Meaning of "Us" in Genesis.

The following passage indicates that God wanted the Israelites to know Him by more than one name. The truth is clear. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had one experience of God and knew Him by one wonderful name, El Shaddai. Now God was going to take a further step with His people and they would know Him by another wonderful name, Jehovah. It is the same God. It is multifaceted God. And He is a God making Himself known by more than one name. Thus we have written to us -"I appeared ... as El Shaddai ... BUT by My name Jehovah I did not make Myself known to them."We should not think of this name matter as simply a different pronouncement or different sound. It means to experience God on a new plain of His nature and character. You have a point. The argument of the three friends of Job is indeed a typical reaction of the pious. You do not have to start with Paul to find the concept of two covenants. Jeremiah speaking from God promises a new covenant.However. I think I mean the character of "mercy" itself. You say mercy has a different flavor in the New Testament than from the Old Testament. In spiite of the two covenants, I think mercy is pretty much just mercy."His mercy endures forever," the Psalm 136 repeats again and again."Flavor of mercy" is a little fuzzy for me tio contemplate this morning.Anyway, I don't want to find myself straying the issue at hand. And that is the mystery of "Us" as used in Genesis and Isaiah. I need to go to the mountaintop and view the whole land. Then come down and remember the big picture.There is a place for what you say. But I think we are going to probably have some differences of interpretation. I think the big picture and the final destination of the whole revelation has to be seen clearly to stay calibrated.There are many many "curious" thinks in the Bible to make good conversation. I like to not be destracted too much from the big picture. How does it relate to the big picture?Anyway, that is all the time I have right now.You're point with Job I agree with.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

God is referring to the other parts of the Trinity. God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are 3 parts to God. God the Father is just referring to the Other Two. Read the first part. ""And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." God was sheltering Adam and Eve, but gave them a choice to expose themselves to sin. They chose sin over the love of God. Therefore God had to cut off their gift of eternal life, He could not allow sin to live forever.Raph

---

Truth is still Truth, Whether One or a Thousand People believe it.

el shaday is not a name. notice the difference in implications here? "they called me this, but they didn't know my name." and in any case:

quote:

---

Gen 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD [YHWH], the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

---

clearly, adram did know god's name. the bit after that, "the most high god" is el elyon. also not a name. there are a lot of el-titles for god in the bible. none of them are names.also, if we're talking about the name of god and spelling it out, it'd be much more respectful to spell it correctly. no, of course not. the second covenant is given in exodus. you're probably thinking of the third or fourth covenant... but that wasn't my comment. my comment was that paul clearly thought there was a contrast between the covenants god gave the hebrews (the law/circumcision) and the covenant god made with the rest of the world (mercy requiring only faith). i said paul thought so. the point is that even the authors of the bible recognize a change, and specifically detail it. pretending that it's all the same kind of deprives, well, the whole point of pauline christianity. judaism and christianity are rather clearly NOT the same religion. indeed. the point was that it is wrong to take one text's concept of god and try to apply it to another text. isaiah has different ideas about god than J/E, who has different ideas than paul, who has different ideas than matthew, etc. for instance, john might marginally support the idea of a trinity (this is questionable, btw) but that does not mean the idea flies in genesis. you're not looking at the whole land. you're looking at a bunch of puzzle pieces and guessing at the picture. but half of the pieces go to a different puzzle, and neither set is complete. there's nothing wrong with context -- but you're not getting all of it. you're not getting the whole history of religious thought in the judeo-christian tradition, let alone the whole history of mesopotamian religion. you're getting the bible, and basing your standards on what someone else has decided goes into it. there are just many ideas about god in the texts surrounding the bible as there are in it, and getting the whole picture of how people thought of god in ancient judea requires looking at those other texts as well and seeing how the bible's texts fit into it. and you will find some interesting trends -- not that one idea of god is the only one present in every text. but what you're doing is falsely relating one piece to the big picture you'd like to see in the pile of pieces. and doing so without the pieces around it, or even really knowledge of its place in the puzzle. "big picture" thinking is not an excuse to shoehorn pieces in where they don't actually fit.in this case, "a simple quirk of hebrew grammar" is most likely suspect. it fits the surrounding pieces of the torah -- strict monotheism, and a more anthropomorphic concept of god.

