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.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

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

In what way does this address that this then supports polytheism which involves 2 or more gods?

In what way does this address that there is no mention of the number three?

In what way does this address that there is no hint of the trinity concept?

Three questions that will need three answers to address properly.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

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

In what way does this address that this then supports polytheism which involves 2 or more gods?

In what way does this address that there is no mention of the number three?

In what way does this address that there is no hint of the trinity concept?

Three questions that will need three answers to address properly.

What did you summise I meant?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 9 by Tcg]

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

In what way does this address that this then supports polytheism which involves 2 or more gods?

In what way does this address that there is no mention of the number three?

In what way does this address that there is no hint of the trinity concept?

Three questions that will need three answers to address properly.

What did you summise I meant?

I don't pretend to be a mind reader.

What I do know is that one question is not three answers.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

I was implying that we are very early into the Bible to be demonstrating the doctrine of anything let alone the trinity.

Even tigger2 would, I hope, be surprised that he has to fight against the triune nature of God from genesis 1.

You yourself seem to be able to see that this verse is problematic for non triune monotheism by the fact you can see an argument for polytheism.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 13 by Tcg]

I was implying that we are very early into the Bible to be demonstrating the doctrine of anything let alone the trinity.

Your reply clearly overlooks my two other points.

Setting that fact aside for a moment, you have just admitted that this verse does not teach the concept of the trinity. I agree.

Now, how about the other two points you ignored?

[tigger2]

Thank you all for your responses.

It seems there are very few trinitarians here who can provide the honest answers to these frequently-used trinity proofs.

Here are just a few of the alternate answers to the plural elohim trinity argument:

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224:

Elohim "is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

More modern publications (trinitarian Protestant and Catholic) also make similar acknowledgments of the intended plural of majesty or excellence meaning for elohim. (See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. v., p. 287.)

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim:
“The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.� - Unger and White, 1980, p. 159.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:
“It is characteristic of Heb[rew] that extension, magnitude, and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the pl[ural].� - Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984 ed., Vol. II, p. 1265.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, written by trinitarian scholars, says of elohim:
“Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.� - p. 208.


And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“Elohim, though plural in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. ‘gods’). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plural is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.� - p. 67, Vol. 2.

The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1:
“This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.� – p. 6, Zondervan Publ., 1985.
.....................................................
.....................................................

And among the many responses to Gen. 1:26 ('us' and 'our'):

“The plural ‘us,’ ‘our’...probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Kg. 22:19; Job 1:6).� - Gen. 1:26 footnote in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977).

And “Perhaps the plural of majesty .... But possibly the plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court.� - The Jerusalem Bible footnote for "us" in Gen. 1:26.

And noted trinitarian scholar Dr. William Barclay agrees: “[God’s angels] were thought of as God’s senate; God did nothing without consulting them. For instance, when God said: ‘Let us make man’ (Genesis 1:26), it was to the angel senate that he was speaking.� - p. 17, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised edition, “The Daily Study Bible Series,� The Westminster Press, 1976.

The trinitarian NIV Study Bible (1985, Zondervan) says in its note for Gen 1:26, "us ... our. God speaks as the Creator-King announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court." And, in this same work, the footnotes for Job 1:6 and 38:7 say concerning “the sons of God�: "1:6 angels came to present themselves. .... They came as members of the heavenly council who stand in the presence of God." And "38:7 .... When the earth was created, the angels were there to sing the praises of the Creator, but Job was not."

Dr. Charles Ryrie explains the plurals as plurals of majesty: "Gen. 1:26 us . . . our. Plurals of majesty" (Ryrie Study Bible, NIV, p.6).

"The explanation of the first person plural forms is probably that the Creator speaks as heaven's King accompanied by His heavenly hosts" (The New Bible Commentary, p. 82).

[bjs]

[Replying to post 16 by tigger2]


Moderator Comment

Do not accuse people of dishonesty. People can disagree with you and still be honest.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[marco]

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.

They probably wish to argue their theology which seems as good or bad as any other. There is no arbiter to step in and declare rectitude.


Plural is used for singular when some dignity is talking. Victoria said "We are not amused" when she meant she wasn't laughing. But calling the grammar of a language to support a theological claim is itself suspect; when one studies a foreign language, one meets exceptional situations, a strange subjunctive or an unusual future perfect tense, or a plural subject with a singular verb by attraction to the nearest noun. It can hardly give comfort that one's belief in a Trinity or a single God is derived from a nicety of grammar.

[StuartJ]

Here's a quick easy hypothesis I call the Reformation Hypothesis.

The Israelites were Canaanites who worshipped the God concepts known collectively as the Elohim.

We find the Elohim in Creation Myth One, Flood Myth One, the Tower of Babel Legend and elsewhere.

There was a Yahwist Reformation, and the Yahwists re-wrote the single male Yahweh God concept in, over and through the old writings.

This simple hypothesis explains many of the biblical contradictions.

It's similar to the Documentary Hypothesis.

The DH broadly offers that the various authors were writing about the same God concept in different ways.

The RH offers that the various authors were writing about different God concepts in broadly the same way.

Given the complete absence of evidence for the influence of any concept of God in the writings, it's most instructive to try and unravel the layer upon layer of human politics in what look to me like historical allegories ingeniously wrapped in well-known myth and legend.

Myth and legend that is far older than the Israelite peoples and the Hebrew language.

In my view, the remnant scraps of the writers having the Elohim referring to themselves in the plural go far beyond belief and grammar.

[onewithhim]

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.

Just thought I'd throw in my $.02.......Genesis 1:26 merely shows Jehovah speaking to His Son and possibly the other angels as well. Very simple. There is nothing there to back up any Trinity. It doesn't indicate that all individuals involved here are equal. It is VERY weak revisionism.