I have never ever seen or heard of anybody claim that it was plural except you and a few other American Christians.

Everyone who reads Hebrew can clearly see that Elohim is singular. The very first sentence of the Bible makes it clear. "Bereshith bara Elohim...". The word "bara" is "he created", not "they created".

I have never ever read any of those people you claim say the word was plural. Every single scholar, every single linguist, and every single Israeli (who speaks Hebrew) can and will tell you that while Elohim _looks_ like a plural, it is and has always been, in the Bible, singular.

And even it if were plural, it wouldn't help you, because it COULD NOT be a trinity. Hebrew has three numbers, not two. And the ending -im is NOT the correct ending for a "trinity".

But I told you this before...

So when did you think they worshipped the moon? Before they got the Quran? Doesn't that sort of negate the premise that Allah is a moon god, if people worship the moon and are then told to worship Allah and _NOT_ the moon?

And the facts say that history had those things without the references to a god. If you want to preserved history you should remove the references to gods again. They were added in the 1950s.

I have a book entitled "Islam Revealed" written by a Christian Arab named Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh.  He said this among many other things about Muhammad and Islam:

"If Islam could trace its origin and prophecy to Abraham then we would expect to find Old Testament references to Allah, Muhammad, Mecca, the black stone of the Ka'bah, and the many ceremonies and practices of Islam.  We have already seen that the Holy Bible is devoid of references to Muhammad, and there are no biblical references to anything else Islamic.

It is much more reasonable to conclude that Islam grew from the polytheistic and animistic culture of Muhammad's tribe.  In fact, the people of Mecca worshipped 360 idols (sounds like National Geographic's article), one of whom was named Al-ilah!!!

That being the case, however there are numerous passages in the so-called inspired Quran which originally appered in the Old Testament more than one thousand years before the prophet of Arabia was even born.  Though the Quranic and biblical passages are not identical, they are similar enough to show  Muhammad's dependence on some of the HOly Bible's teaching for his "revelations."  Here are a select few of the many texts that could be cited:

*The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.  (Surat al-Qadr [The Power] 97:3)......For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand (Ps 84:10.

*Show us the straight path (Surat al-Fatihah [The Opening] 1:6).....Teach me Your way O Lord, and lead me in a straight path (Ps 27:11)

*We have written in the Scripture, after the Reminder My righeous slaves will inherit the earth. (Surat al-Anbiya [The Prophets] 21:105.........The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell in it forever. (Ps. 37:29)

*He is the First and the Last and the Outward and the Inward; and He is the Knower of all things (Surat al-Hadid [The Iron] 57:3)......I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God (Isa. 44:6)."

There are many other passages worthy of comparison.  I'll spare you. 

He also said this:

"It is intriguing and instructive to discover why Muhammad did not believe in the Trinity and the divinity or resurrection of Jesus Christ.  To understand this we must examine the prevalent deviant doctrines of Nestorious and his followers, sectarian Christians who migrated to Arabia 140 years before Muhammad's birth.  Muhammad apparently drew his denials from their heresy. 

Nestorius was a partiarch of Constantiniple from A.D. 428-431.  Orthodox Christians believed, as per scriptural teaching that Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human.  Although the two were distinct they were joined together in one person.  Nestorius, however, insisted that in Christ Jesus both a divine and a human person acted in unity, but were not the one divine person with both a divine nature and a human nature.

In A.d. 431 the Council of Ephesus judged the Nestorian beliefs to be heretical.  Nestorious was deposed as partiarch.  He and his followers were driven out of the Roman Empire and took refuge in Persia, Arabia, India, China and Mongolia.  Their followers are identified as Nestorians or Monophysites (the Greek word monos means single, and physis means nature.)

Waraqa ibn Nofal, considered to be Muhammad's uncle, was also a Nestorian and is alleged to have translated portions of the Gospels into Arabic.  He was very influential to Muhammad.  Khadija Muhammad's first wife, is rumored to have been a Nestorian Christian. 

Buhaira, a Nestorian monk, is recognized as one of the most influential men in Muhammad's knowledge of the scriptures.  The descriptions of hell in the homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century, resemble Muhammad's descriptions of hell.

What was Muhammad doing between the time he married Khadija and his prophetic call, a period of 15 years?  Could he have been lerning from Buhaira and Waraqa and reading some available biblicsl scrolls? "

Irrelevant, as a Christian is not a source for another religion. Read a book written by a Muslim. He doesn't have to be an Arab.

I recommend these scholars.

Khaleel Muhammed (from Guyana, now USA):

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/

Abdul Palazzi (from Italy):

http://www.amislam.com/

I talked to my Jewish teacher Marv this morning.  He's very proficient in Hebrew.  He's 74 years old and he knows much more than I do about this subject.  He said Elohim is plural and he's going to get me a book that helps explain to me the Hebrew.  He quoted some Hebrew  to me and it went completely over my head.  He told me to tell you this:

im is plural.....as in Seraphim is the plural of Seraph.....as in Cherubim is the plural of Cherub.  He said even if you use two instead of three you're in trouble.  His words, not mine.  He also said to ask you what you think God was saying when he said "Let us go down and confound the language" during the time of Babal. 

