How the Essence of the Sabbath Day is the Three Angel's Message

[USA_SPY]

While I was studying the Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy, the Lord had impressed me in my mind with a truth which placed me in a new view of what it truly means when we say the Sabbath is important to our faith and is a sign of our allegiance to the Lord. While reading the Two Republics, or Rome and the United States of America by A.T Jones, in one of the chapters I was given a vivid reason why Sunday Law is prohibited by God to be worshiped upon. Soon after the death of Constantine, the Christian Churches came under problems in not bringing sufficient adherents to attend Sunday worship services. To resolve this problem, they laid their petitions unto the Roman government to enforce prohibition of work on Sunday. Thinking that it will resolve the issues of Church attendance, they disappointedly saw that the amount of those attending services is the same as before. In seeing where the populace had gone to that day, they discovered that they went to the theaters and circuses. The Bishops therefore enacted laws prohibiting entertainment centers from opening on the weekends. Even when entertainment is prohibited, the populace still did not go to worship services and decided to remain at home.

At the fraught thought of losing influence and status, instead of evaluating the faults and corruption that is evident in themselves, the Catholic Church developed a theory of enforcement of worship and instillment of instruction into the minds of non-believers, later producing the results that is evidently seen in the terror of the inquisition. In 321 A.D, the Sunday Law was enacted by Emperor Constantine which orders the Roman populace on Sunday to vehemently observe the day of the sun god. This was the only instance in which a law was issued by Constantine which enforced religious observance unto non-believers. In this sense, this law was the only perequisite which allowed the Catholic Church to place in practice and authorize their dangerous theory of persecution. This places observance of the day of Sunday as the Lord’s day not just the acknowledgment of man’s traditions, but also the acknowledgment of Satan’s kingdom and his method to rule.

In reading about what took place after 1844, those that delivered the message of the first and second Angel message during the Millerite movement came in view of the tabernacle in heaven. Knowing that the sanctuary on earth is a replica of the heavenly sanctuary, Adventist Pioneers had come to understand the Ten Commandments which are placed inside the Ark of the Covenant in heaven as being perpetual and unchangeable: “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.” (Revelation 11:19) In having received this light, these Pioneers gladly received the message of the third Angel and kept the sabbath at its fullest. From this account, I came to understand that all the messages of the Three Angel’s are an encapsulation of the full essence of what it truly means to rest on the Sabbath Day.

From Exodus 20:8-11, the passage outlines the Sabbath Day as our acknowledgement of our Creator and a sign of allegiance to his sovereignty: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Our allegiance to the Sabbath in turn places us to accept and confess the first Angel’s message: “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:6-7) Because the Sabbath goes in remembrance of God who created heaven and earth, resting on this particular day also exhibits our worship towards him and recognizing him as the one who created all things. When God rested on the Seventh Day soon after he completed his work of creation and commanded us to observe it, he set a precedent for us to imitate him. This example in turn functions like a ceremony, transforming his followers into imitators and living representatives of Christ on earth.

The willful acceptance of the mark of the beast which we know to be an international Sunday Law is a sign that we have wholly accepted a false system of worship. Rather than accepting this false day of worship and instead making the decision to observe the Seventh Day, we make ourselves separate from the rest of the world and its system of false deities and doctrines. In doing so, we heeded the warning of the message of the second angel: “And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” (Revelation 14:8) As described in Isaiah 56:2, keeping the Sabbath also goes hand to hand with keeping ourselves from doing evil: “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.” Through the keeping of this sanctified day, we allow our minds to be reminded that we are made to be distinct and different from the rest of the world, thus allowing our earthly tendacies and indulgences to dissipate when placing ourselves in the presence of God. When there is a dedicated day to spend time with God, we begin to clear our weary mind from the labor we conducted in six days and gain a transparent comprehension of our own fallible opinions when in sight of God’s perfect chracter, giving us a chance to accept his rule and precepts as faultless and unerring.

And finally, with what Jesus had connoted in Mark 2:27-28, the Sabbath is especially purposed to serve the mental wellbeing of mankind, pointing them to the Lord of that sanctified day: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” What this paasage indicates is that when we rest on the Sabbath Day, we draw into reflection and close communion with our Creator. Seting aside a day for him, we are also arranging time for him to come into our hearts and allow him to mold our characters. It is through this special rest we come more into acquaintance with God’s character, placing our heart to rest in his words and principles. This will subsequently allow us to grow in faith and trust in his goodwill towards us. In connection to our need to grow in faith, the third Angel’s message has a foreboding warning of a severe test that will individually try the loyalty of God’s people once the Mark of the Beast had been officially established: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”(Revelation 14:9-12) For this reason it is necessary that God’s people continue to keep the Sabbath Day, for within this day of rest we are given able preperation to become capable of meeting this bitter test. The stronger our faith, the more prepared are we to meet the Lord at his Second Coming.

