Understanding Hebrew thought for “Us” and “Our” in Gen 1:26
Following is a Summary of 2 white papers regarding Gen 1:26 using Hebrew grammar and the language that I hope clears up confusion. The 2 papers are an 8 page Non-Technical (as possible) write up of this verse and others relating to it. The other is a 9 page very technical write up of my grammar analysis notes. I did my best to convey the grammar and the thought processes of these papers into the summary below, but I bet it will be easier and more comprehensive to follow in the Non-Technical paper.
If you are interested in these papers, send an email to sv********@gm***.com with your request. I am hoping to include these papers in a book or other media that is not published yet. As such, I would not wish them to be publicly published before proper editing. If you want one or both papers, please say so and indicate that you will not copy or publish without my expressed consent with an “I AGREE.”
As far as I can tell, no one has approached this subject in this way. If you have seen anything like this I need to know, please! I want to protect the intellectual property until ready to release to everybody. Thanks and enjoy.
Sven
In Gen 1:26-27 the use of capitals in English was used by translators to support Christian Trinitarian doctrine. The doctrine and the capitals only allow the pronouns “us,” “our,” and “his” to have ‘the Trinitarian God’ as their antecedent. But, if we remove the capitals, and the doctrine with them, the words and language tell a different story. This is especially true when we include the Hebrew grammar. The translators could have, and should have, chosen otherwise. Hebrew is verb based so let’s start there.
In Gen 1:26 after “And eloeheem said,” the two verbs “let us make” and “let them rule” are cohortative and jussive, respectively. This tells us they are PLURAL INCOMPLETE ACTION (imperfect) verbs. This is not the creation of mankind, but the incomplete action of thinking about creating mankind. What helps this train of thought is that cohortative and jussive verbs are equally translatable as “may” and not “let” alone. It is better to translate them as the questions “may we make…?” and “may they rule…?” to reflect the incomplete action of planning vice the completed action of creating.
In Gen 1:27 we have three uses of bara (to create) that are all translated SINGULAR COMPLETED ACTION (perfect) verbs, with only one common subject for doing the creating, eloeheem. This is the creation of mankind, according to how it was thought out and planned in the previous verse. Eloeheem (n., sing.) created (v., sing.) mankind (n., sing.). Period.
The nouns with these verbs tell the story, eventually. From Hebrew grammar, we know that the nouns for “image” and “likeness” associated with the creation of mankind are always singular in number, regardless of where in the texts we find them. Only their associated pronouns change. The question then becomes, “How can we have plural verbs and plural pronouns for the planning, and singular verbs and nouns for execution of the plan?”
In Gen 1:27 when we change the “in His [own] image” (NAS) to “in his image” the antecedent may be mankind and not just ‘the Trinitarian God.’ There is no ‘own’ in the Hebrew text, therefore the NASB should have italicized the word, as I did for them. The phrase “in the image of eloeheem” following “in his image” gives evidence “his” is eloeheem, but there is more compelling evidence when we include the events of Gen 1:28, Gen 2:2, and Gen 5:1-3.
Once man was created on the sixth day of creation, mankind was told to be “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28 NAS). Then, “He [(eloeheem)] rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Gen. 2:2 NAS). The word “rested” doesn’t tell the whole story. The root verb in Hebrew for the English “rested” is shavat (to cease, stop, bring to an end), which should have been translated ‘ceased.’ Therefore, he ceased from all his work of creation. These two verses together tell us that after mankind was created, eloeheem stopped creating mankind, forever. Mankind would create mankind through procreation after his creation. Mankind being fruitful and multiplying is key to understanding, as you’ll soon see.
Although the procreation of Kayin and Havel is recorded in Gen 4, we don’t see any of the verbs or nouns from our core verses. That changes in Gen 5:1-3. In these verses we see confirmation of mankind’s creation by only eloeheem with singular complete action verbs. The same nouns of Gen 1:26-27 are used, but only with singular pronouns. “[H]e [adam: Adam] became the father of a son in his [(Adam’s/mankind’s)] own likeness, according to his [(Adam’s/mankind’s)] image, and named him Seth (Gen. 5:3 NAS). There is no question that both of these “his” words relate to Adam, the first man, and all mankind, metaphorically.
