Genesis: God refers to himself in the plural? What the heck?

[rosends]

As pointed out elsewhere, this is merely the English use of the royal "we", as when Elizabeth II the second speaks her opinion.

Language evolves, and sometimes we lose the sense of words and terms. Many who think they understand Shakespeare, for example, do not.

The most we can use the Bible for is metaphorical instruction.

but the plural is in the hebrew as well. can you demonstrate an ancient use of the royal we?

 

[there4eyeM]

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Is the monotheistic Christian God admitting that there is at least one other god?

Or are humans genetically engineered by aliens who are our God?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?!?!?

The religion of God is Remission ...

the Bible does not explain what the Forbidden Fruits are but is itself an example from God of the Faults mankind must overcome to reenter the OuterWorld of the Everlasting mankind is either expelled from or given the opportunity within a lifetime to accomplish.


"and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


God is the Garden - the above is Idolatry and a Forbidden Fruit - whoever believes they "rule over" God will perish ... this scripture along with many others are meant to be recognized and corrected to find the true path back / to the Everlasting.


God is speaking to those who have accomplished Admission to the Everlasting.

The fruit in the Garden was clearly identified as that of the knowledge of good and evil; the intellectual division of the universe into two,when in reality it is one.

 

[Avatar4321]

When you understand the counsel of Gods and recognize that God the Father is called the Most HIgh God and that God of gods then it becomes less confusing.

 

[Foxfyre]

As pointed out elsewhere, this is merely the English use of the royal "we", as when Elizabeth II the second speaks her opinion.

Language evolves, and sometimes we lose the sense of words and terms. Many who think they understand Shakespeare, for example, do not.

The most we can use the Bible for is metaphorical instruction.

but the plural is in the hebrew as well. can you demonstrate an ancient use of the royal we?

That text is in the most ancient of Hebrew which was barely more adequate than the first Phoenician alphabet which was extremely limited as a means of communication. No capital letters, no punctuation, no separation between words, no paragraphs, and no vowels. And full of nuances very difficult to translate into English without changing the original intent. The plural pronoun here is not a "royal we" but rather an understanding of a realm separate from the Earth but from which the Earth came; a heavenly host or multi-faceted diety. It did not presume that there was more than one God of Israel as such was never ever in the ancient understanding.

 

[rosends]

As pointed out elsewhere, this is merely the English use of the royal "we", as when Elizabeth II the second speaks her opinion.

Language evolves, and sometimes we lose the sense of words and terms. Many who think they understand Shakespeare, for example, do not.

The most we can use the Bible for is metaphorical instruction.

but the plural is in the hebrew as well. can you demonstrate an ancient use of the royal we?

That text is in the most ancient of Hebrew which was barely more adequate than the first Phoenician alphabet which was extremely limited as a means of communication. No capital letters, no punctuation, no separation between words, no paragraphs, and no vowels. And full of nuances very difficult to translate into English without changing the original intent.

the prefix for the plural is not a function of capitals or punctuation. It is the introduction of the verb with a nun and not an aleph. If you believe that the ones who read it as the royal we get that notion from somewhere, why deny that the text is written in the plural, and if so, please show another similarly ancient document which uses the royal we construction.

 

[Foxfyre]

but the plural is in the hebrew as well. can you demonstrate an ancient use of the royal we?

That text is in the most ancient of Hebrew which was barely more adequate than the first Phoenician alphabet which was extremely limited as a means of communication. No capital letters, no punctuation, no separation between words, no paragraphs, and no vowels. And full of nuances very difficult to translate into English without changing the original intent.

the prefix for the plural is not a function of capitals or punctuation. It is the introduction of the verb with a nun and not an aleph. If you believe that the ones who read it as the royal we get that notion from somewhere, why deny that the text is written in the plural, and if so, please show another similarly ancient document which uses the royal we construction.

Again, he intent was not a 'royal we' construct. Such would not have occurred to people more than a thousand years before Christ was born. The royal "we" wasn't even common in Roman Empire times. Again what we translate as plural was common in the very primitive language of that time to denote a heavenly host concept; ie. a diety surrounded by other heavenly beings or possibly a diety so profound it could not be limited to a single thought/concept. Again, it is very difficult to translate all the the nuances of ancient Hebrew thought and understanding into English.

The only reason we have the plural pronouns in the English translations at all testifies to how much dedication was put into getting the translations as right as possible. But you can't read it with 21st Century understanding without corrupting the original intent. It must be read through the eyes of those who wrote it.

 

[rosends]

was common in the very primitive language of that time to denote a heavenly host concept

can you provide other contemporaneous texts which use the same construct and which also use the singular within a few words to refer to the same god-figure?

 

[there4eyeM]

" But you can't read it with 21st Century understanding without corrupting the original intent. It must be read through the eyes of those who wrote it."

