101 replies to this topic

[OneGod]

Greetings All,

I alway thought the plural pronouns "We" and "Us" in the bible were grammical examples of the Plural of majesty.


A trinitarian explained that no such grammical construction exists in the biblical scriptures, rather it is a late grammical feature that originated in the 4th century, he offered the following references to refute the Plural of majesty argument:

Quote

In fact, the plural of majesty does not even seem to have found any sort of widespread use until the rise of centralised, strong nation states in Europe during the Renaissance. Classics scholar and self-described monarchist Richard Toporoski argues that the artifice first appeared in the reign of Diocletian (284-305 AD), and that its use in Europe was carried on and passed down by the Germanic kings who eventually brought about the fall of the Western Empire4. Richard Davies also pointed out that the "plural of majesty" did not exist until more modern times, and certainly wasn't applicable to the Hebrew scriptures5. Concerning the "plural of majesty", Genesius states,


"Jewish grammarians call such plurals...plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the "we" used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already I Macc. 10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, and 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way...It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew."

http://www.studytoan...iplurality.html
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-onenes...us-royal-we.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-onenes...rbs-adverbs.htm



The Trinitarian argues that the plural pronouns relate to God Almighty addressing others besides Him, which were actually the persons of the Triune godhead. When I explain that God may have been addressing the angles, the Trinitarian explained that this is wrong because, in reference to Gen 1:26, there is no biblical support to prove angels were created in the image of God, neither did the angles participate in the creation of man! How do we counter refute this Trinitarian response??!

IF the plural relates to God Almighty addressing the angels, can anyone please provide biblical support and sources to substantiate this claim.

My kindest regards to all,

OneGod

[Fortigurn]

It's unlikely to refer to the plural of majesty, but you don't need the plural of majesty. See here.

[OneGod]

Fortigurn, on Mar 19 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

It's unlikely to refer to the plural of majesty, but you don't need the plural of majesty. See here.

Fortigurn, thank-you for the excellent reference and quotes.Indeed it makes more sense now.

I would like to clarify a few points.

I would much appreciate it if you could elaborate in more detail about the comment made about angles being created in the image of God in your quote.

In what way or sense, reasoning through the scriptures or quotes, are angels created in the image of God?

How were angels invited to create or make man, yet only God Almighty did the actual creating ? Im trying to understand this literary expression.

The usual counter reply to the above responses by Trinitarians is as follows:

Quote

When confronted with this passage, modern rabbis often claim that God is speaking to the angels. However, this explanation fails to recognize a number of problems.

First, there is no indication in the Bible that angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels are made in the image of God. Finally, there is no indication that mankind was made in the image of angels either!

We may conclude that the person with whom Elohim is conversing lives in the eternal realm, has His creative power and exists in the image or likeness of God. No angel, no man, no created being in heaven or on earth could possibly fit these criteria.

- http://www.direct.ca...ity/elohim.html

I get the above response often and I don't know how to counter respond to their argument!

I read in some article long time ago where a distinction was made between 'make' and 'create' to imply angles may have participated in making man but only God created man? Though i don't remember how this distinction and interpretation was substantiated.

Thank-you kindly for taking the time to help me with this issue.

It really means alot to me to find these answers here.

much appreciated,

my kindest regards to all,

OneGod

Edited by OneGod, 19 March 2007 - 08:53 PM.

[Fortigurn]

First up, you need to tell them that the Bible does not say that angels were involved in the actual creation of man. The word 'elohim' here in Genesis 1 refers to one person, God. It does not refer to God and the angels.

It's actually the subject/verb agreement which identifies whether 'elohim' is singular or plural, as in English. Other nouns of this class include the following (places where the usage is singular are in parentheses):

* zequnim: old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20)

* ne`urim: youth (1 Samuel 17:33)

* 'adonim: lord (Isaiah 19:4)

In English, if I say 'The fish is blue', you know I'm talking about one fish, not because 'fish' is the singular form of 'fish', but because 'is' is the singular verb. If I say 'the sheep are outside', you know I am talking about more than one sheep, not because 'sheep' is the plural form of 'sheep', but because 'are' is the plural verb. The same applies to the Hebrew word 'elohim'. Whenever the verb is singular, the noun refers to only one person.

When 'elohim' takes the plural verb, it refers to more than one person, such as the gods of the heathen, men, or angels. But the singular verb is used when 'elohim' is used of God Himself. This reinforces repeatedly that God is one person.

In Genesis 1:26, God ('elohim'), said 'Let us make', addressing persons other than Himself (the angels in His presence to whom He speaks, as in 1 Kings 22:19-22, and Isaiah 6:1-8). The form of the word 'said' here is singular (the morphology is actually third person masculine singular, 'He said'), showing that the 'elohim' of Genesis 1:26 who is speaking is one person, not more than one.

When the actual creation takes place in verse 27, the word 'elohim' is used with the singular form of the verb 'make', proving that the creation was carried out by only one person. If the creation had been carried out by more than one person, it would necessarily have been described with the plural form of the verb.

When 'elohim' is used with a singular pronoun, and/or a singular verb, it refers to one person, so only God is actually creating here.

Secondly, the 'image' of God here actually refers to the outward appearance. So it's saying that man was made with the outward appearance or form of God. That means what we call the 'humanoid' form. From various passages in the Bible, we know that this is the form which God has chosen to represent Himself. We also know that it's the form shared by angels, because when they appear they look just like men.

