Strong’s #430, elohim. Gods, mighty-ones, exceeding-ones, very great ones. Rabbis and scholars have debated for centuries over what exactly this word means.
Just another word for “God”?
Elohim, אלהִים, is concretely the plural form of eloah, אלה / אלוֹה (#433) which has the feminine suffix ה– attached. Scholars have treated eloah as a masculine noun and called it “prolonged” or “emphatic”. All they have to say about it is “probably a singular formed by inference from plural.” It is found only in the Hebrew poetry and later prophets. Bias has dictated that there could be no such word “goddess” in the Hebrew. In spite of the obvious feminine suffix (which scholars have also given an additional “locative” meaning to) no explanation is given. The suffix according to the available definitions would be either understood as locative “toward god” or “god-ward” or feminine “god-ah” neither of which suits the palates of male “authorities” who are certain that “there is only one he-god” and will only ever be, regardless of grammar, letters, and cases. The tradition of the authorities sets the “context” for which all grammar is interpreted, and it has always been this way.
Gesenius, the 19th century Hebrew Grammarian who is considered a master, interpreted the unique word לאלֹהוֹ “le-eloho” in Habakkuk 1:11 as “to his own god”, but this looks as if eloah is planted in the middle of “to – himself“. The preposition “ל” and the suffix “וֹ” “of him.” The masculine form of “god” is אל el. This could be translated “to the goddess of himself” and it wouldn’t be breaking grammatical rules but would actually be treating the writing more justly:
At that time he has passed by, a wind/spirit; and he is crossing over, and this is the guilt-offering of himself, the strength of himself, to the eloah/goddess of himself.
Habakkuk 1:11 RBT
Is what is written important? Or are the “authoritative” contextual traditions all that matter? If it was already written in the Psalms undeniably, “ye are as gods” the literal being:
Myself has spoken: ‘Your eternal (את) self is Elohim/mighty ones, and the the whole of yourselves are most high sons .’
Psalm 82:6
Does “Elohim” leave out women? Or are these sons, sons of her, eloah?
אל ← אלה ← אלהִים
el → eloah → elohim
The rule seems to be given in a very obvious manner as such in the case of the Hebrew words “man” and “woman”.
She shall be called “ishah” for she was taken from out of an “ish.“(Genesis 2:23)
Adam gives “taken out from” as the definition of the feminine suffix -ah. “Ish” is derived from the root “esh” meaning “fire.” In the case of the grammar here, the letters, apart from whatever interpretations and traditions there may be surrounding them, there is a sure order and relationship. If one were to translate the grammar into English it would look something like this, using color to bring out the masculine and feminine aspect:
god → god → gods
The Trinity
We can see that God begets God. Or rather, God begets God through God. And eternally so, circuitously, just as the Trinitarians always taught. From God to God to God and God is one. Or is God incapable of this? The professionals never liked the feminine noun, or feminine aspect, or feminine verbiage, or feminine narrative witness around the Spirit. Some have embraced some form of the ‘Holy Spirit’ as feminine like a mother. It was there in some Catholic circles, but the concept was still elusive and supported only by a few pieces of scripture, and ultimately a contrived tradition/interpretation based on their audiences. Because for many scholars and theologians the ‘Holy Spirit’ is God and that means masculine only. Even though the Trinity was confessed, this doctrine of “only one god” prevailed, even though no such terminology, phrase, or verse exists in the texts. The true doctrine, as it is written is “GOD IS ONE” but the nuance of this apparently was overlooked and treated as saying the same thing “only one god.” But it is not “el is one” but rather “elohim is one”
Yet the irony is that everything the Trinitarian theologian says about God is quite true, only he is blind to his own words. God creates himself and begets himself through himself. That’s the Gospel, is it not? A pastor will preach it, but not see it. He who loves his woman, loves himself. The masculine-feminine is a paradox that begins with GOD singular and ends with…GOD plural. God begetting…begetting God. Where does the concept of “birth” even find a place within a “masculine God”? But the Gospel that God was born, in a feeding trough, an infant, is where everything centers/originates. Yet as much as it is preached and taught, it remains somehow unseen.