Which precisely explains why we cannot understand it anything nearly like perfectly; it is impossible to read it through the mind of someone three or four or five thousand years ago. That is why it is only of metaphorical value to anyone who has not chosen to believe it otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

" But you can't read it with 21st Century understanding without corrupting the original intent. It must be read through the eyes of those who wrote it."

Which precisely explains why we cannot understand it anything nearly like perfectly; it is impossible to read it through the mind of someone three or four or five thousand years ago. That is why it is only of metaphorical value to anyone who has not chosen to believe it otherwise.

Impossible in every detail, yes, but those who have devoted their lives to study the ancient texts within the known history, archeology, anthropology, and geology of the settings involved have been able to discern a great deal that is generally accepted as plausible by serious scholars. For instance, within the limitations of their written language, the ancients wrote a great many words in plural form--i.e. ending in what we translate as "--im"--that had singular meaning. Some examples:

Mayim = water.
Panim = face
Meguim = home or where one dwells
Rachmim = compassion
Shekulim = barren or childless

And so forth.

So the word Elohim used to denote God in Genesis 1.1 is a plural word but within the context of how the ancients understand the one God, did not mean multiple gods. The same word was used some 700 years earlier for God in Genesis 2 but within the context used suggests the broader understanding of Elohim as the totality of an all powerful God that is everything as well as a God of a people who understood a greater world occupied by angels and other heavenly beings.

 

[Foxfyre]

was common in the very primitive language of that time to denote a heavenly host concept

can you provide other contemporaneous texts which use the same construct and which also use the singular within a few words to refer to the same god-figure?

See my response to There4. In Genesis 1, referring to one God, he is written in the ancient Hebrew as Elohim. (Plural). And yet tthe same people writing in other texts throughout the centuries have made it absolutely clear that God is the one supreme God and there is no other to be worshiped. And yet they did believe in angels and other heavenly beings.

So we when go to Genesis 2, written at a much earlier time for the obvious purpose to explain why things are the way they are, the "we" and "us" could refer to the all powerful, all encompassing God, or it could refer to God accompanied by that heavenly host. And no, I am not aware of another time that the same form of reference was used; however that ancient manuscript is a fragment of a very few manuscripts that have survived since that earliest record of the Hebrew/Jewish people. No doubt much more was written that didn't survive or we might have more examples of that manner of speech.

 

[Foxfyre]

was common in the very primitive language of that time to denote a heavenly host concept

can you provide other contemporaneous texts which use the same construct and which also use the singular within a few words to refer to the same god-figure?

In I believe Genesis 11--working from memory here--in the story of the Tower of Babel, you again get the plural pronouns. And again it is generally thought that the story reflects the concept of a heavenly host.

 

[jillian]

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Is the monotheistic Christian God admitting that there is at least one other god?

Or are humans genetically engineered by aliens who are our God?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?!?!?

God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost...

Duh!

not in the old testament.

d'uh

 

[jillian]

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Is the monotheistic Christian God admitting that there is at least one other god?

Or are humans genetically engineered by aliens who are our God?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?!?!?

God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost...

Duh!

...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah, 46:9)

... so that all the peoples of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other. (1 Kings, 8:60)

Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the Earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:22)

This is what the Lord says…"Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other God." (Isaiah, 45:14)

...The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Deuteronomy, 6:4)

it's also the first commandment.

You shall have no other gods before Me.

 

[rosends]

was common in the very primitive language of that time to denote a heavenly host concept

can you provide other contemporaneous texts which use the same construct and which also use the singular within a few words to refer to the same god-figure?

See my response to There4. In Genesis 1, referring to one God, he is written in the ancient Hebrew as Elohim. (Plural). And yet tthe same people writing in other texts throughout the centuries have made it absolutely clear that God is the one supreme God and there is no other to be worshiped. And yet they did believe in angels and other heavenly beings.

So we when go to Genesis 2, written at a much earlier time for the obvious purpose to explain why things are the way they are, the "we" and "us" could refer to the all powerful, all encompassing God, or it could refer to God accompanied by that heavenly host. And no, I am not aware of another time that the same form of reference was used; however that ancient manuscript is a fragment of a very few manuscripts that have survived since that earliest record of the Hebrew/Jewish people. No doubt much more was written that didn't survive or we might have more examples of that manner of speech.

your response in the other post listing words that seem to be singular and end in -im is very nice but not on point. the noun's number follows the verb. so when there is a word like elohim which can be both singular or plural, simply look at the verb associated with it. in fact, mayim, water, though it is a singular concept is actually a plural word in construction as evidenced by the verbs associated with the use. you can look that up. rachamim is a singular concept but the verb (as in gen 43:30) or the adjective (isaiah 54:7) connected to it shows its plural structure; interestingly, the plural sense isn't of discrete number but of volume (eg. rachamim rabim -- great mercies). to then decide that the number is an indicator of some sociological limitation is to impose your understanding of their psychology on them. that's fine if that's what you want to do, but it is no more valid (probably less so) than simply following the verb and expecting that they said exactly what they meant. so when elohim is connected to a singular verb, it is a singular noun.

