Evidence for God from Science

Hello discussion boarders! I am new here. I came to faith a few years ago (I'm a teenager) and I'm at the point in my faith where I really want to test it by hearing arguments against it. I'm also trying to get a better understanding of the original language of the Bible. In my searches, I came across this:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/godtitle.htm

Its pretty much a Islamic based website dedicated to bashing Christianity. Most of the arguments there are fairly easy to come up with a rebuttal to, but I have a fairly limited understanding of El vs Elohim. I've read what the God and Science website has to say but I'm still a little confused, specifically on the argument of how Jesus called others sons of God in John 10 and how that is supposed to prove that the title means nothing. So basically I'm asking for someone with a better understanding of the subject than I to make a rebuttal so I can get a second opinion, even though i already have a counter argument for everything that site says.

As a note, even if this argument about the translation is somehow right, the argument that Jesus didn't claim to be, and wasn't, God holds no water. I just am trying to understand this one part.

El Elohim, same thing. The latter is plural, but it often refers to one God as the plural of majesty. Dueteronomy 6:4 affirms that elohim, although plural in grammar, means one God.

Thanks for the reply. I think I got that part, I'm also a little confused about the argument of "Son of God" as a title being different than "son of God". Are the words actually different or is it just context?

Here is a link regarding this subject I started a while ago that might help you:

God Science Forum Link

I’ll get back with you on the Son Of titles a bit later…
-
-
-

Thanks. This thread seems like it will help. Another argument I heard is that in the Old testament, the Hebrew word for God "El" doesnt always refer to God Almighty, and can be used as a title of power, but not of divinity. I have never seen this in the Bible, but I was hoping someone with a better understanding of Hebrew would give an example of this.

I'm sorry I'm so inquisitive. I just want to understand the original text, and I have no schooling in the language. I just want to be able to understand the arguments against Christianity before refuting them, but sometimes the arguments just don't make sense. Thanks everyone for helping.

To clarify: in Isaiah 9:6 (I believe) the coming child is referred to as God Almighty with the word El. God is usually referred to as Elohim, but why the difference here?

VindicateMe7 wrote:To clarify: in Isaiah 9:6 (I believe) the coming child is referred to as God Almighty with the word El. God is usually referred to as Elohim, but why the difference here?

If you read the linked thread and the parts I posted and bumped to the front for you - you will have your questions answered... See Page Two Part 11 from Link provided above..

Isaiah 9:6 refers to preincarnate Jesus – identified as one of the pāniym of one God…
-
-
-

Can you be more specific about what your problem is? In John 10:34, Jesus is quoting Ps. 82:6. Now, words have different meanings in different contexts. Elohim in particular, while it usually refers to God, can often refer to human judges. Here is a link you should find useful if you don't read Hebrew. I don't think that this has anything to do with El vs. Elohim. It's just a matter of how the word can be used in various contexts. As I have said elsewhere on this board, possibility is not the same as warrant. It's linguistically possible that Jesus could have been using the term "gods" (Gk. theoi, LXX translation of Heb. elohim) to refer to the One True God, but there is no warrant for that. Likewise, it's linguistically possible that El In Isa. 9 could refer to something other than God Himself, but the question isn't what is linguistically possible . . . it's what we have warrant for believing.

In any case, even if we grant them that Isa. 9:6 doesn't necessarily impute divinity to Christ, it's still evident that Isa 9:6 does refer to the Messiah. So are Muslims willing to accept the fact that Jesus is the Messiah? That, in and of itself, is really all we need to prove from Isa 9:6. We can look elsewhere for proof that the Messiah is divine. I'd suggest the following line of reasoning:

1. Jesus is the Messiah
2. Jesus is divine
3. Therefore, the Messiah is divine

Here, we're using the divinity of Jesus to prove the divinity of the Messiah, which is the reverse of the way most people attempt to go about it. I also think it's more fruitful, as the OT, while it hints at the divinity of the Messiah, doesn't necessarily require the divinity of the Messiah. But the NT clearly presents Jesus as divine (cf. John 1:1). So you get the Muslim to admit (1). Argue from other passages (2). And then you simply point out that, El vs. Elohim aside, Isa. 9:6 is at least consistent with the proven fact that the Messiah (clearly referred to in Isa. 9:6) is divine.

edit:

As to your question about El not necessarily being the name for God, see this link. It's the same resource as before, only directed towards el rather than elohim. Also, I know it may seem like a lot, but have you considered learning Hebrew? It isn't actually as difficult as it sounds. As one who reads both Greek and Hebrew, I promise you, the effort compared to the reward is minimal.

Thank you guys/gals for all your help. These links will help a lot. I do want to start learning Hebrew. I'm mostly really starting to evangelize and witness to others, and even though i know in my heart Jesus is God and I know the Bible supports this, I want to be able to answer arguments on the grammar of the Bible using the Bible. I'm thankful all of you are so eager to help me become a better witness of God.

wrain62,

El Elohim, same thing. The latter is plural, but it often refers to one God as the plural of majesty. Dueteronomy 6:4 affirms that elohim, although plural in grammar, means one God.

The late Gleason Archer, while debating some Muslim schalors, stated that the plural of majesty did not exist in the Old Testsament time period.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... i/r14.html

Duet. 6:4 is an evidence for the Trinity. Likewise, in this verse the word for ONE is echad. This word is used in Genesis 2:24, where it refers to two people as one flesh and Zechariah 14:7 where one day refers to a long period of time, consisting of many days.

"Mighty God" (El Gibbor) in Isa. 9:6 is the exact same Hebrew phrase found in Isa. 10:21. So far, every use of mighty men, only uses gibbor. So, to me Isa. 9:6 points to Christ's Divinity.

dayage wrote:wrain62,

El Elohim, same thing. The latter is plural, but it often refers to one God as the plural of majesty. Dueteronomy 6:4 affirms that elohim, although plural in grammar, means one God.

The late Gleason Archer, while debating some Muslim schalors, stated that the plural of majesty did not exist in the Old Testsament time period.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... i/r14.html

Duet. 6:4 is an evidence for the Trinity. Likewise, in this verse the word for ONE is echad. This word is used in Genesis 2:24, where it refers to two people as one flesh and Zechariah 14:7 where one day refers to a long period of time, consisting of many days.

"Mighty God" (El Gibbor) in Isa. 9:6 is the exact same Hebrew phrase found in Isa. 10:21. So far, every use of mighty men, only uses gibbor. So, to me Isa. 9:6 points to Christ's Divinity.

Sweet.