Genesis 1:26

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is a slam dunk, your sources are wrong, you are indeed wrong.

HankD

p.s. FWIW You may not hear from me for a while, I am flying across the USA.

I will be using an airplane.

You got a meeting with Trump? You'd be the only one wanting to see him right now. Perhaps you are testifying on his behalf.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It is a slam dunk, your sources are wrong, you are indeed wrong.

I have had three semesters of Hebrew (one undergraduate and two at graduate level) and it is not a slam dunk at all. Moreover, every Hebrew scholar I have spoken to - including on who is a Bible translator - does not agree with that view.

I would prefer that it be a sign of the Trinity, but we should not interpret the scripture according to our preferences.

 

[Deacon]

How much Hebrew have you had - Formal and/or private study?

Hank, this isn't a translation issue but an interpretation issue.
The text and its translation is rather stable across a variety of Bibles.

...and you really don't need a lot of Hebrew to translate this portion of Scripture.​

The issue is what does the text mean?
Here's where things become difficult!

John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis has popularized the notion that Genesis 1 is a Temple text, a symbolic representation of God and his temple.
With this understanding the consideration of God speaking amidst the Divine Council comes to the forefront.

Rob

 

[Van]

Speculation is the mother of false theology. While any of us can prefer one of the several interpretations, all of us should accept that the meaning is ambiguous. Another important point is that when you take an ambiguous text and read into it support for your doctrine, that is shoddy bible study.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Just a few days ago I also posted a thread which discusses Gen 1:26. Here it is: The Deep Roots of the Great Commission

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Indeed I do believe that Genesis does have a connection to the Trinity. Now any self respecting Jew will try to dispell it (I can just hear them, "Hear oh Israel, The Lord our God, The Lord is one" ...... Yes oh venerable Refusers of Christ, yes---One in Three.

 

[HankD]

So do I.......so whats your point? You do know that that scenario played out in South jersey about 2 years ago. The feds nailed a Rabbi & his tribe for it.

So what is your point? Same as my point.

HankD

 

[HankD]

You got a meeting with Trump? You'd be the only one wanting to see him right now. Perhaps you are testifying on his behalf.

It's within the realm of possibility.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

So do I.......so whats your point? You do know that that scenario played out in South jersey about 2 years ago. The feds nailed a Rabbi & his tribe for it.

Though 1. is probably the least likely. Christians like to seize upon the apparently plural form of Elohim to make a case for the Trinity, but this is, at best, an anachronism, i.e., reading something into the text based on later revelation.

So do I.......so whats your point? You do know that that scenario played out in South jersey about 2 years ago. The feds nailed a Rabbi & his tribe for it.

Which would be called progressive revelation!

 

[HankD]

I have had three semesters of Hebrew (one undergraduate and two at graduate level) and it is not a slam dunk at all. Moreover, every Hebrew scholar I have spoken to - including on who is a Bible translator - does not agree with that view.

I would prefer that it be a sign of the Trinity, but we should not interpret the scripture according to our preferences.

I don't care. IMO You are still wrong.
By my way of thinking it is a slam dunk.

Elohim started out as a common plural word - not the name for Almighty God and it is NOT His name..
It was used later for collections of deities e.g. the elohim of Baal, ashteroth...
Then go to the fact that elohim is used as a connective with the tetragrammaton (LORD-GOD - YHWH-Elohim) after Adam sins and God reveals his connective name to him.
Elohim is plural not dual, there is no cardinal number associated with it so it has the value of "3".
You have graduate Hebrew? Do the research yourself.


HankD

 

[HankD]

Hank, this isn't a translation issue but an interpretation issue.
The text and its translation is rather stable across a variety of Bibles.

...and you really don't need a lot of Hebrew to translate this portion of Scripture.​

The issue is what does the text mean?
Here's where things become difficult!

John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis has popularized the notion that Genesis 1 is a Temple text, a symbolic representation of God and his temple.
With this understanding the consideration of God speaking amidst the Divine Council comes to the forefront.

Rob

OK believe what you will.

But do some original thought, put down the commentaries.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Nonetheless, I do know how to read the literature on the topic, which is extensive. The literature is replete with examples of those who reject Elohim as verifying the Trinity. Folks like Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Calvin, Luther and Gill, for example.

You can thank Peter Lombard for popularizing the Elohim-equals-Trinity view.

I admit I may be wrong. But I cannot think, from reading the literature, that it is a slam dunk that Elohim or "let us" prove a plurality in the godhead.

I have never read a book by Perer Lombard. Don't know who he is.

HankD

 

[Deacon]

Hank, this really isn't about you.
There are options; You have expressed yours... rather forcefully I might add.
You've provided some reasoning why you believe so.

Others think differently and have provided some reasoning as well.
If you're curious research it.
If you're not, honor those that reason differently with kindness.

Recognize that those with differing opinions about the meaning of the 'us' in Genesis 1:26 at the same time also believe in the Trinity just as strongly as you do.

Rob

 

[rsr]

I have never read a book by Perer Lombard. Don't know who he is.

HankD

And? I never thought you'd heard of him. There are lots of people whose works you haven't read that have filtered into your consciousness.

 

[HankD]

And? I never thought you'd heard of him. There are lots of people whose works you haven't read that have filtered into your consciousness.

Osmosis

HankD

 

[rsr]

Pretty much.

 

[HankD]

Hank, this really isn't about you.
There are options; You have expressed yours... rather forcefully I might add.
You've provided some reasoning why you believe so.

Others think differently and have provided some reasoning as well.
If you're curious research it.
If you're not, honor those that reason differently with kindness.

Recognize that those with differing opinions about the meaning of the 'us' in Genesis 1:26 at the same time also believe in the Trinity just as strongly as you do.

Rob

Yes, I should realize that everyone is entitled to my opinion!

HankD

 

[tyndale1946]

Yes, I should realize that everyone is entitled to my opinion!

HankD

I value your opinion Hank... Here's my two cents... Let us is referring to the Trinity... Or as I heard one preacher say it... Three in one and one in three and the one in the middle died for me... I guess we can call this Trinity 101... Brother Glen

 

[Van]

Since I usually disagree with Tyndale1949, I must say I like the "three in one, one in three and the one in the middle died for me."

 

[tyndale1946]

Since I usually disagree with Tyndale1949, I must say I like the "three in one, one in three and the one in the middle died for me."

Yeah I borrowed that and here's another one on how you spell JOY... Jesus first... Others second... And Yourself last... Or Jesus first... Yourself last... And nothing in between... You brethren are free to use any of them... Remember you heard it here first... And thanks Van for making me younger!... Brother Glen