When the word elohim is associated with the plural verb (as in 1:26 and chapt 11), you can either see that there is a plural speaking (and thus the noun is a plural) or that the singular verb is speaking to a group outside of himself.

The issue in genesis and the creation is the plural VERB na'ase (let US make man). there, you can decide any of the following:

1. the writer was a believer in either polytheism or a compound monotheism
1a. the text is speaking of a multiple of objects though only a singular god
2. the text speaks in the unprecedented royal we
3. the writer used whatever word he had handy and we are looking too deeply in
4. the writer used the word intentionally to convey a deeper message or point to an external object of the speech included in the action.

you had opted for #2 by invoking the royal we. then you shifted to the heavenly hosts (1a).

judaism consistently understands #4.

 

[Foxfyre]

can you provide other contemporaneous texts which use the same construct and which also use the singular within a few words to refer to the same god-figure?

See my response to There4. In Genesis 1, referring to one God, he is written in the ancient Hebrew as Elohim. (Plural). And yet tthe same people writing in other texts throughout the centuries have made it absolutely clear that God is the one supreme God and there is no other to be worshiped. And yet they did believe in angels and other heavenly beings.

So we when go to Genesis 2, written at a much earlier time for the obvious purpose to explain why things are the way they are, the "we" and "us" could refer to the all powerful, all encompassing God, or it could refer to God accompanied by that heavenly host. And no, I am not aware of another time that the same form of reference was used; however that ancient manuscript is a fragment of a very few manuscripts that have survived since that earliest record of the Hebrew/Jewish people. No doubt much more was written that didn't survive or we might have more examples of that manner of speech.

your response in the other post listing words that seem to be singular and end in -im is very nice but not on point. the noun's number follows the verb. so when there is a word like elohim which can be both singular or plural, simply look at the verb associated with it. in fact, mayim, water, though it is a singular concept is actually a plural word in construction as evidenced by the verbs associated with the use. you can look that up. rachamim is a singular concept but the verb (as in gen 43:30) or the adjective (isaiah 54:7) connected to it shows its plural structure; interestingly, the plural sense isn't of discrete number but of volume (eg. rachamim rabim -- great mercies). to then decide that the number is an indicator of some sociological limitation is to impose your understanding of their psychology on them. that's fine if that's what you want to do, but it is no more valid (probably less so) than simply following the verb and expecting that they said exactly what they meant. so when elohim is connected to a singular verb, it is a singular noun.

When the word elohim is associated with the plural verb (as in 1:26 and chapt 11), you can either see that there is a plural speaking (and thus the noun is a plural) or that the singular verb is speaking to a group outside of himself.

The issue in genesis and the creation is the plural VERB na'ase (let US make man). there, you can decide any of the following:

1. the writer was a believer in either polytheism or a compound monotheism
1a. the text is speaking of a multiple of objects though only a singular god
2. the text speaks in the unprecedented royal we
3. the writer used whatever word he had handy and we are looking too deeply in
4. the writer used the word intentionally to convey a deeper message or point to an external object of the speech included in the action.

you had opted for #2 by invoking the royal we. then you shifted to the heavenly hosts (1a).

judaism consistently understands #4.

You are assuming that ancient Hebrew grammar was the same as the modern English translation. Trust me, it was not.

 

[rosends]

See my response to There4. In Genesis 1, referring to one God, he is written in the ancient Hebrew as Elohim. (Plural). And yet tthe same people writing in other texts throughout the centuries have made it absolutely clear that God is the one supreme God and there is no other to be worshiped. And yet they did believe in angels and other heavenly beings.

So we when go to Genesis 2, written at a much earlier time for the obvious purpose to explain why things are the way they are, the "we" and "us" could refer to the all powerful, all encompassing God, or it could refer to God accompanied by that heavenly host. And no, I am not aware of another time that the same form of reference was used; however that ancient manuscript is a fragment of a very few manuscripts that have survived since that earliest record of the Hebrew/Jewish people. No doubt much more was written that didn't survive or we might have more examples of that manner of speech.

your response in the other post listing words that seem to be singular and end in -im is very nice but not on point. the noun's number follows the verb. so when there is a word like elohim which can be both singular or plural, simply look at the verb associated with it. in fact, mayim, water, though it is a singular concept is actually a plural word in construction as evidenced by the verbs associated with the use. you can look that up. rachamim is a singular concept but the verb (as in gen 43:30) or the adjective (isaiah 54:7) connected to it shows its plural structure; interestingly, the plural sense isn't of discrete number but of volume (eg. rachamim rabim -- great mercies). to then decide that the number is an indicator of some sociological limitation is to impose your understanding of their psychology on them. that's fine if that's what you want to do, but it is no more valid (probably less so) than simply following the verb and expecting that they said exactly what they meant. so when elohim is connected to a singular verb, it is a singular noun.

