It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Then God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, and in OUR likeness'"

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:54 AM
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

And that is one of the reasons I believe, at the very least the references to "Us" and "Our" made in Genesis are most likely the royal plural.

Only being in my mid twenties, and having grown up in the church my entire life and gone to a Christian college in training for youth ministry, I readily acknowledge that I have much to learn.

I'm sure you could also recognize how simply tossing out the Trinity doctrine is not something that can be done flippantly as it has the appearance of meaning that my entire faith is about to be radically altered, a faith that not only has consequences for the here and now in my own life, but also for all eternity.

One of the things that bothers me most about this is the possibility that for generations, the true gospel has been distorted and perverted in a way that is simply unacceptable. What does this mean for those who lived and died according to a false teaching? My only hope at this point is to fully rely on God mercy, love and justice that he would judge those who honestly yearned to serve Him with compassion, even if they were mistakenly committing idolatry due to false teachings infiltrating His very Word.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:02 AM
It is rather confusing wording.

Did the Godhead exist in the begining, when there was supposedly just God, or did the Godhead come later when we are introduced to the concepts of The Holy Spirit and of God's son Jesus.
I know that three entities comprise the Godhead, but in nature and purpose... essence, they are one right?

I mean the sciptures themselves never refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Godhead) as gods. Whenever the term "gods" is used, it only refers to idols or pagan pantheons.

In addition to this, it is significant that the Hebrew adjective of singularity (one) is used with the plural noun God (Elohim). "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6: 4).

I think most of this comes down to translation and interperation, both of which are extremely subjective.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by TLCOB]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by Mykahel

And there we are at the very core of the problem with institutionalised religion. What about the dead who believed in the lies? What will God do to them? I'd say nothing. They are dead, but their genes and spirits live on in their families and descendants. I wouldn't be so worried about dead sheep and the snow of yester year. The snow is gone and those people are all dead, they were meek people fooled into believing something which the Church knowingly conspired to enforce in order to gain power, just because of what you mention. As far as I know, God is a fella who can think and understand, and would never hold anyone other than the powers behind these forgeries and lies responcible, or like Jesjuah said: "It is better for such to be cast into the ocean with a millstone around it's neck", and looking at how the mighty Angel in the Book of Revelation explains the destruction of Babylon when he: "...picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again."

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:22 AM

Originally posted by silverstreak
Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground (Genesis 1:26)

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of US, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22)

Come, let US go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other (Genesis 11:7)


So why is God speaking in pluralities?

A lot of people will tell you that God speaks this way because it is in reference to the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). However, I personally do not subscribe to this claim because these passages are from Genesis, in the Hebrew Old Testament. The concept of a "Trinity" is a Christian concept that was not created until the Christian New Testament (many thousands of years later after the recordings of the Hebrew books).

So then again I ask, why is God speaking in pluralities?

Good questions.

Yahweh is the One True God. He was speaking to His first creation His Son, The Word who was created before everything else in creation. The Two of Them worked together in bringing forth all that is in Creation.

Now, I'd like to share some truth with you to help you reason out why Christ Jesus (who existed before in heaven as The Word)

If Jesus Christ were Yahweh, would he have made this statement at John 5:16? "So, because Jesus was doing these things on the sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

It's pretty obvious that Christ differentiated himself from his Father Yahweh in that statement, isn't it? Why? Because he told ONLY THE TRUTH. He knew he himself was NOT God Almighty. He did not try to fool anyone into believing that he was.

Now go to Verse 18 and look at what is revealed: "For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." In their eyes (the Jews) they felt he Jesus had made himself equal with the Creator. But had he done so?

Let's read Verse 19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Does that sound like he was equal to Yahweh? Or, does it sound like Jesus was in submission of his Father's Will?