---

why do you assume it's the father speaking? the problem with this idea is that it really relies on making assumptions and making things up that are just not in the text. it never indicates anything else that could be read as trinitarian in the slightest. there is only one personhood of god ever talked about in the text: yahweh, and no others.reading the text as involving angels is similarly problematic. the text just doesn't describe any as being there. though, perhaps, we can infer from job that the tradition of angels being present is rather old:

quote:

---

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

​

Job 38:4, 7

---

the same cannot be said for the concept of the trinity. the oldest entry we have that reads a different (but the same) person into the creation story is in the gospel of john -- and even there it's more likely that john is appealing to gnosticism than expressing the modern idea of a trinity. and he also fails to mention the third personhood of god, so i doubt we could call that a trinity if only two parties are mentioned.please see my post #10 for what i feel is the most likely explanation, a quirk of hebrew grammar. "from us" doesn't actually imply a plural, though i will admit the genesis 1 instance is truly bizarre -- that CAN be said in singular.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

You're right. I shouldn't assume it was The Father speaking here, because it never really says that. I have good reason to assume it is because The Father is the Head of the Godhead. Yes, but The Trinity is a recurring theme in the entire Bible and shouldn't be overlooked. Just because it doesnt directly state God is talkng to two others, doesn't mean The Trinity doesnt exist.
Please explain what/who God is talking to , if not The Son and Holy Spirit. (Remember, no mention of Angels is in the text.) What then , was Jesus talking about when He stated: (Matthew 28:19-20) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Surely Jesus wasnt mistaken when He said this. How do you explain it?(I have a few other verses proving The Trinity if necessary)RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

---

Truth is still Truth, Whether One or a Thousand People believe it.

Are we to believe that Adam and Eve were created as mortals?

I think there are three possibilites.1. It is used as the royal 'we'.2. God is talking about the heavenly host of angels.3. God is speaking about the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon.Depending on which stance you wish to take, you could argue for any.I think Christians will adopt 1 or 2, as 3 negates their monotheism.Studying the Hebrew Bible objectively, I think option 3 is the most likely, as polytheism is heavily supported in the early books of the Hebrew Bible.

In Matthew 28:19 baptism was to be administered in the name of the father, son and spirit, i.e. Jehovah/father, Jesus/son and spirit/Holy Spirit.The epistles of the NT refer to God as the father, Jesus as the son and the spirit as the spirit of both the father and the son.The scriptures sometimes refer to the kingdom of God. The three above are referred to many as the Trinity, meaning, of course, three which is scriptural as I have shown.Each of the members of the Trinity have unique functions in the kingdom of God in the universe. Jehovah the father is the head of it on the throne. Jesus the son is the one on the right hand of the father having been born on earth to save planet earth and ultimately rule planet earth at the 2nd advent. In the meantime he acts as high priest interceeding for earth humans being our advocate since we sinful creatures are not worthy to approach God on our own merrits.The Holy Spirit is the only multipresent member of the Trinity who/which is sent by the head, Jehovah everywhere in the universe God chooses to effect the purposes and will of God such as creation, destruction, management, inspiration, conviction, empowerment, incarnation, etc, etc.Conclusion: God/Jehovah is the monotheist god of the universe who's spirit and son have a role in functions such as administration of the universe. Thus the words us and elohim (plural for god).Jesus is the only born/begotten (not created) son of Jehovah who also is worthy to receive praise and worship from other intelligent creatures. He is however not equal to Jehovah his father in all respects. He said so himself in John 14 where he said "my father is greater than I" and the apostle Paul said so in I Corinthians 15 towards the end of the chapter I believe where he says Jesus will be subject to the father.Edited by Buzsaw, : remove a word

