Just got a Bible question

[Wayne]

My question is
just about a story in the Bible I have always been curious about: in
Genesis 1:26 “Then
God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. Who
is He talking to? Again in Genesis 3:22 “The man has now become
like one of us.” Who is “us”? The answer that Ive recieved from religous folk is that "I over-think things". I thought maybe one of you philosophiers might be able to help me out. 

Thanks,

Wayne

 

[nickhk]

As far as I understand Judaism and Christianity, they're descendants of a polytheistic religion.  Prior to Yahweh being the one true God, he or it was a warrior god of some ancient polytheist cult.

Does that fit?  Else, it could be an editing or translation error.  Probably enough of those in there already.

But, what do I know?  I'm no philosopher, just a guy who is interested in philosophy, among other things.

[MrCapitalism]

Isn't God a 'trinity' of Father, Son, Holy Ghost? That may explain the use of plural possessives...

[Wayne]

Thankyou for your response, I never considered that the belief may have come from an older polytheistic religion. That would certainly explain the passage.

I recently learned in my humanities course that translating the Bible into modern languages was a big deal during the Reformation. But I never considered that they could of made an error. 

I love posting questions on this site, because I always get such great responses and it make me see things in a different light. Thanks.

[Wayne]

I always thought that the Trinity was a New Testament thing. I'm going to have to look into that.

Thanks for the response.

[Existing Alternatives]

Too many possible answers... Some of them already covered - translation errors, polytheism influences, trinity.  I will throw in “royal we” and, my new favourite, the “intentional contradictions.” There are many (was it 5,000?) contradictions built into the book to make it impossible to prove or disprove while appealing to the widest audience possible.

 

I always thought that the Trinity was a New Testament thing. I'm going to have to look into that.

Thanks for the response.

 

Btw, while Trinity is the New Testament thing, technically speaking, it is still the same god, and the structure should not change from one chapter to the next. People who wrote the New Testament would have been justified to edit the Old one.

There is also a matter of language inconsistences – there are many versions of Bible in English alone that vary widely in possible interpretations. On top of that, there are still so many other languages.

[Wayne]

Intentional contradictions. That is aninteresting idea. I never thought that the inconsistencies the Biblewere purposefully put in.

I read today in my humanities text book that “ The Bible is not a philosophical treatise; its a sacredbook” I have to say I'm not sure what that means. The statementseems to suggest that we shouldn't use critical thinking withreligious books and just take it on faith. If that is so, I thinkthats fairly insane. Personally I think that we were given these nicefunctioning brains and if we do not use them we are showingdisrespect to who or whatever gave them to us. Therefore, I willcontinue to explore all these new ideas that all you greatphilosophers have given me.

Thank you for that fine point you madeon the Trinity.

Thanks for the response.  

[Arius]

 

Other fictional characters.

 

 

[pretzelogik]

Other extra-terrestrials involved in the creation of a subordinate slave species.

[Guest spam dumpster]

I was raised Lutheran, and we were taught he was talking to Jesus.  That Jesus had always been part of the trinity even before he was born as a man.

 

But, then, a lot of the Bible is plagiarised from other religious texts, so that's probably a more accurate explanation.

[Wesley]

I'm sure some of these have already been said, but I was raised Christian and had many of the same questions- and here are the theories presented:

• It was an evolution of the creation myth from polytheistic religions, by which a god would have been speaking to the other gods.
• It was the trinity, by which God the creator would have been speaking to God the Son and/or God the Spirit.
• It is the "majestic plural" by which it was common in ancient times for kings and rulers to refer to themselves as "we" and "us".

I never was a fan of polytheism or the trinity, so by default I had accepted the majestic plural theory. I think now it is a hold-over from polytheism. It was then used as a majestic plural by rulers who believed themselves to be as demigods and popes who realized the contradictions in the Bible and then offered the majestic plural as a way for God to exist as a singular entity, but yet still refer to itself as "we".

[Zangetshumody]

I have a personal contention that whenever it is stated that it is God who speaks directly, he is talking through Michael, as God can conceivablely not act independently within the sum image of creation without there being an apparent image body to be identified as an agent, and as agents might be capable of binding the principle, they do not share the same identity.

It is often said we can only know the father through the son, it makes sense that the unfathomable creation of the only begotten son, who was the first thing in creation (and only thing that was directly created by God (everything else being created THROUGH the only beggetton son (this is plainly stated in John chapter 1)). So to me it makes sense, that the son was Michael, and then michael crafted the other arch angels, and together they make up the Elohim (which is often translated as God in Gensis, but this word is hebrew, and it is in a plural form (meaning the plural of majesty)):- so it would appear that Michael put himself on equal footing with his arch angel creations, all though it seems Michael's words and actions are attributable to God (well, that's my contention).