If keeping Sunday as the day of the Lord signifies the acceptance of the doctrine of forced worship, then keeping the Seventh Day as the day of the Lord signifies that we accept the Three Angel’s message. In all of this, the Lord has spoken and shown me in my mind that it is impossible for anyone including Seventh Day Adventists to be able to fully keep the Sabbath Day holy unless they first accept all Three Angels messages in all its truth and glory, placing its principles into daily practicality. Without recognizing the Lord as the Creator of heaven and earth, there is no significance for unbelievers to observe the holy day in the first place. Without abnegation and temperance from erroneous doctrines, the Sabbath has little to no effect in changing our worldly conduct. And without a continual growth in faith and knowledge, the Lord cannot dwell in our heart to purify us while resting on his holy day. Whatever influence we excercise during the six days of the week will be transmitted to the Seventh Day, and whatever influence we exert on the Sabbath Day will be transferred to the rest of the week.

From Joshua 1:15, the Lord specified to Israel that in order to enjoy the promise land they must first allow him to give them rest and take possession of the land: “Until the LORD have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the LORD your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses the LORD'S servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.” We again see the same applied principle when connoted to the Sabbath Day in Hebrews 4:9-11: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Just as the Lord instructed Joshua to allow his brethren to rest in him and possess the land in order to enjoy of its blessings, so also are we to inherit eternal life through a complete holy observance of the Sabbath Day and the spreading forth of the Three Angel’s message to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. These messages are the most solemn message that mortal hands could ever be charged with, for within its precepts are we given the assurance to overcome sin and be called conquerors in the eyes of God. If the truth of the Sabbath Day were to ever shine within this dark world, it is neccesary that the people of God adhere wholly to the Three Angel’s message.

 

[rob]

Wow my friend that was quite an interesting read, and I found it hard following your view point?

Quote: "the Lord has spoken and shown me in my mind that it is impossible for anyone including Seventh Day Adventists to be able to fully keep the Sabbath Day holy unless they first accept all Three Angels messages in all its truth and glory, placing its principles into daily practicality."

I would agree with this statement of yours. Part of the three angels message is this:-

"Re 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

What is the second angels message?

Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Here the message is repeated "Babylon is fallen"

And the message of the second angel is to get out of Babylon into the country places, before the National Sunday siege begins. Now how many SDA people are getting ready for the end of time, living in country places, growing their own food - learning how to is hard - and making preparations when we can't buy or sell.

Shalom

 

[USA_SPY]

Here the message is repeated "Babylon is fallen"

And the message of the second angel is to get out of Babylon into the country places, before the National Sunday siege begins. Now how many SDA people are getting ready for the end of time, living in country places, growing their own food - learning how to is hard - and making preparations when we can't buy or sell.

I completely agree with your assessment. I believe the second Angel's message is calling us on a preparatory stance in order to seperate ourselves from a false system of worship, just as many during the Millerite Movement had done so when coming out of Churches teaching erroneous doctrines. However it is not sufficient to just come out of Babylon physically. The meaning of the word Babylon in the Greek language is confusion. Accordingly from Isaiah 41:28-29 we are given the definition of what God calls confusion: "For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no consellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion." For Babylon in this case, what constitutes of their works and molten images are their false doctrines. In order for there to even be a physical leaving and outpouring from Babylon, we must also leave out of her spiritually. In order to come out of Babylon spiritually, we must exchange their precepts for the principles of God. To properly proclaim the Second Angel's message, we must be willing to call out many false doctrines such as purgatory and the immortality of the soul. The Angel's message not only consist of calling out Catholic ideas, but also doctrines that branch out of Babylon. Many of the popular and world leading false ideologies such as atheism, deism, and other enlightenment ideas was carried forth from the order of Jesuit with it's purpose to detrail the Protestant movement. We'll also find that many religions in our current world have become mixed with Universalism ideals. If we look into the meaning of the word Catholic in Greek definition, it means Universal or Worldwide. The reason why Babylon became fallen was because they established themselves in the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of God. Any foundation that is not of God's word will be swept away. It is necessary then that we warn those that cling to erroneous doctrines to forgo them and follow wholeheartedly the statues and laws of God.

 

[rob]

Let me ask you about the term confusion.

You said "For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no consellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion.

The Hebrew word "aven" is under "vanity" and in English is translated by EGW as "propensity" and means the epi-genetic genes we awaken as pet sinning habits we inherited from our parents. The Hebrew word "ruwach" is also the same for "Holy Spirit", so this is best translated as "medium", For broadly "wind is a medium affect" and the "Holy Spirit is also a medium affect" and in this context the Medium Function of God provided to our world of good and bad, is used for the wrong purposes by those living in their propensities of sin.

You said :"For Babylon in this case, what constitutes of their works and molten images are their false doctrines. In order for there to even be a physical leaving and outpouring from Babylon, we must also leave out of her spiritually

I would agree - two most common doctrines we as SDA people have embraced is

(1) adopting the term "trinity" when Elohiym Power is a simile of Divine Family Power. While the comparison are similar they are not the same. The Bible speaks of Elohiym meaning "family power" and so does EGW. Why than do we not embrace this?

and related to this (2) is the idea that all three Divine Heavenly Beings are a "he" whatever that means, I have never found a SDA Bible study to explain. What might surprise you is there are TWO Hebrew words for love in the OT - many confuse the nature referring to the Greek terms under the NT - but the NT was translated from Hebrew into Greek - not originally written in Greek !

There is a Bible text that proves this happened by God as a prophecy :

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.


You said :"To properly proclaim the Second Angel's message, we must be willing to call out many false doctrines such as purgatory and the immortality of the soul.

