Let US make man in OUR image

[gregoryfl]

A gentleman by the name of Jeff Benner gave an explanation of who the "us" is as recorded in Gen 1:26, that I found interesting, and more importantly, in line with the flow of the Hebraic text.

During the other days, he spoke to the various objects that ended up existing. For example, he spoke to the light when it came into existence, saying, "Light, exist!" Gen 1:3

In verse 6 he spoke to the expanse, in verse 9 he spoke to the waters, in verse 11 he spoke to the land, in verse 14 he spoke to the luminaries, in verse 20 he spoke to the waters, and in verse 24 he spoke to the land.

Let's take a closer look at verse 24, for it helps us understand who the "us" and "our" are in verse 26. In speaking to the land, he tells her to bring forth living souls, and she does, to which God gives life.

Of course, we know that these objects do not literally have ears to hear, but we see consistently that this is God's way of communicating how he fills the heaven and earth in this account.

In verse 26, I believe he is speaking again to the land when he says, "Let us make man in our image." The land brought him forth, and God molded him as he did the animals, then blew into his nostrils the puff of breath of life. Man is indeed in the image of the land, made of the same materials as the land, and he is in the image of God, which God blew into him of himself, something he did not do for any other of his earthly creation. Thus we are of the earth, and of God, in their image and likeness.

For further explanation, see this short video. Just click this link, then the series of videos on the right at the bottom called "Ancient Hebrew Alphabet," then scroll down until you find the "Let us make man" video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg#play/user/FECF9B7A74203DB3/8/LavvpdMPZdw

[Richard Amiel McGough]

A gentleman by the name of Jeff Benner gave an explanation of who the "us" is as recorded in Gen 1:26, that I found interesting, and more importantly, in line with the flow of the Hebraic text.

During the other days, he spoke to the various objects that ended up existing. For example, he spoke to the light when it came into existence, saying, "Light, exist!" Gen 1:3

In verse 6 he spoke to the expanse, in verse 9 he spoke to the waters, in verse 11 he spoke to the land, in verse 14 he spoke to the luminaries, in verse 20 he spoke to the waters, and in verse 24 he spoke to the land.

Let's take a closer look at verse 24, for it helps us understand who the "us" and "our" are in verse 26. In speaking to the land, he tells her to bring forth living souls, and she does, to which God gives life.

Of course, we know that these objects do not literally have ears to hear, but we see consistently that this is God's way of communicating how he fills the heaven and earth in this account.

In verse 26, I believe he is speaking again to the land when he says, "Let us make man in our image." The land brought him forth, and God molded him as he did the animals, then blew into his nostrils the puff of breath of life. Man is indeed in the image of the land, made of the same materials as the land, and he is in the image of God, which God blew into him of himself, something he did not do for any other of his earthly creation. Thus we are of the earth, and of God, in their image and likeness.

For further explanation, see this short video. Just click this link, then the series of videos on the right at the bottom called "Ancient Hebrew Alphabet," then scroll down until you find the "Let us make man" video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ancienthebreworg#play/user/FECF9B7A74203DB3/8/LavvpdMPZdw
Hi Ron,

Thanks for the link. It looks like a very interesting and informative site.

I do not understand why you say God spoke TO the light when he said "Yahi Aur" (Let there be light). The verb "yahi" is the qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular form of hayah. This is the form that is used when you are speaking about something, not to something. If God were speaking to the light, would he not have used a 2nd person form of the verb?

I watched the video and thought it interesting, but I did not see any explicit mention of the ideas that you suggest. It seems to me that the best non-trinitarian understanding of the "us" in Genesis is probably the plural of majesty. It seems quite foreign to suggest that the "us" refers to God and elements of his creation.

It is good to be chatting my friend. Work has finally let up, so I hope to get back in the flow of things around here.

Many blessings!

Richard

[gregoryfl]

Ok. Thanks for considering.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ok. Thanks for considering.
So what do you think about the grammar? Does the third person preclude the idea that God spoke to the light? (I'm not trying to be pushy ... I'm just wondering what you think of that point.)

[gregoryfl]

I have a thought about it, but am not so sure, so I thank you for your question. I have asked Jeff about it, since I am basing it upon his translation of Gen 1:3, where he translates it as "Light exist," instead of the common "Let light exist." I am trying to research something I read in the past from some Jewish rabbinical thinking on the way those verses are to be translated. So at this point I am reconsidering what I said and seeking further understanding.

