There are Two Creation Stories in Genesis

[Nevada Smith]

Let us make man in our image is the Trinity (plurality) doing the creating.

Satan can not create something out from nothing. No angel can. They are not God. For it says God created man in his own image. What you claim makes Satan into God!

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.​

God in that verse appears in a plurality (Elohyim). Satan is not God!

Angels were also created by the Trinity long before man was created...

So how is it that the plurality of God was involved in the first creation and not the second? And where else in the Bible is God referred to in the plural?

"Satan can not create something out from nothing. No angel can." I agree but"let us" means that someone or something was working with God, not alone.

 

[Nevada Smith]

I see this post as difficult, largely because I think it is incorrect to think that God created humanity twice. I think it is much more helpful to recognise that their two two oral traditions as stories of origin, and we should value both of them.

Then who were the people that lived in the land of Nod?

 

[GenemZ]

So how is it that the plurality of God was involved in the first creation and not the second? And where else in the Bible is God referred to in the plural?

Nothing "created" in the Second chapter because nothing was being created out from nothing like in Genesis One.

In Chapter Two? The Lord alone took soil (which had been already created in Genesis One), and, as the master artist, took the elements of the earth and molded and formed the body of man. A lifeless body! No soul yet! The soul that was created in Genesis 1:27 was what He breathed into the nostrils of the perfect, lifeless body.

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
became a living being." Gen 2:7​

Interesting to ponder.. If you study human nutrition, you would soon find out that the human body consists of elements found in the soil. Just like Genesis 2:7 says our bodies were made to be!

The term "Elohyim" is the plurality for God. "Let us make man in our image."

Literally.. Elohyim could read "Gods." But, since the Trinity is One? We are able to simply say "God."

"Satan can not create something out from nothing. No angel can." I agree but"let us" means that someone or something was working with God, not alone.

YES! The Trinity was doing the creating!

 

[Nevada Smith]

Nothing "created" in the Second chapter because nothing was being created out from nothing like in Genesis One.

In Chapter Two? The Lord alone took soil (which had been already created in Genesis One), and, as the master artist, took the elements of the earth and molded and formed the body of man. A lifeless body! No soul yet! The soul that was created in Genesis 1:27 was what He breathed into the nostrils of the perfect, lifeless body.

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
became a living being." Gen 2:7​

Interesting to ponder.. If you study human nutrition, you would soon find out that the human body consists of elements found in the soil. Just like Genesis 2:7 says our bodies were made to be!

The term "Elohyim" is the plurality for God. "Let us make man in our image."

Literally.. Elohyim could read "Gods." But, since the Trinity is One? We are able to simply say "God."



YES! The Trinity was doing the creating!

I'm sure your more of a Bible scholar than I am. But looking at Strong's I fail to see how you get the Trinity from 'elohiym

Strong’s Definitions H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.

Seeing that the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church and not being Catholic, I don't believe in the Trinity.

"The doctrine (the Trinity) was then finally made official at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, under the Roman Emperor Theodosius 1."

But you still haven't explained why this seems to be the only place in the Bible where elohiym is used in the plural. Seeing how God is eternal and never changing, and if you are correct about the Trinity, then elohiym should always be plural, but it isn't.

Off topic, since all our foods come from the soil what other nutrition would we have and where would they come from?

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sure your more of a Bible scholar than I am. But looking at Strong's I fail to see how you get the Trinity from 'elohiym

Strong’s Definitions H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.

Seeing that the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church and not being Catholic, I don't believe in the Trinity.

"The doctrine (the Trinity) was then finally made official at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, under the Roman Emperor Theodosius 1."

But you still haven't explained why this seems to be the only place in the Bible where elohiym is used in the plural. Seeing how God is eternal and never changing, and if you are correct about the Trinity, then elohiym should always be plural, but it isn't.

Off topic, since all our foods come from the soil what other nutrition would we have and where would they come from?

Strongs is what I began with. It left me with many questions. Though it did help on occasion. I think Strongs was helpful to readers wading through the King James anachronistic language...

Seeing that the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church and not being Catholic, I don't believe in the Trinity.

That's a good reason not believe in the Trinity? You do not believe there is a Trinity?

Just the same. We have much greater access today. Google the following - Elohim plurality of God

You will see arguments coming from all sides. Yet. None argue that Elohim is not found in the plural. Some just spin it to mean what ever they wish.

Now, with that in mind? "Let us make man in our image." Not a plurality?

I am not going to argue about what the Spirit needs to illuminate for each one of us. In the mean time. Try Google and see all the resistance and acceptance this aspect causes. The very word is like what Jesus caused wherever he went. Resistance and acceptance.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm sure your more of a Bible scholar than I am. But looking at Strong's I fail to see how you get the Trinity from 'elohiym

Strong’s Definitions H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:—angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.

Seeing that the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church and not being Catholic, I don't believe in the Trinity.

"The doctrine (the Trinity) was then finally made official at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, under the Roman Emperor Theodosius 1."

