A question for the christian scholars

from JoeUser Forums

Ok, I already posed this question on another thread, but I want to ask again.

Why, if God is a single entity, does it say at the end of Genesis 1 'let US make them in OUR image'?

Why the plural there?

Thanks in advance for any answers....

misc
32,628 views 107 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.

Sybil, call central casting...

IG
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.


So, god was schizophrenic? Interesting thought....that would explain how he can be so angry, jealous and vengeful in the Old Testament and loving, caring, and nurturing in the New....
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Traditionally, God is represented as a trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's a bit complicated but essentially they represent three facets or aspects of God, hence the plural.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The word was translated from the Hebrew "Elohim" which CAN mean multiple gods, but was translated by King James scholars to express the concept of the trinity. Hebrew does not translate readily to English.

Does this preclude the idea of multiple gods? No, but does this necessarily lend Biblical support to the idea? Again, no.

Good question.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, he's both in both, d-girl.

Also, "schizophrenic"? Might as well say "I don't understand it; it must be broken".
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Hebrew does not translate readily to English.

Which again leads me to question the true meaning of the bible.  If hebrew doesn't translate readily, doesn't that mean that there are errors?  That things have been manipulated and mis-translated, that in fact some parts of the bible as it is today might be totally wrong?

Traditionally, God is represented as a trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Actually, the trinity is a man-made concept. 

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Articles/the_holy_trinity.htm

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html#_1_8

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/trinity.html

So, if it came about in the 4th Century, thousands of years after the bible was written, that cannot explain the reason behind the plural in the first chapter of genesis.  Unless the bible was altered to reflect that, of course, which calls into question it's 'divine'-ness.

Also, "schizophrenic"? Might as well say "I don't understand it; it must be broken".

That was an attemot at humor, stute.  I'm not going to get into my christian past again, so I'll just say that i DO understand the bible....and that lead to a rejection of modern christianity on my part.

 

 

 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which again leads me to question the true meaning of the bible. If hebrew doesn't translate readily, doesn't that mean that there are errors? That things have been manipulated and mis-translated, that in fact some parts of the bible as it is today might be totally wrong?


Long answer. I'm too tired from flipping burgers at the fast food joint to reply right now. I'll try again later...lol
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, the trinity is a man-made concept.
Link
Link
Link
So, if it came about in the 4th Century, thousands of years after the bible was written, that cannot explain the reason behind the plural in the first chapter of genesis. Unless the bible was altered to reflect that, of course, which calls into question it's 'divine'-ness.


The problem with this thought can be summed up in one sentence.


Many scholars believe that the Trinity, as taught by Christians, comes from Plato as suggested in the Timaeus, but the Platonic trinity is itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples.(3)


"Believe" being the key. No one knows any such thing positively.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

"Believe" being the key. No one knows any such thing positively.

Which is the issue with the whole bible, as far as I'm concerned.  You can 'believe' what you want; the truth may be something quite different.  There is more evidence that the trinity is a man made concept than not. 

Long answer. I'm too tired from flipping burgers at the fast food joint to reply right now. I'll try again later...lol

Cool, I'll look forward to your reply!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which again leads me to question the true meaning of the bible. If hebrew doesn't translate readily, doesn't that mean that there are errors? That things have been manipulated and mis-translated, that in fact some parts of the bible as it is today might be totally wrong?


I tend to look at this from hmmm...I guess I don't know...a different perspective than some people do. I look at it this way: If God really put those words into the hearts of the men that wrote the Bible, and He is supposedly all-knowing, and all-powerful, how could He, knowing that there would be billions and billions of people over ALL time that speak thousands upon thousands of languages, allow that word to be mistranslated?

I'm not talking about Marcie's translation of the Bible, because I could get the original Greek and Hebrew texts and "translate" myself, you know? Or I could just write my own version of the Scriptures and call it the "Bible," too. I'm talking about widely read and accepted versions of the Bible, like the King James Version or the New International Version or even one of the newest versions that written in simpler language that I've been dying to get my hands on, The Message.

Wouldn't this question be true for the Koran, too? Or any other religion that originated outside of England and the United States? Wouldn't the Book of Mormon be the only religious writing that needed to be translated into OTHER languages versus it being translated into English?

Actually, the trinity is a man-made concept.

Link

Link

Link

So, if it came about in the 4th Century, thousands of years after the bible was written, that cannot explain the reason behind the plural in the first chapter of genesis. Unless the bible was altered to reflect that, of course, which calls into question it's 'divine'-ness.