I also checked very old commentaries.....John Calvin (1500's), Charles Spurgeon (1800's), Matthew Henry (1700's) s well as some very recent expositors that I trust in and they all say Elohim is plural.  I'm sure I can get alot more even from some of the Jewish besides my friend Marv.  Even if you don't use that word Elohim as plural you still have trouble with the context as you read the OT scriptures.  As in "let us make man in our image."  Gen 1:26 and "let us go down" etc. 

Do you even know anything about him?  Not that I'm really surprised that you wouldn't consider my source but I have others.  I just haven't had time to quote them yet.  I have some that were worshipping Allah and are now worshipping Jesus. 

Besides all that....Allah is not anything like the Hebrew God or the Christian God even though I will recognize some Christians don't know the difference or think they could be the same.

Maybe later, when I have more time I'll quote you one of my Christian sources who once upon a time was Islamic.  He said he disagrees with those Christians who think that Allah and Jehovah God are the same God.  And he gives his reasons. 

It is a logical fallacy to resort to an authority rather than facts.

If you check texts for the word "seraphim" you will find that the verbs agree with "seraphim" and are plural also (i.e. "the seraphim do", not "the seraphim does"). Elohim, on the other hand always commands verbs in the singular. Elohim is singular, and if your Jewish teacher wants to explain the Hebrew to you, ask him about the _second word_ of the Bible. It should give you the answer you need.

I don't know what that means.

Let us think about it.

Does the "us" imply that I am more than one person?

Leauki, I'm thinking maybe, to some degree, we're not that far off with each other....

you mentioned:

I agree with this.  God created...as in one God.  We believe in one God.  We Christians are monotheistic. 

Think about it this way.....trinity is a compound of tri and unity.  It's three in one. 

I think you're thinking more along the lines as tri-theistic.  That's not correct.  We don't believe that. 

I am a sister and a mother and an aunt but I'm still me which is one.  I can't be all three in the same relationship. 

It's not 1+1+1=3

It's 1X1X1=1.

Does that help any? 

No. "Unity" is a compound of "one" and "-ity". "Trinity" is a compound of "three" and "-ity". One is "oneness" the other "threeness".

I am thinking along the lines of G-d being absolutely indivisible. You cannot, in Judaism and Islam, perceive G-d as different aspects. Hinduism and Christianity do that, Judaism and Islam do not.

I understand the idea. But in Judaism G-d cannot be described by what He is, but only by what He is not.

Christianity looks to explain G-d in terms that people can relate to. Judaism does too, but not to the extend that such anthropomorphic descriptions become part of the definition of what G-d is.

G-d is a father, in Christianity and Judaism, but in Judaism He is not a literal father.

But G-d is not a son, not in Judaism and not in Islam.

And the holy spirit just emanates from Him, it's not pat of Him. It's just an essence that we, human beings, can imagine even though we cannot describe it.

That's an excellent description but it does not explain the number three.

1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

G-d could be a quadity or quintity or also a duality.

(In fact in modern Zoroastrianism G-d is a duality. But in ancient Zoroastrianism He was not. Modern Zoroastrianism developed from ancient Zoroastrianism like Christianity developed from Judaism. But Judaism (and Islam) retained the original unity view of G-d which Christianity and modern Zoroastrianism have replaced with a trinity and duality respectively.

In fact I am planning an article about the different Abrahamic religions and their views of G-d, their definitions of prophets, and their holy scriptures (i.e. which scriptures they accept as holy). I would be honoured if you would write short definitions to represent Christianity that I could use. I will do Judaism, Islam, Islamic sects, Zoroastrianism old and new, and Mandaism (unless somebody wants to step in and provide those definitions).

I would require a definition of G-d and the trinity (as above but in English rather than maths ), a definition of "prophet", and an explanation of the most important holy places (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth) and holidays (Easter, Christmas; not so much the rituals but the events that they ought to remind of). I understand Christianity's holy scriptures are supposed to be the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and the "New Testament". (Despite small differences in the text of the Tanakh vs "Old Testament" I will count them as the same because they are supposed to be the same.)

Religions I want to include:

Judaism, priestly, rabbinic, and Qaraite

Islam, Sunni, Shia, and Sufi (only traditional and no Wahabiism)

Zoroastrianism, ancient and modern

Mandaism

Samaritanism

Yezidiism and related rites

Christianity, oriental, Greek, Roman, protestant

What do you think?

You need a better history teach.  Only the Pledge of Allegiance had "God" added in the 50's.

-Coins have had "In God We Trust" on them since the mid 1800's
-Oath on the bible- George Washington gave his oath on the bible.
-Scriptures at the Capitol: Jefferson memorial (1943), Washington Monument (1885), etc.

