the Everlasting, and in the plural, the Eternal Powers. It is correctly rendered God, the name of the Eternal and Supreme Being in our language, which perhaps originally meant lord or ruler. And, like this, it is a common or appellative noun. This is evinced by its direct use and indirect applications.
 
Its direct use is either proper or improper, according to the object to which it is applied. Every instance of its proper use manifestly determines its meaning to be the Eternal, the Almighty, who is Himself without beginning, and has within Himself the power of causing other things, personal and impersonal, to be, and on this event is the sole object of reverence and primary obedience to His intelligent creation.
 
Its improper use arose from the lapse of man into false notions of the object of worship. Many real or imaginary beings came to be regarded as possessed of the attributes, and therefore entitled to the reverence belonging to Deity, and were in consequence called gods by their mistaken votaries, and by others who had occasion to speak of them. This usage at once proves it to be a common noun, and corroborates its proper meaning. When thus employed, however, it immediately loses most of its inherent grandeur, and sometimes dwindles down to the bare notion of the supernatural or the extramundane. In this manner it seems to be applied by the witch of Endor to the unexpected apparition that presented itself to her 1 Samuel 28:13.
 
Its indirect applications point with equal steadiness to this primary and fundamental meaning. Thus, it is employed in a relative and well-defined sense to denote one appointed of God to stand in a certain divine relation to another. This relation is that of authoritative revealer or administrator of the will of God. Thus, we are told John 10:34 that "he called them gods, to whom the word of God came." Thus, Moses became related to Aaron as God to His prophet Exodus 4:16, and to Pharaoh as God to His creature Exodus 7:1. Accordingly, in Psalm 82:6, we find this principle generalized: "I had said, gods are ye, and sons of the Highest all of you." Here the divine authority vested in Moses is expressly recognized in those who sit in Moses' seat as judges for God. They exercised a function of God among the people, and so were in God's stead to them. Man, indeed, was originally adapted for ruling, being made in the image of God, and commanded to have dominion over the inferior creatures. The parent also is instead of God in some respect to his children, and the sovereign holds the relation of patriarch to his subjects. Still, however, we are not fully warranted in translating אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym, "judges" in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:7-8, Exodus 22:27 (Hebrew versification: 8, 9, 28), because a more easy, exact, and impressive sense is obtained from the proper rendering.
 
The word מלאך mel'āk, "angel," as a relative or official term, is sometimes applied to a person of the Godhead; but the process is not reversed. The Septuagint indeed translates אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym in several instances by ἄγγελοι angeloi Psalm 8:6; Psalm 97:7; Psalm 138:1. The correctness of this is seemingly supported by the quotations in Hebrews 1:6. and Hebrews 2:7. These, however, do not imply that the renderings are absolutely correct, but only suffiently so for the purpose of the writer. And it is evident they are so, because the original is a highly imaginative figure, by which a class is conceived to exist, of which in reality only one of the kind is or can be. Now the Septuagint, either imagining, from the occasional application of the official term "angel" to God, that the angelic office somehow or sometimes involved the divine nature, or viewing some of the false gods of the pagan as really angels, and therefore seemingly wishing to give a literal turn to the figure, substituted the word ἄγγελοι angeloi as an interpretation for אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym. This free translation was sufficient for the purpose of the inspired author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, inasmuch as the worship of all angels Hebrews 1:6 in the Septuagintal sense of the term was that of the highest rank of dignitaries under God; and the argument in the latter passage Hebrews 2:7 turns not on the words, "thou madest him a little lower than the angels," but upon the sentence, "thou hast put all things under his feet." Moreover, the Septuagint is by no means consistent in this rendering of the word in Similar passages (see Psalm 82:1; Psalm 97:1; 1 Samuel 28:13).
 
With regard to the use of the word, it is to be observed that the plural of the Chaldee form is uniformly plural in sense. The English version of בר־אלהין bar-'elâhı̂yn, "the Son of God" Daniel 3:25 is the only exception to this. But since it is the phrase of a pagan, the real meaning may be, "a son of the gods." On the contrary, the plural of the Hebrew form is generally employed to denote the one God. The singular form, when applied to the true God, is naturally suggested by the prominent thought of his being the only one. The plural, when so applied, is generally accompanied with singular conjuncts, and conveys the predominant conception of a plurality in the one God - a plurality which must be perfectly consistent with his being the only possible one of his kind. The explanations of this use of the plural - namely, that it is a relic of polytheism, that it indicates the association of the angels with the one God in a common or collective appellation, and that it expresses the multiplicity of attributes subsisting in him - are not satisfactory. All we can say is, that it indicates such a plurality in the only one God as makes his nature complete and creation possible. Such a plurality in unity must have dawned upon the mind of Adam. It is afterward, we conceive, definitely revealed in the doctrine of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Loggato
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #116 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:26:40 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio


