How do Jews and Muslims explain Genesis 1:26?

[jericho777]

The plurality of majesty is dodge of the obvious plurality of God because it is an enigma. Look at Deut 6:4 Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one:
GOD is plural. It literally ties the plural as a singular. This verse only makes sense in the language structure to have God as the singular plural and still one. To me if there were to be consistency in the plural of majesty theory every place God would be in the plural form but it is not.
I found Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai who taught God was three but singular.
Here is an old thread from here

Ancient Jewish writings about the Trinity Non-Catholic Religions

Another Rabbi Menachem of Recanati wrote in his Commentary on the Pentateuch about the mystery of the Trinity. He wrote: "These are secrets which are revealed only to those who are reaping upon the holy field, as it is written "‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.’ This verse is the root of our faith, therefore Moses records it after the ten commandments. The reason (that there is said hw:hoyÒ, Lord, !yhiloa>, our God, and hw:hoyÒ, Lord) is, because the word [mv does not here signify …

 

[Bithynian]

It’s a Christian problem, part of the usual mining the Tanakh for any kind of text that can be used to explain how a man can be God.

I don’t even think it’s a Christian problem. I can’t think of any reputable contemporary Catholic (or for that matter Protestant) scholarship that would deny that Gen 1:26 is primarily an example of the majestic plural. After all, it’s such a basic aspect of Classical Hebrew grammar.

Some exegeses might avail themselves of the verse as a defence of the Trinity, but it’s hardly the “smoking gun” sort of substantiation that some portray it to be.

 

[nfinke]

The explanation is that He’s either talking with the host of heaven, or He’s using the royal plural tense. But both of those are kind of weird explanations.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t even think it’s a Christian problem.

I expect you’re right, sometimes with ‘proof texts’ I tend to wonder whether there should be the equivalent to the creationists’ ‘list of arguments not to use’ for apologists.

 

[Bithynian]

I expect you’re right, sometimes with ‘proof texts’ I tend to wonder whether there should be the equivalent to the creationists’ ‘list of arguments not to use’ for apologists.

I agree, and it honestly wouldn’t hurt for Christians of any communion to sit down, at some point, and have a read through a Jewish commentary on the Tanakh.

I myself am not Jewish, but I was fortunate in my undergraduate to study Hebrew under the guidance of an exceptionally adept Conservative rabbi.

 

[steve-b]

This isn’t a Jewish problem, nor a Muslim problem, I expect.

It’s a Christian problem, part of the usual mining the Tanakh for any kind of text that can be used to explain how a man can be God.

There is no problem

what came first, is God became man.

 

[Psalms62]

It’s a Christian problem, part of the usual mining the Tanakh for any kind of text that can be used to explain how a man can be God.

A Question? In Genesis, do you believe that God literally and visibly walked in the garden (Genesis 3:8)? And, if so, then who were the three men who visited Abraham in Genesis 18?

Wasn’t this the approach with Moses? That is, when God called his name out from the burning bush? See passage:

And He said: 'Hear now My words: if there be a prophet among you, I the LORD do make Myself known unto him in a vision(Genesis 15 -Abraham) , I do speak with him in a dream.

Wasn’t this told to Abraham in a dream? (Genesis 15, covenant between the parts (Hebrew: ברית בין הבתרים berith bayin hebatrim) was an event in which God revealed himself to Abraham and made a covenant with him, in which God announced to Abraham that his descendants would eventually inherit the Land of Israel.)

Next verse, My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house; with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD doth he behold; wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?’

 

[Psalms62]

At the same time, in the next verse, G-d is no longer written in the plural but rather in the singular. There is a shift from plural to singular in Genesis as well as other biblical texts. The Hebrew language enables this with regard to the majesty of G-d, as well as His humility.

Hi Meltzerboy2,

Trying to explain under the last post. If you look at Genesis from the beginning to end you read the text as how God establishes his relationship with mankind. (Creation) Especially with Abraham. First God calls out to Abrahams (Genesis 12), the “Word” of Lord came to Abraham in a vision (Genesis 15), until we finally reach to Genesis 17, God appeared to Abraham.

These events seem the same way with Moses. First God calls out to Moses from the burning bush…and so on, until Exodus 18 (Shemot) defines the relationship between both God and man. The “Word of the Lord” came to the people (in the same respect as Abraham) - the “Word” being in the form of the Law, Torah. It is the same characteristic with prophet to the Israelites.

