Elohim sense categorized as deity vs idol

Bob Densmore said:

Can anyone provide insights into why these example verses where elohim appears are categorized with the sense of deity, when a sense of idol seems to make better sense to me.

Ex 32:31 They have made for themselves gods of gold.

Ex 34:17 You shall not make for yourself any gods of cast metal.

Lev 19:4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the LORD your God.

Thanks,

Bob

I have some misgivings about these Logos categorizations. Maybe they are correct...but maybe they aren't. These text/context scenarios are certainly something which needs both interpretive attention and interpretive wisdom, but for FL to make the interpretive "choices" for customers and tell them, "This here is X, and that there is Y", just seems like a slippery slope. I see a few different potential problems.

This removes personal responsibility from users to judge righteous judgment.
This encourages dependency upon an "all wise" know-it-all.
Because it is part of the software "apparatus", it may leave some users blindly accepting the results as certain rather than perceiving it for what it is, merely an opinion.

I could probably add some additional points of concern, but they would mostly fall in similar categories. I've talked about how I rarely if ever use Logos datasets, and it's stuff like this that is part of the reason. If this info was presented as just another resource, then I see no problem. But this kind of thing is presented as an integral part of the software package, and as such has a sort of unquestioned aspect to it, the present query of the OPer not withstanding. Not everyone is going to have the confidence to question something that is inherent to the core apparatus of the software. No doubt they should, but confidence like that takes time to build. Unfortunately, when people are spoon-fed, they often never develop the necessary sense of responsibility to question what they encounter. I don't think Logos should be feeding that problem.

Greetings,

Hebrew is not the stronger one of my original languages, so feel free to correct me, but could it be that since the word אֱלֹהִ֑ים is grammatically a plural, and can be translated (depending on the context) either as "God" (singular, true Deity) or "gods" (plural, idols), that the Logos categorization is a bit fluid?

For example, in the Leviticus 19:4  passage cited by you in your example passages, the same word is used for idols (הָ֣אֱלִילִ֔ים) and for true God (אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם), andi it is qualified by the tetragrammaton, יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם, "YHWH, your God" at the end of the sentence(which makes the grammatical plural singular in meaning).

Says Martin Luther: "Moses begins his first book thus: “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth” [Gen. 1:1]. It is indeed self-evident that Elohim is plural number and does not signify one, but many, so that to be grammatically correct one must translate, “In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth.” That Moses does not say, “In the beginning created,” plural number (corresponding to the plural subject), but: “created,” singular number (as if corresponding to a singular subject), shows clearly that there is not more than one single God and Creator. But that he says “the Gods” shows that in the same single divine substance there is nevertheless the number known as plural or more than one. Therewith our faith is preserved: we believe in no other god than the single eternal God; and yet we learn that the same single Godhead is more than one Person. From then onward throughout the entire Scriptures God is called Elohim, that is, “Gods.” And after that the same name is also given to the creatures which sit in God’s place, as in Exodus 23, and in Psalm 82[:1, 6], where it says, “God stands among the gods and judges the gods,” and, “I say, ‘You are Gods.…’ ” Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV. (Vol. 34, p. 223). (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) Philadelphia: Fortress Press (emphases mine).

Luther's reading is of course a Christian one, informed by the later doctrine of Trinity.

xnman said:

Truth only and we each must decipher the truth for ourselves.  

If everyone has their own truth then there is no real truth.  Each with their own truth is the relativist hymn...IMHO.

God bless.

KSC

David Paul said:

I have some misgivings about these Logos categorizations.

When Logos introduced 'sense', it necessarily entered the promise land of doctrine. In the same 'sense', BDAG is a theological dictionary through its doctrinal sense assignments.

Further clouding this thread's issues, is when worthless-god (idol) enterred hebrew usage (and LEB's consequent tight translation no idols in Exodus, except for those sneaky dancing goats,  but Leviticus, chock-full).

Best to read what the authors wrote.

xnman said:

Kevin S. Coy said:

If everyone has their own truth then there is no real truth.  Each with their own truth is the relativist hymn...IMHO.

God bless.

While many want to decipher truth their way... does not mean that there isn't a truth. John 17:17 tells us God's word is truth. 

2+2 has always equaled 4 no matter how other men may decipher it. The truth of God's word is what God holds us to. 

Have a great day!

[Y]

Kevin S. Coy said:

xnman said:

Truth only and we each must decipher the truth for ourselves.  

If everyone has their own truth then there is no real truth.  Each with their own truth is the relativist hymn...IMHO.

