A Deeper Understanding 1:2

[clydgate]

I would like to open a conversation on Genesis 1:26 King James version: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Elohim is often used to refer to God. Elohim is the plural in Hebrew the singulare would be El, Elo'ha. Why Elohim? I look forward to a response.
Aloha,
Chuck

 

[juvenissun]

I would like to open a conversation on Genesis 1:26 King James version: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Elohim is often used to refer to God. Elohim is the plural in Hebrew the singulare would be El, Elo'ha. Why Elohim? I look forward to a response.
Aloha,
Chuck

Because God has Spirit.
This is not a surprising "idea".

 

[diychristian]

I would like to open a conversation on Genesis 1:26 King James version: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Elohim is often used to refer to God. Elohim is the plural in Hebrew the singulare would be El, Elo'ha. Why Elohim? I look forward to a response.
Aloha,
Chuck

I see these verses as evidence for the Trinity. Actually if you read on further it switches back to singular "in His image". It also shows their was a relationship with in the Trinity.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It could also be seen as the "royal we". I am not a Hebrew scholar, though, so I don't know if such a usage of the plural form of the first person was used.

 

[ThunderTongue]

God and his son Jesus were there during the creation. He is the word

 

[diychristian]

It could also be seen as the "royal we". I am not a Hebrew scholar, though, so I don't know if such a usage of the plural form of the first person was used.

If this is interpreted as a royal we then couldn't this pose a problem? When someone uses the royal we. Are they not referring more to the chair they hold and not to themself? If so then doesn't this make God a contingent being? Isn't he merely occuppying a position?

 

[brightlights]

God is a community.