I will respectfully disagree with you on that. The word "trinity"...yes. That's man-made. But the Bible is very clear about all three "parts" of God. There's the God in the OT, and He becomes the "Father" of the New Testament, then Jesus as the Son. Later, when Jesus is being baptized, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He is in the river. Jesus also promises His people that His Spirit will be with them when He ascends into Heaven.

One thing I don't understand is...if God set about creating all of us...all of us...He must have known that humanity would turn away from Him and that He would have to die on the cross for us...why did He do it at all? Are those of us who love Him and follow Him enough? I don't think it is that way...

I'll say this, too: There are some things about the Bible...lots actually, that I don't understand either. It's a tough book to read and understand and apply. I think lots of people expect Christians to know everything...and the fact is that we don't. We know enough to accept it as Truth and then try to figure the rest out as we go...

Karen...I just adore you. Thank you for your honest, respectful questions.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue of translation makes things really difficult for people who want to take the bible word-for-word literally. Even if you go back to ancient hebrew texts, you're still dealing with a translation issue.

Let's assume for a moment that these are the recorded acts of men following God's mandate. Here's the general (simplified) path from God, to the book you have in your bookshelf.

God -> Man (Prophet) -> Friends recount story -> Gets passed down multiple generations as an oral history ->Finally written down -> Translated from Hebrew to Greek -> Greek to Latin -> Latin into modern languages -> Umpteenbajillion different "Translations" distributed -> Your bookshelf

Ever play Telephone or Whisper Down The Alley when you were little? After 3 or 4 people, a single sentence typically didn't end up anything like it started out. That's one line, with a small group of people passing it along within a very short time frame. Now, multiply the number of people, the distance, the time involved and the volume of information to deal with and it's amazing we have anything even remotely coherent.

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
to look at this from hmmm...I guess I don't know...a different perspective than some people do. I look at it this way: If God really put those words into the hearts of the men that wrote the Bible, and He is supposedly all-knowing, and all-powerful, how could He, knowing that there would be billions and billions of people over ALL time that speak thousands upon thousands of languages, allow that word to be mistranslated?


Ok, now look at the statement from a non-believer's POV....HOW could he?

The Message.


I have 'The Book' as well as a king James and a NIV. I like The Book the most.

But the Bible is very clear about all three "parts" of God. There's the God in the OT, and He becomes the "Father" of the New Testament, then Jesus as the Son. Later, when Jesus is being baptized, the Holy Spirit descends upon him as He is in the river. Jesus also promises His people that His Spirit will be with them when He ascends into Heaven.


But that's my point to mason about why the 'us' part couldn't refer to the trinity. Because the three part harmony didn't come about until waaaaaayyyy after Genesis had been written.

I'm thoroughly enjoying this, Marcie. No name calling, well thought answers...this is a good debate!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue of translation makes things really difficult for people who want to take the bible word-for-word literally. Even if you go back to ancient hebrew texts, you're still dealing with a translation issue.

Let's assume for a moment that these are the recorded acts of men following God's mandate. Here's the general (simplified) path from God, to the book you have in your bookshelf.

God -> Man (Prophet) -> Friends recount story -> Gets passed down multiple generations as an oral history ->Finally written down -> Translated from Hebrew to Greek -> Greek to Latin -> Latin into modern languages -> Umpteenbajillion different "Translations" distributed -> Your bookshelf

Ever play Telephone or Whisper Down The Alley when you were little? After 3 or 4 people, a single sentence typically didn't end up anything like it started out. That's one line, with a small group of people passing it along within a very short time frame. Now, multiply the number of people, the distance, the time involved and the volume of information to deal with and it's amazing we have anything even remotely coherent.

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.


I have said this for a long time. The bible is literally someones translation of what was written. How are we to be sure that what we're reading and trying to live is correct?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.

YES!!!!!!!!! YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!  That's what I'm talking about!!!

So, if that's the case, why are we still having the evolution vs creationism debate in schools?

I'd also like to point out that I personally think that some branches of Christianity have got too involved in trying to interpret the bible.  They get so caught up in scripture and verse that I think they lose sight of the 'big picture'...and if they were to take a step back and see the message as a whole things would be much more peaceful.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.


Why would He talk to Himself?

So, god was schizophrenic?


People with multiple personalities are not schizophrenic.