Finally it's very strange that trinitarians want to deny that angels have the same image as God, when they are perfectly happy with the idea that men have the image of God.

[OneGod]

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

First up, you need to tell them that the Bible does not say that angels were involved in the actual creation of man. The word 'elohim' here in Genesis 1 refers to one person, God. It does not refer to God and the angels.

It's actually the subject/verb agreement which identifies whether 'elohim' is singular or plural, as in English. Other nouns of this class include the following (places where the usage is singular are in parentheses):

* zequnim: old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20)

* ne`urim: youth (1 Samuel 17:33)

* 'adonim: lord (Isaiah 19:4)

In English, if I say 'The fish is blue', you know I'm talking about one fish, not because 'fish' is the singular form of 'fish', but because 'is' is the singular verb. If I say 'the sheep are outside', you know I am talking about more than one sheep, not because 'sheep' is the plural form of 'sheep', but because 'are' is the plural verb. The same applies to the Hebrew word 'elohim'. Whenever the verb is singular, the noun refers to only one person.

When 'elohim' takes the plural verb, it refers to more than one person, such as the gods of the heathen, men, or angels. But the singular verb is used when 'elohim' is used of God Himself. This reinforces repeatedly that God is one person.

In Genesis 1:26, God ('elohim'), said 'Let us make', addressing persons other than Himself (the angels in His presence to whom He speaks, as in 1 Kings 22:19-22, and Isaiah 6:1-8). The form of the word 'said' here is singular (the morphology is actually third person masculine singular, 'He said'), showing that the 'elohim' of Genesis 1:26 who is speaking is one person, not more than one.

When the actual creation takes place in verse 27, the word 'elohim' is used with the singular form of the verb 'make', proving that the creation was carried out by only one person. If the creation had been carried out by more than one person, it would necessarily have been described with the plural form of the verb.

When 'elohim' is used with a singular pronoun, and/or a singular verb, it refers to one person, so only God is actually creating here.

Secondly, the 'image' of God here actually refers to the outward appearance. So it's saying that man was made with the outward appearance or form of God. That means what we call the 'humanoid' form. From various passages in the Bible, we know that this is the form which God has chosen to represent Himself. We also know that it's the form shared by angels, because when they appear they look just like men.

Finally it's very strange that trinitarians want to deny that angels have the same image as God, when they are perfectly happy with the idea that men have the image of God.

woohooo brilliant stuff!!!! I had to read it twice to absorb it!!

Fortigurn, my apologies for hurling question and clarification requests at you.

Just another clarification. What was the intent or purpose of God addressing the angels in Gen 1:26 to 'make' man in our image, when in actuality, it was only God doing the creating and making? what was the purpose or intent of addressing the angels? What do we call this mode or form of address, when it is not a plural of majesty?

thank-you for your patience,

my kindest regards to you and my deepest respect,

OneGod

[TrevorL]

Greetings "OneGod",

Another view is that the angels were addressed in Genesis 1:26 and were thus involved in creation, but in summary Genesis 1:27 states that God is the creator, and this language is used because the angels are God's servants who use God's wisdom and power in the process of creation. Psalm 8:5 speaks of the creation and interprets Genesis 1:26-27.
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The word translated Angels is Elohim and this shows that Psalm 8:5 is alluding and quoting Genesis 1:26 interpreting Elohim in Genesis 1:26 as including the angels. Paul confirms that the KJV translation of Psalm 8:5 is correct:
Hebrews 2:7 (KJV): "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:"
Paul bases his argument in Hebrews 2 that Jesus must have been made lower than the angels.

Kind regards
Trevor

[Tarkus]

[quote name='TrevorL' post='302827' date='Mar 20 2007, 04:34 PM']Psalm 8:5 (KJV): "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The word translated Angels is Elohim and this shows that Psalm 8:5 is alluding and quoting Genesis 1:26 interpreting Elohim in Genesis 1:26 as including the angels.[/quote]
Psalm 8 (elohim) is alluding to Genesis 1, yes. However it doesn't "interpret" elohim as a reference to angels, it simply uses the word unchanged.

[quote]Paul confirms that the KJV translation of Psalm 8:5 is correct:
Hebrews 2:7 (KJV): "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:"[/quote]Hebrews 2 is a verbatim quotation of the Greek version of Psalm 8. That *is* an interpretative translation, introducing the idea that man was created lower than 'aggelos' however the way this quotation is introduced leaves it an open question (at the very least) whether the writer endorses this "original" Septuagint rendering as an inspired one. Divinely inspired texts are not usually introduced with "somebody somewhere once said", which is the gist of Hebrews 2v6.[/quote]

T

[OneGod]

TrevorL, on Mar 20 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

Greetings "OneGod",

Another view is that the angels were addressed in Genesis 1:26 and were thus involved in creation, but in summary Genesis 1:27 states that God is the creator, and this language is used because the angels are God's servants who use God's wisdom and power in the process of creation. Psalm 8:5 speaks of the creation and interprets Genesis 1:26-27.
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The word translated Angels is Elohim and this shows that Psalm 8:5 is alluding and quoting Genesis 1:26 interpreting Elohim in Genesis 1:26 as including the angels. Paul confirms that the KJV translation of Psalm 8:5 is correct:
Hebrews 2:7 (KJV): "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:"
Paul bases his argument in Hebrews 2 that Jesus must have been made lower than the angels.

Kind regards
Trevor

hmm ... How were the angles involved in the creation of man? Do angels create or make anything?