At John 14:28 Jesus said, "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you. If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.'" If Jesus was Yahweh, he would be equal in GREATNESS; but he clearly stated that his Father is GREATER than he is. He also clearly stated that he was GOING TO HIS FATHER. That alone tells us that his Father was somewhere else, not playing the 3-headed part of a Trinity which included the personage of Jesus. It just doesn't fit in the Jigsaw Puzzle. To believe otherwise is to believe a LIE.

Yahweh and Christ are in UNION in all that They do. So when Christ said at John 17:11 "I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by Your name that You have given Me, so that they may be one as We are one." it meant that he prayed they be in UNION as they went forth to share the Gospel.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:52 AM

Originally posted by kingofmd
Yikes the ignorance coming from a lot of posters is frightening. Council at Nicea simply nailed down doctrine that was already believed by the church. Along with dismissing fairy tale books that were claimed belong in the canon. They only had the council because so much foolishness was cropping up (just like we see today). It would be the equivalant of us today having a council that says George Washington was the 1st president, because some are teaching Thomas Jefferson was.

The Council of Nicea changed Christianity from its original true form with Hebrew roots and the original teachings of Christ.

Constantine, who was a pagan, called this council to bring babylonian paganism into the Church.

The Sabbath would be changed to SUNday (babylonian sun worship) against the bible teachings.

The observance of the death and resurrection of Christ was changed from the Jewish Passover to the babylonian fertility feast of Easter/Ishtar/Astarte/Ashteroth/Semiramis/etc.

Christ's birth was changed to December 25th, the day sun worshipers believe Tammuz, the son of Ishtar and Nimrod, was born.

Nicea essentially outlawed all original Hebrew rooted practices of early Christianity in favor of babylonian mystery school sun worship.

quick rundown:

Noah (of ARK fame) had a son named Ham.
Ham had a son named Cush.
Cush married a woman named Semiramis.
Cush and Semiramis had a son named Nimrod.
Cush was killed. Nimrod married his mother Semiramis who became Ishtar.
Nimrod became powerful babylonian king.
Nimrod was killed. Ishtar became powerful queen.
Ishtar went to the underworld to save her husband from death.
Ishtar told the people Nimrod ascended to the heavens and became the sun (hence sun worship).
Ishtar told people she descended from the moon in a egg (easter egg) that landed in Euphrates river.
Ishtar became pregnant and told people it was a mystical conception with Nimrod, the sun.
Ishtar gave birth to Tammuz.
Tammuz became a hunter.
Tammuz was killed by a wild bore, his blood spilling over onto the stump of an evergreen tree. The next day, and new tree grew in its place (hence Christmas tree).
Ishtar told the people Tammuz ascended to the heavens and was seated with his father, the sun.
Ishtar started the Mystery Schools that the world elite/nwo are involved in now.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by silverstreak]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:04 PM
When words are thought, written, and spoken in one language and then translated into another completely dissimilar language, some tone and grammar are lost.
Take a Chinese or Japanese movie that has been dubbed with English. The English words sound very dorky, quirky, nerdy all the time. The reason is not because the original script is bad, it's because you can't translate a complex language into English and capture everything.

Hebrew is an extremely complex language. As I stated in a previous post, plural nouns were used not only for more-than-one, but also for big/great/important singularities.

If it was meant to be a group Us/Our in Gen 1:26, then Gen 1:27 would read as follows:
So THEY created man in THEIR own image, in the image of THEM THEY created him; male and female THEY created them.

But it doesn't read like that now does it?

It's God speaking in the 1st person, using the possessive nouns that are meant to separate mundane from big or important.

When you translate into English you get "let us make man in our image..." but what you should be reading is "let MY GREAT SELF make man in MY GREAT SELF'S image..." or "let Me make man in My image".

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:07 PM
This exact question has been brought up in a number of threads here on ATS, make a search on the word 'elohim' and see what you'll find.

Personallly, I lean towards the explanation that Judaism was polytheistic from the start, in the sense that they believed in a multitude of gods but were 'chosen' by the God Yahwe to become his people, as Yahwe became 'their' God, the only God to them, and finally Judaism transformed into monotheism where there was only one God.

