| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/25/18 10:02 pm ::: Genesis 1:26 |
Reply  |
|
"Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness . . . .'" (NIV)
Whoever wrote this, why do you suppose the plural was deliberately used? |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15729
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66883
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/25/18 10:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The traditional view is that God is speaking to the Angels. We know from Job 38 that Angels existed at the creation. In the other verses in the chapter God creates (Hebrew bara), but in this one He says make (Hebrew asah). That suggests God did the work of creating man from nothingness, but had the Angels assist in molding man into His image. That the creation consisted of both creating and making can be seen in Genesis 2:3: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created (bara) and made (asah)."
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
Last edited by pilight on 08/26/18 8:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/18 9:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Was the plural deliberately used? Or was it just a linguistic decision or random choice by the men recording a much earlier oral tradition?
Or maybe it was referring to our alien ancestors. (X-Files 7:1)
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15729
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/18 1:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So, we have a Trinity theory and an angel theory.
Given that Genesis was written by Jews -- either by Moses under Jewish theological tradition or by unknown Jewish author(s), editor(s) and compiler(s) under the academic Documentary Hypothesis -- many hundreds of years before Christianity, how likely is that "us" and "our" were used by Jewish authors to refer to a much later Christian trinitarian concept that is rejected by Jews?
As to the angel theory, how about the fact that the Hebrew word for god used in Genesis 26:1 is "Elohim", which is a plural noun. Angels are not gods. Does "Elohim" suggest polytheism, or bring us back to the Trinity theory? |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15729
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/18 3:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
So, we have a Trinity theory and an angel theory.
Given that Genesis was written by Jews -- either by Moses under Jewish theological tradition or by unknown Jewish author(s), editor(s) and compiler(s) under the academic Documentary Hypothesis -- many hundreds of years before Christianity, how likely is that "us" and "our" were used by Jewish authors to refer to a much later Christian trinitarian concept that is rejected by Jews?
As to the angel theory, how about the fact that the Hebrew word for god used in Genesis 26:1 is "Elohim", which is a plural noun. Angels are not gods. Does "Elohim" suggest polytheism, or bring us back to the Trinity theory? |
The Torah was created at some point in the 4-5th century BCE with the latest possible date being 250 BCE, by compiling stories that had been passed on in various other sources and editing them into a story that was consistent with the beliefs of Post-exile Israel.
But what should be remembered is that originally the Israelites were a polytheistic people who worshiped the Canaanite pantheon headed by "El" (thus the name "IsraEL"). In early Israelite tradition, El gave providence over each of the world's nations to one of his sons, with his child Yahweh receiving Israel. As time went on, this patron god became more and more important, until the original pantheon was abandoned and Yahweh supplanted El as the chief deity and creator of all. Yet still, the Israelites accepted the existence and worship of the other gods, and their cults still existed (ex: Cult of Baal).
Then, some time around the 8-9th century BCE the lone worship of Yahweh came about amongst a small sect of Israelites (Biblically, this centers around the prophets Elijah and Hosea). The sect still accepted the existence of the other gods, but believed it was Yahweh alone who deserved worship. This sect grew in popularity, especially during the Babylonian Exile, where it warped into a truly monotheistic religion where all other gods were rejected.
So, why would the plural be used in the creation story? Because the traditional stories of their creation were told by a polytheistic people, and when it was compiled, some of that source material found its way into the Torah.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66883
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/18 6:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Elohim is the plural of El in Hebrew, and El is also related to Allah in Arabic.
Why would Moses, the trinitarians, the angelicists or the polytheists -- or whoever wrote 1:26 with plural pronouns -- revert to the singular in the very next sentence?
"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NIV) |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66883
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/18 6:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Elohim is the plural of El in Hebrew, and El is also related to Allah in Arabic.
Why would Moses, the trinitarians, the angelicists or the polytheists -- or whoever wrote 1:26 with plural pronouns -- revert to the singular in the very next sentence?
"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NIV) |
Genesis 1:27 also uses Elohim in Hebrew
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/26/18 6:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Elohim is the plural of El in Hebrew, and El is also related to Allah in Arabic.
Why would Moses, the trinitarians, the angelicists or the polytheists -- or whoever wrote 1:26 with plural pronouns -- revert to the singular in the very next sentence?