The Omega apostasy I would touch on is the twenty year rise of Gnosticism in the SDA Church, which has infected us from ignorance. Do you understand that the Living Temple is the baby touches of Gnosticism in the Church?

The biggest influence of Gnostics is the belief that salvation is based on mental assent - belief - the kind of mystic knowledege - and this means "faith" is not a word having "divine works" in you - but you having "deep knowledge only" in Jesus.
Hence the focus of Sabbath School is to proclaim "knowledge" rather than "genuine faith".

You said :"The reason why Babylon became fallen was because they established themselves in the wisdom of man instead of the wisdom of God.

I agree . The Opposer is pushing "naturalism" as a "religion" and this assumes "human powers of self" are natural to us - which is a complete lie and myth.

Shalom

 

[Polyglot]

If keeping Sunday as the day of the Lord signifies the acceptance of the doctrine of forced worship, then keeping the Seventh Day as the day of the Lord signifies that we accept the Three Angel’s message.

And, as Rob also appears to have made the connection in the quotes below, let me add here that the Adventist pioneers considered the Sunday error as linked with another dogma of Babylon, as published in the Review and Herald, Nov.20, 1894, Vol.71, No.46, p.730.

It will also be noticed that this "league" has other plans besides the intention to prosecute those who will not bow to their man-made Sabbath. Perhaps they will prosecute those who do not believe in the Trinity. Their, spiritual ancestors, the Puritans, considered the arrest and punishment of those who rejected this church dogma as something pleasing to the Deity. Our Unitarian friends should be on the alert. The doctrine of the Trinity and the sacredness of Sunday are both orthodox plums of marvelous sweetness to the ministerial tooth. If all may be compelled to receive one, there is no good reason why all may not be required to accept the other.

It is easily seen that this society is another agency to promote the religio-political crusade that is becoming so general all over our land, and which is hastening the fulfillment of the prophecy of Rev. 13 : 11-17. If a man must keep Sunday in order to be considered patriotic and a good citizen, then a non-Sunday observer, particularly if he keeps another day, may be accused as an enemy of the country—a dangerous character, to be dealt with by the State as his obstinacy deserves. To this time we are rapidly hasting. Can we not discern the signs of the times?

M. E. K.

What is the second angels message?

Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Here the message is repeated "Babylon is fallen"

And the message of the second angel is to get out of Babylon into the country places, before the National Sunday siege begins. Now how many SDA people are getting ready for the end of time, living in country places, growing their own food - learning how to is hard - and making preparations when we can't buy or sell.

This is the Second Angel's message:

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." (Revelation 14:8)

The human family have been made drunk with the wine of Babylon, and drunken men will not reason. They have taken large drafts of Satan’s sophistry, and they are determined that they will not see the foolishness of accepting another standard, while casting aside the law of the Lord of hosts. { ST November 14, 1895, par. 8 }

You said :"For Babylon in this case, what constitutes of their works and molten images are their false doctrines. In order for there to even be a physical leaving and outpouring from Babylon, we must also leave out of her spiritually

I would agree - two most common doctrines we as SDA people have embraced is

(1) adopting the term "trinity" when Elohiym Power is a simile of Divine Family Power. While the comparison are similar they are not the same. The Bible speaks of Elohiym meaning "family power" and so does EGW. Why than do we not embrace this?

and related to this (2) is the idea that all three Divine Heavenly Beings are a "he" whatever that means, I have never found a SDA Bible study to explain. What might surprise you is there are TWO Hebrew words for love in the OT - many confuse the nature referring to the Greek terms under the NT - but the NT was translated from Hebrew into Greek - not originally written in Greek !

There is no "God family," one in which multiple personages are all part of the true God, if the Bible is to be believed. The first commandment is plain and clear: thou shalt have no other god before ME. That word "me" is singular in both Hebrew and in its English translation. Never does God tell us to worship an "us," nor does God represent Himself as "we." The Hebrew "shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4 is well known to all Jews, and spells out a singular God.

You said :"To properly proclaim the Second Angel's message, we must be willing to call out many false doctrines such as purgatory and the immortality of the soul.

The Omega apostasy I would touch on is the twenty year rise of Gnosticism in the SDA Church, which has infected us from ignorance. Do you understand that the Living Temple is the baby touches of Gnosticism in the Church?

The biggest influence of Gnostics is the belief that salvation is based on mental assent - belief - the kind of mystic knowledege - and this means "faith" is not a word having "divine works" in you - but you having "deep knowledge only" in Jesus.
Hence the focus of Sabbath School is to proclaim "knowledge" rather than "genuine faith".

The great sin charged against Babylon is that she “made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” This cup of intoxication which she presents to the world represents the false doctrines that she has accepted as the result of her unlawful connection with the great ones of the earth. Friendship with the world corrupts her faith, and in her turn she exerts a corrupting influence upon the world by teaching doctrines which are opposed to the plainest statements of Holy Writ. { GC 388.2}
...
The second angel’s message of Revelation 14 was first preached in the summer of 1844, and it then had a more direct application to the churches of the United States, where the warning of the judgment had been most widely proclaimed and most generally rejected, and where the declension in the churches had been most rapid. But the message of the second angel did not reach its complete fulfillment in 1844. The churches then experienced a moral fall, in consequence of their refusal of the light of the advent message; but that fall was not complete. As they have continued to reject the special truths for this time they have fallen lower and lower. Not yet, however, can it be said that “Babylon is fallen,... because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” She has not yet made all nations do this. The spirit of world conforming and indifference to the testing truths for our time exists and has been gaining ground in churches of the Protestant faith in all the countries of Christendom; and these churches are included in the solemn and terrible denunciation of the second angel. But the work of apostasy has not yet reached its culmination. { GC 389.2}

And then she describes some more of what the second angel's wine of Babylon constitutes.