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The Recovery Version reads as thus:"And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as the All-sufficient God; but by My name Jehovah I did not make Myself known to them." (Exo. 6:3)I think your logic All-sufficient God does not equal a name but
Jehovah equals a name, is not a strong rational.Lets go back to Genesis and see how God used El Shaddai. If Abram had said to his wife and servants the next day "the All-sufficient God has made a covenant with me" I think we cannot discount that as as revealed identifying name for the God that he met.This name El Shaddai - All-sufficient God, was passed down from Abraham to his son Isaac. So Isaac also identified this covenanting God by the name El Shaddai. Then God again uses this identifying name to speak to the third generation Jacob: IMO, we certainly should count El Shaddai was one of the names for God in the Old Testament.The truth is clear. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had one experience of God and knew Him by one wonderful name, El Shaddai.and in any case: I trust the editorial staff of the publishers of the Recovery Version of the Bible. Dr. Kerry S. Robichaux being the main translator from Hebrew to English. I trust his spelling as both respectful and legitimate.It may not be the only possible transliteration. I don't think it is necessarily less respectful than your transliteration. In fact the RcV captitalizes El Shaddai whereas you do not captitalize your version of that identifier. So perhaps your version is less respectful. Where am I "shoe-horning pieces in where they don't actually fit."I have been away from the board for a few weeks. What specifically did you find me shoe-horning? Are we talking about "Us" being said by God in the Old Testament? I believe this refers to the Trinity. I believe that. I respect that others don't believe it, but I do.Is that the shoe horning you say I am doing?The word Genesis implies things in their beginning stage - like a seed. The basic revelations of the Bible are in seed form in the book of Genesis. It is the initial revelation and the rest of the Bible contains the development and maturation of those seed revelations.For example we are told that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him (Abraham) as righteousness. If I said as the Apostle Paul said, that this was an early indication of God's desire to justify by faith would you say "Oh no. You are shoehorning in a foriegn concept into the Hebrew Bible"?What you call "shoe-horning" I call say is your failure to recognize that the major revelations of the whole Bible are found in their initial seed form in Genesis. Justification by faith is there in Genesis in seed form. And I believe the Triune God is also there seen in the phrases including God saying of Himself "Let Us".I know you seem to be always trying to conserve some idea you have of Jewish purity of the Old Testament. And I think in some sense that can be done yet without forcing a barrier, a wall between the Old and New Testament which mostly based on human cultural elements and overlooks that a Divine Mind is overseeing the writing.There are divine truths which I think transcend the cultural elements which you are so eager to preserve. I think the problem is not with me shoehorning. The problem is with you trying to perform excorcism on all New Testament truth seen in seed form in Genesis.Abraham beleived God. And it was counted to him for righteousness.(See Gen. 15:6)Is that also shoe horning Pauline theology into the Old Testament? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I wish I knew enough about the details of ancient Hebrew to comment on the grammar (but I don't). I'm glad that arachnophilia was able to shed some light on that (Message 4 and Message 10). Equally important, I think, was this comment from jaywill (Message 11): His numbers are a little different from arachnophilia's, but it makes the same point, and I would add: at least dozens of translators, and who knows how many copyists. And add on top of that: how much of the content came originally by way of oral tradition, passed by word of mouth over many generations before the means were available to write it down. In any event, whether spoken or written, human language is intrinsically ambiguous and inescapably fallible.There's a lot more to the problem than can be handled by saying "the writers were inspired/guided/spoken to by God." The real difficulty -- and most of the trouble and strife, and the reason why there are so many incompatible branches of Christianity/Judaism/Islam -- is the problem of the readers trying to get it right. (update: rather, it's the readers who believe they got it right, to the extent that they assert all others are wrong)There's an interesting thing about translating from one written language to another: no two translators will ever produce the same result from a given source text. I've seen this myself, with 10 different people translating the same set of basic news stories from Arabic newspapers into English. In general, there's a level at which all the translations were "equivalent" (they conveyed the same basic facts), but there were differences at many points in word choice and word order, to the extent that finding any one sentence come out the same from two different people was a rare exception. For simple statements of fact or observation, this wouldn't matter much, but for statements of opinion and conjecture, and crucially for a reader's response in terms of inferences and presuppositions ("reading between the lines"), the differences can be significant.There is a lot to be learned here about the complexities of using natural human languages to transfer information, above and beyond the obvious issues of "performance errors" (inadequacies and outright mistakes in both speech and writing). And the case of translation is really just an amplification of what happens with text that was originally written in a reader's own native language.Drawing another insight from jaywill, on February 2 (Message 3) he said: Maybe his opinion has changed since then -- I certainly would have no problem with that. The variety of opinions expressed about the meaning of the first-person-plural in the cited passages from Genesis (the Christian trinity, a simple foible of Hebrew usage, etc) have all been enlightening. (I learned about the three genders of God expressed in the qabala; and I had never heard before that Michael was "the Son" before Jesus was born -- where is that stated in scripture, I