"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (NIV) |
Genesis 1:27 also uses Elohim in Hebrew |
Interesting point. So where are we? That either the author of Genesis or the translators into English used bad grammar -- a plural noun followed by a singular pronoun? |
|
taropatch
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 814
Location: Kau Rubbish Dump
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/27/18 2:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Quote: |
Interesting point. So where are we? That either the author of Genesis or the translators into English used bad grammar -- a plural noun followed by a singular pronoun?
|
I think the plural followed by the singular is ok. The "us" is God stating the intent to the "group" (3 or more in the group?) . The singular ("God created)" is the intent or action completed by one person. Wouldn't that work for the Trinity theory (3 persons in one) and the Angel theory?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/27/18 1:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| taropatch wrote: |
| Quote: |
Interesting point. So where are we? That either the author of Genesis or the translators into English used bad grammar -- a plural noun followed by a singular pronoun?
|
I think the plural followed by the singular is ok. The "us" is God stating the intent to the "group" (3 or more in the group?) . The singular ("God created)" is the intent or action completed by one person. Wouldn't that work for the Trinity theory (3 persons in one) and the Angel theory? |
The biggest problem with the Trinity theory is that Genesis is part of the Torah, thus written by the early Israelites (thus, Jewish folk) wouldn't have believed in nor understood the concept of the Trinity. Hard to say they wrote it with the Trinity in mind.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/27/18 5:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| There's another thing about Genesis 1:26. Whether or not you believe god made man, what do you think "image" and "likeness" mean? |
|
taropatch
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 814
Location: Kau Rubbish Dump
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66883
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/28/18 12:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| There's another thing about Genesis 1:26. Whether or not you believe god made man, what do you think "image" and "likeness" mean? |
Moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional qualities.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5375
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/02/18 8:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The word trinity is not in the Holy Scriptures. Jehovah the Father gave the job of making our current physical universe and everything in it to his only begotten son.
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15729
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/03/18 7:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| The word trinity is not in the Holy Scriptures. Jehovah the Father gave the job of making our current physical universe and everything in it to his only begotten son. |
While distinct and interesting (?) is there even any scriptural reference to support this?  |
John 1:1-3 |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/03/18 8:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| There's another thing about Genesis 1:26. Whether or not you believe god made man, what do you think "image" and "likeness" mean? |
Moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional qualities. |
I agree, and would summarize it all with one word: mind.
I'm attracted to the concept of mind-brain duality: that the organic brain is a necessary but not sufficient explanation for the extraordinary functions and origins of the human mind. The mind-brain of homo sapiens seems to have developed quite suddenly in the evolutionary record and was not present in any other hominid species, such as Neanderthals. Why would a mind-brain capable of producing the theory of relativity, advanced mathematics, the Mona Lisa, the Taj Majal, Hamlet, and Swan Lake evolve for simple "survival of the fittest".
In a related area, evolutionary theory cannot explain the appearance of the human language facility any better today than in Darwin's time. The most famous linguist ever, Noam Chomsky of MIT, has long argued that the language facility appeared suddenly in one human, via genetic mutation, somewhere between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago. Not that he'd say it, but sort of like . . . Adam. |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15729
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/04/18 11:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| The word trinity is not in the Holy Scriptures. Jehovah the Father gave the job of making our current physical universe and everything in it to his only begotten son. |
While distinct and interesting (?) is there even any scriptural reference to support this? |
John 1:1-3 |
Though very familiar with this passage, I don't find it to be specific enough to be anything other than an expression of faith. Opinion, rather than insight. (I've long ago left my Lutheran indoctrination of accepting such things as "The Gospel Truth"  )
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I'm attracted to the concept of mind-brain duality: that the organic brain is a necessary but not sufficient explanation for the extraordinary functions and origins of the human mind. The mind-brain of homo sapiens seems to have developed quite suddenly in the evolutionary record and was not present in any other hominid species, such as Neanderthals. Why would a mind-brain capable of producing the theory of relativity, advanced mathematics, the Mona Lisa, the Taj Majal, Hamlet, and Swan Lake evolve for simple "survival of the fittest".
In a related area, evolutionary theory cannot explain the appearance of the human language facility any better today than in Darwin's time. The most famous linguist ever, Noam Chomsky of MIT, has long argued that the language facility appeared suddenly in one human, via genetic mutation, somewhere between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago. Not that he'd say it, but sort of like . . . Adam. |
(How do we know what Neanderthals' *thinking* process might have been? Are cultural achievements the only metric for IQ?) Now--to me, at least--your points of a sudden ascension of intellectual capacity do seem both apparent and confusing, from a scientific perspective. How could this happen? An "Adam" theory works on some levels, no? But if adhering to scriptural tenets, wasn't The Original Adam the First Ever Humanoid?
I have enjoyed the theory that "Adam" was actually an infusion of Alien DNA into a population of humanoids that had evolved to their maximum capacity, physically, and needed a cosmic boost to continue on an ascendant trajectory.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|