I used to have The Other Bible. It has lots of different scriptures such as Gnostic and Hebrew.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

How are we to be sure that what we're reading and trying to live is correct?

That's another question I have too.  When you think about it, really, really think about, a big chunk of the world's population are living their lives according to a single book.  One book.  That may or may not be 'divine' or even untampered with.

It's amazing, if you think about it.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW, are any of us Christian scholars?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

People with multiple personalities are not schizophrenic.

You're right, schizophrenia does not mean that a person has multiple personalities.  Multiple Personality Disorder is what I should have said.

I've had my eyes on The Other Bible, and I enjoyed it.  It gives a different perspective on a lot of things, and it makes me think that the christian bible isn't the end of the story...that there's a lot more.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

BTW, are any of us Christian scholars?

I dunno.  Gideon is probably the most knowledgeable, but I dunno about his 'scholar' status.  I'll have to ask.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess I always figured it was the royal "We" ... Imagine the Queen of England saying "We will take the dog for a walk in our yard."
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue of translation makes things really difficult for people who want to take the bible word-for-word literally. Even if you go back to ancient hebrew texts, you're still dealing with a translation issue.

Let's assume for a moment that these are the recorded acts of men following God's mandate. Here's the general (simplified) path from God, to the book you have in your bookshelf.

God -> Man (Prophet) -> Friends recount story -> Gets passed down multiple generations as an oral history ->Finally written down -> Translated from Hebrew to Greek -> Greek to Latin -> Latin into modern languages -> Umpteenbajillion different "Translations" distributed -> Your bookshelf

Ever play Telephone or Whisper Down The Alley when you were little? After 3 or 4 people, a single sentence typically didn't end up anything like it started out. That's one line, with a small group of people passing it along within a very short time frame. Now, multiply the number of people, the distance, the time involved and the volume of information to deal with and it's amazing we have anything even remotely coherent.

Man has worked over and twisted these words for most of history. It's impossible to view it as a literal account anymore.


So...pretty much anyone who's Christian hasn't a brain in their bodies? It's all wrong so why believe it at all?

Since I believe that there is a God, and that the Bible is God-breathed, I don't see how He, who is supposed to have His hands in EVERYTHING, would allow his Bible to be mistranslated in a way that the original meaning is lost. Just because its not translated word for word doesn't make the message any less meaningful.

So, if that's the case, why are we still having the evolution vs creationism debate in schools?

I'd also like to point out that I personally think that some branches of Christianity have got too involved in trying to interpret the bible. They get so caught up in scripture and verse that I think they lose sight of the 'big picture'...and if they were to take a step back and see the message as a whole things would be much more peaceful.


Frankly, I don't see why there SHOULD be a debate at all. If both points of view are being shared with kids and being taught as theory and not fact, what's the problem? Can you prove to me, without a doubt, that some big explosion happened and now we have oceans and continents and amoebas and giraffes and humans and trees and sharks and sea sponges? No. Can you prove to me with scientific evidence that God created the universe, the Earth and Mars and Jupiter and all of our animals and humans and plants? No. If I were teaching that to my students in school...I'd have to be objective, no matter what I believed. If they have questions about things and beliefs regarding the formation of Earth, they need to talk to parents and families about that. That's not my job.

And I agree with you about the whole picture. If my husband gets in a fight with another man and I go and drag him home by his penis, who's going to cut off my hand (I think that's in Leviticus)? I mean really? We need to look at who Jesus is and what His role in our lives are and if we believe it and then look at how we're to conduct our lives and treat other people.

Ok, now look at the statement from a non-believer's POV....HOW could he?


Well...hmmm...I guess I don't know how to answer that. I think if a non believe had questions I think I'd point them towards the New Testament first...because we KNOW so much more about it. There's not speculation about who wrote those books, we know for sure. They're written by REAL men who were REALLY with Jesus and spent time with him. There's 4 different perspectives on His life and death, you know? It's still God-inspired, but it's not written by someone that we can't really pinpoint.

But that's my point to mason about why the 'us' part couldn't refer to the trinity. Because the three part harmony didn't come about until waaaaaayyyy after Genesis had been written.


Hmmm...lemme go grab my Bible...Okay...check this out:

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

So...that means that Jesus was with God in the beginning...right?