The true identity of the gods is another matter...

'Elohim' is not the only mistranslated word in the Bible. Ask yourself why Michelangelo's statue of Moses has horns, and follow the lead...

'Bene elohim' is generally translated as Angels or angelic beings, but why translate 'elohim' as singular and 'bene elohim' as plural?

Most scholars today derive the Hebrew word 'nephilim' from the Hebrew verb naphal, which means “fallen ones.” The Nephilim were therefore not giants, as the King James Bible translated it, but could translate into beings 'fallen from the sky'

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Heliocentric]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:20 PM

The Singular of ELOHIM is ELOAH (see the poetical sections of Job chapters 3-48 for ELOAH as a singular), and not ELOI which means 'my EL'

Eloah is grammatically FEMININE - the plural (elohim) is grammatially MASCULINE. There may have been a post-exilic desire to make the clan god of Israel stand out as a MASCULINE entity, which may have contributed to the use of the Plural, although, as has been suggested, plurals often in paleoHebrew refer to things that change form (e.g. water - MAYIM - pl - since it could be boiling or freezing or still or fresh or salty etc. or faces - PHANIM - pl. since they can be happy, or sad, or asleep, or raging or seductive, or crying or laughing etc. - or SHAMAYIM (sky) - since it could be sunny or storming or still or breezy and also the planets changed daily across the fixed 'firmament' (so they believed) so the sky was also in FLUX, etc.

ELOHIM being plural may well be a way to express a variety of forms of the god (like water, faces, sky etc.) since any clan-god could be at anyh one time happy or sad or plaintive, or angry, or vengeful or forgiving (or so they believed) etc.

At any rate, try to be more careful of any Hebrew grammatical nuances in the texts before you post comments.

Here is some other general background points to be made about polytheism in ancient Israel (shortened from what could be a much much mucch longer comment, for the purpose of this little threadlet)

The Cannanite Bull clan-god EL was older than the later worship of the post-Exilic 'one clan-god YHWH'- EL is often mentioned with his Pantheon of lesser gods. See Deut 32 and others, where YHWH is listed among the Pantheon headed up by the Canaanite Bull god EL; Ba'al was sometimes called the son of EL in inscriptions found in palestine dating to before the Exile (587 BCE) where MANY gods were worshipped in Judah (and earlier in Israel, the northern 'clan-kingdom')

Even in the preExilic psalms e.g. Psalm 29 etc. we read an adaptation of a pagan pre-Yahwistic psalm to Ba'al, the son of EL.

'HaBu, LeBa'al, Benei ELIM' - (give [power] to Ba'al, you sons of the gods !')

Where the repeated Labial B sound is repeated 3 times, i.e. poetically. In the present day Hebrew scriptural adaptation, the verse reads now in Psalms 29:1

HaBu LeYHWH, Benei Elim ! ('give [power] to YHWH, ye sons of the gods !')

Where the original BBB poetical repetitions of the earlier Ba'alite psalm is completely ruined by the later Yahwhists who adapted the preYahwistic Baalite (Canaanite) poem.

Pre-Exilic (pre 587 BCE) writings & inscriptions in Palestine often speak of YHWH and his pantheon, or EL and his Pantheon or many gods being worshipped in Palestine - even the clan chief Jedediah Solomon of Judah (whose mother was Bath-Shebiti, 'daughter of the seven gods' i.e. BathSheba, who was a Jebusite princess). No wonder her son 'solomon' built so many shrines to other gods than YHWH - he practiced (apparently) MONOLATRY - worship of YHWH at the head of a pantheon of gods, and had a wife too, Ashera, the original wife of Ashur, the Syro-Assyrian god depicted with 4 faces, just like the description in the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Hezekiel (chapter 1 and chapter 10): Ashur also had the face of a Lion, a Man, an Eagle and an Ox.