Thanks again,

Ron

[gregoryfl]

I received a response to my question from Jeff. I am still looking for the information I once found that explained it to me in more detail. Anyway, here is his answer:

Shalom gregory, your comments above are correct, in part. In most cases Elohim simply spoke and his words brought about the action. In some cases he is speaking directly to the creation, such as in your examples. As for your last statement, the 3rd person of a verb refers to the subject of the verb, the one doing action, regardless if it is "about" something or "to" something.

As an example; אמר בא פא בני would be translated as "he said, come here my son." The verb אמר (amar) is in the 3rd person qal, but he is speaking directly to another person.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I received a response to my question from Jeff. I am still looking for the information I once found that explained it to me in more detail. Anyway, here is his answer:

Shalom gregory, your comments above are correct, in part. In most cases Elohim simply spoke and his words brought about the action. In some cases he is speaking directly to the creation, such as in your examples. As for your last statement, the 3rd person of a verb refers to the subject of the verb, the one doing action, regardless if it is "about" something or "to" something.

As an example; אמר בא פא בני would be translated as "he said, come here my son." The verb אמר (amar) is in the 3rd person qal, but he is speaking directly to another person.
Thanks for the info Gregory. Jeff's example is absolutely correct when he says that amar in that sentence is in the third person because it describes the action of the person speaking. In the first person, we say "I said", in the second person we say "you said" and in the third person, "he said." In English the verb does not change, but in the Hebrew it does change.

The situation is entirely different when God said "yahi aur." In this case, the verb "yahi" is spoken by God. It does not refer to the subject "God" who is doing the action because it is a statement made by God, not about God. This is very differnt than the example Jeff gave in which the verb "he said" is in the third person because the sentence is talking about another person.

Here are examples of the three forms of hayah in the first, second, and third person:

First person (I) Exodus 2:22 And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been (hayiti) a stranger in a strange land.

Second person (Thou) Genesis 40:13 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place: and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh's cup into his hand, after the former manner when thou wast (hayiat) his butler.

Third person (it) Exodus 7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become (yahi) a serpent.

In the case of Genesis 1:3, the verb is in the third person because God is making a statement about something other than himself. He is not speaking "to" the light. He is speaking about the light in the third person, just as He was talking about, not "to", the rod in Exodus 7:9.

I don't know where Jeff got the idea that "the 3rd person of a verb refers to the subject of the verb, the one doing action, regardless if it is "about" something or "to" something." That is exactly the opposite of the case. Here is the entry from wikipedia:
English distinguishes three grammatical persons: The personal pronouns I (singular) and we (plural) are in the first person. The personal pronoun you is the second person. It refers to the addressee. You is used in both the singular and plural; thou is the archaic informal second-person singular pronoun.

He, she, it, and they are in the third person. Any person, place, or thing other than the speaker and the addressee is referred to in the third person.
Thanks for the post. It has stimulated my study of Hebrew and grammar.

Richard

[Silence]

Hello Gregory and Richard,
I came across Jeff Benner's work at ancientHebrew.org through a link at Hebrew4Christians and bought his ancient Hebrew lexicon of the bible. I have enjoyed learning how the meanings of the letters contribute to the meaning of the words they are found in - sort of like a built in mnemonic. As far as the topic of this thread, I don't know if what I am thinking is correct, but I would like to share it to see what you guys think.

Is it possible that when God said "Light Be!", He was saying it in the sense of light being shone on the face of the deep instead of allowing it to remain covered in darkness? I say this because Paul uses the occasion of God saying "Let there be light" as a type of us being "born again" when God removes the blindness caused by sin and shines "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" in our hearts. The light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ exists outside of time and precedes His creation. My thought has been that when God said "Light be!" he is not creating light, but is introducing it, or maybe re-introducing it into somewhere where it was currently not shining. Paul's use of this scripture to typify our re-birth after dying in Adam's sin and losing fellowship with God is one reason I believe Genesis 1:2 speaks of the ruin of a former creation. Another is the fact that the existence of water is pre-assumed. Perhaps water was created as a part of "the heavens and the earth" of Genesis 1:1 of which we are not given the details, and the remainder of the creation account in Genesis deals with God's further dealings with this pre-existing system, and the creation of new things within it?

It is also interesting that God said "Let the earth bring forth" twice, once when the plants are created and again when the land dwelling creatures were created, only then it is added that God made the living land creatures, whereas with the plants the earth just brought them forth "and it was so" without any further mention of God doing anything. There are so many different ways that things are worded in this chapter that we will never, on this side of heaven, realize all of the things that are communicated by the way God says things.

