Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

I wasn't referring to common sense when I used the word pollutants. But if I was, I do think you would have a good point.

But if we use common sense to determine that god was wrong, then the pollutant would be common sense.

The first instance of potential wrong for consideration is, what if the premise of the NT being read as an extention of the OT is incorrect. Ultimately, one is obligated to consider this factor, and ponder what impacts will be resultant, specially that will christians still continue harkeing to the OT. It is a view.There have been many errors in this regard. The widespread belief of Isaiah being alligned with the gospels has now been put to rest as a fiction, even by christian scholars, making the question both obligatory and dire to confront. What IF applies.

The point which qumusaburo makes is important. The fall of man has damaged the mind of man. Sin has damaged the thinking of man. The mind is the leading part of the human soul. And the salvation of the New Testament includes the renewing of the damaged mind.Transformation of the soul by the Holy Spirit takes place by the renewing of the mind Romans 12:2.G.H. Pember wrote:" ... intellect is not merely fallible, but the most dangerous of all gifts, unless it be guided by the Spirit of God. For it can call evil good, and good evil: it can put darkness for light, and light for darkness; bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."Ron Kangus wrote:"Surely the fall and the entrance of sin into our being has not left our mind unaffected. Although our mind can still think, reason, consider, imagine, and remember, it has been poisoned, and now it is powerfully influenced by the sin in our flesh. It is vital for every believer in Christ to see the state of his fallen natural mind in the light of God's Word."

​

[Mind Bending or Mind Renewing, Ron Kangus, Gene Ford -Publisher,1977, pg.14] Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The reason I tend to use the upper case when only applying to proper names is that the Greek manuscripts from which the translators translated did not use the upper case with father, son and spirit. Had the translators translated accurately as was written they would have translated exactly what the text said. Check out any NT interlinear and you will find this to be the case. Though I'm not a Greek scholar I've studied enough Greek including the fundamentals of it etc that I can use the interlinear quite efficiently.In the OT though the generic descriptive term for Jehovah/YHWH is elohim denoting plurality, Jehovah/YHWH is not a plural word. It's the proper surname of the Biblical god which means "the I am" or "the existing one." It is the proper name of the elohim/god Jehovah/YHWH.IAJ can argue till the cows come home that the name isn't the proper OT name for the god of Israel but he's whistling in the wind. I've decided to let him rant on. To address all his nonsense leads too far off topic.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi jaywill, Where did you get the idea that God in Genesis 1:27 is not elohiym?Elohiym is translated God in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:27.Elohiym is plural.The man in Genesis 1:27 was created Mind, Body, and Spirit.All Knowledge (Mind) = God the Father.
Body = God the Son.
Spirit = God the Holy SpiritThat is the us in Genesis.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

All Jaywill is trying to show as I did is that though there are multiple aspects of Jehovah, the plurality of the term for god which is elohim does not make Jehovah, the monotheist god polytheist.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Its not a plularity - it means plentiful. The former reading contradicts every other verse, statute and law in the OT. One cannot read the OT in consequence of the NT - it should be the other way around.However, humanity is subjected to contradicting, self-preferential paradigms, while every one of those contradictions are also backed by the most sincere intentions. Yet all cannot be right - which is an awful realisation, making the present full of chaos and conflict, and the future no better. Somethings got to give - this scenario cannot prevail forever. Someone's going to get hurt - and we should not be gleeful of it: this is the test for humanity. Here, whoever wins is the bad guy: that was never the point.

quote:

---

IAJ can argue till the cows come home that the name isn't the proper OT name for the god of Israel but he's whistling in the wind. I've decided to let him rant on. To address all his nonsense leads too far off topic.

---

That statement says, there is absolutely no conflict and contradiction between the OT and NT? Since when is that so - my history knowledge says the Jews and the Greeks had numerous wars - all over the premise of Monotheism.200 years before christianity emerged, the Greeks proposed an amalgamation of the two religions, and they proposed making Moses a universal figure. However, this sublime premise fell on its head when the Greeks conditioned it to melting both religion's dieties, Zeus and Jehova, and making a new one representing both. That contradicted the OT laws and Monotheism.The greeks never forgave the jews for their rejection, but they did succeed in making their premise prevail via the Gospels, perpertrated via the Roman empire. Christianity dutifully attached the name Roman as the prefix to Catholicism - as if it was a merit to allign with Rome's divine emperors, and villify the jews for monotheism. The result is, true monotheism is totally rejected by christianity - because it was attached to its core doctrines. IOW, if the original OT followers are right - then the NT premise falls. Thus its like whilstling in the dark to impress in such a situation. No contest.This is the reason none of the OT laws are attached to a name, and Moses or God does not appear in the OT laws: they are pristine and can stand on their own for all peoples. The issue concerning different names about the Creator is a moot one, and does not dent the ONE-NESS premise whatsoever. The law which precedes all moral and ethical laws is that of HONESTY - the 3rd commandment, not to mention the name in vain refers to honesty. This is put before respect of parents and love: for what kind of respect or love when it is not resultant from honesty?And hinesty means, ultimately the buck stops with ONE - here, all agents and middlemen must take a back seat. Thus Moses was told to stand down with the people when the greatest, open revelation occured. Christians can thus use any names they like in their journey, which is no doubt sincere and Gdly inclined - but this does not alter the destination. In the end, all prophets, messengers and revered ones become superfluous. If they were still around or could speak tous - they would confirm this without qualifications. its not a rant.FOR THE STRAIGHT HE MAKES THE ROAD STRAIGHT - FOR THE CROOKED HE MAKES THE ROAD CROOKED.

