Genesis 18:1-2 Trinity

[Wootah]

18 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

Translation: Abraham looked up and saw God as three men and he bowed down.

Surely Christians can use this as evidence for the trinity?

[PinSeeker]

I think it necessary for anyone reading it without a preconceived agenda that when Abraham says, "Lord," he is addressing all three.

... but Lord is singular, so why would one presume he was not addressing a singular individual? Surely the first reflex when you see a singular pronoun is to assume it is referring to a singular individual, that how language works.

Not necessarily, no. It can be either. And since there is no explicit reference to Abraham only speaking to one of the three, such cannot be assumed in the case of Genesis 18. It is implicitly -- and explicitly -- clear that he is speaking to all three and addressing them as one collective entity.

You comment is like saying it is natural when seeing something described as black that it is indeed.. white.

You are welcome to your opinion. Like I said, I don't expect you to change it.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think it necessary for anyone reading it without a preconceived agenda that when Abraham says, "Lord," he is addressing all three.

... but Lord is singular, so why would one presume he was not addressing a singular individual within the group? Surely the first reflex when you see a singular pronoun is to assume it is referring to a singular individual, that how language works.

Not necessarily, no.

Yes necessarily!


Pronouns/demonstrative pronouns etc are there to indicate if a single or not are being addressed or referred to, that's their FUNCTION! And that is what a natural reading deduces from them.

"My AUNT visited me with four of my cousins. (Verse 3) I gave HER a glass of wine. SHE sat and talked

"

... concluding that it's natural to presume that the singular AUNT and (singular) HER and the singular SHE refers to all five of the group is not a natural reading that's a distorted "contorted" unatural and quite frankly ludicrous reading that disregards the functions of the words in front of you. It's not an "opinion" it's the rules of grammar. Granted in English our pronoun in the 2nd person (YOU) can be singular or plural, but fortunately the bible was not written in English

In Hebrew they have a singular and a plural YOU. Abraham in verse 3 of Genesis 18 used the singular pronoun "you". It is contorted to assume he was not therefore addressing one individual in the group

It can be either.

What utter rubbish! (The only exception in the use of pronouns is the royal "we" of excellence in the FIRST person - and even then the corresponding verb would still be in singular).


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Are you aware that in verse five ALL the the YOU /YOURs of Abraham addressing the three are plural NOT singular in Hebrew?

Yes. But the plural is acknowledging of the singular entity of the three.

What?! What does that even mean?! "But the plural is acknowledging of the singular..." I was going to quote the ever eloquent Marco (refering to another post entirely) .... that

This is nonsense masquerading as wisdom.

...but that seems too complimentary.

But the plural is acknowledging of the singular entity of the three.

So ... "at the risk of sounding short and/or overly harsh -- which is surely not my intent", would you care to translate this into something that conveys coherence ?





JW

[PinSeeker]

Are you aware that in verse five ALL the the YOU /YOURs of Abraham addressing the three are plural NOT singular in Hebrew?

Yes. But the plural is acknowledging of the singular entity of the three.

What?! What does that even mean?! "But the plural is acknowledging of the singular..." I was going to quote the ever eloquent Marco (refering to another post entirely) .... that

This is nonsense masquerading as wisdom.

...but that seems too complimentary.

But the plural is acknowledging of the singular entity of the three.

So ... "at the risk of sounding short and/or overly harsh -- which is surely not my intent", would you care to translate this into something that conveys coherence ?

I'll give you an illustration, a parable of sorts, to make it simpler for you, since you require that:

The Minnesota Vikings -- one team consisting of 45 men; a single entity consisting of a plurality of persons -- won this past Sunday.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

I think it necessary for anyone reading it without a preconceived agenda that when Abraham says, "Lord," he is addressing all three.

... but Lord is singular, so why would one presume he was not addressing a singular individual within the group? Surely the first reflex when you see a singular pronoun is to assume it is referring to a singular individual, that how language works.

Not necessarily, no.

Yes necessarily!


Pronouns/demonstrative pronouns etc are there to indicate if a single or not are being addressed or referred to, that's their FUNCTION! And that is what a natural reading deduces from them.