I thought it was only God who created man in his image as Fortigurn demonstrated.
Given that God was the sole creator of man, what was the intent or purpose of God addressing the angels in Gen 1:26 to 'make' man in our image, when in actuality, it was only God doing the creating and making? what was the purpose or intent of addressing the angels in this manner? What do we call this mode, manner or form of address, when it is not a plural of majesty?

[Fortigurn]

OneGod, on Mar 20 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

Given that God was the sole creator of man, what was the intent or purpose of God addressing the angels in Gen 1:26 to 'make' man in our image, when in actuality, it was only God doing the creating and making? what was the purpose or intent of addressing the angels in this manner? What do we call this mode, manner or form of address, when it is not a plural of majesty?

It's called addressing or conferring with the heavenly court. The foonote in the New English Translation at Genesis 1:26 gives other Scriptural examples.

[OneGod]

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

OneGod, on Mar 20 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

Given that God was the sole creator of man, what was the intent or purpose of God addressing the angels in Gen 1:26 to 'make' man in our image, when in actuality, it was only God doing the creating and making? what was the purpose or intent of addressing the angels in this manner? What do we call this mode, manner or form of address, when it is not a plural of majesty?

It's called addressing or conferring with the heavenly court. The foonote in the New English Translation at Genesis 1:26 gives other Scriptural examples.

Was the purpose or intent of God addressing/conferring with the angels, to seek their involvment in the creation of man as Trevor explained?, and/or was the purpose or intent of God addressing/conferring with the angels, to signify a consensus shared between God and the Angels, the consensus being that God Almighty himself will create man in their (our) (God and Angels) image? and/or Was the purpose or intent of God addressing/conferring with the angels relate to a completely different reason altogether, according to the scriptures? I'm trying to understand the meaning or intent of God using this form or mode of address toward the angels?

please feel free at anytime to slap me for my stupidity

[Fortigurn]

OneGod, on Mar 20 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Was the purpose or intent of God addressing/conferring with the angels, to seek their involvment in the creation of man as Trevor explained?

No, the grammar precludes it. Only one person was involved.

Quote

and/or was the purpose or intent of God addressing/conferring with the angels, to signify a consensus shared between God and the Angels, the consensus being that God Almighty himself will create man in their (our) (God and Angels) image? and/or Was the purpose or intent of God addressing/conferring with the angels relate to a completely different reason altogether, according to the scriptures? I'm trying to understand the meaning or intent of God using this form or mode of address toward the angels?

The NET says it well:

Quote

See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way.

In other instances of God conferring with the heavenly court, it appears He does so partly as a matter of form or respect, and partly to invite their response.

[OneGod]

Quote

Quote

See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way.

In other instances of God conferring with the heavenly court, it appears He does so partly as a matter of form or respect, and partly to invite their response.

Okay, so God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind, but only God is the one who does the actual creative work, and the purpose of God inviting the heavenly court to participate in creation of mankind, is not for them to actually participate in creation, but rather out of respect, he invites them for the purposes of manifesting their response and praise toward God's special creation of mankind. hmmm.... I need to think and reflect about that for a little while.

Is the similtude of this form of address like a training officer who is conducting a training session with say 30 participants in a training room. The training officer says to his audience, " let's (let us) close the light switch to begin our power point presentation", yet only one person (training officer) switches off the light switch?

[Fortigurn]

OneGod, on Mar 21 2007, 04:31 AM, said:

Okay, so God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind, but only God is the one who does the actual creative work, and the purpose of God inviting the heavenly court to participate in creation of mankind, is not for them to actually participate in creation, but rather out of respect, he invites them for the purposes of manifesting their response and praise toward God's special creation of mankind. hmmm.... I need to think and reflect about that for a little while.

Yep, that's about it. There are other examples in Scripture of this.

Quote

Is the similtude of this form of address like a training officer who is conducting a training session with say 30 participants in a training room. The training officer says to his audience, " let's (let us) close the light switch to begin our power point presentation", yet only one person (training officer) switches off the light switch?

Just as we might say 'Let's pray', but only one person speaks.

[Steven]

Fortigurn, on Mar 20 2007, 11:50 PM, said:

Just as we might say 'Let's pray', but only one person speaks.

I think Fort, and that note from Tarkus have answered this so well there's little else to say.

Just a very slight footnote -- I've had this occasional gut feeling come and go over the past ten years, since reading some Canaanite myth and other ANE texts, that the Gen.1,3, and Babel "us" statements are either:
(A) traces of translation into Hebrew from a pre-Babel language with different grammatical rules about First-Person Permissive and Voluntative equivalents of English "let's go" (said to oneself), Spanish "vámonos" (when said to oneself) etc.
(B) a deliberate monotheistic challenge/submission of the Heavens, "Let us, but actually whatever man thinks of the Heavenly Host, in the next verse only I Jehovah can do this".
© a combination of both, exploited by Moses in compiling Genesis from clay tablets or oral transmission that was on the Ark with Noah.

There may be nothing in it, there's no firm evidence or even shaky parallels. And even if there was something in it it wouldn't really provide much we don't already know. The danger is it opens the door to Moses under the influence of inspiriation editorializing rather than Genesis 1-3 being a surveillance tape verbatim record of the actual words God said. The dangers in such an approach probably outweigh the benefits for many with pure and simple faith. (Says he quickly putting worms back in the can..)
S

[TrevorL]

Greetings Tarkus,

Tarkus, on Mar 20 2007, 07:55 AM, said:

TrevorL, on Mar 20 2007, 04:34 PM, said:

Psalm 8:5 (KJV): "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The word translated Angels is Elohim and this shows that Psalm 8:5 is alluding and quoting Genesis 1:26 interpreting Elohim in Genesis 1:26 as including the angels.