God establishes His present to the people once the Israelites accepted the responsibilities of the law or the receiving of the law. Again, the veribage didn’t change from what was asked out of Abraham by " walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

See Nehemiah 1, " 8 Remember, I pray, the word that You commanded Your servant Moses when You said, ‘If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, 9 but if you return to Me to keep and practice My commandments, then even if your exiles have been banished to the farthest horizon,b I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for My Name.’c

 

[Kaninchen]

A Question? In Genesis, do you believe that God literally and visibly walked in the garden

No (much the same answer to your other questions).

Judaism isn’t a religion of biblical literality - what the scriptures reveal is a desert people, emerging out of the religious traditions of the Ancient Middle East and their growing understanding of the divine and their relationship with their God.

 

[Psalms62]

Finally, as stated in Genesis, as in Exodus, we read under both chapters, God appears to both prophets. The estsblishment of making the next verse possible ," In the specific case of Shavuot, this takes the form of the entering into a covenant or formal agreement between God and Israel at Mount Sinai"

 

[Psalms62]

Understood, but that relationship had developed in much the sameway as the prophets. As the prophets, in stages, established their relationship (in much the sameway as in Gad Eden, with only two laws) the Israelites will or will continue to establish their relationdhip with God. However, as with the prophets, God appears.

 

[Kaninchen]

Understood, but that relationship had developed in much the sameway as the prophets.

The prophets are part of an understanding, not the final word on understanding, part of the argument, not the argument.

Judaism’s emphasis is on (for want of a better term, I’ve only had one coffee so far) correct action, not correct belief.

 

[Psalms62]

The prophets are part of an understanding, not the final word on understanding, part of the argument, not the argument.

---

2 Peter 1:

19 We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Kaninchen]

2 Peter 1:

Somebody else’s book.

 

[Psalms62]

Nope, it just simply coincided with the 613 commandments on the prophets. "To heed the call of every prophet in each generation" provided that he neither adds to, nor takes away from the Torah (Deut. 18:15)

 

[Kaninchen]

Nope, it just simply coincided with the 613 commandments on the prophets.

Still somebody else’s book - I’m sure that there are passages of the Qur’an or Book of Mormon that could be considered (by those whose books there are) as relevant to themes in the NT but it’s through their ‘gaze’.

 

[Psalms62]

that would deal with the laws of the prophets, writings and the history on Israel? (Jacob) Not Ishmael. As for the book of Mormons and setting their gaze on scripture for the same thoughts…

Still, the emphasis is on the Prophets of Israel and as stated under Fundamentals of Torah: (613 Commandments) |To listen to the prophet speaking in His Name|Deut. 18:15| and |10|Not to test the prophet unduly|

I believe, again, 2 Peter 1:19 fits in well with “hear” and “listen” when the commandment stresses “to heed”. 613 commandments on the prophets. "To heed the call of every prophet in each generation" provided that he neither adds to, nor takes away from the Torah (Deut. 18:15)

 

[Kaninchen]

I believe, again, 2 Peter 1:19 fits in well with “hear” and “listen”

I’ve no doubt you do but it’s your book, not mine.

 

[meltzerboy2]

You might also wish to boldface the remaining words of your last statement. According to Jewish belief (and some Christian belief as well), Jesus DID add to and took away from the Torah in significant ways, not the least of which is His claim to divinity. The latter is not acceptable in Judaism; neither are several other of Jesus’ statements, regarding the Sabbath, the dietary laws, and so on. Hence Jesus is NOT regarded as a prophet, let alone the Messiah.

 

[Psalms62]

If I have to boldface the last statement in “Hear” and “Listen” then it would have bring it to the attention of the other poster. Which I think someone needed to correct. I think what was discussed (if I am following) was how do you regard or place weight on the prophets and prophecy.

2 Peter 1, only confirms the area of prophets and prophecy according to 613 Mitzvot (Commandments). Nothing in this argument even mentioned for the remark that posted back.

The prophets are part of an understanding, not the final word on understanding, part of the argument, not the argument.

Judaism’s emphasis is on (for want of a better term, I’ve only had one coffee so far) correct action, not correct belief.