But you still haven't explained why this seems to be the only place in the Bible where elohiym is used in the plural. Seeing how God is eternal and never changing, and if you are correct about the Trinity, then elohiym should always be plural, but it isn't.

Off topic, since all our foods come from the soil what other nutrition would we have and where would they come from?

The God of the Jews is One. So? "The Gods" was the way of expressing what God is.

To see Jesus the Son is to see the Father... One. But, a plurality just the same.

 

[Philip_B]

Then who were the people that lived in the land of Nod?

We don't know.

Stories of origin and traditionally riddled with odd and unanswered questions, and this is fine. The word Bible quite literally means 'the books' or perhaps 'library'. There is no requirement that these stories need to be identical in every respect, nor that they need to have a capacity to be harmonised.

Many of the stories in Genesis hang question marks all over the place, which is not about the veracity of the text being called into question, but rather being attesting to the authenticity of a life where not all the questions are known. Lots of questions are asked in these texts for which we may not have answers. It is important that we read the truth out of scripture, and not read our neat compiled version of the truth into scripture.

The God of the Jews is One. So? "The Gods" was the way of expressing what God is. To see Jesus the Son is to see the Father... One. But, a plurality just the same.

I have some sympathy for those who want to discover the trinity in the heart of the 1st creation account in Genesis, however I would be careful about finding it here at this point, where we might be reading into the text rather than out of the text, as I suggested above. The account however does attest the God - the prime mover | The Spirit - who brooded over the waters | The word - calling creation into being, and whilst it may not be reasonable to establish a doctrine based on this alone, the account however is a reasonable place to find some support for the understanding.

Some would argue that the plural used in Genesis 1 may well be an indication that the oral tradition captured here in script may have begun life in communities who held polytheistic ideas, and which Genesis is clearly monotheistic this may be an artifact that has survived in the text.

 

[GenemZ]

I have some sympathy for those who want to discover the trinity in the heart of the 1st creation account in Genesis, however I would be careful about finding it here at this point, where we might be reading into the text rather than out of the text, as I suggested above. The account however does attest the God - the prime mover | The Spirit - who brooded over the waters | The word - calling creation into being, and whilst it may not be reasonable to establish a doctrine based on this alone, the account however is a reasonable place to find some support for the understanding.

Well... we can at least know we have the Spirit and the Son in Genesis One.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen 1:1-2


And, even though the Son is not mentioned directly in the text, we know from Scripture that nothing was created without Him.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." Coloss 1:16

And, while we are at it. We can also know from that factor the the Son is also God.

...and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things.. Eph 3:9

By holding a knowledge of the Scriptures, we know the Trinity was alive and present in Genesis One!

 

[Nevada Smith]

Strongs is what I began with. It left me with many questions. Though it did help on occasion. I think Strongs was helpful to readers wading through the King James anachronistic language...




That's a good reason not believe in the Trinity? You do not believe there is a Trinity?

Just the same. We have much greater access today. Google the following - Elohim plurality of God

You will see arguments coming from all sides. Yet. None argue that Elohim is not found in the plural. Some just spin it to mean what ever they wish.

Now, with that in mind? "Let us make man in our image." Not a plurality?

I am not going to argue about what the Spirit needs to illuminate for each one of us. In the mean time. Try Google and see all the resistance and acceptance this aspect causes. The very word is like what Jesus caused wherever he went. Resistance and acceptance.

OK. let's get this straight. There is God the Father and God the Son. Two. Plural. There is no God the Holy Ghost. In Jesus name we pray to our Heavenly Father. No mention of a Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit or whatever it is. Maybe you pray to the Holy Spirit, but I don't.

The Old Testament has many prophecies dealing the God the Son, the coming Messiah. Is there any mention of a third enienty?

In John 1:1 we are told about the Word, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Any scriptures saying "the Holy Ghost was with God, and the Holy Ghost was God? I don't think so.

There is no Trinity.

I did find this online. It supports what I believe

Chapter 26 – How and Why the Trinity is False and Unbiblical
Chapter 26 - How and Why the Trinity is False and Unbiblical – Gods Plan for All

 

[GenemZ]

OK. let's get this straight. There is God the Father and God the Son. Two. Plural. There is no God the Holy Ghost.

You are new here? Don't you realize in this forum the forum rules state you should not be posting? We are not here to debate the Trinity as to deny it.

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the
Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the
land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after
it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have
contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but
to God.” Acts 5:3-4
​

Please note. That passage says..

Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit...

You have not lied to man but to God.”

​

.

 

[Nevada Smith]

So? The Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God and not a seperate being. That is why Peter added for clarification. You have not lied to man but to God.”

Genesis 1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Does that say the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the water?


"We are not here to debate the Trinity." I agree. We have gotten off topic. This is about the two creation of man. Since the Trinity doesn't exist, it could not have anything to do with the creation of man.