wonder?)I think that if you say "What is the correct way to interpret this?" that is the wrong question to ask. The right thing to ask is: "How many ways have people interpreted this so far? Are there other ways? What are the reasons people have for their various interpretations?" This thread has been a gold mine for answers to those questions. Keep an open mind about it. Then, as jaywill would do, make up your mind yourself about which interpretation makes the most sense to you right now, and accept the possibility that you might change your mind about it later.This is not really a scientific approach, because it doesn't really rely on what scientists would call "evidence." (In fact, this thread clearly demonstrates why the Bible should not be taken as the basis for understanding physical reality, and why the Young Earth Creationists are so colossally wrong. Understanding the Bible is an inherently personal, internal process, not subject to empirical research, and likewise, empirical research on geology, biology and astronomy cannot be constrained or dismissed by particular interpretations of the Bible.)This is simply an open-minded and reasonable approach that ought to keep you from getting into fruitless battles about holding strictly to one doctrine rather than another. (There's always the risk that others will fight with you anyway, just because you don't adopt their particular interpretation/doctrine. Let's hope you don't run into a lot of people like that.)Edited by Otto Tellick, : added to 3rd paragraph (as noted there), minor rewording elsewhere.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I still believe that the writers were inpsired/guided/ spoken to by God."The problem" for some "Well how can every single part of the Bible claim universal agreement from all readers?" I don't think universal agreement effects the inspiration of the Bible. I don't think that different opinions on how to interpret passages demonstrates that the Bible is not inspired.For one, some things seem more important than others.Some things (for a given time) seem more important than others.Some things (for a particlar age) seem to stand out in greater importance than other things.Behind the Bible is the living Spirit of the Bible illuminating portions that speak to a particular age the burden of God for that age.I don't think believers in God are left to themselves. Behind the living book is the living God assisting in our understanding.I don't think cooperation with God's plan depends on "getting it right" on every single issue. We can afford to say here and there that we are not sure what was meant as I have done. And you noted that. I may change my mind.I believe that God has spoken. I can't follow that with a belief that God is so incompetent or didn't have the foresight to realize that everything would be lost in translation and copying. That would be too bad. Do you think everything was lost in translation?Well, there are crucial matters which seem to be repeated in so many different ways that if we didn't get clear in one part we are likely to get clear in another part.Then there is the issue that God looks for our obedience. If He gives truth to us and we obey that, He will then give us a little more. There is such a thing as "premature knowledge". A certain passage may not at the present be benefitial to my spritual growth. That is why I do not understand it. Latter when my obediance to what I do understand is made secure, the Holy Spirit at that time may guide me into widened and deeper understanding.I don't think the Bible is mainly given to satisfy man's curiosity. "God breathed" or inpsired involves God imparting something of His life and of Himself into the open hearted reader. My life has been edified and even changed by verses which I don't fully understand.To him who has will more be given. He who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This was taught by Christ. I may not be able to interpret 75% of a book in the Bible. But if I am open to God the 25% that He has touched my heart with and I do understand I can embrace with faith and live by it.I don't think we are left alone. I don't think we have to concur 1000% on every detail of teaching. I don't think that God is not in the picture to assist us. And I don't think I should throw up hands in dispair that His word has all been lost in translation and copying so as to make serious study of God's word a fruitless task.Neither should lose appreciation with how amazingly little central and cardinal truths have really been effected by centries of copying. I mean we know that there is a problem with how many horses Solomon had in his stalls. But that Christ is God incarnate and rose from the dead seems uneffected by many copies. Or that God was Yahweh of the Hebrews and a Creator of the world.Many many major doctrines which can be our guides for the rest of our lives are clear. I don't think I need to say that it is all lost and that God should have consulted more with us that we could educate Him on the problems of different human opinions which would arise.Rather, with time, patience, humility, and flexibility the layers of God's revelation can be pierced deeper and deeper in our understanding. There may not be two Christians on earth who agree on every single point of doctrine. But I can testify that still thousands, tens of thousands, even millions come together around the glorious truths that we are clear about. And we see God build us up and together in love.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The factors which can apply to 'US':Q. Who was around when this was said, in context to the text?A. Heaven [angelic/spiritual beings]; animals and other life forms. And there is no reason to say that Gd only speaks to humans.The next applicable factor is to examine the said verse correctly - specially grammatically. Here we find, although the US is used in the aspect of a dialogue in the plural, the actual act of Creation is in the singular. This says, it is appropriate to include the present entities in this dialogue, and not including them would be inappropriate: a dialogue has to have recipients, and there were these.Via interaction of other verses in the same source,we can affirm whether it is correct, namely:'I TAKE LIFE AND I GIVE LIFE' [Ex].That verse clearly signifies that the creation of life was a singularly act. And no other entity or factor can apply, because none eisted at one time, nor did anyone else prove creating life since then.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