And if Eve, the Mother of Life, be taken from the side of God the Christ, then she herself is of the same nature. God builds God. And the offspring is also of the same nature, God. Who is the firstborn of this mega profound paradox? Jesus, “He is Salvation.” And yet still at the end of the day, God(s) is one.
What of Singular Verbs?
Being a plural word, Elohim, the most just English translation would be “gods”. However, what of the anomaly that the plural word is paired to a singular masculine verb (he has cut out/created)? How is it that these Hebrews used a masculine singular verb with a plural noun? To communicate the oneness of God. As it happens the Hebrew “עַם” (am) means “people” yet is a singular noun and a plural is ascribed to it:
“…behold a people [singular] of one, and there is a language of one for the whole of themselves [plural].” (Genesis 11:6)
Perhaps the word “people” should not have been singular? Yet the singular is used with singular verbs “the people, he cried toward Pharaoh for bread…” (Genesis 41:55) Perhaps that is wrong too? Only it occurs consistently.
“And the People, he multiplied…” (Exodus 1:20)
But these aren’t mistakes, but deliberate. The definition was more or less given in Genesis 11:6, “a people of one.”
This stuff makes for confusing reading, grammatically, and so the proclivity is to change it into modern palatable reading that sounds nice and feels nice. But the charge is there to look at things closely, not be in haste, peer into it, and most of all, listen to/ hear it. And thus Exodus 3:14 is not junk grammar to be modified into palatable nice reading, but meant to be looked at, and heard.
Exodus 3:14
What was written demanded an ear to hear, an ear that only those born from above would understand:
ויאמר אלהים אל משה אהיה אשר אהיה
Exodus 3:14
The Hebrew root “אשר” (aleph-shin-resh) has a primary meaning of to go straight, to advance forward. (Strongs #833) Derivatives include:
- To be blessed, to prosper, happy: In certain contexts, particularly in blessings or expressions of favor from God, the root “אשר” (ashar) can convey the idea of being blessed, prosperous, or fortunate.
- who, which: a conjunction, particle of relation, etc. (Strongs #834)
- straight/blessed one. As a noun, it was only observed in plural form only. Yet, why would it be found only in the plural “blessed ones”, and not one instance of the singular, “blessed one”? Interestingly, the first time it appears is in the words of Leah, “בְּאָשְׁרִי” meaning “in my straight/blessed one.” This has been “translated” as “Happy am I!” or “In my happiness.”
- The name Asher. Meaning, “blessed/happy one.” This would constitute the only instance of the noun in “singular” form, and it is the name of one of the sons of Jacob, a tribe of Israel (Strongs #836).
- A (straight) footstep. This is a less common word for footstep, appearing only 9 times, all in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. The “poetic” literature (Strongs #838).
- Straight tree (box wood). (Strongs #839, #8391)
With this in mind, one could interpret “I am who I am” as an obscure phrase that doesn’t really have any objective meaning to it, or,
and elohim is saying toward Drawn Out [Moses]
I am a straight/blessed one I am
Further we could interpret the following saying,
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
as “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God the Lord, is one” which again, doesn’t make much sense, and is obscure, or,
“He Is our-mighty/blessed-ones He Is“
is ONE.
“I am our-mighty-ones I am“
אהיה←אשר→אהיה
יהוה←אלהינו→יהוה
הוה
(to become)
ו
(man)
This is still a bit enigmatic, no? How to make sense of it all?
“the little man of the eye”
The Whole. From the outer “sixth day” straight into the center “Today” and straight back to the outer “sixth day” again. No matter what time of the space-time continuum it is, the hand of the clock is always straight, HE IS (Yahweh) always straight.
She
Jesus was asked “which is the most important commandment of all?”
The Salvation answered, “Because she is first, Hear God-is-Straight, Master the God of ourselves Master is one.” Mark 12:29 RBT
The Commandment is a she. Because this one, the aim of the whole target, was missed, she, the Commandment and the Writing, received as much injustice and violence as she has been obscured, distorted, sold, peddled, and shut away (as though locked away in a tower, unseen by anyone) by the lies of men throughout the ages.