When the word elohim is associated with the plural verb (as in 1:26 and chapt 11), you can either see that there is a plural speaking (and thus the noun is a plural) or that the singular verb is speaking to a group outside of himself.

The issue in genesis and the creation is the plural VERB na'ase (let US make man). there, you can decide any of the following:

1. the writer was a believer in either polytheism or a compound monotheism
1a. the text is speaking of a multiple of objects though only a singular god
2. the text speaks in the unprecedented royal we
3. the writer used whatever word he had handy and we are looking too deeply in
4. the writer used the word intentionally to convey a deeper message or point to an external object of the speech included in the action.

you had opted for #2 by invoking the royal we. then you shifted to the heavenly hosts (1a).

judaism consistently understands #4.

You are assuming that ancient Hebrew grammar was the same as the modern English translation. Trust me, it was not.

you assume I am unfamiliar with ancient hebrew grammar. trust me, i am.

 

[BreezeWood]

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Is the monotheistic Christian God admitting that there is at least one other god?

Or are humans genetically engineered by aliens who are our God?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?!?!?

The religion of God is Remission ...

the Bible does not explain what the Forbidden Fruits are but is itself an example from God of the Faults mankind must overcome to reenter the OuterWorld of the Everlasting mankind is either expelled from or given the opportunity within a lifetime to accomplish.


"and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


God is the Garden - the above is Idolatry and a Forbidden Fruit - whoever believes they "rule over" God will perish ... this scripture along with many others are meant to be recognized and corrected to find the true path back / to the Everlasting.


God is speaking to those who have accomplished Admission to the Everlasting.

The fruit in the Garden was clearly identified as that of the knowledge of good and evil; the intellectual division of the universe into two,when in reality it is one.

"... when in reality it is one".


no, there is only one when the other is made no longer able to exist and that being the complete success of good over evil is the ticket for readmission.


"... and let them rule over" - is an evil proposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

your response in the other post listing words that seem to be singular and end in -im is very nice but not on point. the noun's number follows the verb. so when there is a word like elohim which can be both singular or plural, simply look at the verb associated with it. in fact, mayim, water, though it is a singular concept is actually a plural word in construction as evidenced by the verbs associated with the use. you can look that up. rachamim is a singular concept but the verb (as in gen 43:30) or the adjective (isaiah 54:7) connected to it shows its plural structure; interestingly, the plural sense isn't of discrete number but of volume (eg. rachamim rabim -- great mercies). to then decide that the number is an indicator of some sociological limitation is to impose your understanding of their psychology on them. that's fine if that's what you want to do, but it is no more valid (probably less so) than simply following the verb and expecting that they said exactly what they meant. so when elohim is connected to a singular verb, it is a singular noun.

When the word elohim is associated with the plural verb (as in 1:26 and chapt 11), you can either see that there is a plural speaking (and thus the noun is a plural) or that the singular verb is speaking to a group outside of himself.

The issue in genesis and the creation is the plural VERB na'ase (let US make man). there, you can decide any of the following:

1. the writer was a believer in either polytheism or a compound monotheism
1a. the text is speaking of a multiple of objects though only a singular god
2. the text speaks in the unprecedented royal we
3. the writer used whatever word he had handy and we are looking too deeply in
4. the writer used the word intentionally to convey a deeper message or point to an external object of the speech included in the action.

you had opted for #2 by invoking the royal we. then you shifted to the heavenly hosts (1a).

judaism consistently understands #4.

You are assuming that ancient Hebrew grammar was the same as the modern English translation. Trust me, it was not.

you assume I am unfamiliar with ancient hebrew grammar. trust me, i am.

Well, if you are that familiar, then you know there was no 'royal we" in the anciient Hebrew culture or language, nor have I suggested that there was at any time.

 

[there4eyeM]

The only way to destroy something that is imaginary is to change the mind that is imagining.

 

[editec]

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Is the monotheistic Christian God admitting that there is at least one other god?

Or are humans genetically engineered by aliens who are our God?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?!?!?

Those are the only two choices?

No thought to the idea that your Bible has been translated multiple times through multiple languages, and that KINGS typically referred to themselves in the plural during the age of King James?

I realize that the above possible explanation isn't magically thinking quite enough to satisfy the needs of children, but there's your Occam's Razor explanation.