http://www.theoblogian.org/Quality theological discussion.60 http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=56#Comment_122No, he doesn't regard it as a holy word. He brings in data from other ANE languages, like Ugaritic, and attempts to show a similar usage there. I don't have as much of a problem with his view of elohim as I do with theos. There, he does not examine any secular Greek usage, and the evidence seems a bit strained. Of course, this gets us into a debate about how much the NT language is influenced by the LXX, but it seems we should pay a little attention to secular usage. <br> <br> I think that the jump between elohim and theos is a weak point and could be developed. Also, an examination of the various theophany passages in the OT could be examined in greater detail. This is the greatest proof he has, in my opinion, that an angel is called Elohim. But these are exactly the same places that traditionally we have called the angel of the LORD God, because he is called an elohim. He needs to interact with the traditional arguements for a theophany in these passage. <br> <br> Charlie12/6/2005 6:47:00 AM http://ww.theoblogian.org/Post.aspx?s=rc&idpPost=56#Comment_121<P>Is&nbsp;he be saying that we still redefine <EM>elohim</EM> as a holy word, subject to&nbsp;its own&nbsp;linguistic rules? Some used to&nbsp;claim that the entire NT was written in a "holy language," allowing them freedom to interpret it as they saw fit.<BR>Johnson's&nbsp;argument seems to have some weight. What other evidence should we bring to bear to determine the proper range of meaning of <EM>elohim</EM>?</P>Brian12/3/2005 10:04:00 PM