In "our" image

[Guest shiloh357]

Thanks Shiloh, I've been waiting for your reply.

Perhaps you can provide a link for everyone where we can see the Hebrew words you are presenting and sentence structure.

Sure, but unless you can read Hebrew text, it may not do you much good.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם

וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-

הָאָרֶץ

Starting with the first line, reading from right to left:

"Va'Omeir Elohim na'asah adam b'tzelemnu, k'dmoteinu; v'yeirdu vidgaht hayam uvok hashamayim, uvabhaymah uv'kol ha-eretz, uvkol ha-remesh al ha-eretz."

Just one more question, have these words ever been used in a singular context?

Context pertains to a particular line of thought. "Singular" and "plural" refer to forms in which nouns can appear.

Similar to where it is used in Genesis 5:3 showing how Adam had Seth in his own "image?"

In Genesis 5:3 the words are בִּדְמוּתוֹb'dmoto and כְּצַלְמוֹ k'tzelemot both nouns are in a singular form, whereas they appear in the plural form in Genesis 1:26. The words are also different in that the bayit and kaf are reversed in Genesis 5:3.

[BlindSeeker]

Thanks Shiloh, I've been waiting for your reply.

Perhaps you can provide a link for everyone where we can see the Hebrew words you are presenting and sentence structure.

Just one more question, have these words ever been used in a singular context?

Context pertains to a particular line of thought. "Singular" and "plural" refer to forms in which nouns can appear.

Not sure what you're saying exactly. Are you saying the line of though determines the "singular" and "plural" forms in which these nouns appear?

Similar to where it is used in Genesis 5:3 showing how Adam had Seth in his own "image?"

In Genesis 5:3 the words are בִּדְמוּתוֹb'dmoto and כְּצַלְמוֹ k'tzelemot both nouns are in a singular form, whereas they appear in the plural form in Genesis 1:26.

Is there an online interlinear that would show what you are talking about?

The words are also different in that the bayit and kaf are reversed in Genesis 5:3.

Please expound for all of us . . . if you would. How and where are the word's so used. Perhaps you can submit it using our alphabet instead of the Hebrew for an example.

[kuhugaboots]

In case my last post slipped by . . . .

Here is a link to the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch which was the the Hebrew written into Aramaic for the Jews returning from their Babylonian captivity who didn't speak Hebrew anymore. This was actually the first translation of the original text into another language and therefore would have been affected by the popular teaching and understanding of the texts by the aged learned.

I read the link, but I disagree. The "we" couldn't have been angels for they have no power to create anything. The "WE" must have been the godhead.

True.

It's the same "we" (The Trinity) that said "Come let us go down and confuse their language" in Genesis 11:7.

Could you please share what the Hebrew word is that was translated "us" so I can further research it?

Actually . . . if some one can actually provide the Hebrew words translated "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26 that would be helpful too.

yes break down Psa 110:1 it is Jehovah says to Adon.. but this word is it is written as Adon-ai also and that is plural form of Adon

Why are you directing me to Psalms when my question is about Hebrew words in Genesis I am not asking about Psalms at all.

It is the Hebrew words and sentence structure only in the verses in question, show me the Hebrew words translated "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26 and 11:7.

If the word your submitting isn't used in those verses, it is irrelevant to the request. Please show the placement of the Hebrew word in the verses as well similarly to the example -

Ge 1:26 And God

<'elohiym>

said,

<'amar>

Let us make

<`asah>

man

<'adam>

in our image,

<tselem>

after our likeness:

<damuwth>

and let them have dominion

<radah>

over the fish

<dagah>

of the sea, My

<yam>

and over the fowl

<`owph>

of the air,

<shamayim>

and over the cattle,

<bahemah>

and over all the earth,

<'erets>

and over every creeping thing

<remes>

that creepeth

<ramas>

upon the earth.

<'erets>

Please point out the words translated from the Hebrew "us" and "our" . . . .

but really Jehovah talks to Adonai all the time in the scriptures.. they are a' We's'

isn't Elohyim and plural of EL?

direct translation might be like

"THE WE'S" are making him/man to be look alike ( thus to look alike the noun , the main subject) ..... the noun is the THE WE"S who will get copied on to what the man will be.. because there was no adam yet to be the main subject.

so whom do you say our image came from angels?

'elohiym

Pronunciation

el·ō·hēm' (Key)

Part of Speech

masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

Plural of אֱלוֹהַּ (H433)

TWOT Reference

93c

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

b) divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

b) godlike one

c) works or special possessions of God

d) the (true) God

e) God

Edited August 4, 2010 by kuhugaboots

[BlindSeeker]

but really Jehovah talks to Adonai all the time in the scriptures.. they are a' We's'

isn't Elohyim and plural of EL?

direct translation might be like

"THE WE'S" are making him/man to be look alike ( thus to look alike the noun , the main subject) ..... the noun is the THE WE"S who will get copied on to what the man will be.. because there was no adam yet to be the main subject.

so whom do you say our image came from angels?