I don't get it either, though...If God is the Father, and Jesus is the Son...I just don't get it. I can see how its possible for one like God to be two places at one time...but...what about at the crucifixion wher God turned away from Jesus. If God is Jesus, how did He turn away from Himself? Were they two separate entities at that point?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
God has multiple personalities and he was speaking for them all.


lol...kinda. I have the three members of the personality pictured in my head like this:

God, the Father: Stern, but Just. Expects his directions to be followed. Gives lots of chances with warnings of consequences. Loves His Kids.

Jesus, the Son: The Hippie. Loving, compassionate, but honest about right and wrong. Taught by example. Loved those others considered unloveable. Brave, accepting, but still human in His emotions.

The Spirit: God mobilized--God on wheels. Someone's talking? He's listening. Feeling alone? He's there. Makes house calls.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd also like to point out that I personally think that some branches of Christianity have got too involved in trying to interpret the bible. They get so caught up in scripture and verse that I think they lose sight of the 'big picture'...and if they were to take a step back and see the message as a whole things would be much more peaceful.


One problem with the "chapter/verse" method of interpretation, is that it ignores one of the most fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation; that of concept. Was the passage in question written to the Jews, to the Christians today, or to a specific person? This error, of course, led to the Crusades, when the Christian church viewed itself as heirs to the Holy Land, and set about reclaiming it. A prime example of its misuse in contemporary Christian thought is the "prayer of Jabez"...two verses not repeated or referenced elsewhere in scripture used as the foundation of a newly repackaged version of Christian witchcraft.

I believe in the authority of the Bible, and believe that it is God-breathed. And while I do not believe one needs to be a scholar in Greek, Hebrew or Chaldean to understand it, I believe that if your study revolves around all but the most basic concepts, you really need to spend time with study materials of those who have done the research before you (a word of caution, though: check their work for accuracy). The basic concepts, however, can be gleaned from an interpretation.

Does that make any sense? I'm trying to explain things, but my brain's in hibernate mode right now....lol
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess I always figured it was the royal "We" ... Imagine the Queen of England saying "We will take the dog for a walk in our yard."


woulda been my guess as well. altho i believe it's more accurately termed as imperial rather than royal (as in the roman emperor). the translations were commissioned or approved by people who lived in much the same sorta world as do many of today's islamic culture and believed their authority was divinely ordained. so it seems likely those in power would have attributed imperial reference to the only 'lord' they recognized.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Marci...

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. What I'm doing is showing fault in the literal interpretation approach. The message can be maintained through different wordings and translations. There are many ways to express the same idea, and even if the words don't match quite right, you can still get the point across.

I think if anything, God would protect the message being presented, and forget about the words. The Old Testament is a series of lessons told through stories. The individual words are irrelevant if examined individually our without context. Put the words together and you get the lesson, and the lesson can be taught using any number of different words.

If you look at it, the entire Bible boils down to one rule... just one rule to live your life by...

Don't be a dick.

That's it. That's what every story, every lesson from Christ etc teaches. The individual words are just pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that forms that larger picture. I think we get lost focusing so hard on the individual pieces that we don't even realize there's a puzzle in front of us. If we concentrate on a given piece hard enough, we trick ourselves into thinking that everything else is just plain wrong. We miss the point entirely when we latch onto individual verses to prove points, individual stories to form the basis of an argument.

Let's look at the Bible from the "Don't be a dick" perspective.

-God creates the world, the animals, the fishies... all the good stuff.
-God creates Man.
-God gives Man ONE rule... just ONE rule.
-Man is a dick, breaks the rule.
-Man is a dick to fellow Man for a while
-God is tired of Man being a dick, wipes 'em all out to start over
-God gives Man a LONG list of Do's and Don'ts to make it very very very clear how not to be a dick... cause obviously just one rule was too vague.
-Man continues to be a dick... but this time Man is a dick in the name of God.
-God gets tired of Man being a dick again, goes away for a bit to rethink the whole deal
-God sends down Son to smack some sense into Man
-Son spends 30 years telling people to not be dicks.
-Man doesn't understand simple message.
-Son has to come up with cryptic examples of how not being a dick works
-Some people start to understand the Don't be a Dick plan
-Rest of Man becomes angry at the idea that it could all be that simple.
-Man is ultimate dick and nails Son to a plank to die
-Son and God make ultimate non-dick move and make Son's death absolution of Man's dick-ness

Man spends next 2000 years being dicks to one another in the name of the Don't be a Dick cause. God chuckles at ultimate irony.