Personification of Attributes

[Ben Masada]

Personification of Attributes - Genesis 1:26


"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over... the whole earth."

The above passage of Genesis has been for years the trump card in the hands of Trinitarians to drop at the right time in the assumed thought that it will guarantee them to clean up the table, so to speak. Well, let them think again, because I have news. It's no longer that easy.

Elohim is incorporeal, and incorporeality reflects no image. But then again, how to harmonize the use of the pronouns in the plural form? The attributes of God, which are part of His essence, were impersonately involved in the formation of man.

Bear in mind that only in the creation of man was the statement issued: To make man at God's image. Since God has no visible image, and man does, it's only obvious that man's image would be according to God's attributes. Therefore, His attributes in a relative portion, were the active agent in the formation of man.

Now, it's imperative to focus on the pronouns used by the sacred writer, since the pronouns are anyways what Trinitarians use to think they have made their day. "Let US make MAN in OUR image and likeness. And let THEM have dominion over everything on earth."

Now, focus on the word MAN. It is in the singular form. Nevertheless, the purpose is for THEM to dominate the earth. If THEM were a reference to man, a clarification would be in order to explain the discrepancy in the Grammar. I mean, that it would be a reference to all men. This lack of clarification was not a lapse of the author, but intentional will to direct our minds to the attributes of God, which took part in the formation of man.

It's interesting and just convenient for Trinitarians to rapidly refer "us" and "our" to God Himself and hide any word of explanation on the plural pronoun "them," which could not be a reference to man. I hope they do not do this on purpose because it would be spiritual cruelty to hide the truth.

I hope we have settled this issue. Since "them" is not a reference to man but to the attributes of God, it's only obvious that "us" and "our" are not references to God Himself but to His attributes. Therefore, the Creator of the Universe is He Who has dominion over the whole of the Universe through man by way of His attributes.

Conclusion:

It's more than obvious that Israel could not uphold the banner of absolute Monotheism in God, and start the Scriptures with statements of plurality in God. The whole issue therefore, was personification of attributes.

Ben

[Student]

Hi Ben

While I would agree that Genesis 1:26 does not provide evidence for the Trinity, I thought that the word �ָדָ� [adam], is better translated in modern English as “mankind� or “humanity�. This removes any grammatical incongruity with the later reference to “them�.

Tom

[Jonah]

Ben,

Okay, I'm with you. I learned something. If adam is purely in the singular, what you say makes perfect sense to me. Tom raises the question if there is any way that the word can be properly translated to an English plural even though it's singular in the text. Maybe other experts have an argument for that...I don't know.

In my own thinking, I was centering on attributes as nameable (is that a word?) aspects of value. The psalmist asks "What is man, that thou art mindful of him". etc. To me, that just focuses on the question of humanity's value as opposed to humans trying to actually name and describe the attributes of God in themselves.

But, after reading your post, you set me back to thinking. What do we make of the situation in which the attributes of God are just not God's own business...but God applies these attributes to humanity. Oh, well. That's different. So, I don't know if you further thinking about the possibility of describing these applied attributes, or mystery enough...the "divine spark" and such. I'm all ears. Thank you for what you've offered here.

[Student]

The word ‘man’ is ambiguous in that it can refer to an individual adult male, as distinct from a woman or boy, or to human beings in general; the human race.

Brown Driver Briggs [Hebrew & English Lexicon, p.9] indicates that at Genesis 1:26 �ָדָ� ‘adam’ is a collective noun ~ “man, mankind�. So although it is singular, it is referenced pronominally as “them�. The word ‘adam’ references both men and women in Genesis 1:27, 5:1; Numbers 5:6.

In the NSRV “adam� is translated as “humankind�. The NEB has “human beings�.
The Jerusalem Bible has “man� but in a footnote states that

adam, is a collective noun (‘mankind’); hence the plural in ‘Let them be masters of….’

Having said that, a majority of Bibles, including the JPS, translate the word ‘adam’ as ‘man’.

The Septuagint, which can sometimes help in disambiguation, is of little use on this occasion as it has άνθ�ωπον, which can refer to an individual adult male, as distinct from a woman or boy, or to human beings in general; the human race!

Tom

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben

While I would agree that Genesis 1:26 does not provide evidence for the Trinity, I thought that the word �ָדָ� [adam], is better translated in modern English as “mankind� or “humanity�. This removes any grammatical incongruity with the later reference to “them�.

Tom

Hi Student,

The incongruity in the Grammar occurs in English, not in Hebrew. My explanation in the thread is mainly to those who are not familiar with the Hebrew and think that if the word ends in "im" it is plural. Abraham does not end in "im" and gives the same connotation of the psychological plurality of Elohim. Abram became Abraham after he became the father of many tribes. The consiousness of El as Elohim arrived at the mind of the People of Israel after we realized that our God was not a parochial God but the God of the whole world. The God of all the nations. The realizarion that there was no other God but One: Our God, the Creator of the Universe.