It was not until after the 4 priestly families (of 24 priestly families that originally left for Babylon in the Exile of 587 BCE) of YHWH returned to rebuild the Temple of YHWH as a YHWH only cult after 480 BCE - these were MOST extreme right wing YHWH only priestly groups came back - and most of their re-writings are what we read today in the text of the 'bible' which was re-written during the time of EZRA the Scribe in c.420 BCE using the NEW lettering system (aleph-bet)

The other 20 priestly families that had been marched off into exile stayed where they went (along with metal workers, alchemists and anyone else with special writing skills or ability to make weapons- and therefore foster rebellion against the Babylonians, were taken out - these 20 priestly families (for the most part) changed their allegiance to the local Marduk priestly cults in Babylon - same skills different gods etc.)

The TWO Jewish Myths of Creation that we see in Genesis (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4a and Gen 2:4b to Gen 4:26) reflect some of the attempts by poost Exilic scribes coming back from Babylon to force the originally polytheistic texts of the Cannaanites and early polytheistic Hebrews into a one-clan-god only Weltanschauung - but that meant taking plural nouns e.g. ELOHIM ('gods') and having them be governed by singular verbs e.g. BARA - he created.

The post Ezra copyists seemed to want to take POLYTHISTIC myths and make MONOTHEISTIC myths out of them - but certain more ancient polytheistic grammar and words remained in the text - maybe for magical chant-reasons - or simply the understandable desire to tamper with the spells/texts/chants as little as possible in their transmission over time (sometimes text changes can ONLY be gradual over time to avoid people kicking up a ruckus - and priests especially in those days had a lot riding on their sacred chants and were conservative by nature)

Be aware, however: preExilic texts (prior to 587 BCE) had a lot of polytheism buried in them: post Exilic texts (post 480BCE) made a conscious effort (whenever possible) to make it look like YHWH was worshipped as the sole clan-god from the beginning - a sort of re-writing of History...see the changes made in the post-Exilic book of I-II Chronicles to the earlier I-II Samuel and Kings for an example of revisionist 'history' writing which incorporated Midrash and Oral tradition into the later'd have to read the two versions side by side to get a taste of some very heavy editing (Chronicles is much more pro-David for example than I-II Samuel - the bad things that David did are either toned down/ignored altogether or given over to the influence of the figure of Satan, the post Exilic Persian Dualist Zoroastrian influenced evil deity who was injected into Israelite theology during the Persian period when Persia occupied palestine BCED 3 to BCE 331) but was not part of the Israelite theology prior to the Persian invasion.

Religious terms and ideas change over time in accordance with FOREIGN political influences from outside - we must bear that in mind with the two surviving Genesis Jewish Creation Myths too...

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Sigismundus]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:36 PM
Found this to support my argument:

"The Hebrew word for God is Elohim. Elohim ends with the masculine plural suffix "-ִים" From this we might conclude that Elohim signifies a numerical plural (i.e. denoting multiplicity) and translate it accordingly as gods. But before we determine whether the world was created by a single God or multiple gods, we must consider whether Elohim is really a numerical plural.

In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics:

It receives a plural suffix;
It receives a plural verb;
It receives a plural adjective.

The first characteristic, the plural suffix, is familiar to the English speaker. In English, most nouns have the plural suffix "s" or "es". For example, dog is the singular while dogs is the plural. Hebrew adds another dimension by matching adjectives and verbs to the noun. In Hebrew, a plural noun gets a plural verb and plural adjective. In contrast, English verbs and adjectives do not change to match the noun. For example, in English:
Singular: The big dog guarded.
Plural: The big dogs guarded.
But in Hebrew:
Singular: The big (sg) dog (he) guarded. שָׁמַר הַכֶּלֶב הַגָּדוֹל
Plural: The big (pl) dogs (they) guarded. שָׁמְרוּ הַכְּלָבִים הַגְּדוֹלִים