Psalm 8 (elohim) is alluding to Genesis 1, yes. However it doesn't "interpret" elohim as a reference to angels, it simply uses the word unchanged.

I agree, but the usage of Elohim in Psalm8:5 shows that Elohim has a range of meaning in this passage to include the angels, and the LXX and Paul correctly interprets the Hebrew idiom into Greek and to us into English. Psalm 8:1 is addressing YHWH and Psalm 8:5 continues to address YHWH by saying "Thou". Taking this as I believe to be God the Father, the Psalmist say "Thou (YHWH) hast made him a little lower than Elohim". If the meaning of Elohim is not wider than God the Father, the sentence should read, Thou hast made him a little lower than Thyself. But Genesis 1:26 was inviting the angels to participate in the creation of man in the image and after the likeness of themselves. Man was to be a little lower than these angelic beings, so that Jesus could suffer death and bring salvation as Paul expounds in Hebrews 2.

Kind regards
Trevor

[OneGod]

TrevorL, on Mar 21 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

Greetings Tarkus,

Tarkus, on Mar 20 2007, 07:55 AM, said:

TrevorL, on Mar 20 2007, 04:34 PM, said:

Psalm 8:5 (KJV): "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."
The word translated Angels is Elohim and this shows that Psalm 8:5 is alluding and quoting Genesis 1:26 interpreting Elohim in Genesis 1:26 as including the angels.

Psalm 8 (elohim) is alluding to Genesis 1, yes. However it doesn't "interpret" elohim as a reference to angels, it simply uses the word unchanged.

I agree, but the usage of Elohim in Psalm8:5 shows that Elohim has a range of meaning in this passage to include the angels, and the LXX and Paul correctly interprets the Hebrew idiom into Greek and to us into English. Psalm 8:1 is addressing YHWH and Psalm 8:5 continues to address YHWH by saying "Thou". Taking this as I believe to be God the Father, the Psalmist say "Thou (YHWH) hast made him a little lower than Elohim". If the meaning of Elohim is not wider than God the Father, the sentence should read, Thou hast made him a little lower than Thyself. But Genesis 1:26 was inviting the angels to participate in the creation of man in the image and after the likeness of themselves. Man was to be a little lower than these angelic beings, so that Jesus could suffer death and bring salvation as Paul expounds in Hebrews 2.

Kind regards
Trevor

Greeting Trevor,

Thank-you for your contributions,

Hmmm..... Fortigurn substantiated that it was only God Almighty that did all the creating, excluding the angels.

From your theological perspective, how or in what sense did the angels participate in the creation of Man? and in what sense are angels created in the image of God?

regards,

Onegod

Edited by OneGod, 21 March 2007 - 05:20 AM.

[Steven]

Hi One Elohim
Psalm 8:5 only shows that the rabbinical censorship (not translation) of the verse in the Greek OT was a gift to Jews who wanted to make Christ less than angels. The quote of the error in the Greek OT is prefaced in Hebrews with "as someone said somewhere" for a good reason - it is not scripture.

In any modern Hebrew dictionary Elohim + singular verb means "God", elohim + plural verb means "gods". Angels are "malakim". Angels of God are "malakim of Elohim", not "elohim of Elohim".

There is no instance of angels being called "gods" in either Testament. An Angel may manifest "Yahweh" (singular), or manifest "Elohim" singular, but that doesn't make the angel God or Yahweh, nor a group of angels into "gods".

Elohim (singular) bless you
S.

[Dianne]

Steven, on Mar 21 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

Hi One Elohim
Psalm 8:5 only shows that the rabbinical censorship (not translation) of the verse in the Greek OT was a gift to Jews who wanted to make Christ less than angels. The quote of the error in the Greek OT is prefaced in Hebrews with "as someone said somewhere" for a good reason - it is not scripture.

In any modern Hebrew dictionary Elohim + singular verb means "God", elohim + plural verb means "gods". Angels are "malakim". Angels of God are "malakim of Elohim", not "elohim of Elohim".

There is no instance of angels being called "gods" in either Testament. An Angel may manifest "Yahweh" (singular), or manifest "Elohim" singular, but that doesn't make the angel God or Yahweh, nor a group of angels into "gods".

Elohim (singular) bless you
S.

I'm confused by your post. Who is God addressing in Genesis 1:26?

[Steven]

Dianne, on Mar 21 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

I'm confused by your post. Who is God addressing in Genesis 1:26?

What I would teach is angels.

[Fortigurn]

Steven, on Mar 21 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Dianne, on Mar 21 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

I'm confused by your post. Who is God addressing in Genesis 1:26?

What I would teach is angels.

And we know this from the word 'us', not the word 'elohim', which is, I think, your point.

[Steven]

Fortigurn, on Mar 21 2007, 08:13 AM, said:

Steven, on Mar 21 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Dianne, on Mar 21 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

I'm confused by your post. Who is God addressing in Genesis 1:26?

What I would teach is angels.

And we know this from the word 'us', not the word 'elohim', which is, I think, your point.

Yes.

Although I have in one quarter of my mind that Moses intended the reader to read in the "let us" God issuing a mind blowing challenge to the (pagan-god-less) zodiac, his angels, etc. And then they stand sing for joy.

