Personification of Attributes - Gen. 1:26

[Shibolet]

PERSONIFICATION OF ATTRIBUTES - GENESIS 1:26

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man in God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.
Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Interesting. I never caught the discrepancy in the improper use of pronouns in that statement. Question. English is the language of a translation of a translation of a translation. What were the words used in the original language?

Has the phrase simply been misinterpreted by the person when the text was first translated into English?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"Has the phrase simply been misinterpreted by the person when the text was first translated into English?"

--> No. Genesis is correct in that the human race was "created" by gods (plural) not God (singular).

 

[Shibolet]

Interesting. I never caught the discrepancy in the improper use of pronouns in that statement. Question. English is the language of a translation of a translation of a translation. What were the words used in the original language?

Has the phrase simply been misinterpreted by the person when the text was first translated into English?

Probably and, that's what has caused all the misunderstanding to this day as the absolute Jewish Monotheism is concerned. Not to mention the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Shibolet]

"Has the phrase simply been misinterpreted by the person when the text was first translated into English?"

--> No. Genesis is correct in that the human race was "created" by gods (plural) not God (singular).

That's not true because that idea could invalidate all the struggle Abraham went through to promote Monotheism on earth throughout History by means of the Jewish People.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"That's not true..."

--> I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[wil]

That's not true because that idea could invalidate all the struggle Abraham went through to promote Monotheism on earth throughout History by means of the Jewish People.

That is not true because that idea could invalidate.....

The story of the struggle of Abraham....true or not...validated or not....does not have any bearing on the statement.

So many discussions over the years I think we need a list....this is objection numbers 45 and 51 with questions number 8 and 17.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

So many discussions over the years I think we need a list....this is objection numbers 45 and 51 with questions number 8 and 17.

I would like that system, very orderly...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...this is objection numbers 45 and 51 with questions number 8 and 17."

--> That's a good one!

Remember in school, when we didn't bring our homework, and the teacher would get tired of hearing the same old excuses? We would just say, "I didn't do my homework. Excuse #29, my dog ate my homework!

 

[Thomas]

Interesting. I never caught the discrepancy in the improper use of pronouns in that statement. Question. English is the language of a translation of a translation of a translation. What were the words used in the original language?

Has the phrase simply been misinterpreted by the person when the text was first translated into English?

In Genesis 1:26 the first person plural pronoun is used, but the third person singular conjugation of the verb is still used. The Hebrew grammarian Heinrich Genesius (and other early Hebrew grammarians) called this the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the so-called “royal we."

An interesting discussion of the literary style of the times here

In sum, אֱלֹהִים (eloheem), when referring to the one God of Israel has a singular meaning, despite its being a technically plural word. The above bible verses I cite, in which I show verb, pronoun, and adjective use, are consistent with this singular status of the word. This shows another use of the plural. Considering Arabic has established intensive forms, in which adding prefixes, infixes, or suffixes, adds meaning to words it is not a stretch to think that Hebrew, being a related meaning, may be similar in this respect. So, in addition to being using quantitatively, it seems apparent that the plural form can have a qualitative function in terms of intensity – the term in the plural has a quality that is more intense that the simple singular.

Although Abraham founded a monotheist religion, it's clear the people slipped back into old ways, as people tend to do. I find no problem with accepting the general argument that the theologians simply compounded the polytheistic hierarchy into a single Godhead. Lesser gods were relegated to the angelic orders.

But I think the main argument is the plural is used in Hebrew, Arabic and other contemporary languages to signify a qualitative difference, as the reference supplied details, so Elohim easily became a plural noun predicated on a single God.

The use of the plural pronoun with reference to man 'let them have' is also an honorific. In most cultures, the deity was associated with the king, and the people were slaves. The king served the deity, the people served the king. But Judaism developed with a greater communal idea, God has chosen a people, not a person, or rather Abraham will be the father of a royal people.

 

[Thomas]

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

Actually 'Trinitarians' don't refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the founding text of the doctrine – the well-founded ones, anyway. The Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, not the Old. (There are significant signals, but that's another discussion ...)

As for the 'them', The New Jerome Biblical Commentary points out the 'royal' reference to humanity, a marked distinction when compared to contemporary Mesopotamian cosmogonies in which man was portrayed as a slave.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So many discussions over the years I think we need a list....this is objection numbers 45 and 51 with questions number 8 and 17.

It is better to include key words.

But I think the main argument is the plural is used in Hebrew, Arabic and other contemporary languages to signify a qualitative difference, as the reference supplied details, so Elohim easily became a plural noun predicated on a single God.