So the first thing we must check about Elohim is whether it gets a plural adjective and plural verb, because this will tell us whether or not it is a numerical plural denoting multiplicity. In the very first verse of the Torah we read בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים meaning "Elohim (he) created". Were Elohim a numerical plural, the verse would have to say בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים "Elohim (they) created". Indeed, the word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2000 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has a singular verb. It is always "And Elohim (he) spoke to Moses " and never "And Elohim (they) spoke to Moses ". The same thing can be found with the adjective. The adjective for Elohim is singular, not plural. Thus we find אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיק "righteous (sg) Elohim" (Ps 7:10) and not אֱלֹהִים צַדִּיקִים "righteous (pl) Elohim".

So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals. The meaning of the plural suffix in the majestic plural is not that there is more than one of the noun, but that the noun is "great, absolute, or majestic". For example, אָדוֹן means "master" while אֲדוֹנִים (Isa 19:4; Mal 1:6) with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, lord". Thus we read, "I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them" (Isa 19:4). In this verse the fierce king that will enslave Egypt is described as an ?ֲדֹנִים קָשֶׁה "a harsh (sg) lord (pl)". In this verse, the plural suffix attached to the word ?ֲדֹנִים does not make it a numerical plural ("masters") but instead magnifies the meaning ("great master, lord"). Because אֲדֹנִים is a majestic plural it receives the singular adjective קָשֶׁה (harsh) and not the plural adjective קָשִׁים that would be required for a numerical plural. The word בַּעַל also means "master" while בְּעָלִים with the masculine plural suffix means "great master, owner". For example, in Exodus 21 the owner of the "goring ox" is repeatedly referred to as the בְּעָלִים "owner". The word בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one person. In this case, the plural suffix magnifies the noun imbuing it with a connotation of "absolute owner, complete master". Because בְּעָלִים "owner" is a majestic plural it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent owner whose ox has killed, "the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be put to death" (Ex 21:29). The verb ?וּמָת meaning "he will be put to death" is in the singular even though the word for "owner" בְּעָלִים has the plural suffix. The common characteristic of majestic plurals is that they have the plural suffix while denoting singular objects and as a result they receive singular adjectives and singular verbs. Elohim is quite simply an example of the majestic plural and means "great God".
It is worth noting that the word Elohim is not always a majestic plural. When referring to the pagan gods, the term Elohim is usually a numerical plural. For example, the second commandment forbids us to worship אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים "other (pl) gods". In this phrase, not only does Elohim have the plural suffix, but it receives a plural adjective אֲחֵרִים other (pl). This tells us that in the second commandment Elohim is used not as an majestic plural but as a numerical plural denoting multiplicity. The prohibition is not against a specific "other (sg) god" but against any "other (pl) gods". Elohim is used numerous times throughout the Tanach to refer to pagan gods and in most of these instances it is a numerical plural denoting multiple (false) gods. So we see that when the Tanach speaks about YHWH it uses Elohim as the majestic plural meaning "great God" but when it speaks about pagan gods it uses Elohim as a numerical plural meaning "gods". In both instances the accompanying verbs and adjectives reveal to us which meaning is intended."

Link to the complete version:
Elohim: Plural or Singular?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by primus2012]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