[Ben Masada]

Ben,

Okay, I'm with you. I learned something. If adam is purely in the singular, what you say makes perfect sense to me. Tom raises the question if there is any way that the word can be properly translated to an English plural even though it's singular in the text. Maybe other experts have an argument for that...I don't know.

In my own thinking, I was centering on attributes as nameable (is that a word?) aspects of value. The psalmist asks "What is man, that thou art mindful of him". etc. To me, that just focuses on the question of humanity's value as opposed to humans trying to actually name and describe the attributes of God in themselves.

But, after reading your post, you set me back to thinking. What do we make of the situation in which the attributes of God are just not God's own business...but God applies these attributes to humanity. Oh, well. That's different. So, I don't know if you further thinking about the possibility of describing these applied attributes, or mystery enough...the "divine spark" and such. I'm all ears. Thank you for what you've offered here.

Let us mention here just a few of God's attributes: Intellect, freewill, judgment based on moral Ethics, intuition, power of decision, etc, etc, they in God, are all parts of His essence. Absolute and eternal, that is. In man however, in a relative portion and part of his temporary existence. They are the factors at the image of which man was created. Man, either as one individual or all Manking, it does not matter. The point is that only man was created at the image of God's attributes.

Another point is that we cannot say that God has or possesses attributes. Why? Because being they parts of God's essences, God is said to be what He is. On the other hand yes, we we have a share in those attributes albeit temporarily, because
what one has can be taken away; what one is He is no matter what.

[Catharsis]

The chief passages in the Old Testament which testify to the Trinity of God are the following: Genesis 1:1 and the following verses: the name of God ("Elohim") in the Hebrew text has the grammatical form of the plural number.

Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The plural number here indicates that God is not one Person.

Genesis 3:22: "And the Lord God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

Genesis 11:6-7: Prior to the confusion of tongues at the building of the tower of Babylon, the Lord said: "Let us go down, and there confound their language."

Genesis 18:1-3, concerning Abraham: "And the Lord appeared unto him at the oak of Mamre ... and he (Abraham) lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him... and he bowed himself toward the ground and said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in Thy sight, pass not away, I pray Thee, from Thy servant." (Abraham meets Three but bows down to One.)

One may also indicate those passages in the Old Testament Revelation where the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are referred to separately. For example, concerning the Son:
Psalm 2:7: "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee."
Psalm 109:3: "From the womb before the morning star have I begotten Thee."

Concerning the Spirit:
Psalm 142:12: "Thy good Spirit shall lead me in the land of uprightness."
Isaiah 48:16: "The Lord God, and His Spirit, hath sent me."

[martian]

There is an unfortunate belief among many Christians that “elohiym� proves the Trinity because it is a plural noun. They go only as far in their research to see the plurality of the word until it fits their doctrine and stop their research.

Allow me to quote Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center ---
“Hebrew plurals can be either quantitative (more than one) or qualitative (great, large, prominent). For example the singular word "elo'ah" means God (or more literally mighty one). The plural form is "elohiym". This plural form can be more than one god or one great god. In fact, in Genesis 1:1 it says "in the beginning elohiym (plural) created...". In Hebrew the verb matches the verb in number and gender and the Hebrew word behind "created" is "bara" literally meaning "he created" (singular masculine). Therefore, the context of the verse will often indicate whether the noun should be translated as a plural or a singular.�

As is clearly seen above the name elohiym cannot be categorically assumed as plural in number. It must be determined by the context.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The incongruity in the Grammar occurs in English, not in Hebrew. My explanation in the thread is mainly to those who are not familiar with the Hebrew and think that if the word ends in "im" it is plural

Yet you have zero credentials as an Hebraist and, as far as I can discern, zero credibility as far as biblical Hebrew is concerned. Seriously, Ben, to come here posturing as an expert is simply insufficient. Perhaps your apologetics would warrant more respect if you cited something beyond yourself.

[martian]

The incongruity in the Grammar occurs in English, not in Hebrew. My explanation in the thread is mainly to those who are not familiar with the Hebrew and think that if the word ends in "im" it is plural

Yet you have zero credentials as an Hebraist and, as far as I can discern, zero credibility as far as biblical Hebrew is concerned. Seriously, Ben, to come here posturing as an expert is simply insufficient. Perhaps your apologetics would warrant more respect if you cited something beyond yourself.

I am not Ben? I did not cite myself. I quoted Jeff Benner of the ancient Hebrew research Center.
Jeff Benner is a well respected translator. He is the author of many books on the subject.

seondly -- I wonder what credentials Peter or john had? Perhaps we should cut that portion of scripture out of our Bibles.