The prophet says, “I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was lightened with glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils.” This is the same message that was given by the second angel. Babylon is fallen, “because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” What is that wine?—Her false doctrines. She has given to the world a false Sabbath instead of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and has repeated the falsehood that Satan first told to Eve in Eden,—the natural immortality of the soul. Many kindred errors she has spread far and wide, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” { RH December 6, 1892, par. 15 }

“It is our individual duty to walk humbly with God. We are not to seek any strange, new message. We are not to think that the chosen ones of God who are trying to walk in the light compose Babylon. The fallen denominational churches are Babylon. Babylon has been fostering poisonous doctrines, the wine of error. This wine of error is made up of false doctrines, such as the natural immortality of the soul, the eternal torment of the wicked, the denial of the pre-existence of Christ prior to His birth in Bethlehem, and advocating and exalting the first day of the week above God’s holy and sanctified day. These and kindred errors are presented to the world by the various churches, and thus the Scriptures are fulfilled that say, ‘For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.’ It is a wrath which is created by false doctrines, and when kings and presidents drink this wine of the wrath of her fornication, they are stirred with anger against those who will not come into harmony with the false and satanic heresies which exalt the false sabbath, and lead men to trample underfoot God’s memorial. { TM 61.3}

 

[rob]

Greetings Polyglot you have served way too many tennis balls of rebuke for both of us to handle, assuming you wish to defend your own theories of faith with what is considered Bible truth?

I will pick a single tennis ball and return serve to see how you discuss my discussion:

Quote: "There is no "God family," one in which multiple personages are all part of the true God, if the Bible is to be believed. The first commandment is plain and clear: thou shalt have no other god before ME. That word "me" is singular in both Hebrew and in its English translation. Never does God tell us to worship an "us," nor does God represent Himself as "we." The Hebrew "shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4 is well known to all Jews, and spells out a singular God.

If you click on Hebrew Hub analysis of Exodus 20:3 there are

no elohim (noun masculine plural) Why is this word a double plural? Because the verb is plural.
other (noun masculine plural) - So this Hebrew word as a plural make elohiym which is always plural another plural.
Hence "other gods" is the correct translation.

before me ( me - noun masculine plural construct - first person common masculine singular)

So your statement "thou shalt have no other god before ME." is incorrect
Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (KJV) - And the King James translation is correct.

Second you argue the "shema" of Deu 6:4 spells out a cardinal numerical singular Elohiym Power.
Are you SDA because you are promoting modalism. Roman Catholics teach trinity - whatever that means.
What do you do with the Hebrew word "echad" surely that does not mean cardinally one ? but more compound one?
If the Hebrew wanted to state something "cardinally one" the word is "yachiyd" but this word is not used in Deu 6:4.

Now rather than argue Hebrew case grammar, lets find a simple way to verify the plurality nature of Elohiym.

Ge 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Here we have a title YHWH and the "corporate function - Elohiym"
And we have another "corporate function - adam" becoming an Elohiym power "as one of us"

Question is the Hebrew word adam singular? Yes, so why does it become "us" because a corporate function as adam is as a word also refers to Adam and Eve, two personalities inside the corporate function "adam". This is parallel to the heavenly Elohiym, where the two personalities become a false elohiym power knowing both good and evil, the Bible definition of elohiym.

Now such a verse is easier to study - no grammar - just poetry parallels.

Other corporate functions include other words like government and family. The Bible uses family words to describe the Most High and other members, (ie Father and Son) is a simple presentation of Bible terms. Shalom

 

[Polyglot]

Quote: "There is no "God family," one in which multiple personages are all part of the true God, if the Bible is to be believed. The first commandment is plain and clear: thou shalt have no other god before ME. That word "me" is singular in both Hebrew and in its English translation. Never does God tell us to worship an "us," nor does God represent Himself as "we." The Hebrew "shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4 is well known to all Jews, and spells out a singular God.

If you click on Hebrew Hub analysis of Exodus 20:3 there are

no elohim (noun masculine plural) Why is this word a double plural? Because the verb is plural.
other (noun masculine plural) - So this Hebrew word as a plural make elohiym which is always plural another plural.
Hence "other gods" is the correct translation.

before me ( me - noun masculine plural construct - first person common masculine singular)

So your statement "thou shalt have no other god before ME." is incorrect
Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (KJV) - And the King James translation is correct.

I should have looked at the Hebrew text before posting. I was not thinking about the fact that the noun is modified by an adjective in the verse, and the adjective will tell us whether the noun is plural or singular. You are correct, as the word "other" in Hebrew is also plural, so, as you stated, the KJV translation is correct.

That said, I don't think one would be keeping the commandment correctly if one had just one other god before the true God, and not two or more....would you agree? That was really my focus--that we are to have no other god before the "Me" specified--which is singular.