Just a question I'm curious about, please fill me in (no pun intended lol). I sincerely believe that the mystical or hidden explanation why the name Elohim is a plural (dual) intensive noun as we can see from the gramatically singularity of verbs associated with the word in the sentances all through the Tanakh, is to be found in the second creation myth in what Christian Bibles list as Chapter 2 Verse 21 where Jahveh or JHVH Elohim creates Shevah or Eve from a Cell (I interpret the word Tsela as being of the same origin as the Latin Cella, or maybe the Latin was based on the Hebrew noun alltogether) he took out of Adam and filled up -- the wound down there (which is always ommitted in Christian translations of the texts) -- with flesh. For in the previous chapter (the first creation myth)verse 26, Elohim says Let us create Adam in our image etc. And in the next verse it is explained how God created the Adam to be Male and Female, or as the Hebrew goes: "Vayivra Elohim et-ha'adam betsalmo betselem Elohim bara oto zachar unekevah bara otam." -- From reading this passage in this context Adam was obviously first created in the likeness of Elohim to be a hermaphrodite, whether male nor female, hence two people in One and ergo the name of The God must be a dual noun. And though Adam being singular in verse 1:27, the pro-noun (?) in the end of the sentance is plural reflecting Adam's nature as being created "zachar unekevah" or "Malefemale", since the original text would be written without spaces. However, I don't understand why Elohim is plural while "the Adam" is singular here. My best theory is that "The Adam" here must be some kind of general term forced to be singular (just like Adam in the next chapter was "willingly forced" to ask God to change him, like one would split a piece of wood with an axe to make one into two, or like Man (sing.) in english can be used to discribe all humans (plural)) in order to get a companion he's like, as he says, of his own "flesh and bones" or something (please excuse my lack of explaining this very well in English. These linguistic terms are named completely differently in Norwegian my native tongue and I haven't really started studying this for real yet).

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by silverstreak

I think it speaks to the nature of God. Could be a extra-dimensional hive mind like "wave" existence or something (yeah, like xenogears). I have no doubt there is a being of unfathomable psychic depth that "spoke" everything we see into existence. The language used is for our ears, but what was put into practice I feel would just make a persons heart stop to truly comprehend it.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:01 PM
Hi Mystic

Duals in paleoHebrew end in -EY such as susim (horses) becomed SUSEY (lit a pair of [or two] horses). We see that in e.g. regel (foot) becomes REGLEY (two feet) etc. and duals almost always refer to things that come in exact pairs (eyes, feet, team of horses etc.)

We do not see the dual form of ELOHIM (which would read: ELOHEY in the text of the Tanakh, so it might just be a case of ELOHIM being the Masculine Majestic Plural -- since (as has been mentioined already) it 'governs a masculine singular verb' e.g. BARA ('when HE began to create', or 'when HE was creating') which is the specific word used by the P writer in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews in Genesis chapter 1:1-2:4a and in 5:1-2.

Since creator gods are often associated with Kingship in ancient middle eastern neighbouring pagan cults, taking ELOHIM a 'Majestic Plural' would make most sense - but there are several examples of 'words that denote the gods' in the Tanakh (e.g. ELIM in the PaleoHebrew of Psalm 29, which is adapted from an ancient polytheistic Canaanite psalm), i.e. from literature in the preExilic period.

It is very very curious however that the feminine sg of ELOHIM (viz. Eloah) is found in the poetical sections of the pre-Exilic POEM of Job (i.e. the material found in Job chapters 3 through 48) but NOT in the later PROSE introduction and conclusion sections which are written in late Hebrew and use Persian loan words etc. which came into Israel from the Satan-introduced Persian Period (BCE 531-331) and apparently stayed there. The PROSE sections of Job probably date from c. BCE 200 judging from the almost Mishnaic style of the Hebrew being employed in chapters 1 and 2 (and the last 6 lines or so). The POEM of JOB (which uses ELOAH, fem sg. of ELOHIM throughout except for some copies of the Tornado Scene) are much much older and written in a very curious style of what is known as Elamite (persian)paleo-Hebrew... a very rare accent in the Hebrew Bible.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

Thank you for explaining the dual suffix, I always learn something new reading your posts. Kudos to you (and a star when I have finished here
). However, with Elohim (the God himself) being whether dual or plural in nature, couldn't it be that the majesty pluralis actually implies him being of dual sexes (in lack of better word), but still one person, that they chose from some kind of rationalisation to simply create this plural intensive form to avoid them both, and still "keep the nessasary distance" to him being holy and all?

