Who is US?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wildkit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wildkit

Guest
I am confused right from the start. In Genesis 1:26, it reads,"Then God said, “Let us make men in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the the fish, the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

Who is us?

It then continues in Genesis 1:27 “God created man in his image.”

Do I need to find some other Bible or did the Lord just confuse me?
 
It’s all part of that weird God in three persons thing. So yes, because God is God the Father, God the Son, And God the Holy Spirit, he is essentially his own “us” But because it’s one person, you could probably say “his” image.
Dunno if that helps
 
40.png
Egg4christ:
It’s all part of that weird God in three persons thing. So yes, because God is God the Father, God the Son, And God the Holy Spirit, he is essentially his own “us” But because it’s one person, you could probably say “his” image.
Dunno if that helps
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think I understand,…but Sister Faith, or a fellow LDS or 7th Day Adventist will tell me that I do not have a correct rendition of the Bible or some other acknowledged source of inspiration.

It seems like a prophesy is being given to me when I try to interpet this along with Isaiah 9:5. “For a child is born to us, a son is given us…”

What am I missing, or should I just find another Bible that suits me?
 
Some have suggested it represents God as taking counsel with the heavenly court of angels.

“There is, however, no indication of the heavenly court in this context. Is it not rather to** express the fullness of God’s being?** If God uses the plural, this supposes that he possesses in himself such a fullness of being that he can deliberate with himself just as several persons deliberate among themsleves’. The Hebrew had no way of expressing analogy of being, but he certainly knew that there was a difference between God’s existence and ours.”

A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture ; 149f

No emphasis added.
 
Yet, as I continue and read in Psalm 2:7 “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord, who said to me, You are my son, today I am your father”

Is the verse I am reading corrupted? Is someone giving a prophesy? What am I missing?

I need some help please!!
 
Who is the royal “we”? We know from empirical evidence that that there is only one God?

Or is our Lord giving us some precursors for things that would come?
 
40.png
Wildkit:
Who is the royal “we”? We know from empirical evidence that that there is only one God?

Or is our Lord giving us some precursors for things that would come?
Click to expand...
The royal “we” is, really, first person singular. Think of Queen Victoria saying “We are not amused.” The Popes used to write and talk like this as well.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
The royal “we” is, really, first person singular. Think of Queen Victoria saying “We are not amused.” The Popes used to write and talk like this as well.
Click to expand...
I continue to remain confused, so please forgive me. I am not familiar with the royal queen using “we” nor the Pope using that that phrase in speech. Therefore please help me,…who is we? I am trying to identify who the us is in this Biblical verse or find another Bible.
 
It has nothing to do with “the royal we” or any other such thing. The “us” is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - three individual persons who are one God. When Jesus prayed to the Father, he was not praying to himself. He was praying to the Father. Any confusion about this arises from an unwillingness to accept the reality of the trinity.

It is God’s nature to exist as a family - three persons,who are one being.

A dog is one being, zero persons.

You are one being, one person.

God is one being, three persons.

What’s hard to understand about that? If you cannot understand it, sit quietly for a good long time and meditate on the idea that Jesus (God the Son) is “eternally begotten of the Father”, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Pray to understand it and eventually you will.

God love you,
Paul
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
It has nothing to do with “the royal we” or any other such thing. The “us” is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - three individual persons who are one God. When Jesus prayed to the Father, he was not praying to himself. He was praying to the Father. Any confusion about this arises from an unwillingness to accept the reality of the trinity.

It is God’s nature to exist as a family - three persons,who are one being.

A dog is one being, zero persons.

You are one being, one person.

God is one being, three persons.

What’s hard to understand about that? If you cannot understand it, sit quietly for a good long time and meditate on the idea that Jesus (God the Son) is “eternally begotten of the Father”, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Pray to understand it and eventually you will.

God love you,
Paul
Click to expand...
I did not say it WAS the royal “we,” I said I **thought **it might be the royal “we,” as in “gee, all this time, I though…” Now, please provide scholarly evidence that the plural first person is intended to be read in Genesis as the Holy Trinity conversing amongst Themselves. It is also just as plausible that the poster who said that God was speaking to court of Heaven is correct.
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
It has nothing to do with “the royal we” or any other such thing. The “us” is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - three individual persons who are one God. When Jesus prayed to the Father, he was not praying to himself. He was praying to the Father. Any confusion about this arises from an unwillingness to accept the reality of the trinity.

It is God’s nature to exist as a family - three persons,who are one being.

A dog is one being, zero persons.

You are one being, one person.

God is one being, three persons.