However, the verb in the text is singular, as it refers to a singular "you" (subject-verb agreement). The verb is not connected with the word "elohim" in this case.

Second you argue the "shema" of Deu 6:4 spells out a cardinal numerical singular Elohiym Power.
Are you SDA because you are promoting modalism. Roman Catholics teach trinity - whatever that means.
What do you do with the Hebrew word "echad" surely that does not mean cardinally one ? but more compound one?
If the Hebrew wanted to state something "cardinally one" the word is "yachiyd" but this word is not used in Deu 6:4.

The word "echad" in Hebrew is used for both ordinal and cardinal numbers. It is used for the first (ordinal) day of the week in Genesis 1. It is used for the taking of "one" (cardinal number) of Adam's ribs in Genesis 2:21.

Now rather than argue Hebrew case grammar, lets find a simple way to verify the plurality nature of Elohiym.

Ge 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Here we have a title YHWH and the "corporate function - Elohiym"
And we have another "corporate function - adam" becoming an Elohiym power "as one of us"

This is an easy one to clear up if one reads the next two verses. The context of the passage identifies who the "us" is.

Gen. 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen. 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

God was addressing the angels. They also knew good and evil, the great conflict having started in Heaven. And God was speaking inclusively with them while He explained to them the reason they would be called to help in guarding the way to the Tree of Life.

That angels are also "elohim" is clear in the Bible. For example, compare the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:5 with the Greek translation made of it in Hebrews 2:7. You will see that the Hebrew "elohim" (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) was translated by the inspired writer of Hebrews to "angelos" (ἀγγέλους) in Greek, so the KJV translation of "angels" is quite correct.

 

[rob]

Greetings your serve of the tennis ball was nice, here is my return serve

You said: "That said, I don't think one would be keeping the commandment correctly if one had just one other god before the true God, and not two or more....would you agree?

Contrary to Jewish thinking, God is love, but love requires provider love providing and responder love responding to that love before the love as a whole flows as a single flow of love. The simplest way to proof such a complex mystery to you is to consider how the similes God established in Creation show us His character as Romans 1:20 says.

When two personalities of love are married they become "echad" which means compounded one, or cardinally one.
Eve was not created, she was built (banah) from within an existing organism, being Adam. Hence we have one Being Kind
called "adam" in the Bible but two personalities of loving. God is like this function. It is wrong to consider the married couple as two human beings, the Bible calls them one human being.

Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

This verse tells us that the wife is the same expression as the husband.

Pr 31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it:

This verse one among a chapter, describe her work as his work, that her decisions are his decisions, both work as "echad" compound unity. Therefore while love requires three fundamental personalities to express love, it is wrong to consider them as independent and thus separate personalities of love.

When Jesus created for example our world, it was spoken in existence by His words, the words were heard by the Holy Spirit who used the Most High Power to do as the words spoken said. This is how divine creation power works, as compound unity.

A simile I use is a battery, it has three components, the cathode the electrolyte and the anode. Power only flows when one is providing the other is responding the the electrolyte is collecting love, ie doing both.

So this is why the Divine Elohiym functions as monotheism. And in this point you are correct. Shalom

 

[rob]

You said "

The word "echad" in Hebrew is used for both ordinal and cardinal numbers. It is used for the first (ordinal) day of the week in Genesis 1. It is used for the taking of "one" (cardinal number) of Adam's ribs in Genesis 2:21.

"echad" is best explained in some verses

https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1054.htm

This webpage goes through many examples.

Day one of time was created as a compound unity of evening and morning.

God took one of many ribs from Adam.

Read through the webpage I did many years ago and return serve on any example you wish to discuss. Shalom

 

[rob]

You said :"That angels are also "elohim" is clear in the Bible. For example, compare the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:5 with the Greek translation made of it in Hebrews 2:7. You will see that the Hebrew "elohim" (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) was translated by the inspired writer of Hebrews to "angelos" (ἀγγέλους) in Greek, so the KJV translation of "angels" is quite correct.

This discussion is OFF topic and not a return serve of my statement. I wanted you to discuss that elohiym refers to adam as us, not him. Which implies elohiym is also us not him. You are going off tangent, or you intentionally wish to do so because you cannot agree or disagree with my parallel made here.

Ps 8:5 says mankind was made a little lower than elohiym, not angels, cherub so the KJV is false.
The fact that the writer quotes this mistake is interesting and I have no discussion on this?

Now to prove you are wrong to say elohiym is referring to cherub as a parallel to elohiym is false, consider the Hebrews context of the author, despite the verse he quotes:

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 ¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

The passage is saying the SON is not an Aggelos or Cherub. It seems some Jews wanting to get around plurality in the Godhead invented the idea that God chose a Aggelos or Cherub as a Divine Son, is refuted here in Hebrews 1.

Yes I agree some cherub sinned and became a false elohiym power banished to earth, and were banished there on the frozen water ball during the Creation of a new world over and around the earth. But it is clear God was talking to other Divine members of Divinity, not created creatures like mere angels.

Pr 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
5 Every word of God is pure:

This passage has the ruwach (Holy Spirit) the sons name (imrah) and the Father's old name (eloah)

Notice there are three personalities of love.

Ex 23:20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Rabbi Singer makes a big mistake to consider malak as an cherub, it is a Divine Messenger of the Most High, a Divine Son, and He has the ability to pardon sin, because the Father's name is in Him.