Going back to the original thought behind this thread, I came across the following website a while back where I think I read that he believes God was speaking to a "divine council" when He said "Let us" make man in our image. I haven't had time to read a lot of his material, so I was wondering if anyone here has. I know I don't really care for the fact that one of his "hobbies" is studying occult religions. www.michaelsheiser.com

[alec cotton]

[QUOTE]
Thanks for the post. It has stimulated my study of Hebrew and grammar.

Richard
Hello Richard
I know very little about Hebrew. But this is how I have seen genesis one for a long time. Elohim is plural and so when the text reads, " let us make man in our own image" It indicates that man is also a plural entity, God is triune in nature :So is man. I have been unable to find a place where the creator is referred to as Elah in the singular. Further along he is referred to as Jehovah Elohim. In my view that should be translated, The one (singular ) who is the objects (plural) of worship. Man is body ,soul and spirit. Separate and yet inseparable. In chapter 17 Jehovah (singular ) said to Aabram I am El shadai (singular)------ Then Elohim (Plural )continued on his way.In chapter 18 Jehovah appeared to Abram in the form of three men. Each time that Abram addressed God it was in the plural . Every time God answered it was in the singular. Surely the spirit is focusing the attention to the concept of trinity here. That is my view for what it's worth.
Alec

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks for the post. It has stimulated my study of Hebrew and grammar.
Richard
Hello Richard
I know very little about Hebrew. But this is how I have seen genesis one for a long time. Elohim is plural and so when the text reads, " let us make man in our own image" It indicates that man is also a plural entity, God is triune in nature :So is man. I have been unable to find a place where the creator is referred to as Elah in the singular. Further along he is referred to as Jehovah Elohim. In my view that should be translated, The one (singular ) who is the objects (plural) of worship. Man is body ,soul and spirit. Separate and yet inseparable. In chapter 17 Jehovah (singular ) said to Aabram I am El shadai (singular)------ Then Elohim (Plural )continued on his way.In chapter 18 Jehovah appeared to Abram in the form of three men. Each time that Abram addressed God it was in the plural . Every time God answered it was in the singular. Surely the spirit is focusing the attention to the concept of trinity here. That is my view for what it's worth.
Alec
hi Alec!

It is good to be chatting. I am familiar with the idea that the plural Elohim is an indication of the Trinity, and I believe that is a valid possibility. But I don't think we can know for sure because there are other possibilities too, such as the "plural of majesty." Personally, I don't think there is any way we could prove the case one way or the other.

As for the singular use of "Elah" for God - that form is found frequently in the Bible (it is found 56 times, sometimes Eloah and other times Elah). Both forms are listed together as Strong's number 433. The first occurrence is in Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God (Eloah) which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
Most (47) occurrence are found in Job, a few in Daniel and Habakkuk.

And we should remember that the New Testament uses the Greek word Theos which is always singular in reference to God.

Many blessings to you my friend.

Richard

[gregoryfl]

I have heard of the understanding that God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; and that he created man as body, soul, and spirit.

However, let's just assume that both are true. They are an apples and oranges comparison. The body, soul, and spirit, are not 3 separate persons making up one human. And according to Hebraic thought, they are not even 3 separate parts of a human, although that is what Greek philosophy has made it to be. Biblically, a human is a body made from the ground, with God's spirit breathed into him. That makes him a soul. They describe different aspects about the one human.

According to the teaching of the trinity, you cannot apply that same reasoning, because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different aspects making up the one God, but are 3 separate and distinct individuals, which again, is quite different than the understanding of man.

Silence, I also have come to believe that what God did in the Genesis account was not the creating of things ex-nihilo, but rather the fattening, or filling, of what was already there, but not revealed to be yet. You have stated it quite well.

Richard, I am still trying to find that elusive article I once read. Bear with me. God willing, I will find it. :)

Ron

Hmm, not sure how this got turned into a discussion of the trinity. Hehe. There is a whole other thread with that discussion waiting to be picked up again. :)

[gregoryfl]

Just wanted to add this following understanding from Rabbi Ovadia Sforno. Here is the quote:

The real meaning behind these references needs to be understood, each within its own context. Regarding the verse you quoted, there are many beautiful levels of meaning being expressed. One such idea was clarified by Rabbi Ovadia Sforno. He explains that God was telling the earth, that He had already created, to 'collaborate' with Him in the creation of Man. Man is the only aspect of creation with two component parts, a physical body and a soul that comes directly from the 'breath' of G-d Himself. So the 'us' in that verse refers to G-d and the physical universe.

Ron

[alec cotton]

I have heard of the understanding that God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit; and that he created man as body, soul, and spirit.