I guess a continuing verse for me is in Matt 3:17. “And a voice came from the heavens saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” But Sister Faith or my other LDS bretherens will tell me that it is corrupt. Which Bible do I believe?

Your point is well taken. But there are so many other beliefs with statements that others would claim as heresies,……what does one believe or say?

What’s hard to understand about that? If you cannot understand it, sit quietly for a good long time and meditate on the idea that Jesus (God the Son) is “eternally begotten of the Father”, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Pray to understand it and eventually you will.

God love you,
Paul
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Wildkit:
Yeah, I think I understand,…but Sister Faith, or a fellow LDS or 7th Day Adventist will tell me that I do not have a correct rendition of the Bible or some other acknowledged source of inspiration.

It seems like a prophesy is being given to me when I try to interpet this along with Isaiah 9:5. “For a child is born to us, a son is given us…”

What am I missing, or should I just find another Bible that suits me?
Click to expand...
If you’re LDS - as you say “a fellow LDS… will tell me…” then I would think that you are to understand “us” as meaning a plurality of gods, of which Heavenly Father is but one.

So, no, I don’t think there’s any need to rush out and buy a new Bible - although the KJV is thought to be incomplete and incorrectly translated it is the standard work in the Bible department.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I did not say it WAS the royal “we,” I said I **thought **it might be the royal “we,” as in “gee, all this time, I though…” Now, please provide scholarly evidence that the plural first person is intended to be read in Genesis as the Holy Trinity conversing amongst Themselves. It is also just as plausible that the poster who said that God was speaking to court of Heaven is correct.
Click to expand...
I’ve also read the ‘us’ attributed as a reference of the Triune God creating the triune man (1 Thessalonians 5:23) in several Bible ‘commentaries’ (mostly protestant but, hey, there are some very fine protestant Bible scholars around!).
 
This may help also;

Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but “The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings” (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak has become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (Ueber einige phon. Inschr., 1889, p. 17 sqq.), and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix).
newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.” But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis.

or;
2. But, again, that you may not think that there was assumption in the bidding of Him Who spoke, or inferiority on the part of Him Who carried out the bidding, the Father’ acknowledges the Son as equal to Himself in the execution of the work, saying: “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” For the common image and the working and the likeness can signify nothing but the oneness of the same Majesty.
newadvent.org/fathers/34022.htm
 
40.png
PAX777:
This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis.
Click to expand...
You mean, like the royal “we?” 😃
 
40.png
PAX777:
This may help also;

Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but “The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings” (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h). The Ethiopic plural amlak has become a proper name of God. Hoffmann has pointed out an analogous plural elim in the Phoenician inscriptions (Ueber einige phon. Inschr., 1889, p. 17 sqq.), and Barton has shown that in the tablets from El-Amarna the plural form ilani replaces the singular more than forty times (Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, 21-23 April, 1892, pp. cxcvi-cxcix).
newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.” But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of “us” as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis.

or;
2. But, again, that you may not think that there was assumption in the bidding of Him Who spoke, or inferiority on the part of Him Who carried out the bidding, the Father’ acknowledges the Son as equal to Himself in the execution of the work, saying: “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” For the common image and the working and the likeness can signify nothing but the oneness of the same Majesty.
newadvent.org/fathers/34022.htm
Click to expand...
Ah! Well it only took a dozen or so guesses to get the answer from a terrific source (I remember paying my ‘pre-publication’ fee of $15-20 for the CE CD and tearing into the cardboard mailer like a kid at Christmas when it arrived - it occupies a relatively small amount of HD space and makes great reading whenever you find yourself stuck with no WiFi connection yet have your laptop in hand)!

My one regret in life - and I’ve really only this ONE - is that I never studied Hebrew.

Thanks for doing the digging and coming up with a gem!
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
You mean, like the royal “we?” 😃
Click to expand...
Had the Hebrew not elucidated the term, I would gladly have accepted the royal plural (and papal) as a sort of ‘signifying all that I am and all which I represent’ used as ‘us’, I admit. As well as the foreshadowing of the Triune God.

It makes me feel rather STUPID, as a matter of fact, that I don’t know my Old Testament - save for the Psalms - very well at all.
 
40.png
ben_dy:
Had the Hebrew not elucidated the term, I would gladly have accepted the royal plural (and papal) as a sort of ‘signifying all that I am and all which I represent’ used as ‘us’, I admit. As well as the foreshadowing of the Triune God.

It makes me feel rather STUPID, as a matter of fact, that I don’t know my Old Testament - save for the Psalms - very well at all.
Click to expand...
Betcha weren’t raise Baptist, were ya? You’d have gotten it with your mother’s milk!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top