The parallel is Luke 2 where the Celestial Regiments stand back, awed, and sing as the new creation starts. The angels do nothing but angel, Angeling is what Angels means and what Angels dos.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again "(Believer in) 'OneGod' " and Steven, [quote name='OneGod' post='302902' date='Mar 21 2007, 05:19 AM']Hmmm..... Fortigurn substantiated that it was only God Almighty that did all the creating, excluding the angels.[/quote] I do not agree with Fortigurn's conclusion on Genesis 1:27 on the principle that God is the originator, architect, power of the creation but he used his agents the angels to accomplish this work and this is expressed by his invitation to the angels "Let us make man in our image". There is a name for this expression, eg Caeasar said, "I saw, I stooped, I conquered", but this does not exclude his army. Next door I have a new neighbour building a house, and he is the owner-builder, and you could say he has built his house, but there are up to 10 people working on the site. [/quote] [quote name='OneGod']From your theological perspective, how or in what sense did the angels participate in the creation of Man? and in what sense are angels created in the image of God?[/quote] God could use his infinite power and wisdom to create man instantly, but we have a brief expansion of Genesis 1:26-27 in:
Genesis 2:7 (KJV): "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:21-23 (KJV): "21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
This teaches that the man and woman were not simply created instantly by God's power and wisdom, but taking elements and then expanding and fashioning. The process with Eve could be compared with the growth of a child in the womb and then to maturity, but all this was accomplished in a short period of time. I believe that the angels were active participants in this process because God delights to involve his servants in his work. God could work alone, but I see the angels active in the garden and the following indicates that they represented God, acted on his behalf, and that the word Elohim includes the angels in the role of being God's servants and spokesmen.
Genesis 3:5 (KJV): "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (Elohim), knowing good and evil."
Genesis 3:8-9 (KJV): "8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?"
Genesis 3:21-24 (KJV): "21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." [quote name='OneGod']and in what sense are angels created in the image of God?[/quote] Both physically and character. Man also is fashioned after this image of God and the believers will become equal unto the angels when changed to immortality and their flesh motivations are fully cured and replaced.
[quote name='Steven' post='302907' date='Mar 21 2007, 06:03 AM']Psalm 8:5 only shows that the rabbinical censorship (not translation) of the verse in the Greek OT was a gift to Jews who wanted to make Christ less than angels. The quote of the error in the Greek OT is prefaced in Hebrews with "as someone said somewhere" for a good reason - it is not scripture.[/quote] Psalm 8:5 (NRSV): "Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor."
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." Whatever translation you prefer, reading Elohim instead, do you believe that the Psalmist and Paul believe that Elohim here could include the angels?

Kind regards
Trevor

[Fortigurn]

TrevorL, on Mar 22 2007, 08:19 AM, said:

Greetings again "(Believer in) 'OneGod' " and Steven,

OneGod, on Mar 21 2007, 05:19 AM, said:

Hmmm..... Fortigurn substantiated that it was only God Almighty that did all the creating, excluding the angels.

I do not agree with Fortigurn's conclusion on Genesis 1:27 on the principle that God is the originator, architect, power of the creation but he used his agents the angels to accomplish this work and this is expressed by his invitation to the angels "Let us make man in our image". There is a name for this expression, eg Caeasar said, "I saw, I stooped, I conquered", but this does not exclude his army. Next door I have a new neighbour building a house, and he is the owner-builder, and you could say he has built his house, but there are up to 10 people working on the site.

This isn't simply a matter of me saying 'I' when I mean that 'we' did something. It's a matter of the Hebrew itself telling us that only one person was involved. The Hebrew verb for 'made' is in the singular, not plural. So it reads 'Elohim made [singular] man'. If more than one person had been involved, it would read 'Elohim made [plural] man'.

The fact is that there are no passages of Scripture which tell us that the angels were involved actively in creation. Repeatedly we are told that the Father created all things alone. It doesn't get much stronger than 'I am the Lord, who made everything, who alone stretched out the sky, who fashioned the earth all by myself'. But to end it all, Christ himself tells us that the one who made man and woman was one person.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Fortigurn,

Fortigurn, on Mar 22 2007, 12:53 AM, said:

This isn't simply a matter of me saying 'I' when I mean that 'we' did something. It's a matter of the Hebrew itself telling us that only one person was involved. The Hebrew verb for 'made' is in the singular, not plural. So it reads 'Elohim made [singular] man'. If more than one person had been involved, it would read 'Elohim made [plural] man'.

I accept that the verb is singular and I take on board and tentatively accept your exposition that Elohim is most probably an intensive singular rather than the traditional Cd exposition that it is a plural of Eloah. But to me that does not exclude the idea that the angels were involved. In Genesis 3:8-9,21-24 when it speaks of the LORD God do you believe that this is God the Father or a representative angel? And could it be said that God the Father cast out (singular verb) Adam from the garden.

Kind regards
Trevor

[Fortigurn]

TrevorL, on Mar 22 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

Greetings Fortigurn,

Fortigurn, on Mar 22 2007, 12:53 AM, said:

This isn't simply a matter of me saying 'I' when I mean that 'we' did something. It's a matter of the Hebrew itself telling us that only one person was involved. The Hebrew verb for 'made' is in the singular, not plural. So it reads 'Elohim made [singular] man'. If more than one person had been involved, it would read 'Elohim made [plural] man'.

I accept that the verb is singular and I take on board and tentatively accept your exposition that Elohim is most probably an intensive singular rather than the traditional Cd exposition that it is a plural of Eloah. But to me that does not exclude the idea that the angels were involved.

