Response to Anthony Rogers opening statement.
Last night I watched the debate between Anthony Rogers and Taylor Stewart that took place on the 10th October. I am going to offer my rebuttal to Anthony’s opening statement. I shall take it point by point. Anthony does state that the doctrine of the trinity is fundamental to understanding all other fundamental doctrines. I would state here that no evidence of this was presented. I would suggest reading my writing “who do you say I am?” where I argue that the Bible never asserts that it is fundamental or required to believe in the trinity or that Jesus is God, rather that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, the Christ, the one God promised to send. I shall include a link here https://www.followintruth.com/who-do-you-say-i-am
In this post I am going to deal with Anthony’s assertion that the triune God can be found in doctrine of creation.
The doctrine of creation:
Anthony stated:
“If anti-trinitarianism were true we wouldn’t expect scripture to speak of God in the plural as our creators and yet that’s exactly what we find in places like Ecclesiastes 12:1 where the literal Hebrews says Remember your creators bō-wr-’e-ḵā, in the days of your youth”
Ecclesiastes 12:1 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
Anthony referred to the plurality of creator. Creator being the Hebrew בּ֣וֹרְאֶ֔יךָ bō-wr-’e-ḵā, which is in the masculine plural construct and uses this as evidence to assert this demonstrates the plurality in creation.
However, this is simply incorrect. The simplicity of the answer as to why creators is in the plural in this verse can be understood by the English translation of the Hebrew. Basically all English translations (excluding Young’s literal) renders bō-wr-’e-ḵā, as YOUR or THY creator. It isn’t the creator that is being denoted as plural here but the you referring to the creator of the people Plural) . The inspired writer of Ecclesiastes is addressing the people and appealing to them to remember their(plural) creator). The translators understanding that the creator is being referred to as the creator of the plurality of people and thus translating creator as singular of the your plural.
This is also the same in Isaiah 54:5 which Anthony also cited
Isaiah 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
The Hebrew עֹשַׂ֔יִךְ ‘ō-śa-yiḵ, maker here is in the masculine plural construct. However, just like creator in Ecclesiastes 12:1, it is not the maker that is being referenced as plural but the people. This again is seen clearly in the English translation of the Hebrew where we see ‘ō-śa-yiḵ translated not simply as makers but rather Thy maker. “For thy maker” could be rendered the maker of YOU(pl), the maker of the people plural.
Husband in this verse which is the Hebrew בֹעֲלַ֙יִךְ֙ ḇō-‘ă-la-yiḵ is also in the plural. But we see the English in most versions renders this thy or your husband. Husband in the singular. Again thy/your is a reference to the people who are plural. The maker is the husband of the people. God is the maker, the husband of each person and so he is each person’s individual maker and husband. While he is singular as he is the maker of each person and each person’s “husband” when referring to the people plural, each person has a maker and a husband so there are makers and husbands even though the maker and husband is in fact the same maker and husband.
It is not denoting the plurality of God but the plurality of the people who each have a maker and husband.
Yet again this is what we find in Psalm 149:2 that anthony also cited.
Psalm 149:2 Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.
Again we see Israel addressed, Israel is not a single person but a collective. Let Israel (the people of) rejoice in him ( THEIR maker) NIV
Psalm 149:2 Let Israel rejoice in their Maker; let the people of Zion be glad in their King.
Again the plural is the THEIR maker, the maker of them and not the maker being referred to as plural.
However, even if the Hebrew demanded the plurality be assigned to the creator here rather than the people this still does not in any way necessitate that the creator is in fact plural.
The use of the plural creators here would still not necessitate that creator is in fact plural but most certainly could rather denote the greatness, vastness or excellence of the creator. Plural forms in Hebrew do not always denote plurality. Water, sky and heaven are all examples of Hebrew words that are always found in the plural without necessarily referring to waters, skies or heavens in the plural.
We can find other examples of the use of the masculine plural construct being used of a human “master” , one with authority over another. This of course does not mean that the single human referenced with a plural form are themselves plural.
Let’s have a look at some examples.
Exodus 22:14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.
Owner here is the Hebrew בְּעָלָ֥יו bə-‘ā-lāw which is in the masculine plural construct form.
The owner in this verse although clearly referenced using the plural is in fact not a plural but a singular person who is the owner of that which has been borrowed.
We also see this plural form being used of the master of Joseph in Genesis when the master of Joseph put him in prison.
Genesis 39:20 And Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king’s prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.
Master is the Hebrew אֲדֹנֵ֨י ’ă-ḏō-nê which again is in the masculine plural construct
The master of Joseph was Potiphar, a man, a singular man. Potiphar is not a plural man. The master of Joseph is referenced using a plural form denoting a position of authority rather than an inference to plurality.
Yet again we see this same usage of plurality when referring to Abraham.
Genesis 24:51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as the LORD hath spoken.
The Hebrew Master’s in masters son is אֲדֹנֶ֔יךָ ’ă-ḏō-ne-ḵā, found in the masculine plural construct.
Abraham was the master of Eliezer, his servant. Eliezer’s master Abraham has authority and so is referenced in the plural. Abraham being referred to master in the plural again does not in any way necessitate the plurality of Abraham.
I shall just give a couple more examples of plural forms being used in the Hebrew when not in any way referring to plurality.
Genesis 43:3 And Judah spake unto him, saying, The man did solemnly protest unto us, saying, Ye shall not see my face, except your brother be with you.
The Hebrew פָנַ֔י panay (face) is in the plural form. I’m sure that Anthony would not assert that the plural here in any way means that Joseph had more than one face.
Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.
Youth here is the Hebrew נְעוּרָֽי׃ nə-‘ū-rāy. Is in the masculine plural construct.
Again I would guess that Anthony would not assert that Job had multiple youths.
To assert that creator being in the plural in Ecclesiastes 12:1 is a superficial reading of the Hebrew, it misrepresents the Hebrew and what the plurality is referring to and totally ignores the many other usages of plural forms when not in any way referring to plurality.
None of the verses that Anthony utilised in his opening to demonstrate the plurality of creator, do in fact demonstrate the plurality of creator, in reality what they actually show is that plurality of the people that are being addressed in reference to their creator. The creator of the plural people.
Please subscribe here
Patreon Follow in truthJoin our Patreon membership here
0 Comments