'elohiym

Pronunciation

el

[Jon-Marc]

"In our image" does not mean that we LOOK like God since "God is a Spirit." However, He has always been a triune God--God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Later, the Word became Jesus the Christ on earth--God in the flesh. So now we say, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Guest shiloh357]

Not sure what you're saying exactly. Are you saying the line of though determines the "singular" and "plural" forms in which these nouns appear?

No, what I am saying is that the word "context" applies to the main idea being communicated by author, as well as the peripheral environment that flavors the text. Singular/plural are not "contexts." They are forms in which nouns appear.

Is there an online interlinear that would show what you are talking about?

It is not the best, but it will suffice for our purposes here:

Interlinear

Please expound for all of us . . . if you would. How and where are the word's so used. Perhaps you can submit it using our alphabet instead of the Hebrew for an example.

There really isn't anything to expound upon. You asked where the word "our" appears" in the Hebrew text and I presented it. Appealing to other verses is not going to change anything about Gen. 1:26. It is a major flaw of Bible study to use how words are used in other parts of Scripture and in other contexts, to influence how words are to be understood in Genesis 1:26.

The text says what it says, and I don't know what I else I could provide that would make any difference in how the text is to be understood.

[kuhugaboots]

well I look at it like this

man called the golden calf " the god who delivered us" they called it Elohyim , God is complaining about it and is just ticked off at their level of seperation from reality.

I mean they were building a Golden calf at his feet and gave it the same name he wants to be called by.

NO I THINK WE ARE IN HIS "CHOSEN" IMAGE. HE CAN APPEAR AS ANYTHING HE WISHES! The We's can take any form.

but his creation is most likely made in his preferred images, his "chosen" images , along with the tri-entity of both us and him. we and really all creation are in his/their chosen/preferred images.

thus we are in the image of the El's chosen image..

.the EL"s we have chosen or the EL's who has chosen us/them.. thus our El's is the ones we deal with.

just as other nations have their own chosen EL's or gods .. Elohim is his chosen/preferred NAME The El's wishes for us to deal with the El's as THEIR preferred name.. just as we are all offended when someone calls EL and ELLA. because his chosen name is EL's.

then the individuals functions/ parts have chosen names too!

Adonai and Yahweh and last part I believe his name is Ru-akh(sp?) or maybe Shekinah= the fire = the Heat/ the moister= the water= the breath = the wind= the Spirit and they are all the El's we are to deal with. we only have that by definition because one part came as "the Son". or we would still not understand " the Lord said to my Lord sit at my right hand until I make you enemies a foot stool" we know now that "the right arm" was sent and just who that one is.

and thus the El's also have a preferred Image , so is that what we are made in the likeness of?

because it is too hard to prove one way or the other if they have an organic image but it is not of this world kind of image that is organic to another dimension.

but it is clear and no assumptions needed that they have a chosen image which includes an arm and a head of some kind.. because the El's claim that.

ok my brain does not work like anyone elses .. so does that make any sense to you?

there is no way for a blind man to prove angles and perspectives. we are now blind to some degree .. but there is an elephant we have standing in the room and that same one has us pinned against the wall because it is so big.. but you know it is an elephant by the trumpeting

Edited August 5, 2010 by kuhugaboots

[Guest shiloh357]

well I look at it like this

man called the golden calf " the god who delivered us" they called it Elohyim , God is complaining about it and is just ticked off at their level of seperation from reality.

I mean they were building a Golden calf at his feet and gave it the same name he wants to be called by.

NO I THINK WE ARE IN HIS "CHOSEN" IMAGE. HE CAN APPEAR AS ANYTHING HE WISHES! The We's can take any form.

but his creation is most likely made in his preferred images, his "chosen" images , along with the tri-entity of both us and him. we and really all creation are in his/their chosen/preferred images.

Huh??? The "We's???" "chosen images?" God has no image.

thus we are in the image of the El's chosen image..

And you find that in Scripture... where?

just as other nations have their own chosen EL's or gods .. Elohim is his chosen/preferred NAME The El's wishes for us to deal with the El's as THEIR preferred name.. just as we are all offended when someone calls EL and ELLA. because his chosen name is EL's.

Yikes...

Elohim is not a "name." Elohim is WHAT God is, not WHO God is. It is a reference to His Being. Elohim is what we call a plural of intensity. Elohim is not a numerical plural; thus, there are no "EL's."

A nonnumeric plural communicates greatness or fullness. If I say there is blood on the floor, I would use the Hebrew word for blood, "dahm." But, if I want to say the floor is full of blood, I would use the plural, "dahmim." In English, "dahmim" comes off as "bloods" which makes no grammatical sense to the English language. But, it makes perfect grammatical sense in Hebrew. Elohim, is the same way. It does not refer to more than one God. However, it does not diminish the plurality of God's personage, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God, and this is consistently demonstrated in Scripture.