In ancient times, Deities had names, thus Moses was told by the Pharoah he knew 70 deities but not the Gd of Abraham. In actuality, the names seen in the Mosaic are more like adjectives than nouns, being descriptive terminology, eg: Shield, AlMighty, High One, etc.But when Moses actually asked for Gd's name, he was given 13 Traits or Attributes [kindness, mercy, forgiveness, etc] - and the abbreviation of these traits are presented as a name - because it constituted a response to the question; this was later proposed by Christianity as Jehova - which is not an actual name or even a realword, but an abbreviation of a sentence [eg: FBI]. The Hebrews used abbreviation because of the 3rd Commandment, namely not to use the name in vain, which included dishonesty, false oaths and also casually.

That's presumptive poppycock. The proper name of the God of the Bible is stated over 6000 times as YHWH (Hebrew)/Jehovah (English). It means "I AM" as was explained to Moses or "the existing one/god". All others referring to Jehovah are adjectives or descriptions/traits.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

"It means "I AM" as was explained to Moses or "the existing one/god".And that is hardly a pronoun, than an adjectival descriptive term. In the same passage, the Hebrews are told to refer to Gd as 'God of thy forefathers, Abraham..' The latter is a descriptive mode of God being transcendent of time and space - Abraham being 400 years ago and in another region. Similarly, the Hebrew letters for I AM is an abbreviation of the Tetragamation, or the 13 Attributes.Aside from this factor,when one is confronted with such revelation, the connectivity does not depend on any names, because the 2nd commandment clearly states, the Creator cannot be compared with anything within creation- so the terms used are for the recipient's benefit only. In Genesis, two names are used, one before the advent of humans [Creator of Nature],and thereafter a Holier name is used when a dialogue with humans occur. With Adam, this becomes a Pronoun only after Eve appears, and before this it is a generic reference to human. This shows all the names are descriptive, including names such as Abraham [father of many], Jacob [foot heel- because he came out of the womb clinging to Esau's heel], and Israel [one who strove with Gd]. Jerusalem is also a descriptive word. In the OT, the names can all be tracked to a root word.