Genesis 1

Genesis 1:26 Wrote:Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

As you can see in the above verse, the plural pronoun "us" is used as the model that human beings are based on. Christians then latch on to this to argue that it is referring to the Trinity. But as always, that interpretation is forced, especially since the Old Testament doesn't outright state (or even imply) that God is a trinity.

What we do see in various passages in the OT are mentions of "sons of God". Not just in Genesis but elsewhere, such as in Psalms and Job. These are the ones God is very likely speaking to in Genesis 1:26.





Of course, Christian apologists are a clever bunch and have some stock responses to this latter interpretation. So one point to keep in mind:

Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the heavenly beings but the creation of the heavens (skies) and earth (land) and everything in them (and in the waters), so Christians who argue it doesn't make sense that God would speak to his creation about creation misunderstand the point of Genesis 1.

Now if any Christian is reading this and would like to share one or more counters to this, I'm all ears.

^Of course it doesn’t imply that - the Trinity hadn’t been invented yet. To paraphrase Indiana Jones, ‘We’re making this up as we go along.’

Boru

(Yesterday at 12:27 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: Genesis 1

Genesis 1:26 Wrote:Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

As you can see in the above verse, the plural pronoun "us" is used as the model that human beings are based on. Christians then latch on to this to argue that it is referring to the Trinity. But as always, that interpretation is forced, especially since the Old Testament doesn't outright state (or even imply) that God is a trinity.

What we do see in various passages in the OT are mentions of "sons of God". Not just in Genesis but elsewhere, such as in Psalms and Job. These are the ones God is very likely speaking to in Genesis 1:26.





Of course, Christian apologists are a clever bunch and have some stock responses to this latter interpretation. So one point to keep in mind:

Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the heavenly beings but the creation of the heavens (skies) and earth (land) and everything in them (and in the waters), so Christians who argue it doesn't make sense that God would speak to his creation about creation misunderstand the point of Genesis 1.

Now if any Christian is reading this and would like to share one or more counters to this, I'm all ears.

Apparently it's a special case in the Hebrew. 

The word Elohim there (אֱלֹהִים) when used for the God of the Jews, is a plural word that takes a singular verb and adjective. There are various theories as to how the grammar evolved. 

When used for other people's gods (e.g. the Egyptian gods in Exodus) the same word is used with plural verbs and adjectives. 

No doubt the translators of the King James Bible and others were comfortable with the "royal we," so they wouldn't necessarily interpret this word to refer to multiple gods.

(Yesterday at 6:22 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Apparently it's a special case in the Hebrew. 

The word Elohim there (אֱלֹהִים) when used for the God of the Jews, is a plural word that takes a singular verb and adjective. There are various theories as to how the grammar evolved. 

When used for other people's gods (e.g. the Egyptian gods in Exodus) the same word is used with plural verbs and adjectives. 

No doubt the translators of the King James Bible and others were comfortable with the "royal we," so they wouldn't necessarily interpret this word to refer to multiple gods.

It's not unusual in Hebrew for certain words to take on plural form while still taking a singular verb/adjective (and in fact, in Genesis 1, it's not just the word Elohim that has this characteristic). But still, it's very grammatically unusual to associate with a plural pronoun rather than a singular pronoun, and elsewhere Elohim is associated with singular pronouns multiple times.

The divine/heavenly court explanation makes more sense because it doesn't rely on having what is unusual grammar be normalized in just one specific case and because we see throughout Genesis and elsewhere in the OT God associated with other heavenly beings. In the early chapters of Job, God clearly has a divine/heavenly council that he interacts with, so a plurality of divine/heavenly beings was not unusual in ancient Hebrew belief, at least not early on.

(Yesterday at 7:32 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:22 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Apparently it's a special case in the Hebrew. 

The word Elohim there (אֱלֹהִים) when used for the God of the Jews, is a plural word that takes a singular verb and adjective. There are various theories as to how the grammar evolved. 

When used for other people's gods (e.g. the Egyptian gods in Exodus) the same word is used with plural verbs and adjectives. 

No doubt the translators of the King James Bible and others were comfortable with the "royal we," so they wouldn't necessarily interpret this word to refer to multiple gods.

It's not unusual in Hebrew for certain words to take on plural form while still taking a singular verb/adjective (and in fact, in Genesis 1, it's not just the word Elohim that has this characteristic). But still, it's very grammatically unusual to associate with a plural pronoun rather than a singular pronoun, and elsewhere Elohim is associated with singular pronouns multiple times.

The divine/heavenly court explanation makes more sense because it doesn't rely on having what is unusual grammar be normalized in just one specific case and because we see throughout Genesis and elsewhere in the OT God associated with other heavenly beings. In the early chapters of Job, God clearly has a divine/heavenly council that he interacts with, so a plurality of divine/heavenly beings was not unusual in ancient Hebrew belief, at least not early on.

I hadn't heard that about the pronouns -- that's good to know. 

Given the differences in grammar, the patchwork nature of how Genesis got written, and the early hints of henotheism, it must be an endless fascination for the scholars.

(Yesterday at 8:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:32 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: It's not unusual in Hebrew for certain words to take on plural form while still taking a singular verb/adjective (and in fact, in Genesis 1, it's not just the word Elohim that has this characteristic). But still, it's very grammatically unusual to associate with a plural pronoun rather than a singular pronoun, and elsewhere Elohim is associated with singular pronouns multiple times.

The divine/heavenly court explanation makes more sense because it doesn't rely on having what is unusual grammar be normalized in just one specific case and because we see throughout Genesis and elsewhere in the OT God associated with other heavenly beings. In the early chapters of Job, God clearly has a divine/heavenly council that he interacts with, so a plurality of divine/heavenly beings was not unusual in ancient Hebrew belief, at least not early on.

I hadn't heard that about the pronouns -- that's good to know. 

Given the differences in grammar, the patchwork nature of how Genesis got written, and the early hints of henotheism, it must be an endless fascination for the scholars.

Yeah, pretty much every book in the Old Testament is a patchwork of multiple texts. As you read through Job for example, it becomes clear that the prose parts and the poetry parts are from different sources (with the prose parts probably added later on to provide a backstory and closure to the poetry parts). As someone who has been digging deep into this stuff lately as a hobby, it is a lot of interesting stuff to explore, especially given the interesting stuff scholars have to say.

ChatGPT is also something I have used as an exploratory guide of sorts, though primarily to keep me engaged in what is otherwise boring text to me (like many of the Psalms - especially the Davidic ones - and the disjointed/repetitive Solomonic/Hezekiah collections of sayings in Proverbs).