Gen. 1:26 and Elohim

[tigger2]

Why do so many trinitarians still use Gen. 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image") and the plural elohim as trinity proofs? It has been explained so often by so many (trinitarian scholars included) that they don't seem worthy of being used as proofs anymore.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 1 by tigger2]

How many trinitarian Christians here can tell me the different translations, commentaries, or interpretations which could nullify the traditional translations and interpretations for these 2 'proofs'? Anyone?

[Elijah John]

Why do so many trinitarians still use Gen. 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image") and the plural elohim as trinity proofs? It has been explained so often by so many (trinitarian scholars included) that they don't seem worthy of being used as proofs anymore.

I agree that they are not proof or even evidence for the Trinity. But what is your counter, alternative explanation for these passages? I have some ideas, but it would be interesting to see how ours compare.

And I cannot really explain why Trinitarians do this. But it seems to me a desperate attempt to find the Trinity in the Tanakh, where the Trinity does not exist. Weak revisionism.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Thanks, EJ. I would really like to hear some Trinitarians' explanations of why they are not aware of these things before I show what I found many years ago.

And if they are not aware of them .... why not?

[Tcg]

Why do so many trinitarians still use Gen. 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image") and the plural elohim as trinity proofs?

It seems rather clear to me that if trinitarians had good evidence to support the trinity, they wouldn't need to rely of this extremely weak argument.

If this is evidence of multiple gods, then it could just as easily be used as evidence of the Hindu's 33 million gods. There is no reason to stop at three.

Of course they don't claim multiple gods, but rather one God in three persons.

Given that, this verse, if it is understood to be a claim of multiple gods, argues against the trinity.

If Elohim is to be understood as referring to plural gods, then it argues for polytheism, not trinitarianism.

[Wootah]

Ok well it is plural so thats wierd that God doesn't know about himself.

Now your turn to correct me.

[brianbbs67]

Its plural, as in El Ohim, God of hosts. (IE, The God above all else) Like Baalim(false female sex dieties, plural, not just female) and other OT terms. God does not have Multiple personality disorder.

[Wootah]

Its plural, as in El Ohim, God of hosts. (IE, The God above all else) Like Baalim(false female sex dieties, plural, not just female) and other OT terms. God does not have Multiple personality disorder.

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-26.htm

Based on this breakdown in the link the issue isn't the word elohim.

Its the: in our image according to our likeness.

[Tcg]

Its plural, as in El Ohim, God of hosts. (IE, The God above all else) Like Baalim(false female sex dieties, plural, not just female) and other OT terms. God does not have Multiple personality disorder.

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-26.htm

Based on this breakdown in the link the issue isn't the word elohim.

Its the: in our image according to our likeness.

This then supports polytheism which involves 2 or more gods.

There is no mention of the number three.

No hint of the trinity concept.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

We are at the 26th line of the Bible....