However, let's just assume that both are true. They are an apples and oranges comparison. The body, soul, and spirit, are not 3 separate persons making up one human. And according to Hebraic thought, they are not even 3 separate parts of a human, although that is what Greek philosophy has made it to be. Biblically, a human is a body made from the ground, with God's spirit breathed into him. That makes him a soul. They describe different aspects about the one human.

According to the teaching of the trinity, you cannot apply that same reasoning, because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different aspects making up the one God, but are 3 separate and distinct individuals, which again, is quite different than the understanding of man.

Silence, I also have come to believe that what God did in the Genesis account was not the creating of things ex-nihilo, but rather the fattening, or filling, of what was already there, but not revealed to be yet. You have stated it quite well.

Richard, I am still trying to find that elusive article I once read. Bear with me. God willing, I will find it. :)

Ron

Hmm, not sure how this got turned into a discussion of the trinity. Hehe. There is a whole other thread with that discussion waiting to be picked up again. :)

[alec cotton]

Bear with me for just a minute Ron . As I see it ,God projected a mental image into a formless mass and the formless mas assumed the form of the mental image. Man is indeed a threefold being . I have personally observed enough instances in humans and animals to convince me that the mind and the brain(body) are distinct and separate. The soul is another entity. The body rots ,the soul does not."Do not fear him who can kill the body,but fear him who can destroy both body and soul in the fires of the land of Hinnom." The body without the mind or soul can be kept functioning (artificially) for years.
Alec

[CWH]

Bear with me for just a minute Ron . As I see it ,God projected a mental image into a formless mass and the formless mas assumed the form of the mental image. Man is indeed a threefold being . I have personally observed enough instances in humans and animals to convince me that the mind and the brain(body) are distinct and separate. The soul is another entity. The body rots ,the soul does not."Do not fear him who can kill the body,but fear him who can destroy both body and soul in the fires of the land of Hinnom." The body without the mind or soul can be kept functioning (artificially) for years.
Alec

Right on Alec,:yo:

God is Spirit and he could form man into whatever shape he wanted. A lifeless human body can be kept artificially alive with artificial heart-lung machine but as long as the soul is not there, the lifeless body will not be able to function independently. The lifeless body will just be a vegetable depending indefinitely on the heart-lung machine. Only when the soul enters the body, only then will the body becomes alive and functioning independently. The spirit that God "breathed" into the body is the life-giving energy. Imagine a robot, it has a body(body) and electricity(spirit) that provides the energy and there is a software programme that makes it work the way it works (likened to a soul). I believe the soul and spirit comes together; when we refers to soul we can also mean spirit.

There are talks about cloning MJ. The cloned MJ body will look and sound exactly like MJ but his personality will be different because the soul that enters the cloned MJ body is not the actual MJ soul but the soul of a different person. We will never have another MJ that performed like MJ. It is the soul that matters, the body is of no avail.

Many Blessings to you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just wanted to add this following understanding from Rabbi Ovadia Sforno. Here is the quote:

The real meaning behind these references needs to be understood, each within its own context. Regarding the verse you quoted, there are many beautiful levels of meaning being expressed. One such idea was clarified by Rabbi Ovadia Sforno. He explains that God was telling the earth, that He had already created, to “collaborate” with Him in the creation of Man. Man is the only aspect of creation with two component parts, a physical body and a soul that comes directly from the “breath” of G-d Himself. So the “us” in that verse refers to G-d and the physical universe.

Ron
Hey Ron,

Rabbinic tradition is filled with "beautiful levels of meaning" and I have gained much by studying it. But it also contains a lot of unfounded human traditions and speculations, so as with everything else, it must be judged in light of what the Scripture actually says.

Thanks for providing that explicit quote. I agree that God's statement "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" could be interpreted as an indirect command to the earth, especially since the next verse states that the "earth brought forth" which could be interpreted as an obedience to that command. I say "indirect" because the command is in the 3rd person - God was not directly addressing the earth. It would be like me saying "Let Ron write a post." (As an aside, some Christians see this as consistent with evolution.)

I'm pretty sure (but not absolutely certain) that this kind of reasoning can not be applied to the creation of light because there was no "light" to "hear" the command "be!" before the command was uttered. If God said "Let Ron be!" it would be hard to interpret it as a command to Ron before Ron existed.

But does any of this really answer the question of the meaning of "us" in Genesis 1? I don't think so because it all seems too speculative, fanciful and homiletical. It makes a nice story, but I see no reason to think that God was really wanting us to believe that he meant "Let us (me and the stuff I made) make man in our image."