"My AUNT visited me with four of my cousins. (Verse 3) I gave HER a glass of wine. SHE sat and talked

"

... concluding that it's natural to presume that the singular AUNT and (singular) HER and the singular SHE refers to all five of the group is not a natural reading that's a distorted "contorted" unatural and quite frankly ludicrous reading that disregards the functions of the words in front of you. It's not an "opinion" it's the rules of grammar. Granted in English our pronoun in the 2nd person (YOU) can be singular or plural, but fortunately the bible was not written in English

In Hebrew they have a singular and a plural YOU. Abraham in verse 3 of Genesis 18 used the singular pronoun "you". It is contorted to assume he was not therefore addressing one individual in the group

It can be either.

What utter rubbish! (The only exception in the use of pronouns is the royal "we" of excellence in the FIRST person - and even then the corresponding verb would still be in singular).


JW

Ah, you're angered, apparently. We probably should leave off, but I'll leave that to you to decide. I'll just say that it is often the case -- and such is in fact the case in Genesis 18 -- that 'you' refers to a group of people rather than just one person. Throughout Genesis 18, Abraham is conversing with and addressing all three men present and facing him, addressing them as a group and in effect saying "you people," or, as is said in certain parts southern in America, "y'all."

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 44 by PinSeeker]

So are you seriously suggesting that the Hebrew singular pronoun somehow assumed the property of a collective noun? What grammatical rule allows this to be possible let alone probable?

I'll just say that it is often the case -- and such is in fact the case in Genesis 18 -- that 'you' refers to a group of people rather than just one person.

In English maybe, but English (and Texan colloquialism ) is irrelevant, the bible wasn't written in English. The issue is, is it "often the case" that in Hebrew (which unlike English differentiates between singular and plural YOU) that the singular pronouns refers to plural nouns? (Or Lord suddenly transforms itself into a collective noun)...

If so, can you demonstrate this oft seen occurance? Perhaps A WORD STUDY might be in order listing all the times this is demonstratively the case, against all the times it is not, thus proving it is "often the case".


Over to you,




JW

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 45 by PinSeeker]

Perhaps the understanding of the singular 'thou/thee/thy" vs. the plural "ye/you/your" as found in Elizabethan English (used in the KJV) would help.

[PinSeeker]

So are you seriously suggesting that the Hebrew singular pronoun somehow assumed the property of a collective noun? What grammatical rule allows this to be possible let alone probable?

No, I'm asserting that the Hebrew singular pronoun is referring to a single group of three people.

I'll offer this:

In Exodus 20, we read of God's giving of the Ten Commandments. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them... You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain... Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy ("you" understood)... Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work... Honor your father and your mother (again, "you" understood)... You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet. Yes, God was speaking directly to Moses, but only as representative (as put forth by the people of Israel themselves, remember, because they were afraid to approach God themselves) of Israel as a single community and thus a single entity; surely you would agree that the Ten Commandments applied to all the Israelites, even though they are referred to collectively by God many, many times here as "you" and not just to Moses.

That you don't want to allow that because it blows the narrative you want it to fit, You've decided what you want to believe and are bending Scripture to fit your chosen narrative rather than the other way around. That's certainly you prerogative, but in my opinion should not be done.

Grace and peace to you.

[Wootah]

The flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from the verse without any input from their mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion as a bright light and hearing GOD's voice. Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions.

While people are indeed using eisegesis to interpret the account in the OP, the statement that every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis is incorrect. I use exegesis for every scripture and have had no problems avoiding or uprooting my own input. How you do that is take into account the whole Bible. Letting the Bible add it's own input from other scriptures. The Bible explains the Bible. Let the Bible explain the verse. Indeed let God explain Himself.

Yes but it seems like you admit the text favours a Christisn viewpoint by reaching for your ideology first. Watch in the next thread. What does the text and God say.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 45 by PinSeeker]

Perhaps the understanding of the singular 'thou/thee/thy" vs. the plural "ye/you/your" as found in Elizabethan English (used in the KJV) would help.

Normally yes but I think some people have problems with grasping the concept of a language distinguishing between the two. In so many languages the plural and singular pronouns exist for YOU but because we don't make the distinction in modern English I'm seeing that the basic concept is can be too difficult for some to wrap their heads around.

In the end it's good to learn a foreign language... it opens the mind.