Calvin's Commentaries:
Quote:

God. Moses has it Elohim, a noun of the plural number. Whence the inference is drawn, that the three Persons of the Godhead are here noted; but since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to have little solidity, will not insist upon the word; but rather caution readers to beware of violent glosses of this kind. [Nota 1] They think that they have testimony against the Arians, to prove the Deity of the Son and of the Spirit, but in the meantime they involve themselves in the error of Sabellius, [Nota 2] because Moses afterwards subjoins that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim rested upon the waters. If we suppose three persons to be here denoted, there will be no distinction between them. For it will follow, both that the Son is begotten by himself, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of himself. For me it is sufficient that the plural number expresses those powers which God exercised in creating the world. Moreover I acknowledge that the Scripture, although it recites many powers of the Godhead, yet always recalls us to the Father, and his Word, and spirit, as we shall shortly see. But those absurdities, to which I have alluded, forbid us with subtlety to distort what Moses simply declares concerning God himself, by applying it to the separate Persons of the Godhead. This, however, I regard as beyond controversy, that from the peculiar circumstance of the passage itself, a title is here ascribed to God, expressive of that powers which was previously in some way included in his eternal essence. [Nota 3]
 
Nota 1: The reasoning of Calvin on this point is a great proof of the candor of his mind, and of his determination to adhere strictly to what he conceives to be the meaning of Holy Scripture, whatever bearing it might have on the doctrines he maintains. It may however be right to direct the reader, who wishes fully to examine the disputed meaning of the plural word 'lhym which we translate God, to some sources of information, whence he may be able to form his own judgment respecting the term. Cocceius argues that the mystery of the Trinity in Unity is contained in the word; and many other writers of reputation take the same ground. Others contend, that though no clear intimation of the Trinity in Unity is given, yet the notion of plurality of Persons is plainly implied in the term. For a full account of all the arguments in favor of this hypothesis, the work of Dr. John Pye Smith, on the Scripture testimony of the Messiah -- a work full of profound learning, and distinguished by patient industry and calmly courteous criticism -- may be consulted. It must however be observed, that this diligent and impartial writer has not met the special objection adduced by Calvin in this place, namely, the danger of gliding into Sabellianism while attempting to confute Arianism. -- Ed
 
Nota 2: The error of Sabellius (according to Theodoret) consisted in his maintaining, "that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one hypostasis, and one Person under three names," or, in the language of that eminent ecclesiastical scholar, the late Dr. Burton, "Sabellius divided the One Divinity into three, but he supposed the Son and the Holy Ghost to have no distinct personal existence, except when they were put forth for a time by the Father." -- See Burton's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, p. 365; and his Bampton Lectures, Note 103. This will perhaps assist the reader to understand the nature of Calvin's argument which immediately follows. Supposing the word Elohim to denote the Three Persons of the Godhead in the first verse, it also denotes the same Three Persons in the second verse. But in this second verse Moses says, the Spirit of Elohim, that is, the Spirit of the Three Persons rested on the waters. Hence the distinction of Persons is lost; for the Spirit is himself one of them; consequently the Spirit is sent from himself. The same reasoning would prove that the Son was begotten by himself; because he is one of the Persons of the Elohim by whom the Son is begotten. -- Ed.
 
Nota 3: The interpretation above given of the meaning of the word 'lhym (Elohim) receives confirmation from the profound critical investigations of Dr. Hengstenberg, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin, whose work, cast in a somewhat new form, and entitled "Sorridenteissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch," appears in an English dress, under the superintendence of the Continental Translation Society, while these pages are passing through the press. With other learned critics, he concludes, that the word is derived from the Arabic root Allah, which means to worship, to adore, to be seized with fear. He, therefore, regards the title more especially descriptive of the awful aspect of the Divine character. On the plural form of the word he quotes from the Jewish Rabbis the assertion, that it is intended to signify Dominus potentiarum omnium,' The Lord of all powers'. He refers to Calvin and others as having opposed, though without immediate effect, the notion maintained by Peter Lombard, that it involved the mystery of the Trinity. He repels the profane intimation of Le Clerc, and his successors of the Noological school, that the name originated in polytheism; and then proceeds to show that "there is in the Hebrew language a widely extended use of the plural which expresses the intensity of the idea contained in the singular." After numerous references, which prove this point, he proceeds to argue, that "if, in relation to earthly objects, all that serves to represent a whole order of beings is brought before the mind by means of the plural form, we might anticipate a more extended application of this method of distinguishing in the appellations of God, in whose being and attributes there is everywhere a unity which embraces and comprehends all multiplicity." "The use of the plural," he adds, "answers the same purpose which elsewhere is accomplished by an accumulation of the Divine names; as in Joshua 22:22; the thrice holy in Isaiah 6:3; and 'dny 'dnym in Deuteronomy 10:17. It calls the attention to the infinite riches and the inexhaustible fullness contained in the one Divine Being, so that though men may imagine innumerable gods, and invest them with perfections, yet all these are contained in the one 'lhym (Elohim)." See Dissertations, pp.268-273. It is, perhaps, necessary here to state, that whatever treasures of biblical learning the writings of this celebrated author contains, and they are undoubtedly great, the reader will still require to be on his guard in studying them. For, notwithstanding the author's general strenuous opposition to the and -- supernaturalism of his own countrymen, he has not altogether escaped the contagion which he is attempting to resist. Occasions may occur in which it will be right to allude to some of his mistakes. -- Ed.
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:27:18 by Stefanotus » Loggato
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #117 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:31:13 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio

Benson Commentary:
Quote:
God — The Hebrew word אלהיםElohim, here and elsewhere translated God, has been considered by many learned men as signifying God in covenant, being derived from the word אלהAlah, he sware, or bound himself by an oath. It is in the plural number, and must often, of necessity, be understood as having a plural meaning in the Holy Scriptures, being a name sometimes given to the false gods of the heathen, who were many, and to angels and magistrates, who are also occasionally called elohim, gods. When intended, as here, of the one living and true God, which it generally is, it has, with great reason, been thought by most Christian divines to imply a plurality of persons or subsistences in the Godhead, and the rather, as many other parts of the inspired writings attest that there is such a plurality, comprehending the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that all these divine persons equally concurred in the creation of the world. Of these things we shall meet with abundant proof in going through this sacred volume Created

Loggato
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #118 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:33:05 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio

Clarke's Commentary:
Quote:
The original word אלהים Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of אל El, or אלה Eloah, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the Trinity, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of Divine revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbi, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." See Ainsworth. He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words. The verb ברא bara, he created, being joined in the singular number with this plural noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not obscurely, the unity of the Divine Persons in this work of creation. In the ever-blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.
 
"Let those who have any doubt whether אלהים Elohim, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be plural or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with adjectives, verbs, and pronouns plural.
 
"Gen 1:26 Genesis 3:22 Genesis 11:7 Genesis 20:13 Genesis 31:7, Genesis 31:53 Genesis 35:7. "Sorridenteeu 4:7 Deuteronomy 5:23; Joshua 24:19 1 Samuel 4:8; 2 Samuel 7:23; "Psa 58:6; Isaiah 6:8; Jeremiah 10:10, Jeremiah 23:36. "See also Proverbs 9:10, Proverbs 30:3; Psalm 149:2; Ecclesiastes 5:7, Ecclesiastes 12:1; Job 5:1; Isaiah 6:3, Isaiah 54:5, Isaiah 62:5; Hosea 11:12, or Hosea 12:1; Malachi 1:6; Daniel 5:18, Daniel 5:20, and Daniel 7:18, Daniel 7:22." - Parkhurst.
 
[quote]
As the word Elohim is the term by which the Divine Being is most generally expressed in the Old Testament, it may be necessary to consider it here more at large. It is a maxim that admits of no controversy, that every noun in the Hebrew language is derived from a verb, which is usually termed the radix or root, from which, not only the noun, but all the different flections of the verb, spring. This radix is the third person singular of the preterite or past tense. The ideal meaning of this root expresses some essential property of the thing which it designates, or of which it is an appellative. The root in Hebrew, and in its sister language, the Arabic, generally consists of three letters, and every word must be traced to its root in order to ascertain its genuine meaning, for there alone is this meaning to be found. In Hebrew and Arabic this is essentially necessary, and no man can safely criticise on any word in either of these languages who does not carefully attend to this point.
 
I mention the Arabic with the Hebrew for two reasons.
 
1. Because the two languages evidently spring from the same source, and have very nearly the same mode of construction.
 
2. Because the deficient roots in the Hebrew Bible are to be sought for in the Arabic language. The reason of this must be obvious, when it is considered that the whole of the Hebrew language is lost except what is in the Bible, and even a part of this book is written in Chaldee.
 