Now I want to make the parallel presented elohiym is talking to adam and uses "us" not "him" ? Why is that?

Because "adam" is not a "him" only but "him and her" and they are one flesh yes, but two personalities of love.
Unless you consider the Divine Power as one being with two personalities of love, you cannot understand love.
There are two Hebrew words for love (not the NT notions of Greek) the Bible was written in Hebrew first.

Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created
2 And the Spirit of God moved

Notice the Grand Provider provides and the Grand Responder responds.

This is how love functions in creation, and why elohiym refers to "adam" as "us" not as "him".

Shalom

 

[Polyglot]

Contrary to Jewish thinking, God is love, but love requires provider love providing and responder love responding to that love before the love as a whole flows as a single flow of love. The simplest way to proof such a complex mystery to you is to consider how the similes God established in Creation show us His character as Romans 1:20 says.

To say "God is love" is different than saying "God is loving" or "God loves." The expression presents God as consisting of love, every bit as much as saying "God is light" or "God is fire." The love, light, and fire are all nouns, not adjectives. These define God in a way that would be applicable regardless, and need no plurality for each of these statements to be true.

Adam was created in God's image. Without Eve. There is no text of scripture to say that Adam was not yet in God's image before Eve was made. Personally, I accept that the "image" (Heb. "tselem"), or likeness of God, refers to His sinless character. After the Fall, when Cain was born, he is not said to have been in God's image, but rather in that of Adam.

Furthermore, Jesus said in John 5:37 that no one has ever heard God's voice nor seen His shape....but how could we not have seen His shape if we were made in it? So I think we have to be careful about making assumptions regarding our form being what the "image" references.

To say that love cannot exist without a plurality is to put human constraints on it. We humans have no right to attempt to define love in such a way when applied to God. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even a human could have a loving character without a single other human being present. Whether that love was demonstrated, or reciprocated, is a separate question to whether the character of the individual is that of love.

Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

This verse tells us that the wife is the same expression as the husband.

This verse does not say that the wife is the husband; rather it gives a definition which should be useful to us when looking at certain other Biblical passages to understand how God considers things. For example, Genesis 9 tells the story of God blessing Noah and his sons following the flood, then Noah planting a vineyard and drinking its wine. While drunk, Ham is said to have seen "Noah's" nakedness. But why would this be such an evil thing if one had but chanced upon his nude father?

Noah, speaking by divine inspiration, foretold the history of the three great races to spring from these fathers of mankind. Tracing the descendants of Ham, through the son rather than the father, he declared, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” The unnatural crime of Ham declared that filial reverence had long before been cast from his soul, and it revealed the impiety and vileness of his character. These evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God. { PP 117.2}

On the other hand, the reverence manifested by Shem and Japheth for their father, and thus for the divine statutes, promised a brighter future for their descendants. Concerning these sons it was declared: “Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” The line of Shem was to be that of the chosen people, of God’s covenant, of the promised Redeemer. Jehovah was the God of Shem. From him would descend Abraham, and the people of Israel, through whom Christ was to come. “Happy is that people, whose God is the Lord.” Psalm 144:15. And Japheth “shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” In the blessings of the gospel the descendants of Japheth were especially to share. { PP 117.3}

If a chance seeing of one's father's nakedness were such an "unnatural crime," many, many of us would be far more guilty than Ham. But there are other evidences here of what really went on. Ham did more than merely "see." The Hebrew is simply using euphemism to describe what took place rather than to explicitly name the unspeakable--the incest that took place. Notice that Ham is not cursed. Ham's son Canaan is cursed. Canaan was the bastard son, and even in English today, this word is so strong as to be offensive. The Hebrew record did not here use the word, nor is there any place in scripture, that I recall, which specifies anyone as this, although there are places, e.g. Deuteronomy 23:2, where the condition is addressed.

When Jesus created for example our world, it was spoken in existence by His words, the words were heard by the Holy Spirit who used the Most High Power to do as the words spoken said. This is how divine creation power works, as compound unity.

Where do you get this? I would like a "thus saith the Lord" for it.

As I understand it, Jesus is the logos, the word of God. In John 5:37, Jesus says that no one has heard the Father's voice at any time. This was said in the presence of some who had been at Jesus' baptism--something to think about. Ellen White says that all we know, and can know about God, is through His son, Jesus.

God is the creator. But He has created all things through His son. To see Jesus as commanding the Holy Spirit, "who used the Most High Power to do as the words spoken said"--as if the spirit were some separate being--sounds, well, almost bordering on pantheism. But that is going off topic, perhaps. A separate discussion to understand the Biblical usage of "spirit" would be warranted.

A simile I use is a battery, it has three components, the cathode the electrolyte and the anode. Power only flows when one is providing the other is responding the the electrolyte is collecting love, ie doing both.

So this is why the Divine Elohiym functions as monotheism. And in this point you are correct. Shalom

We have been explicitly warned off the ground of comparing God to any thing existing in His creation. I cannot, therefore, accept such analogies. If you have a scripture to support your concept, I will accept that. See the warning below.