 

[GenemZ]

So? The Holy Spirit is a manifestation of God and not a seperate being. That is why Peter added for clarification. You have not lied to man but to God.”

Genesis 1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Does that say the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the water?


"We are not here to debate the Trinity." I agree. We have gotten off topic. This is about the two creation of man. Since the Trinity doesn't exist, it could not have anything to do with the creation of man.

As Jesus is fully man and God in union....

The Holy Spirit is fully angel and God in union.

The Angel of Jehovah (who only appeared before the Incarnation, and then no more) was the Holy Spirit manifested bodily as God's Angel/Spirit. As seen with the burning bush and Moses... manifested as God.

Now, Jesus can not have been the Angel of Jehovah. For angels are not souls. They are spirits.Jesus is fully man (soul) and God!

As Jesus is revealing the Father to us? Before Jesus came to earth? the Angel of Jehovah was revealing the Father to the angels. Even before man existed.

We keep forgetting the importance of the angels to God. They were the FIRST Sons of God.

Angels have spirit. Men have soul. Not the same essence. Yet, both created in God's image.

grace and peace

 

[Philip_B]

This discussion has moved off topic.

 

[Nevada Smith]

As Jesus is fully man and God in union....

The Holy Spirit is fully angel and God in union.

The Angel of Jehovah (who only appeared before the Incarnation, and then no more) was the Holy Spirit manifested bodily as God's Angel/Spirit. As seen with the burning bush and Moses... manifested as God.

Now, Jesus can not have been the Angel of Jehovah. For angels are not souls. They are spirits.Jesus is fully man (soul) and God!

As Jesus is revealing the Father to us? Before Jesus came to earth? the Angel of Jehovah was revealing the Father to the angels. Even before man existed.

We keep forgetting the importance of the angels to God. They were the FIRST Sons of God.

Angels have spirit. Men have soul. Not the same essence. Yet, both created in God's image.

grace and peace

And more off topic subject.

You must read a different Bible than I do. "Men have soul." They do?
Genesis 2:7 NIV Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Man is a living soul, he does not have one. Next you'll be tell me that this supposed soul that we have is an immortal one.

My Bible says man has a spirit
◄ Ecclesiastes 12 ► NIV
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Angles are the Sons of God? My Bible says that Christ is the only begotten

If you are referring to the Sons of God in Genesis 6:4, those are not angels. " the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them." Angels are sterile. Angels could not have impregnated human women.

 

[Nevada Smith]

This discussion has moved off topic.

I totally agree. I will not make any more replies unless they have to do with the original topic of The Two Creation Stories

 

[GenemZ]

And more off topic subject.

You must read a different Bible than I do. "Men have soul." They do?
Genesis 2:7 NIV Then the Lord God formed a man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Man is a living soul, he does not have one. Next you'll be tell me that this supposed soul that we have is an immortal one.

My Bible says man has a spirit
◄ Ecclesiastes 12 ► NIV
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Angles are the Sons of God? My Bible says that Christ is the only begotten

If you are referring to the Sons of God in Genesis 6:4, those are not angels. " the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them." Angels are sterile. Angels could not have impregnated human women.

Nevada,,,, you need a new GPS.

 

[Nevada Smith]

Nevada,,,, you need a new GPS.

I was taken to task about being off topic and I cannot comment unless it has to do directly with the original topic.

 

[Nevada Smith]

if the accounts are nor reconciled into one...then the Bible is in error.

There is no need to reconcile the two accounts since they are about two different creations. The Bible is not in error, it is our understanding of of events in the Bible that is flawed.

 

[GenemZ]

if the accounts are nor reconciled into one...then the Bible is in error.

The only thing that needs to be reconciled are the ears of some here. The Hebrew clearly reveals what happened in Genesis One. And, how Genesis Two is just a next phase of that same creation.

Its been explained. Several times. Some will just keep on refusing to get it.

Its always been that way.... For we are in a spiritual warfare. For those who have ears to hear, Genesis Two is the next step in what God created in Genesis One.

Its not two different creation accounts. For the Hebrew word for "create" is not to be found actively in Genesis Two. The word "create" is mentioned in Two. But, only to tell us God stopped "creating." So what we see in Genesis Two is not God creating any longer. But working with what had been created!

 

[Philip_B]

Its been explained. Several times. Some will just keep on refusing to get it.

It is not about refusing to get it, it is about the reality that many of us do not accept the premise you are proposing. It is not about suggesting that the Bible is wrong or deficient in some sense.

Textual and Literary analysis of the text leads one to conclude that there were two separate oral traditions that have been recorded, and they are not absolutely in synch.

One person looks at an Opal and believes it fires Red, whilst another is sure it fires Green. It is the same Opal and there are many things that help shape our opinion as to how it appears.

we see in Genesis Two is not God creating any longer.

This is another proposition I will have some trouble accepting. I think it was Moltmann who raised the question as to whether we believed God was Creator or Retired Creator. I personally believe that God is not finished with Creation, but still actively involved.