Or, let's look at our forefather's thoughts that they placed in the Declaration of Independence to see how long "God" has been in the History of the US:
-"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "

I'm not Christian, but I am not blind to our history.  I am also not fond of stripping culture and unity just because it's more PC to do so.

I was talking about the pledge of allegiance. Keep calm!

George Washington, like everybody in the US, is free to follow whatever religion he wants and it shouldn't have a legal effect on anybody else. The same goes for scriptures related to individuals.

And I don't think it matters when it was added. The US government should not promote any religion or religions.

The part I bolded is, in my opinion, very intriguing. It says here, "the laws of nature, and of nature's God." This doesn't imply the Theism of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In fact, "nature's God" would tend to imply either Deism - reason based faith as opposed to revelation based, or Pantheism.

Likewise, in the same document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator"

Their creator, not The Creator, not God, not Yaweh, not Jehovah. Again, I'm assuming that *their* means the citizens of the colonies/States. I think it would be reasonable to assume that by using "nature and of nature's God," along with "by their Creator," the founding fathers - in essence - laid a precedent stating that their reference was to each individual's personal creator/belief, or lack thereof. 

"Nature's God" was clearly the God of deism in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.[21]"

( http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html )

Further, "laws of nature," implies that under natural law, there are certain unalienable, natural rights (or human rights). The Declaration was simply stating that the citizens of the colonies had the naturalright to their rights, because they existed outside of government.

As I stated, "nature's God," to me, implies Deism; however, there is a Christian Natural Law - so I feel that while the founding father's were leaning heavily toward implying a reason based faith, I feel they were aware enough to know that there wasn't just reason based faith.

"The term "nature's God" refers to that which responsible for human (and the rest of) nature being what it is. It is a way of speaking of God insofar as God is knowable by human reason. In other words, our minds, unassisted by divine revelation, can figure out that there is such a thing as human nature, and that there are laws or rules that we must follow if we are to live justly and well. Reason can see that if we violate those laws, we will suffer such evils as death, slavery, or misery. A New England preacher explained the concept in this way: "The law of nature (or those rules of behavior which the Nature God has given men, . . . fit and necessary to the welfare of mankind) is the law and will of the God of nature, which all men are obliged to obey. . . . The law of nature, which is the Constitution of the God of nature, is universally obliging. It varies not with men's humors or interests, but is immutable as the relations of things." (Abraham Williams, Election Sermon, Boston 1762.)"

(Oddly enough, a number of our founding fathers were Deists, who when they put together our founding documents, etc. - knew full well that they based it off of the Enlightenment; which btw has basis in Deism.Coincidently, when Thomas Paine - my all time favorite writer and founding father - wrote The Age of Reason, there was for fact, a Deistic revival/surge. Though it was brief, i feel it gives credence to the possibility that (some of) the Colonists found basis in reason, versus revelation.)

I'm curious then, as to your view on the consistant attempt to divide, both by religious and non-religious? What do you see as being stripping of culture? BTW, one person's PC is another's infringement of speach; you can just as easily be PC about Christianity (or Judaism, Isliam, Hinduism...) as you can about anything else.

~Alderic

Addendum:

1. The last quote's source is here.

2. Sort of off topic/on topic: I find it interesting that there are those who bash liberlism to no end, but they fail to recognize that we owe a lot, if not all, of our nation's existance to, guess what, liberalism. Granted, it was a different form of liberalism as opposed to the modern movement, but it is liberalism none-the-less. It's just humorous, and slightly sad to see some people just attack it blindly.

~Alderic

Nice back peddling.  If that was what you meant, you wouldn't have said: "And the facts say that history had those things without the references to a god. ".  How is the Pledge "those things".

And, yes, it does matter when it happened, or are you ignoring why I made the statements in the first place?  It's about our heritage and culture.  Our founding government obviously had Christian influences, so how can it not matter?

I'll start this by stating again- I'm not Christian, but I recognize that most of the US is Christian.  What is the culture of the US?  Compare our country to, say, Japan.  For Japan, I can give you some terms that describe them or their overall culture.  Obviously, this is not true for every single person, but it is the majority and what is known as their "culture":
1) They speak Japanese
2) They wear Kimonos on special occasions
3) They have many types of martial arts that started in Japan
4) "Anime" is a cartoon art form from Japan
5) They have a "tea ceremony" which techniques have been handed down for generations
6) Daily baths are important to them.
7) They bow to each other and the type of bow changes depending on the reason
8) They don't wear shoes in their houses
9) Moms pack Obento for their children
10) Sushi originated in Japan
11) Shintoism and Buddhism are their top religions, and it's not uncommon to see large Buddha statues all over the country, on candy, in businesses, or just about anywhere.

OK.  So, can you make a list like that with America?  Just about everything we have is stripped from another country.  At least there have been a few things that have lasted through time, but those things are what people want to strip in the name of "rights".

Who has the ultimate "right"?  Not everyone can get what they want, so who gets to decide?

Why do you say that? There is nothing in the constitution that forbids it. Are you going to choose what is best for the rest of us?