I am instructed to say, The sentiments of those who are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be trusted. Such representations as the following are made: “The Father is as the light invisible; the Son is as the light embodied; the Spirit is the light shed abroad.” “The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the dew fallen to the seat of life.” Another representation: “The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the leaden cloud; the Spirit is rain fallen and working in refreshing power.” { SpTB07 62.2 }

All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God can not be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. { SpTB07 62.3 }

 

[Polyglot]

"echad" is best explained in some verses

https://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1054.htm
This webpage goes through many examples.

Day one of time was created as a compound unity of evening and morning.

God took one of many ribs from Adam.

Read through the webpage I did many years ago and return serve on any example you wish to discuss. Shalom

The word "echad" used in Genesis 1:5 should be translated as "first," according to my Hebrew professors, which is distinct from the other days of creation where the numbers should be cardinal instead of ordinal. In other words, "echad" here is not specifying a unity, but rather a beginning.

Taking a closer look at the usage in Genesis 2:24, we find that the first verb, "leave," is in imperfect (Yiqtol) form, thus representing something that has not yet taken place, i.e. something yet future, which is why it is translated as "shall leave" in KJV. Yiqtol verbs can also indicate modals, and "will leave" or "should leave" would be just as accurate a translation. One might even argue for a "may/might leave" translation. Context is to be considered.

The next verbs, however, are Hebrew weqatal verbs. They indicate, prophetic-future style, what must come next (sequentially). In other words, the translation in the KJV is correct when it repeats the "shall" with these verbs. The "one flesh," which they shall become, is yet future, for it must follow the man's leaving father and mother and cleaving to his wife. My understanding of when that is realized is in their children. There is no way for a man to put asunder the male-female components joined into the child once joined. That son or daughter is now indeed "one flesh" which was produced from two.

 

[Polyglot]

You said :"That angels are also "elohim" is clear in the Bible. For example, compare the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:5 with the Greek translation made of it in Hebrews 2:7. You will see that the Hebrew "elohim" (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) was translated by the inspired writer of Hebrews to "angelos" (ἀγγέλους) in Greek, so the KJV translation of "angels" is quite correct.

This discussion is OFF topic and not a return serve of my statement. I wanted you to discuss that elohiym refers to adam as us, not him. Which implies elohiym is also us not him. You are going off tangent, or you intentionally wish to do so because you cannot agree or disagree with my parallel made here.

Ps 8:5 says mankind was made a little lower than elohiym, not angels, cherub so the KJV is false.
The fact that the writer quotes this mistake is interesting and I have no discussion on this?

It is written:

Before the creation of man, angels were in existence; for when the foundations of the earth were laid, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Job 38:7. After the fall of man, angels were sent to guard the tree of life, and this before a human being had died. Angels are in nature superior to men, for the psalmist says that man was made “a little lower than the angels.” Psalm 8:5. { GC 511.2}

The KJV is correct. So was Paul. But that the Bible should be questioned on this point illustrates the need of studying God's word in its original language. People of the Book should appreciate more its actual source text.

The word "elohim" is very important to this discussion. It is not off topic. And understanding how it is used in Hebrew, what it means, is essential.

Consider the following passages which use the word "elohim" for other than "God."

Reference	Text	Remarks
Exodus 21:6	Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; andhe shall serve him for ever.	"Elohim" here is applied to judges, who must discern between good and evil. Remember Genesis 3:22-24 which addresses "elohim" as knowing both good and evil.
Exodus 22:8	If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods.	Again, "elohim" is applied to judges.
Exodus 22:9	For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים); and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.	Again, "elohim" is applied to judges.
1 Samuel 2:25	If one man sin against another, the judge (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.	Some might argue that this should be "God" here...but consider the context and it would make little sense, for the "elohim" here is placed in contradistinction to the "Yahweh" (KJV: "LORD").
Psalm 8:5 (8:6 in Hebrew)	For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (אֱלֹהִ֑ים), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.	This translation is supported by Hebrews 2:7 where the word "angels" is translated from the Greek "ἀγγέλους" (angelous) which quotes from this psalm.
Psalm 82:6 (82:7 in Hebrew)	I have said, Ye are gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים); and all of you are children of the most High.	Here the context unmistakably applies the word "elohim" to people. Jesus quotes this in John 10:34, where in Greek it is translated as "theoi" (Gr. "Θεοί"; plural of "theos"), meaning "Gods."

Note that I am deliberately not including Genesis 23:6; 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15; or Jonah 3:3 in the list, simply because I feel in those cases the "elohim" should have been translated as "God." But the fact that the word has broad application in Hebrew lends itself to other interpretations, and translators may not always agree.

 

[rob]

The word "echad" used in Genesis 1:5 should be translated as "first," according to my Hebrew professors, which is distinct from the other days of creation where the numbers should be cardinal instead of ordinal. In other words, "echad" here is not specifying a unity, but rather a beginning.

Taking a closer look at the usage in Genesis 2:24, we find that the first verb, "leave," is in imperfect (Yiqtol) form, thus representing something that has not yet taken place, i.e. something yet future, which is why it is translated as "shall leave" in KJV. Yiqtol verbs can also indicate modals, and "will leave" or "should leave" would be just as accurate a translation. One might even argue for a "may/might leave" translation. Context is to be considered.