I think spiritual experience is important too in the work of translation.If we cannot discern between our human spirit and the Spirit which is God Himself we will have difficulty understanding what the New Testament means in certain places.I am told that every translation is also an interpretation. I have no problem with that. It is probably true to a degree. Hopefully the interpretation of those with experience in spiritual life will reflect helpfully and positively on the scholarship.There are also no chapter or verse numbers in the original Greek text. However, some find the chapter and verse numbers helpful. Although I would not mind once in my life reading the Bible completely free from chapter and verse numbers.Anyway, it is important to discern the difference between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit which is God Himself. And it is important to see when the human spirit and the Holy Spirit are united to be "one spirit". For example First Cor. 6:7 "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit"That means the human spirit and the Holy Spirit are united to be one blended and mingled spirit. Such truths are not trivial in the experience seeking readers of the Bible.If every instance of spirit is in small letters, readers will have difficulty knowing what the word of God means in many places."The Lord be with your spirit""God is Spirit and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in reality"" ... the spirit of your mind""Now the Lord is the Spirit""the last Adam became a life giving Spirit""the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak""The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God ."(Rom. 8:16) Here is a verse where the capital S Spirit and the small s spirit help the reader to understand what the word of God means.And that knowing is based not only on liturary scholarship but also spiritual experience. Those who experience the Spirit who is God being with their human spirit through regeneration lend a helpful hand to guide readers into the meaning.Sure, someone with only Greek knowledge may translate that with all small letters to be "true to the original text". But academically it may be pure. Experiencially it is not clear. And God wants us to search the Scripture to find Him as life.So I praise God for those with experience who also have the skill of translation. And through their experience help the reader to navigate through difficult passages about the interaction between God and man with clarity.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi IAJ, I don't know what Hebrew scholar you are getting your information from but you need to change.Elohim is singular and is not used in the Bible.Elohiym is plural, It is used in Genesis 1:1, 1:26, and 1:27.In fact every time you see God in Genesis it is from the plural form Elohiym.Elohiym said let us make man in our image.Elohiym created man in His plural image.Elohiym used us because He was a triune entity, All knowledge (mind), Body and Spirit. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Elohim is singular

---

More impacting, the word 'create', appearing in the same verse, is in the singular. IOW, whether one reads Elkim as singular or plentitude, the creating was done by a singular entity.The OT is like a maths equation, everything is intergrated. If a certain conclusion is seen as contradicting another factor in the OT, it signifies an incorrect path of understanding.Now the 'US' in the said verse, is not a plural for the Creator even when that US is read as a plural. This verse appears after the creation of Heaven [and heavenly/spiritual beings such as Angels], and after all other life forms were already created. At this pre-human point, we find a 'dialogue' being contained in the narratives, begging the question, who is God speaking to? The answer is obvious: to the other created biengs - and it would be inappropriate for us to assume that God does not communicate with them. IOW, God is including the other life forms in the picture of Creation.That God considers the animals, for example, is seen with some 20 laws in the OT which forbids ill-treatment of them. This is to such an extent, that even the animal's emotions are taken into consideration, even when they are used for consumption. All animal rights laws come from the OT, including feeding an animal before the owner, not to take the mother and offspring together, not to leave a hole in an animal's vicinity, not to overload an animal, and not to forbid an animal to eat when food is around the animal.In the past few months of scientific experiments, it was found that animals do possess emotional pains when mistreated.Genesis says the animals were blessed - so why should they not be regarded when creation is occuring, and they are about to be transcended and made subserviant? We find an analogy here: when Sodom was to be destroyed, this information was not witheld from Abraham - who strived with God to save them.So I see the fulcrum factor in that verse as God creates in the sungular - and everything else must allign with this factor. the issue here is, that some belief systems are alligned with a premise which contradicts a strict Monotheism premise - most cannot sustain their beliefs without images and agents. This is fine, because one can be a bad monotheist and another can be a good polytheist: but there should be no confusion or distortion of what Monotheism says, regardless of one's preferred beliefs.

IAJ,Why do you quote half a sentence that is in my message Message 56 then make the statement: Elohim which is singular is not in the Chaldee Hebrew text.
Elkim is not in the Chaldee Hebrew text. It is not even in my Chaldee Hebrew Lexicon.Elohiym is plural and is the word used for God in every place the word God appears in Genesis in the Chaldee Text and Masoretic Text JPS edition.The Greek word in the Septuagint LXX for God in Genesis is The God which mean the Godhead, trinity .I finally found where you are getting your information. It comes from the This text is derived from the Westminister Leningrad Codex and is based on the October 20th, 2006 WLC release. That version of the Tanach uses Elohim singular. I have no idea where they got their source from except it was not Chaldee Hebrew.As far as the rest of your rant what does that have to do with the us in Genesis?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I am not sure I contradicted this last sentence at all. Let me first give you the whole quote of the Recovery Version of verses 26 an 27. I have no complaint that the same word is used for God in both verse 26 and 27. But in 26 you have "Us" refering to this God. And in verse 27 you have "His" refering to God.We do not see "Us" paired with "Thier". We see "Us" coupled with "His" and with "He".It is rather mysterious. And my opinion is that this is a window into the triune nature of God which is lattered developed in subsequent books of the divine revelation.A helpful footnote of the Recovery Version reads for Gen.1:26: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Hi jaywill, So then man was not made in the image of the three in one.
Mind, Body and Spirit.So which one are we made in the image of?Are we a spirit that thinks it has a mind and a body?
Or are we a body that thinks it has a mind and a spirit?
Or are we a mind that thinks it has a body and a spirit?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."