Keith Devens .com

I have always considered God to be Trinity from the beginning.

I am not sure you picked this up but when God created the heaven and earth and other stuff, he commanded and they were created, but when creating man, he says "Let Us..."

If you have an amplified bible, it actually says "Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make mankind in our Image, after our Likeness..."

I am not sure how far you wish to discuss this so I will stop here though I have other evidence that strengthens my original evidence that there has always been the Trinity.

Yes, absolutely. In fact, I think verses such as those are very significant. For instance, Jews don't (and can't) have an explanation for why those verses were written in the plural, as well as for many other events in the Bible.

"The Angel of the Lord", for instance, seems clearly to be some kind of pre-incarnate form of Christ, for while it is called an "angel", it is also referred to as God, it manifests itself physically, it allows itself to be worshipped (which angels did not allow), etc.

I'd have to check, but I remember reading Isaiah and marvelling at how in one place it subtly shifts back and forth among tenses and between singular/plural. I wish I could find where that was.

I struggled with the "Angel of the Lord" scenario for years until I read a book by Terry Law called "The Truth about Angels".

I did a mental scan of Isaiah but I couldn't come up with singular/plural tenses but I know what you mean and I am sure it will come to me (or you) later; I like to think of such shifts in tenses as a wake up call.

Another evidence alluding to the pre-existing Trinity of God can be found in Proverbs 8 around verse 27 to 31. Of course there is also the first chapter of the Book of John which kinds of settles it.

"The Angel of the Lord", for instance, seems clearly to be some kind of pre-incarnate form of Christ, for while it is called an "angel", it is also referred to as God, it manifests itself physically, it allows itself to be worshipped (which angels did not allow), etc.

Christ has been 'in form' for want of a better way of describing it all the way through the old testament. Remember, no one could see God without being killed - so when God appears to Abraham in Genesis 17:1 I believe this was Jesus.

[As an aside: you can also say that when God walks in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 this was also Jesus - however the type of writing in the early chapters of Genesis which I forget the name for make this a more shaky text to use in this case]. That's my understanding anyhow, and how it has been explained to me.

Yes, it is possible that the "Voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" is Jesus, particularly when you analyse the sentence using Strong's exhaustive corcordance; See:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1071493921-6679.html#below

Strange that I never thought about this one.

Except that they could see God the Father in the Garden of Eden because they were perfect and had not sinned. Still, I know what you mean, and it's still arguable.

For instance, Jews don't (and can't) have an explanation for why those verses were written in the plural, as well as for many other events in the Bible.

Well, in the Torah (from whence the Old Testament is based), the pronouns are not pluralized. It was not until the Bible (the Christian version of the Torah plus the New Testament) was rewritten over and over again that "interpretations" were made and the pronouns became pluralized (along with a host of other edits).

was rewritten over and over again

Sigh, I hear this argument over and over again about the Bible in general. It was rewritten so many times that there must be error in it, and it's been interpreted and changed in people's re-copying, etc. etc.

We have manuscripts that are "free from Christian influence" if you're so worried about that, and the Hebrew is plural. It actually involves a mix of singular and plural many times... like you point out, the pronouns are often singular while the words are plural... which is exactly what you'd expect for a "singular plurality" like the Trinity.

Keep in mind that our language often can't convey plurality in the same way as Hebrew does, so to indicate the plurality sometimes pronouns are "pluralized" when in the original they're not but the object is plural. These are all aspects of translation and not interpretation.

These are all aspects of translation and not interpretation.

I am not prepared (nor linguistically equipped) to talk about the intricacies of translation, but I do know they are not mutually exclusive. Read two translations of the same poem.

We have manuscripts that are "free from Christian influence" if you're so worried about that

Well, no, I am not worried about that. I have read a bit on the amount of academic man-hours that have gone in to studying these nuances between the translations, but not enough to cite them or anything credible like that.

Basically, my only knowledge of the differences between the Torah and Old Testament stem mostly from my girlfriend (who happens to be Jewish). She'll speak Hebrew (which I am convinced is what she does when she is saying bad things about me), and I'll point at her asking what specific pronunciated syllables meant. So, my knowledge of this area is what I have gleaned from her describing it to me (in relation to the differences between the Christian (transl|interpr)ation and the Torah).

our language often can't convey plurality in the same way as Hebrew does

Yea, I would presume that would be the case; but again, I cannot speak with any kind of authority on the issue having not studied such a topic nor being able to speak modern Hebrew nonetheless ancient Hebrew.

But, I can say (with relative certainty) the phrase:

Jews don't (and can't) have an explanation for why those verses were written in the plural

Is wrong. I am sure they have an explanation and justification. (It would be pretty crazy if they didn't.) After all, most religions have already "explained away" the clear conciseness of any kind of tenant of "Thou Shalt Not Kill." After that, how hard could it be to justify a couple grammar typos in an ancient text?

Seems my link to the Analysis via Strong's Concordance didn't work, so here is it again broken down:

And they heard [08085] the voice [06963] of the LORD [03068] God [0430] walking [01980] in the garden [01588] in the cool [07307] of the day [03117]

And a link to Strong's for the numbers: http://www.tencommandments.org/concord.html

In response to Sparticus, they could have seen God before they sinned, but not after.

God would have known they had sinned and would not have revealed Himself to them - He is a God of Love afterall.

If it was indeed God, He might have counted upon them hiding themselves anyway, afterall, the verse above implies that they had daily communion with God because that would have been why he created man - Fellowship; so they might have been expecting Him at that hour and since the Glory/Shield has lifted, they might have felt they were unworthy and hid themselves and God would have known they would do just that...afterall, Man still hides when he feels guilty (just read the news)...I agree it is arguable and we are straying from the topic so I will end here.