Trevor, the force of the singular verb and singular pronouns everywhere the creation is described, would be mitigated if there were any passages at all which described the angels as participating actively in creation. The fact is that we have positive and negative evidence for the case that God alone created all things:

* Positive evidence: A host of verses ascribing the creation to God, and God alone, as one person

* Negative evidence: No verses at all ascribing any active involvement in creation to anyone else but God, as one person

Quote

In Genesis 3:8-9,21-24 when it speaks of the LORD God do you believe that this is God the Father or a representative angel? And could it be said that God the Father cast out (singular verb) Adam from the garden.

I'd be happy with both referring to God, the Father.

[OneGod]

Fortigurn, on Mar 22 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

TrevorL, on Mar 22 2007, 08:19 AM, said:

Greetings again "(Believer in) 'OneGod' " and Steven,

OneGod, on Mar 21 2007, 05:19 AM, said:

Hmmm..... Fortigurn substantiated that it was only God Almighty that did all the creating, excluding the angels.

I do not agree with Fortigurn's conclusion on Genesis 1:27 on the principle that God is the originator, architect, power of the creation but he used his agents the angels to accomplish this work and this is expressed by his invitation to the angels "Let us make man in our image". There is a name for this expression, eg Caeasar said, "I saw, I stooped, I conquered", but this does not exclude his army. Next door I have a new neighbour building a house, and he is the owner-builder, and you could say he has built his house, but there are up to 10 people working on the site.

This isn't simply a matter of me saying 'I' when I mean that 'we' did something. It's a matter of the Hebrew itself telling us that only one person was involved. The Hebrew verb for 'made' is in the singular, not plural. So it reads 'Elohim made [singular] man'. If more than one person had been involved, it would read 'Elohim made [plural] man'.

The fact is that there are no passages of Scripture which tell us that the angels were involved actively in creation. Repeatedly we are told that the Father created all things alone. It doesn't get much stronger than 'I am the Lord, who made everything, who alone stretched out the sky, who fashioned the earth all by myself'. But to end it all, Christ himself tells us that the one who made man and woman was one person.

Thank-you Fortigurn for clarifying your great answer even further.

Below is an extract I found that presents another perspective or theory that implies angels did participate in creation based on the distinction in meaning between the expressions 'create' and 'make'

Trinitarians normally argue that angels did not participate in creation and argue that when God was addressing others besides Him in Genesis 1:26, they were not angels, since angels, according to the scriptures, did not create anything and man was created in the image of God, not God AND the angels.Trinitarians erroneously interpret God was addressing the other members of the godhead?

In regards to angels being created in the image of God, would anyone like to elaborate on their veiw in detail, in what sense were angels created in the 'image' of God.I have read different interpretations of 'image' of God and its association to angels and was hoping at some point we can explore this point in more detail.


What are you thoughts on the extract below everyone?

OneGod

Quote

"We know that this passage in Genesis 1:26 cannot mean that there was anyone besides God who created. Yahweh said Himself, "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24). Malachi argued, "Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" (Malachi 2:10). It is very clear that there is only one Creator, and He is Yahweh. Jesus is said to have created the worlds, but He did so not as the Son of God, but as God before the incarnation. This does not deny, however, that the worlds were created with God-incarnate in mind (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2). Truly all things were made with Christ in the center.

Directly following God's use of plural pronouns in verse twenty-six it is said that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him...." (Genesis 2:27 italics mine) Clearly it was one image in which man was created. He was not created in two or more images.

It appears that God was speaking to angels in these passages. The grammar of these verses support this view. The grammar of Genesis 1:26 is as follows: God (plural)2 said (third person masculine singular), Let us make (first person common plural) man (singular masculine noun) in our image ("image" is a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness ("likeness" is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix)."3 The plural pronouns "us" and "our" must be referring to someone other than God because the verb used in connection with "God" is singular. If God was speaking to Himself in a plural form, or performing self-talk as some say, the pronouns would also need to be singular to modify the verb. Because they are not plural, God was truly speaking to someone else.

The very fact that God uses singular pronouns when speaking of Himself in thousands of cases causes us to question why He chose to use plural pronouns in this passage and in the other three I mentioned earlier. In the verses preceding Genesis 1:26 which speak of the creative acts of God, singular pronouns are used exclusively in reference to God, and in verse twenty-six a singular verb is used. There must be some reason for this peculiar usage in these passages. In verse twenty-six two plural pronouns and a plural verb are used in connection with God. This change in usage indicates that God is now including others in His address.

The only beings created at this point were the angels, so it seems best to understand angels to be the recipients of God's address. The Jews have always believed that angels were the ones being adressed by God in these verses. We know that the angels were present at creation (Job 38:4, 7), so it is very possible that God was speaking to them. He addressed the angels in a courteous manner, acknowledging that they too had an image like His. God created man in the image of Himself, an image shared by the angels also.

Two objections might occur at this point: 1. How could angels be said to have an image or likeness to God?; 2. How could angels help God create man?