Now, as the English Bible does not contain the whole of the English language, so the Hebrew Bible does not contain the whole of the Hebrew. If a man meet with an English word which he cannot find in an ample concordance or dictionary to the Bible, he must of course seek for that word in a general English dictionary. In like manner, if a particular form of a Hebrew word occur that cannot be traced to a root in the Hebrew Bible, because the word does not occur in the third person singular of the past tense in the Bible, it is expedient, it is perfectly lawful, and often indispensably necessary, to seek the deficient root in the Arabic. For as the Arabic is still a living language, and perhaps the most copious in the universe, it may well be expected to furnish those terms which are deficient in the Hebrew Bible. And the reasonableness of this is founded on another maxim, viz., that either the Arabic was derived from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew from the Arabic. I shall not enter into this controversy; there are great names on both sides, and the decision of the question in either way will have the same effect on my argument. For if the Arabic were derived from the Hebrew, it must have been when the Hebrew was a living and complete language, because such is the Arabic now; and therefore all its essential roots we may reasonably expect to find there: but if, as Sir William Jones supposed, the Hebrew were derived from the Arabic, the same expectation is justified, the deficient roots in Hebrew may be sought for in the mother tongue. If, for example, we meet with a term in our ancient English language the meaning of which we find difficult to ascertain, common sense teaches us that we should seek for it in the Anglo-Saxon, from which our language springs; and, if necessary, go up to the Teutonic, from which the Anglo-Saxon was derived. No person disputes the legitimacy of this measure, and we find it in constant practice. I make these observations at the very threshold of my work, because the necessity of acting on this principle (seeking deficient Hebrew roots in the Arabic) may often occur, and I wish to speak once for all on the subject.

Continua...
« Ultima modifica: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:33:36 by Stefanotus » Loggato
Stefanotus
Visitatore

E-Mail

Re: Genesi 1:1 e seguenti: Riguardo Elohim
« Rispondi #119 Data del Post: 23.02.2015 alle ore 21:34:38 »
Rispondi con quote Rispondi con quote   Modifica Modifica    Rimuovi messaggio Rimuovi messaggio


Quote:
The first sentence in the Scripture shows the propriety of having recourse to this principle. We have seen that the word אלהים Elohim is plural; we have traced our term God to its source, and have seen its signification; and also a general definition of the thing or being included under this term, has been tremblingly attempted. We should now trace the original to its root, but this root does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. Were the Hebrew a complete language, a pious reason might be given for this omission, viz., "As God is without beginning and without cause, as his being is infinite and underived, the Hebrew language consults strict propriety in giving no root whence his name can be deduced." Mr. Parkhurst, to whose pious and learned labors in Hebrew literature most Biblical students are indebted, thinks he has found the root in אלה alah, he swore, bound himself by oath; and hence he calls the ever-blessed Trinity אלהים Elohim, as being bound by a conditional oath to redeem man, etc., etc. Most pious minds will revolt from such a definition, and will be glad with me to find both the noun and the root preserved in Arabic. Allah is the common name for God in the Arabic tongue, and often the emphatic is used. Now both these words are derived from the root alaha, he worshipped, adored, was struck with astonishment, fear, or terror; and hence, he adored with sacred horror and veneration, cum sacro horrore ac veneratione coluit, adoravit - Wilmet. Hence ilahon, fear, veneration, and also the object of religious fear, the Deity, the supreme God, the tremendous Being. This is not a new idea; God was considered in the same light among the ancient Hebrews; and hence Jacob swears by the fear of his father Isaac, Genesis 31:53. To complete the definition, Golius renders alaha, juvit, liberavit, et tutatus fuit, "he succoured, liberated, kept in safety, or defended." Thus from the ideal meaning of this most expressive root, we acquire the most correct notion of the Divine nature; for we learn that God is the sole object of adoration; that the perfections of his nature are such as must astonish all those who piously contemplate them, and fill with horror all who would dare to give his glory to another, or break his commandments; that consequently he should be worshipped with reverence and religious fear; and that every sincere worshipper may expect from him help in all his weaknesses, trials, difficulties, temptations, etc.,; freedom from the power, guilt, nature, and consequences of sin; and to be supported, defended, and saved to the uttermost, and to the end.
 
Here then is one proof, among multitudes which shall be adduced in the course of this work, of the importance, utility, and necessity of tracing up these sacred words to their sources; and a proof also, that subjects which are supposed to be out of the reach of the common people may, with a little difficulty, be brought on a level with the most ordinary capacity.
Loggato
Pagine: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10  11 · torna su · Rispondi Rispondi   Abilita notifica Abilita notifica    Invia il Topic Invia il Topic    Stampa Stampa

« Topic Precedente | Prossimo Topic »

Evangelici.net è un sito di Teknosurf.it srl ‐ P.IVA 01264890052 ‐ Privacy policy