[kuhugaboots]

God has no image

. isn't this an assumption ?

that is neither provable or not provable! we do not have enough information to answer that .

yes the scripture is clear .. He has no body we can see.. but he has a form that represents him.. of some sort because Moses and others on the mount saw him.

Abraham saw him and talked with him.. daniel saw him in his dreams. if he has a form that we can not see it in our current state that doesn't mean he is was or always will be formless.. we don't know that... but that doesn't mean he doesn't /didn't or won't ever have a form! we assume to much ..

if we were in another state of being we just might see something .. but for sure not with these eyes of mud.. even if he never has had a form , of anyone or any kind or anywhere has never seen ..... he has chosen forms to present himself to this world and that is what abraham and Moses and the others saw. maybe even different ones at different times .... we can only ASSUME what he is or is not and what he always has been or will be. we do not enough information.

but I got a sneaky suspicion that this means he has no earthly body that a human can see. and has nothing to do with what the "spiritual" is or isn't and what spirit is or isn't . we all assume way to much way too often .

Jesus says " if you have seen me you have seen the FATHER" doesn't THIS IMPLY that there is something to see about the father ! but obviously not now and not with these eyes.

that is why I say if nothing else he has a chosen image and has chosen names to be representative of him and his personality and purposes .

thus we are in the image of the El's chosen image..

And you find that in Scripture... where?

and so who was Abraham arguing with? say when the two angels and the Lord ( the three )showed up before the destruction of Sodom and Gohmorrah? and who were these Abraham and Sarah was looking at and arguing with, and feeding dinner or tea or something to?

obviously some kind of 'representation" of his person, could that maybe a be a "chosen image" like maybe he pulled it out of his hat ..( just kidding).. or maybe a shadow of his real persona.. we really don't know , there is not enough information to make a choice. so all we can do is assume and all ideas are all based in assumptions. because we can't ask all the right questions yet and prove the answers . probably won't have the answers to any these ideas and assumptions until The New Jerusalem and the father is there FACE TO FACE and has his dwelling with mankind. then we will know

so you are having a problem with god being something or God being nothing?

so is 0 =zero and is that something or a nothing?

and this '0' is a NAME AND represents a something or nothing?

Yikes...

then explain all of the Elohyims of other nations, unless he is just saying "Their gods"whom they deal with"

so he is calling all the others God's " all sufficient being" is what you say it means right?

Elohim is not a "name."

isn't anything that 'represents something" a name?

and does he make that word? and we can call him by that representative word ?

He does he use that word to represent his personality, his persona. and his character and purposes?

thus it is a 'name' He chose and He chose it , right? Aren't we to call him that because he chose it, and basically because called himself that?

Edited August 6, 2010 by kuhugaboots

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

God has no image

. isn't this an assumption ?

that is neither provable or not provable! we do not have enough information to answer that .

God is an omnipresent Spirit. For that reason, He has no form or "image." An image has boundaries and can only occupy a limited area. God has no image, no form and His presence fills the universe.

but he has a form that represents him.. of some sort because Moses and others on the mount saw him.

Wrong.

"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.

(Deu 4:15-18)

Abraham saw him and talked with him.. daniel saw him in his dreams. if he has a form that we can not see it in our current state that doesn't mean he is was or always will be formless.. we don't know that... but that doesn't mean he doesn't /didn't or won't ever have a form! we assume to much ..

God can appear in forms we can see, but God Himself has no form, and the Bible NEVER attributes any form to God. YOU are the one assuming too much.

then explain all of the Elohyims of other nations, unless he is just saying "Their gods"whom they deal with"

so he is calling all the others God's " all sufficient being" is what you say it means right?

When applied to God it refers to His Being. Elohim is used to refer to nonDivine entities only because Hebrew is a small language and one word in Hebrew can has as many as 15 or more different meanings. Context determines usage and word usage trumps the lexical meaning of a word in Hebrew.

There is Elohim and there are "elohim" (angels, false gods, human magistrates, etc.). Some competence in the Biblical languages (of which have none) easily clears that up.

isn't anything that 'represents something" a name?

I am a man. That is WHAT I am. "Man" is not my name. Elohim is not a name. His Name is YHVH.

He does he use that word to represent his personality, his persona. and his character and purposes?

Elohim refers to His Being.

Father refers to his Person, as does Son and Holy Spirit. YHVH is God's Name and it is a redemptive Name and teaches us about His redpemptive Nature. He relates man as YHVH. He relates to the rest of the created order as Elohim.

thus it is a 'name' He chose and He chose it , right?

No.

Aren't we to call him that because he chose it, and basically because called himself that?

Jesus taught us to call Him Father. We are nowhere instructed to call Him "Elohim."