In response to the first objection, it seems best to see the "image" in which man was created to be one of moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional qualities rather than any physical qualities or similarities. God and angels both possess all of these attributes that men have. Sometimes we view angels as android beings created by God that have no choice but to serve Him in holiness and righteousness, being emotionless, and have no way of thinking for themselves. This is an unbiblical view. Peter said angels are interested in the activities of the church when he said concerning the gospel being preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, "which things the angels desire to look into" (I Peter 1:12). We see from this verse that angels do have a will of their own by the fact that they desire to look into these things. God does not command them to do this, but they have a desire to do so. This indicates that angels have an emotional spectrum and intellectual independence. They have spiritual qualities in that they worship God and moral qualities in that they choose to stay pure.4

Regarding the second objection, angels did not participate in any way with the creation of man, but they did participate in some way in the making of man. The Hebrew word translated "make" in Genesis 1:26 is asah. The Hebrew word meaning "create" is bara. Angels do not have the power to create anything, but might have shared in the making of man from the dust of the ground. Vine's comparison and contrast of the two Hebrew words is helpful here:

In <Gen. 1:26-27>...`asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, <Gen. 2:4> states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, <Gen. 5:1> equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in <Gen. 2:3> refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."

It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.5

That the creation consisted of creating and making can be seen in Genesis 2:3-4: "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]. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that the LORD God made [asah] the earth and the heavens." The TWOT is also helpful here.

The significant interchange between the words bara "create" and asah is of great interest. The word bara carries the thought of the initiation of the object involved. It always connotes what only God can do and frequently emphasizes the absolute newness of the object created. The word asah is much broader in scope, connoting primarily the fashioning of the object with little concern for special nuances.

The use of bara in the opening statement of the account of creation seems to carry the implication that the physical phenomena came into existence at that time and had no previous existence in the form in which they were created by divine flat. The use of asah may simply connote the act of fashioning the objects involved in the whole creative process.

The word asah is also used elsewhere in Scripture to describe aspects of the creative work of God (Psa 86:9; Psa 95:5; Psa 96:5).6

It might be best to understand the creation of man in a two-fold manner. He was both made and created. He was made (asah) in that his body came from the dust of the ground (earth). The earth was already created by God, so Adam was made from a substance which was already created. He might be said to have been created (bara) in that "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and He [Adam] became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). The life invested into the body was a creation of God; a creation which the angels could not participate in.

Because angels could not actually create man, it might be wondered why God even bothered speaking to them concerning man. The reason might be two-fold. First of all, God might have addressed them in a courteous manner because of their intimate presence at this amazing time. Secondly, He addressed them to declare His intentions of making man in their image as well as His: a moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional image. After God allowed the angels to participate in the making of man, He created in him a living soul which possessed this image of God and of the angels.

The angels participation in the making of man might be compared to the manner in which believers work miracles. Jesus said, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). This does not mean that we have the power in and of ourselves to work miracles, even though Jesus spoke these things in the imperative as though it was our responsibility to see that they come about. Although we are to do these things, we do them by relying on the power and will of God. Just as we do not actually work miracles apart from God, neither could the angels actually make man apart from the power and will of God.

http://www.apostolic...es/usandour.htm

Edited by OneGod, 22 March 2007 - 08:04 AM.

[Steven]

Hi Trevor
Fort has given you overwhelming evidence that whoever God was speaking to when "God said (singular) "Let us..." , both "God said" in 1:26 and "God made" in 1:27 are singular, so I won't duplicate what Fort has well said.

TrevorL, on Mar 22 2007, 01:19 AM, said:

Whatever translation you prefer, reading Elohim instead, do you believe that the Psalmist and Paul believe that Elohim here could include the angels?

Assuming that the Massoretic text is correct, which it almost certainly is, why exactly would the Psalmist write "elohim" if he meant "malakim"? There's no example of angels being called "gods" anywhere else in the Bible. Even in the Mishnah, Talmud and Rabbinica it's totally foreign to Jewish thought to call angels "gods". The Bible says a dozen times that "there is no Elohim but one" so how can any Jew dare call an angel a "god"?

"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." (De32:39)

We don't know that the author of Hebrews is Paul, there may have been other people who knew Timothy. But whoever it was I'm sure he was well aware that the "wrested scripture" he was dealing with was based on a false translation. The problem comes in accepting that an apostle could deal with a wrested scripture in a non-Christadelphian way:

Christadelphian : "Ahah, but you see it doesn't say "Son of Man lower than angels" in the Hebrew, if you check Strongs you'll see it says "mankind lower than God"

That's not an approach which would make much headway in the 1st Century ( to be frank it doesn't often work today). Command of Hebrew among Diaspora Jews was so limited they would have no way of checking it.

I'm afraid the onus is on anyway wanting to prove that angels can be called "gods" to show it from better proof than a deliberately censored mistranslation in the Septuagint "as someone has said somewhere". It doesn't help the case that of the 3 times the LXX translators changed "gods" to "angels" the other two are clearly "idols".

Sorry, angels are angels, gods are gods, and God is God.
God bless
S.

[Dianne]

Steven, on Mar 22 2007, 05:18 PM, said:

Assuming that the Massoretic text is correct, which it almost certainly is, why exactly would the Psalmist write "elohim" if he meant "malakim"?

I'll bite. My guess would be the same reason Jesus quoted the Psalms which stated that the Judges were elohim instead of men. Perhaps Angels are referred to as Elohim because they represent something other than a mere messenger. Men are men are men but yet in certain cases they are called 'elohim'. Idols are idols are idols but why called them 'elohim'. I see the bible as being more consistant than your approach.

Quote

There's no example of angels being called "gods" anywhere else in the Bible. Even in the Mishnah, Talmud and Rabbinica it's totally foreign to Jewish thought to call angels "gods". The Bible says a dozen times that "there is no Elohim but one" so how can any Jew dare call an angel a "god"?