I get what you're trying to say, but "truth" received yet untested isn't truth...it's a bet. And not a "red or black" bet, but more like Powerball. There simply isn't a real corporate accountability...it is necessarily individual. That's what remnant Yis'raa'eil is--scattered individuals...one from a city and, occasionally, two from a family. The corpus is only aggregated after the fact. There isn't any church, congregation, or organization whose "line" you can follow and receive the prize. Only conforming to YHWH's will suffices, and only those who conform based upon their own determinative decisions are accepted. Going along to get along does not suffice. Those "two from a family" don't get in together because of corporate acceptance, but rather because one who tested well was able to influence another who then took the same test. In other words, yes, there is only one Truth that matters, but only the individual can properly inculcate that Truth. It isn't and can't be accomplished en masse. Every single "plug in", every single conformation, is singular and individual, because it is only by and through that dynamic that personal responsibility is taken into account.

Hi MJ:

1: yes, Christian anthropology could be a branch of theology as long as it jibes with the Bible, and the Character and nature of God.

And that is what is the problem, the nature and character of God many times is at odds with the defined dogma of particular groups.

Jesus came directly from heaven, to tell it like it is, and found heavy resistance from man organized groups, that had their own conception (erroneous) of God's reality and developed dogma contrary to God's intent.

I must infer certain things about Faithlife:

A. It wants the Church to grow. To me it means that we believers as part of the body of Christ (the Church as fit aid), are that Church (assembly of believers and not a building of a given tradition), and thus FL wants my growth.

To grow, one of the best ways is to have robust dialogue that tries to elicit truth, based not only on primary sources, but on the insights men and women of God have had through time and across traditions.

To be exposed to different angles about a topic, allows me to enlarge my conceptual framework, to explore possibilities and sometimes to get in touch with information me or my tradition totally ignored.

As long as I present my case, experience, doubts, opinions in a respectful manner, and in a way that proper investigation of the issue / claim, and not trying to proselytize anyone, seems to me to be something in line with the character of Jesus who was crystal clear in His teachings, and who in a civil way discoursed about the errors He saw in some doctrines (eg Saducees') in the light of Scripture.

2 epistemology is of utmost importance. But to many of us believers, besides all of the involved methods, validity, and scope, are very clear that truth for us is a Person:

Joh 14:6  Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And he definitively set out a method, and implied personal accountability to try to ascertain truth:

Luk 10:25  And behold, a certain legal expert stood up to test him, saying, "Teacher, what must I do so that I will inherit eternal life?"

Luk 10:26  And he said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"

Luk 10:27  And he answered and said, "You shall love the Lord your God from all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."

Luk 10:28  And he said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live."

Note Jesus did not ask the man: What did Gamaliel explain to be the most probable doctrine? nor what does the Pharisees dogma states? what do the Saducees affirm?

So just as good synagogue Bereans did, one has to check to see if things are so, regardless of what human / human institution tries to feed you.

I understand David Paul concern about databases, but is our responsibility to check and see if they are ok with respect to Scriptures and the Nature and Character of God.

If they are, more power to them, but if not just let go of what does not jibe, and retain the good.

Many times when posters voice concerns, and sometimes thread near the fringe of the envelope in what could be considered theological dialogue, I find that I learn, and many times am edified with respect to analyzing what is being pointed out to see what I consider the root issue is IAW the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

B. If FL core values at top are Honesty and Openess, I do not think they want one particular group to call out of bounds readily, when a closer study is needed to validate the issue commented.

I see nothing wrong to share different angles for further study, reflection and comment, as long as it does not turn into ungodly exchange with accusations of questionable intentions, character, etc.

As creatures, we must be very aware that the only fully Orthodox Being in the Universe is God Himself, every created entity has but a poor contextual grasp of God's reality, and thus we should very humbly listen to other angles and check to see if things are so.

That has proven a very effective way to grow, and is something I see FL very proactively and patiently tries to foster.

I understand people getting upset at certain posts, and is normal, because we all care deeply about the issues, and they are important, but remember judgment is of the Lord alone.

The only sin that will not be pardoned is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, all others (intentionally or unintentionally indoctrinating into wrong doctrine included) as long as one confesses to the Lord and repents.

Which brings us to an important point, if we are in error through ignorance (sincerely mistaken), maybe exchanges among different believers is a way God wants to set the root issues straight, so that persons can understand that something in their accepted theological constructs does not jibe.

Part of the prayer should be that God allows us to see our blind spots, to try to "Grow" as living stones part of the New Temple of God (body of Christ).

Take the above as an angle from a non expert user of Logos software, very grateful for its existence, and giving testimony that I consider it together with the forums and the exchanges there a key help in growth in understanding of the mysteries of theology.

Peace and grace.

Biblical language is just not that consistent.  The meaning of any word in Hebrew or Greek is ultimately determined by context, and context, and also context.  That messes up a lot of great sermons, but 'tis true.