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?

[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?

Anyone willing to write their translation of the text?

Points to consider: If the Lord is there as a 4th being why did Abraham bow to the ground at the men?

Also consider occams razor when reading the text.

Any non Christians brave enough to be straight in their answers?

[onewithhim]

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?

Anyone willing to write their translation of the text?

Points to consider: If the Lord is there as a 4th being why did Abraham bow to the ground at the men?

Also consider occams razor when reading the text.

Any non Christians brave enough to be straight in their answers?

I guess I missed something. Where in the passage we are considering does there appear a fourth angel?

And why wouldn't Abraham bow down, or prostrate himself, before the representatives of Jehovah? People did that even in reference to governors and kings. But surely Abraham felt that these beings from Jehovah deserved to be shown respect.

[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?

Anyone willing to write their translation of the text?

Points to consider: If the Lord is there as a 4th being why did Abraham bow to the ground at the men?

Also consider occams razor when reading the text.

Any non Christians brave enough to be straight in their answers?

I guess I missed something. Where in the passage we are considering does there appear a fourth angel?

And why wouldn't Abraham bow down, or prostrate himself, before the representatives of Jehovah? People did that even in reference to governors and kings. But surely Abraham felt that these beings from Jehovah deserved to be shown respect.

Where are any angels in that text?

Are you going to write your translation of that text or not?

[brianbbs67]

And which words in the verse indicate he could not be addressing one of the three? And necessitate a "contortion" in order to arrive at the conclusion that he was?

I think it necessary for anyone reading it without a preconceived agenda that when Abraham says, "Lord," he is addressing all three, especially since the text does not explicitly say that he was addressing only one of the three.

Too, the contortion may not be deliberate, but it is what it is. As I implied, if one is honest with himself, he must at least ask why there were three persons presenting themselves to Abraham rather than just one.

The Hebrew reads Lords, plural in both Stone's and JPS. The eyes is singular meaning he invited all 3 but directed his remarks to the Leader of the group.

[ttruscott]

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.

I don't think so...

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 and a personal understanding of reality.

If not, how can so many people exegete completely different things from a verse and claim to have the true word of, interpretation from, GOD?? What hubris! When GOD speaks you get an exegesis, not until!

[2timothy316]

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.

I don't think so...

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 and a personal understanding of reality.

If not, how can so many people exegete completely different things from a verse and claim to have the true word of, interpretation from, GOD?? What hubris! When GOD speaks you get an exegesis, not until!

I know of many that read the OP scripture and the Bible in general in the same way as I do, using exegesis. Just because others use eisegesis doesn't mean everyone does and to believe so is a logical fallacy, example: Person A is human and likes the color blue, person B is a human too and thus must like blue too.

Those using eisegesis will come to many different conclusions based on their own thoughts before reading the Bible. Those that use exegesis come to the same conclusion or at least very close to the same conclusion.

Give me any scripture and I will explain it with exegesis only. I can do it every time all the time.

[2timothy316]

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.

You say a 'Christian viewpoint' however, when I started reading the Bible I was not a Christian. I let the Bible tell me what makes a Christian, not letting a Christian tell me what the Bible is. Your idea of what a Christian is, is not the same as mine as our sources for that definition are not the same. You accept what your church tells you what a Christian is by a priest simply saying, 'they are a Christian'. Mine on the other hand is the Bible. It tells me what a Christian is. All of my ideology has it's root in the Bible, which to me is the Word of God. I picked 2 Timothy 3:16 for a reason for my username for this site. I want all to know where I stand and that scripture explains the root of my ideology. Many do not agree with the root of my faith, some these call themselves 'Christians'.

[PinSeeker]

The Hebrew reads Lords, plural in both Stone's and JPS. The eyes is singular meaning he invited all 3 but directed his remarks to the Leader of the group.

"Stone's"... Do you mean Strong's Concordance? And by JPS... I'm not sure. JPL (Jewish Public Library)? Or JVL (Jewish Virtual Library)? Perhaps you could provide links to the references you are talking about. Every translation I have looked at reads "Lord" when Abraham addressed the three men. Every one, including Strong's. Again, I assert, as does every Biblical commentary I have seen, that Abraham addresses the group, of which there are three members, as one. I agree with you on the understanding of the singularity (although "the eyes is singular" makes no sense to me whatsoever), but of the group and not merely one of the three members of the group.

Either way, though, he is addressing all three at once, obviously considering them of equal stature. And frankly, even if one wants to assert that one of the three is primary, that's really okay as far as I'm concerned because God the Father is the First Person of the triune Godhead. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, Who's will is done by both the Son, Who God sent, and the Holy Spirit, Who God sent in Jesus's name. In this sense God the Father is greater than both God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, chapters 5 and 14).

My point is two-fold, either one being contingent on which way one goes with this. On one hand, the difference you're pointing out is, or at least seems to be, non-existent. On the other hand, even if the difference is supposed to exist, it is without distinction. Either way, the result is the same. Abraham is without question addressing all three men at once throughout Genesis 18 -- even if he is primarily addressing only one of the three -- much the same way as God, in Exodus 20, is addressing not just Moses but the whole of Israel in the giving of the Ten Commandments.

Grace and peace to you, brianbbs67.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 58 by PinSeeker]

I was speaking of Stone's and the JPS' Tanakh. If you go thru them you will find a few verses that have been modified to fit references to Jesus and the trinity that aren't there in the original text. The LXX agrees with them also.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 59 by brianbbs67]

Again, links would be nice. Or at least relay the relevant texts you are referring to. I would like to take a look at them.