Us

[Miles]

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

The answer is in Genesis 1:2, i.e., 'the deep' is God's co-creator here, and is what forms a plurality with the spirit of God that is elohim. The deep in Hebrew is tehom, which corresponds to Tiamat, a primordial Babylonian sea goddess from the Enuma Elish... Once this connection is made, it becomes pretty obvious I think.

To take this a bit further, tehom in Genesis 1 would be the equivalent of Mary in the NT, who provides the womb for God's seed there in a renewed creation. In the OT, God and tehom give birth to the light (their firstborn). In the NT, it is Jesus Christ (the light and Christ being one and the same according to John 1, which others have referenced here albeit incorrectly).

To your secondary question, the answer is again pretty simple. God is nothing but spirit in Genesis 1 (again, see Genesis 1:2 where God is introduced as such). This means God has no real power in Godself to do anything. (Think of spirit as something completely non-physical, like an idea for example, which similarly has no real power in itself to do anything, even though physical beings may be moved by it...) As such, all the physical prowess in this story comes from the deep. It is the deep that brings forth the light at God's call. And who separates herself to form land. And who brings forth all the creatures of the sea. etc. etc.

....

Or... God was talking to someone.








RELATED POSTS

What is the fallacy of "false equivalence"?
viewtopic.php?p=1074577#p1074577

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOGIC , FALLACIES and ... EVIDENCE

[theophile]

The answer is in Genesis 1:2, i.e., 'the deep' is God's co-creator here, and is what forms a plurality with the spirit of God that is elohim. The deep in Hebrew is tehom, which corresponds to Tiamat, a primordial Babylonian sea goddess from the Enuma Elish... Once this connection is made, it becomes pretty obvious I think.

To take this a bit further, tehom in Genesis 1 would be the equivalent of Mary in the NT, who provides the womb for God's seed there in a renewed creation. In the OT, God and tehom give birth to the light (their firstborn). In the NT, it is Jesus Christ (the light and Christ being one and the same according to John 1, which others have referenced here albeit incorrectly).

To your secondary question, the answer is again pretty simple. God is nothing but spirit in Genesis 1 (again, see Genesis 1:2 where God is introduced as such). This means God has no real power in Godself to do anything. (Think of spirit as something completely non-physical, like an idea for example, which similarly has no real power in itself to do anything, even though physical beings may be moved by it...) As such, all the physical prowess in this story comes from the deep. It is the deep that brings forth the light at God's call. And who separates herself to form land. And who brings forth all the creatures of the sea. etc. etc.

....

Or... God was talking to someone.

Isn't that what I'm saying? God is talking into the deep... i.e., to an actual other. Not the weird, 'talking-to-Godself' situation that you ultimately setup between God and Jesus / the Word, but which is all just God in the end.

[JehovahsWitness]

Or... God was talking to someone.

Isn't that what I'm saying? God is talking into the deep...

You are? Why are you saying "talking into... " when you "talk TO" someone, in English we say talk to ..not INTO that person. "Jane was talking into John ", makes no sense in English. Was that a typo? Why did you not say "God is talking to ... the deep" ?

[theophile]

Or... God was talking to someone.

Isn't that what I'm saying? God is talking into the deep...

You are? Why are you saying "talking into... " when you "talk TO" someone, in English we say talk to ..not INTO that person. "Jane was talking into John ", makes no sense in English. Was that a typo? Why did you not say "God is talking to ... the deep" ?

Into. In/to. To... What we see in Genesis 1:2 is God hovering over the deep, and in subsequent verses God talking in/to it. And then we see the response... i.e., Light. Separation. Etc. All of which the deep brings forth in response to God's words.

You're also dodging the fact that your own position lacks any real dialogue, and reduces creation to some sort of divine monologue...

So who exactly is God talking to in your view other than to Godself?

[boatsnguitars]

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

1. I think the common thoughts are (1) it's a plural of majesty, but only denotes one actual being, (2) it speaks of polytheism, (3) it's the divine counsel of angels, (4) it's the Trinity, or (5) both the divine counsel and the Trinity is included. I'm undecided between 3, 4, and 5. (1) would seem out of place since God isn't always using the plurality of majesty elsewhere. (2) would seem to contradict the message in the rest of the Hebrew scriptures (Deut 6:4, Isaiah 44:6, etc.) as well.

2. Why do you think God using someone/thing else, such as the divine counsel, to help create means that God needed help as supposed to wanted to include others in the making?

Classic Apologetics (gaslighting). Make people question reality (Us clearly means more than two), then make then question their thinking. This is clearly how the Church has operated and what Tanager has been schooled in. Then, ask a question that makes one presuppose the preferred answer of the Apologist.

The real answer is:
The OT writers believed in multiple Gods, but believed Yahweh was supreme, as was the convention among religions back then. It's just hard for Christians to accept this.

[JehovahsWitness]

So who exactly is God talking to in your view other than to Godself?

So you claim God is talking to himself? Is that what you mean when you say "[God is talking to ] "the Godself"? Why can't you talk in plain English? Why say "God is talking into the deep" nobody kniws what that means ..."the "godself"? Did you just invent that expression? So your post amounts to ... God is talking to Himself.

Okay fine,



JW

[theophile]

So who exactly is God talking to in your view other than to Godself?

So you claim God is talking to himself? Is that what you mean when you say "[God is talking to ] "the Godself"? Why can't you talk in plain English? Why say "God is talking into the deep" nobody kniws what that means ..."the "godself"? Did you just invent that expression? So your post amounts to ... God is talking to Himself.

No, 'God talking to Godself' was more a characterization of the view you presented here, i.e.:

love ... moved him to first create a son (The Word/Jesus) and then choose to share the creative creative process with his only begotten son Jesus in his prehuman form (The Word)

Your view here is essentially a monologue theology, or asexual creation... Jesus or the Word both being God.

In the view I presented, God is talking in/to an abyss (the deep), and there could be nothing on the receiving end (which would then also amount to God talking to Godself). But that's not what happens in Genesis 1, where we see a clear response from the deep. i.e., it brings forth light, separation, etc., in response to God's words.

Is that clearer? There are two separate, distinct participants in the creative acts of Genesis 1 in my view: the spirit / word of God and the deep. These are what form the 'Us' asked about.

[JehovahsWitness]

So who exactly is God talking to in your view other than to Godself?

So you claim God is talking to himself? Is that what you mean when you say "[God is talking to ] "the Godself"? Why can't you talk in plain English? Why say "God is talking into the deep" nobody kniws what that means ..."the "godself"? Did you just invent that expression? So your post amounts to ... God is talking to Himself.

No ...{snip}

Okay so what is your view? He was not talking to Himself ... Who was God talking to ? [ Plain English with standard prepositions if possible]. ie

God was talking to ....[fill in the blank]

[William]

Perhaps the sequence of events leading up to the eventual creation of biological life forms itself created the "us" and the "us" refers to those minds combined re the whole process.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #37]

There are two separate, distinct participants in the creative acts of Genesis 1 in my view: the spirit / word of God and the deep. These are what form the 'Us' asked about.

That is the supernaturalist philosophy - that there was "other" that was not an aspect of/was a separate entity from the creator.

It comes across like this idea is saying that God discovered this "other" and then together they were able to create the universe.

Is this what you are trying to portray/interpret Genesis as portraying?