Why would you need another scripture/verse as solid proof? The sources you are quoting are not necessarily 'inspired'. Also, remember that, Jesus being the Messiah is foreign to Jewish thought as well.

Quote

We don't know that the author of Hebrews is Paul, there may have been other people who knew Timothy. But whoever it was I'm sure he was well aware that the "wrested scripture" he was dealing with was based on a false translation. The problem comes in accepting that an apostle could deal with a wrested scripture in a non-Christadelphian way:

In all honesty, I don't quite understand how this is a 'false translation'.

Quote

I'm afraid the onus is on anyway wanting to prove that angels can be called "gods" to show it from better proof than a deliberately censored mistranslation in the Septuagint "as someone has said somewhere". It doesn't help the case that of the 3 times the LXX translators changed "gods" to "angels" the other two are clearly "idols".

Sorry, angels are angels, gods are gods, and God is God.
God bless
S.

I've read your post a few times but I remain a bit in the dark.

Edited by Dianne, 23 March 2007 - 03:47 AM.

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fortigurn and Steven,

I appreciate your replies. I seek clarification on the view that Elohim is an intensive singular. I am not familiar with Hebrew apart from looking at Strongs, but I have heard that for intensity Hebrew also uses such things as "gold gold" for pure gold, and "peace peace" for "perfect peace". Now is Elohim in a similar category where there is an intensification of Eloah? and is this an intensification of the concept of power or this is the One who is really the powerful one?

Fortigurn, on Mar 22 2007, 01:45 AM, said:

Trevor, the force of the singular verb and singular pronouns everywhere the creation is described, would be mitigated if there were any passages at all which described the angels as participating actively in creation. The fact is that we have positive and negative evidence for the case that God alone created all things:

* Positive evidence: A host of verses ascribing the creation to God, and God alone, as one person

* Negative evidence: No verses at all ascribing any active involvement in creation to anyone else but God, as one person

My simplistic view of this is that God alone is the Creator, and no other independant power contributed. Your Isaiah quote is in the context and by contrast to the idols, to whom many attributed portions of creation. The same language is used when speaking of God alone being the Saviour, and I am sure you would answer the Trinitarian claim on these verses by explaining God manifestation and the exposition of Jesus as the Servant, and Paul's quotation of this:
Isaiah 45:20-25 (KJV): "20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."
Philippians 2:9-11 (KJV): "9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Fortigurn said:

Quote

In Genesis 3:8-9,21-24 when it speaks of the LORD God do you believe that this is God the Father or a representative angel? And could it be said that God the Father cast out (singular verb) Adam from the garden.

I'd be happy with both referring to God, the Father.

I believe that God the Father did not leave his throne in heaven in order to remove a rib from Adam, or especially interview Adam and Eve in the garden. Is there any basis to accept that a sinner can stand in God the Father's presence?

Steven, on Mar 22 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

Assuming that the Massoretic text is correct, which it almost certainly is, why exactly would the Psalmist write "elohim" if he meant "malakim"? There's no example of angels being called "gods" anywhere else in the Bible. Even in the Mishnah, Talmud and Rabbinica it's totally foreign to Jewish thought to call angels "gods". The Bible says a dozen times that "there is no Elohim but one" so how can any Jew dare call an angel a "god"?

I agree that the word is Elohim not angel, but I believe that Psalm 8:5 is a summary of Genesis 1:26 which speaks of God the Father inviting the angels to participate in the creation of man, and the word Elohim in Psalm 8:5 thus speaks of God the Father working through his angels, and in summary Elohim could be summarised as God and the angels. Lower than Elohim can be adequately translated into another language as lower than angels.

Steven said:

The problem comes in accepting that an apostle could deal with a wrested scripture in a non-Christadelphian way:

Christadelphian : "Ahah, but you see it doesn't say "Son of Man lower than angels" in the Hebrew, if you check Strongs you'll see it says "mankind lower than God"

You lost me here. I believe Jesus is a son of Adam, as well as the Son of Man.

Steven said:

Sorry, angels are angels, gods are gods, and God is God.

Is the following usage of the Elohim speaking of the angel representing God the Father and speaking on his behalf:
Exodus 3:4 (KJV): "And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I."
Judges 13:21-22 (KJV): "21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. 22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

Kind regards
Trevor

[Dianne]

TrevorL, on Mar 23 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

Steven, on Mar 22 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

Assuming that the Massoretic text is correct, which it almost certainly is, why exactly would the Psalmist write "elohim" if he meant "malakim"? There's no example of angels being called "gods" anywhere else in the Bible. Even in the Mishnah, Talmud and Rabbinica it's totally foreign to Jewish thought to call angels "gods". The Bible says a dozen times that "there is no Elohim but one" so how can any Jew dare call an angel a "god"?

I agree that the word is Elohim not angel, but I believe that Psalm 8:5 is a summary of Genesis 1:26 which speaks of God the Father inviting the angels to participate in the creation of man, and the word Elohim in Psalm 8:5 thus speaks of God the Father working through his angels, and in summary Elohim could be summarised as God and the angels.

Hi Trevor, you've made a leap here. Granted that this Psalm may allude to Genesis, it still doesn't say that Angels took part in the creation. It just says that they were present. It's shaky to be dogmatic on something that's not quite fixed in stone.

Quote

I believe that God the Father did not leave his throne in heaven in order to remove a rib from Adam, or especially interview Adam and Eve in the garden. Is there any basis to accept that a sinner can stand in God the Father's presence?

God accomplishes his will through his Holy Spirit, which is his power.