The next verbs, however, are Hebrew weqatal verbs. They indicate, prophetic-future style, what must come next (sequentially). In other words, the translation in the KJV is correct when it repeats the "shall" with these verbs. The "one flesh," which they shall become, is yet future, for it must follow the man's leaving father and mother and cleaving to his wife. My understanding of when that is realized is in their children. There is no way for a man to put asunder the male-female components joined into the child once joined. That son or daughter is now indeed "one flesh" which was produced from two.

I do not wish to be rude Ployglot but you did not read my link, or discuss my discussions in the link, hence you are making a monologue, not a discussion of my discussion, this is typical of JW witnessing, so I am not anwering with you. My question to you remains, did you agree or not agree with the statements I made in my link ?

The premise I took in studying all the contexts of echad is they refer to the parts of many, or the joining of parts of many. You did not read my link or discuss this theme I posed ? In the two become one flesh, is the same as the double edged sword, the parts of many parts become one as a whole. Try to stick to what is presented and do not fly off into a new theme.

 

[rob]

It is written:



The KJV is correct. So was Paul. But that the Bible should be questioned on this point illustrates the need of studying God's word in its original language. People of the Book should appreciate more its actual source text.

The word "elohim" is very important to this discussion. It is not off topic. And understanding how it is used in Hebrew, what it means, is essential.

Consider the following passages which use the word "elohim" for other than "God."

Reference	Text	Remarks
Exodus 21:6	Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; andhe shall serve him for ever.	"Elohim" here is applied to judges, who must discern between good and evil. Remember Genesis 3:22-24 which addresses "elohim" as knowing both good and evil.
Exodus 22:8	If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods.	Again, "elohim" is applied to judges.
Exodus 22:9	For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים); and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.	Again, "elohim" is applied to judges.
1 Samuel 2:25	If one man sin against another, the judge (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.	Some might argue that this should be "God" here...but consider the context and it would make little sense, for the "elohim" here is placed in contradistinction to the "Yahweh" (KJV: "LORD").
Psalm 8:5 (8:6 in Hebrew)	For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (אֱלֹהִ֑ים), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.	This translation is supported by Hebrews 2:7 where the word "angels" is translated from the Greek "ἀγγέλους" (angelous) which quotes from this psalm.
Psalm 82:6 (82:7 in Hebrew)	I have said, Ye are gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים); and all of you are children of the most High.	Here the context unmistakably applies the word "elohim" to people. Jesus quotes this in John 10:34, where in Greek it is translated as "theoi" (Gr. "Θεοί"; plural of "theos"), meaning "Gods."

Note that I am deliberately not including Genesis 23:6; 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15; or Jonah 3:3 in the list, simply because I feel in those cases the "elohim" should have been translated as "God." But the fact that the word has broad application in Hebrew lends itself to other interpretations, and translators may not always agree.

What you present here is interesting and well done Polyglot.

I am not sure why you include this post? I read my Bible in it's original source, in Ancient Hebrew, not modern Hebrew, and I try to align the NT in Greek back to the NT with the OT in Hebrew.

Your example of elohiym here as judges only serves to prove elohiym is a family word meaning, because a judge is a family of judges, is it not? There is not such thing as cardinally one judge, unlike the Lord Jesus who judges all mankind as cardinally one judge. So do you agree with my statement here about judges belonging to a family of judges?

 

[rob]

It is written:



The KJV is correct. So was Paul. But that the Bible should be questioned on this point illustrates the need of studying God's word in its original language. People of the Book should appreciate more its actual source text.

The word "elohim" is very important to this discussion. It is not off topic. And understanding how it is used in Hebrew, what it means, is essential.

Consider the following passages which use the word "elohim" for other than "God."

Reference	Text	Remarks
Exodus 21:6	Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (הָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; andhe shall serve him for ever.	"Elohim" here is applied to judges, who must discern between good and evil. Remember Genesis 3:22-24 which addresses "elohim" as knowing both good and evil.
Exodus 22:8	If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor's goods.	Again, "elohim" is applied to judges.
Exodus 22:9	For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים); and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.	Again, "elohim" is applied to judges.
1 Samuel 2:25	If one man sin against another, the judge (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.	Some might argue that this should be "God" here...but consider the context and it would make little sense, for the "elohim" here is placed in contradistinction to the "Yahweh" (KJV: "LORD").
Psalm 8:5 (8:6 in Hebrew)	For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (אֱלֹהִ֑ים), and hast crowned him with glory and honour.	This translation is supported by Hebrews 2:7 where the word "angels" is translated from the Greek "ἀγγέλους" (angelous) which quotes from this psalm.
Psalm 82:6 (82:7 in Hebrew)	I have said, Ye are gods (אֱלֹהִ֣ים); and all of you are children of the most High.	Here the context unmistakably applies the word "elohim" to people. Jesus quotes this in John 10:34, where in Greek it is translated as "theoi" (Gr. "Θεοί"; plural of "theos"), meaning "Gods."

Note that I am deliberately not including Genesis 23:6; 30:8; 1 Samuel 14:15; or Jonah 3:3 in the list, simply because I feel in those cases the "elohim" should have been translated as "God." But the fact that the word has broad application in Hebrew lends itself to other interpretations, and translators may not always agree.

Again you are not discussing my discussion, as I discuss your discussions. I poised a question to you:

This website forum is messing up the replies and the posts and I am getting lost in the replies you make. Sorry.