Let There Be Man

The first page of the old testament says, "Then God said, let us make man in our image."...let US make man in OUR image......Who is US?P.S. Interpreters of the holy bible need not reply.---------------{Added by edit: the "(THIS TOPIC NEEDS A BETTER TITLE!)" in the topic title. Hopefully this will not be a perminent part of the title - Adminnemooseus}{Removed by edit: the "(THIS TOPIC NEEDS A BETTER TITLE!)" in the topic title. Thankfully this will not be a permanent part of the title - OP wishes to also thank Adminnemooseus for his/her concern - limbosis}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Inserted a suggestion that the topic title be improved. Original title is/was "Who put the "u" in us?".Edited by limbosis, : Removed a suggestion that the topic title be improved.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Topic title changed to "Plurals (for God) in the Creation Narratives: Who are They?"Edited by limbosis, : Topic title changed to "Let There Be Man" to remain appropriate, and to eliminate misrepresentation of the original post.

I'm guessing that this fits in Bible Study.I am also guessing that you don't want anyone to throw out casual self-interpretations of the text. Am I right?Edited by AdminPhat, :

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Let me say up front that I really don't know, but that won't stop me from throwing some guesses out there. Maybe we can eliminate some of the possibilities I come up with.1) The trinity (the us is god, jesus, and the holy spirit)
2) God is not alone in heaven (the us could be god and the angels n'stuff)
3) Maybe God just talks in first person plural (you know, like some pro-athletes like to talk in first person...Carl Malone says "Carl Malone says...")I dunno, just a quick stab at this one.

There are many possibilities.First it could be the Regal WE.Or it might refer to the Nine Orders of Angels.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

in just about every other instance of god speaking in the bible, he speaks in first person singular. the thing that would make the most sense and be the most consistent is that god is speaking to another person or group that also has knowledge of good and evil. but consistency may not be a good argument.btw: that's third person.

---

Another possibility is characterization. The author of this narrative wanted to portray God as an artist who puts the entire cosmos together with no more effort than a human artist would expend on a one-week project. Things other societies worshiped as deities--celestial bodies, material elements, creatures--are here just created things, the products of the Artist's fertile imagination.Maybe the Artist is just talking to himself the way any artist or chef does while getting ideas and putting something together. 'Let's get a little light in here. That's good. Now let's do this. All right. Now let's have a little of that. Very nice. Now let's add this...'___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

1. Well, jesus hadn't been created yet,
and I would think the holy spirit knows what god's thinking even before god does.2. It doesn't say god is in heaven. It doesn't say anything about angels either.3. Does that mean he's, you know, schizophrenic?

Could you explain that, jar?

Well, no. That's cute, but the word "us" is further characterized in 3:22"Behold, the man has become like one of us..."

I've seen the term "lord" used in these same locations, too. Does that mean lord and god are the same thing?I also see "the Lord God" used now and then. What's that supposed to mean? Is lord sometimes used to mean a governing body? Is god? Who is higher? Does the lord god mean a single figure within a governing body? Or does it mean the figure who is in charge of that governing body? Or is no one supposed to know what it means?It would seem that another possibility is that God made a pact with Satan? If that were true, if anyone fell into agreement with an evildoer, wouldn't that make them at least partially evil themselves? either that, or simply powerless against the evildoer?Does anyone know what the bible is talking about? I surely don't.C'mon people, let us put our heads together.

the "let us [make man... etc]" is a product of the english translation, iirc. but i know the hebrew does use the plural possesive, "in our image." which is indeed very curious. and i don't think it's an idiom like the royal "we" in english, as it doesn't exist past genesis 3 or so. but it's really hard to say.

---

I can try.It is "Pluralis majestatis", a plural pronoun used to refer to one person alone.It is common practice for monarchs to use the Imperial terms We or Our or Us when speaking of themselves. You can see this quite often when reading older speeches, particularly from the Victorian period."We are not amused""Do our biding."orfrom the Oman Constitution which is a current example of such use: There is also other similar uses such as pluralis modestiae and pluralis auctoris and hortatory as well as the Biblical example of Elohim which is the plural form of the singular God Yahweh.The point is that the use of We in Genesis is not that big of an issue with many possible origins and explanations.Remember that the religion being described was not always monotheistic.As you read through the Bible you find that the view and characterization of GOD changes over time. Parts of the Bible seem to recognize the existence of other Gods, gods that might even be nearly as powerful as the Hebrew God. Examples can be found in the admonition that "Though shalt have no other Gods before me" or "I am the Lord, thy God" or the various contests between different Gods like those found in the Exodus fables.It is only over time that the concept of one single GOD arises. The Bible is full of references that imply that Yahweh is the God of the Hebrews, and even that Yahweh's powers are limited to a particular territory or soil of a given area or place.As I have pointed out before, the Bible is an anthology of anthologies, and the stories in it are a compilation of many different milieu's, eras, cultures and traditions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Plurals in ancient Hebrew can sometimes indicate superlatives, though, rather that lieral plurals. As in forms like 'Elohim.' Yes?Can this usage be one aspect of that?__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Heh, jar, I don't think that's your determination to make.I think it would have everything to do with any prevailing worth of the ubiquitous book itself. Don't you?