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

And on a side note. Speaking of horses: Do you have any recollection of a text not included in the Tanakh where David runs after a wild MARE catching it, making it his own riding horse? I can't seem to find this text anywhere. And another: In which Christian text is Mary mother of Jesjuah explained as being of English descent? I know it sounds strange, but I am sure I have read this somewhere. That her grandparents owned lead and tin mines in England before they left the country for the Holy Land. I read this somewhere, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. The book explains how Mary was a Temple virgin until she was about twelve when she got her first period, and Joseph (the first) was appointed to her after a ritual similar to the one where Aaron was chosen to be the head of the priests (the shooting wand). This Joseph was in his seventies and died soon after Jesjuah was born (explaining why he refered to his Father taught him everything he knew suggesting that he was left with some kind of library), upon which Mary married a second Joseph (possibly the real father of Jesjuah, having made Mary pregnant while staying with Elisabeth).

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by silverstreak

Thank you for putting this information together so concisely. The vast majority of christians don't understand how their religion (meaning those that signed the Nicene Creed, and it really should be called Constantinople's Nicene Creed) has strayed since it's inception. If i had to bet, Jesus would have walked out on the proceedings.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by ibiubu

If i had to bet, Jesus would have walked out on the proceedings.

My guess is that he wouldn't even have been invited. As far as I know there wasn't a single Jew present....

By the time Constantine called the first general church council together at Nicea in 325 CE, anti-Semitism was already endemic in what had become apostate Christianity. The Council of Nicea was attended by 318 bishops, none of whom were of Jewish extraction. In fact, no Jewish believers were even invited, even though Messianic Judaism continued to persist among many Jewish believers, as well as Gentile God-fearers.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:39 PM
Well theres the Divine council theory explained here.

Basically it makes a distinction from capital G god and lower case g gods. Not that lower case g's are gods in the literal sense, more in the human perception of it. It explains the use of plurals in reference to lesser beings while maintaining the trinity.

Not that i agree with it exactly but its decent reading he does lecture quite a bit and does radio shows. Hes one of the few who actually has a Phd in the required fields to make such statements as well.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:31 PM
God is one in a trinity! This muslims can't understand. It is mentioned int he bible many times. I am in my son, and my son in me (God) the father.

The relationship can be described as an atom. It is one in essence, but composed of three components... protons, electrons and neutrons.

God tells the prophets of old that he will send his son. And later when Jesus ressurects and leaves Earth for heaven he tells the Apostles he will leave with them a helper....this is the holy spirit.

1 in 3 faces. It is hard to understad but with God it is all possible. Why do we question him, how can we question him when he knows all, and created us.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:36 PM
My guess is that the people that fabricated the story where in reality following multiple deities and hiding their beliefs in plain sight.

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Hello my Friend

I have read most of this post and I have two thoughts.

One, I am amazed at the lack of Biblical Understanding exhibited by most of the Posters.

Two, I only noted 1 Other, who came close to noting an appropriate response, which like you Neo, dealt with the Biblical Teachings apposed to Stitchen and other Mainstream Misconceptions.

Why this is may reside in the nature of the Dicsussion occuring here, and follow a similair premise as we would find in a Pop Quiz of ATS which asked a basic question like, "Is Satan Real or Created by Imagination?"

Most would say, he's a Figment of Imagination, much like C.S. Lewis's work, "The Screwtape Letters" would indicate and simply due to those reasons alone.

The Question here is beyond the Today, and the Mindset we have devolved into over the course of the last 100 Years. Mankind has become gods, and dismiss the fact that there is many other's in and around this world that are far superior to us in many ways we can only quess, let alone comprehend.

So, The Collective usage of "WE" is being comprehended.

The Collective USE of "WE" in Genesis 1:26 is speaking specifically from the point of GOD and the Sons of GOD.