Of course, I don't think we can really make much of an "argument" for any position from the mere appearance of "us" in that verse. It could be the plural of majesty. It could be a reference to the Trinity. It could be something else we have not thought of. Since God has not provided any way to discern the truth in this matter, I don't think anyone can use it to support any view at all.

Great chatting,

Richard

[CWH]

Hey Ron,

Rabbinic tradition is filled with "beautiful levels of meaning" and I have gained much by studying it. But it also contains a lot of unfounded human traditions and speculations, so as with everything else, it must be judged in light of what the Scripture actually says.

Thanks for providing that explicit quote. I agree that God's statement "Let the earth bring forth living creatures" could be interpreted as an indirect command to the earth, especially since the next verse states that the "earth brought forth" which could be interpreted as an obedience to that command. I say "indirect" because the command is in the 3rd person - God was not directly addressing the earth. It would be like me saying "Let Ron write a post." (As an aside, some Christians see this as consistent with evolution.)

I'm pretty sure (but not absolutely certain) that this kind of reasoning can not be applied to the creation of light because there was no "light" to "hear" the command "be!" before the command was uttered. If God said "Let Ron be!" it would be hard to interpret it as a command to Ron before Ron existed.

But does any of this really answer the question of the meaning of "us" in Genesis 1? I don't think so because it all seems too speculative, fanciful and homiletical. It makes a nice story, but I see no reason to think that God was really wanting us to believe that he meant "Let us (me and the stuff I made) make man in our image."

Of course, I don't think we can really make much of an "argument" for any position from the mere appearance of "us" in that verse. It could be the plural of majesty. It could be a reference to the Trinity. It could be something else we have not thought of. Since God has not provided any way to discern the truth in this matter, I don't think anyone can use it to support any view at all.

Great chatting,

Richard

Hi Richard,

Don't the commands sound a tinker to you? "Let there be Light", "Let the earth bring forth creatures...." It's like giving a verbal voice command to the computer, "On the Computer", "Go to File", "Check e-mail" etc. What I am saying here is that it is very easy for God to create or do anything just by giving verbal commands. It is not something far-fetched. Nothing is impossible with God.

God Blessings to you.:)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Don't the commands sound a tinker to you? "Let there be Light", "Let the earth bring forth creatures...." It's like giving a verbal voice command to the computer, "On the Computer", "Go to File", "Check e-mail" etc. What I am saying here is that it is very easy for God to create or do anything just by giving verbal commands. It is not something far-fetched. Nothing is impossible with God.

God Blessings to you.:)
Ha! You do know I'm a software engineer, right?

Yes, I could envision the whole scenario of Genesis 1 as a computer metaphor. Indeed, the detailed symmetric structure as a menorah triggers my sense of "blueprint" or "schematic" much more strongly than anything like a "historical account of a temporal sequence of literal 24 hour days." Perhaps the clearest expression is that Genesis 1 seems like it is a revelation of the "archetype of creation."

And I agree completely that it is "easy" for God to create by giving "verbal commands" (i.e. speaking). In my understanding, all Reality is an idea in the Mind of God, and ideas are articulated (formed) with words. So it all makes perfect and profound sense to me. "In the beginning was the Word."

Many blessings, my smiling friend, :)

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just wanted to add this following understanding from Rabbi Ovadia Sforno. Here is the quote:

The real meaning behind these references needs to be understood, each within its own context. Regarding the verse you quoted, there are many beautiful levels of meaning being expressed. One such idea was clarified by Rabbi Ovadia Sforno. He explains that God was telling the earth, that He had already created, to 'collaborate' with Him in the creation of Man. Man is the only aspect of creation with two component parts, a physical body and a soul that comes directly from the 'breath' of G-d Himself. So the 'us' in that verse refers to G-d and the physical universe.

Ron
It just occurred to me that this interpretation does not seem consistent with what the Bible actually states. Here are the relevant verses with comments that show the inconsistency:
Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image [meaning in the image of God and in the image of the earth], after our likeness: ... So God created man in his own image [in the image of God only, not the earth], in the image of God [only God, not the earth] created he him; male and female created he them.
Richard

[gregoryfl]

It just occurred to me that this interpretation does not seem consistent with what the Bible actually states. Here are the relevant verses with comments that show the inconsistency:
Genesis 1:26-28 And God said, Let us make man in our image [meaning in the image of God and in the image of the earth], after our likeness: ... So God created man in his own image [in the image of God only, not the earth], in the image of God [only God, not the earth] created he him; male and female created he them.
Richard
That is a very valid point. I am of the persuasion that he is speaking to his heavenly council, but in hearing this understanding found it worth considering.

Thanks again,

Ron