I do not know whether it is true for Abraham's Jews, but Hindustani/Urdu also uses plural for singular when elder or mighty people talk, like 'we' for kings and emperors. Surely because of Arabic/Persian influence.

 

[Thomas]

I do not know whether it is true for Abraham's Jews, but Hindustani/Urdu also uses plural for singular when elder or mighty people talk, like 'we' for kings and emperors. Surely because of Arabic/Persian influence.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

The monarchy still uses 'the royal we' in the UK. A prime Minister of ours used it once, when talking of herself, and she got some stick! Her excuse was she was talking for the whole government. Trouble was, she was the government!

But if you know of the lady in question, you'd not be too surprised.

The used to be a satirical puppet show on UK TV – Spitting Image – in one sketch, the PM takes her cabinet out for dinner. At the restaurant, a waiter looms at her shoulder.
"I'll have the steak. Very rare," she says.
"Yes ma'am. And what about the vegetables?"
"Oh, they'll have what I'm having," she said.

I went out for a drink with a group of UK Civil Servants once. The CS is a traditionally Tory stronghold, but they didn't like her one little bit.
"Well nor do I," I said, "But you've got to admire someone with conviction."
Stunned silence. "Politicians, with conviction!?" came the aghast reply. "God preserve us from politicians who know their own mind!

 

[Shibolet]

"That's not true..."

--> I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

With nothing to say why? Pity!

 

[Shibolet]

That is not true because that idea could invalidate.....

The story of the struggle of Abraham....true or not...validated or not....does not have any bearing on the statement.

So many discussions over the years I think we need a list....this is objection numbers 45 and 51 with questions number 8 and 17.

I have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Shibolet]

An interesting discussion of the literary style of the times here

Although Abraham founded a monotheist religion, it's clear the people slipped back into old ways, as people tend to do. I find no problem with accepting the general argument that the theologians simply compounded the polytheistic hierarchy into a single Godhead. Lesser gods were relegated to the angelic orders.

But I think the main argument is the plural is used in Hebrew, Arabic and other contemporary languages to signify a qualitative difference, as the reference supplied details, so Elohim easily became a plural noun predicated on a single God.

The use of the plural pronoun with reference to man 'let them have' is also an honorific. In most cultures, the deity was associated with the king, and the people were slaves. The king served the deity, the people served the king. But Judaism developed with a greater communal idea, God has chosen a people, not a person, or rather Abraham will be the father of a royal people.

Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

Christians in general misunderstand the word Elohim when using it as an evidence for plurality in God. Trinity, that is. As time can be considered chronologically, and also psychologically, a word can also be looked at grammatically in terms of plurality of itself or psychologically as the plural related to it. I'll explain in more simpler words.

The word Elohim does mean plural but not of itself. I mean, of the subject, but of the object it points to. For example, Elohim barah et hashamaim..." If Elohim, the subject was a word meant to be itself in the plural, the verb would by necessity have to follow the plural as in "baru," (created).

Let's take Abraham as an example to illustrate the case. Afterwards we will return to Elohim. We all know that originally, Abraham's name was Abram, and the name change was effected by occasion of the Covenant between himself and God, when the reason for the change was that Abraham would be the father of a host of nations. (Gen. 17:4,5) So, does the word Abraham mean plural? Yes, but not of the subject (Abraham) who continued to be one person. However, Abraham meant plural but of the object or "many nations."

Now, back to Elohim, there was a time in the very beginning, when the Hebrews considered God to be a local God: The God of the Hebrews, in opposite to the gods of the other nations. When they came to the enlightenment or understanding that God was of an absolute Oneness, and that He was the God of the whole Earth, the God of all the nations, they also came to understand that the plurality of Elohim was related to the object (the nations) and not of the subject, or Himself, Who remained an absolute Oneness.

Grammatically, the singular for God is El, and the plural Elim, and not Elohim. Therefore, there is no plurality in Elohim per se but in what He relates to. The conclusion is that God is of an absolute Oneness and not a Trinity or Duality. Besides, God is also incorporeal, and there can be no plurality in incorporeality.

 

[Shibolet]

Actually 'Trinitarians' don't refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the founding text of the doctrine – the well-founded ones, anyway. The Trinity is revealed in the New Testament, not the Old. (There are significant signals, but that's another discussion ...)

As for the 'them', The New Jerome Biblical Commentary points out the 'royal' reference to humanity, a marked distinction when compared to contemporary Mesopotamian cosmogonies in which man was portrayed as a slave.

Would you be able to quote the NT where the Trinity is revealed? I would like to have that one.