As a Christain, I may make some Like Minded Surprised, but YES, Jesus is a Son of GOD, but HE is not the Only one.

Neo, You have come close to expressing this linguistically, but there are many entities that are part of the Collective "WE" is discussing.

GOD and Jesus are only two of these.

Some have noted the Work, the Book of Enoch. Within in it, he was specific about a NUMBER, which made up the group of Fallen, which are Sons of GOD. Enoch noted 200 bound themselves in an Oath with Satan, in the Days of Jared.

Biblically, that Dragon, had 1/3 of the Stars with him, so we can expect the "Sons of GOD" may only be a Figure of 600 Entities in Total.

Neo, I think you have been adding "Others" to this in some of your replies, which are more incline to be Servants of the Heavenly Hosts, but that is an other topic completely.

These Sons of GOD have been here Since the "In the Begining, GOD Created the Heavens and the Earth". Science suggests this occur at least 4.5 Billion years ago.

We have an excellent Post in ATS which cover this, BIBLICALLY, and I would expect a review of the Breakdown Locoman provides should required reading.You can review it here at Chronology of Creation in the Bible... it doesn't start in Genesis! at you leisure.

Now despite the View some may have, THIS IS THE TIMELIME of "EVENTS" and expresses many of the details that HAVE OCCURED on this PLANET over the course of the last 4.5 Billion Years or so (for arguement sake).

And it clear also expresses, through BIBLICAL TEACHINGS, that the Sons of GOD have been here since Genesis 1:1.

Hell, The Fallen, are the Reason for Genesis 1:2. (Genesis 1:2 is a verifiable mistranslation due to the Simplistic Nature of the Translators or the Manipulative Twistings of Satan. Genesis 1:2 should be, "And the Earth BECAME A WASTE AND A DESOLATION." One of the reason we have that Earth is 6000 Years Old problem)

I digress...

Lets now, take a step back and review NATURE for an moment.

Felines? IS there only 1 Spieces or are there many various Speices that are part of the Feline Family?

How about the Avian Family? Canine? Bovine? Fish?

No, each "Group" has many different Family Members today.

Of Course there are also some examples of Unique, such as Elephants (Two Types I believe) and Rhinos, ( 2 or 3 Here), but I would suggest that they may also be carry overs from the few Last Ice Ages. (Like Turtles, Sharks....etc), or the last survivors of Hunters left on Earth.

Genesis 1:26 is expressing this simple fact of NATURE. We are not all the Same. We are Created in the Image of GOD and the Sons of GOD. Red and Yellow, Black and White. On the Sixth (6th) Day, MANKIND in all his Multicultural Splendor was created and given dominion over the Earth and the Fruits of it. Until the Last 300 - 500 years ago, we saw this Dominion and Way of Life in many pockets of the world, not corrupted by the "Cain-ite" Greed and Vainity which controls the globe and is currently washing all the UNIQUE away, (Think about it!) making mankind ONE apposed to the Many. Creating MAN in the Image of Satan and the Fallen.

I have said it beofre in ATS, but SATAN is not the Brightest Bulb in the Pack. And you wonder why the Illuminati have such an adoration for this cracker. HE LACKS ORIGINAL THOUGHT. He can Twist or Manipulate things in extrodinary ways, as is evident with some comments made in reply to this Topic, but do something all by himself? Sorry. He can not. The best he can do is twist and pervert what is already here.

I hope readers can follow this, but the "WE" are the Asain, and Nubian, and the Aborigines, and other Peoples found around the Globe, and are a reflection of the Sameness, yet Uniqueness, of GOD and the Sons of GOD.

WE is Modern Man being recreated on this Planet on the 6th Day of Recreation, which took place some 14000 years ago or more.

And everyone. PLEASE Thank God for this when you say your Prayers tonight, otherwise you could be waking up in the Morning and Shaking your head, saying you could not have gotten that drunk, when looking at your BEDMATE. She/He could have looked like this.



You see,

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in