Since the word for ‘create,’ in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1 and 5:3 is completed action (mankind is already created), all the “his” pronouns belong to mankind, and mankind alone. All the uses of the nouns “image” and “likeness” in all these verses are SINGULAR and any associated pronouns are all SINGULAR. The “image” and “likeness” belong to only mankind after his creation. After being created only mankind can procreate in his image and his likeness.
Therefore, from Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1, the phrases “in the image of God” and “in the likeness of God” can equally be translated from the Hebrew construct state as “in God’s image” and “in God’s likeness.” Since the “image” and “likeness” are mankind’s in these verses (being after creation), we have to add the notion “FOR MANKIND” to our thinking. Therefore, these verses when read should remind us to think about them as “in God’s image [for mankind]” and “in God’s likeness [for mankind].” This allows us to truly see who the ‘owners’ or antecedents of “our” and “us” are in Gen 1:26. They are eloeheem and mankind.
Because the grammar of mankind’s planning stage is incomplete, it allows eloeheem to temporarily co-own mankind’s image and mankind’s likeness. Before and after creation the “image” and “likeness” are ‘owned’ by mankind, as discussed. Eloeheem, as creator, designed and ‘owns’ the “image” (for mankind) and designed and ’owns’ the “likeness” (for mankind) during the planning phase. His plan is to put mankind’s “image” and mankind’s “likeness” into him, physically, in such a way that mankind will put these into mankind afterward through procreation. Eloeheem and mankind, together, will create mankind.
Eloeheem knows this and says just that in Gen 1:26. He said, “May we make mankind together in our image (my planned image for you and your physical image to pass on) in our likeness (my planned likeness for you and your planned likeness to pass on)?” Eleoheem executed his plan for he and mankind to create together in Gen 1:27, “And eloeheem created.” Eloeheem created mankind at the beginning of time. Mankind, after being created, will create mankind until time stops. That was the plan. That’s how it happened. That’s what the ancient Biblical Hebrew grammar of the nouns and verbs tell us.
The doctrines and capitals shifted our thinking by putting the em-PHASIS on the wrong syl-LABLE. The creation of mankind is about mankind and not eloeheem. I hope you can see that focus now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 12, 2019 at 2:37 pm /
Thank you so very much Sven. I have a new understanding, I will send you an email. I’d love to read your research. Thank you again.
February 24, 2019 at 7:59 am /
Yehoshua existed with the Father from the beginning. He always existed. He declares this in John 8:58, John 17 clearly He is Elohim with the Father and he was at creation. I cannot deny his deity. He die for our sins….I do not understand what do you mean by saying the Us includes us.
February 24, 2019 at 4:43 pm /
A few things need to be addressed in my reply to you. 1.) The intent of this study, 2.)the English use of “I AM,” 3.) the English translation of the Hebrew of Exo 3:14, and 4.) the use and translations of ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν in Exod. 3:14 and ἐγώ εἰμι in the book of John in the NT. The summary of my original post (OP) is better understood if you receive the 8 page paper I would gladly send you by email. It has a bit more information on the subject matter that may help you understand my intent.
1.) If I am not mistaken, Keith’s design and plan for our Year of the Book study was to let the words of “the big book” [Tanakh] be read apart from “the little book” [NT]. My understanding of this intent was to let ‘the words speak for themselves’ without adding any religious theology or dogma from Jewish/Talmudic, Christian, Messianic Jewish, Hebrew Roots, etc. influences. Your statements show you are clearly letting the theology from the writers of the NT “drive” your understanding of what you are reading. My post was to show that the language, written thousands of years before there was even an idea of the NT, according to the history, language, and context of the Hebrew texts provides all the understanding we need. The Christian theology that has influenced English translations and the Hebrew texts are not always in agreement, just as I point out in my paper regarding Gen 1:26-27. As well, there are Christians, Jews, scriptualists, Karaites, etc. that are participating in this joint study of the Tanakh. Not everyone here ‘believes’ the same way, yet we are expected to be sensitive to each others’ beliefs and understandings, regardless.
2.) The English use of “I AM” has been erroneously used as a title or name for YHVH. Nehemia Gordon speaks of this using the Hebrew language in “The Great I AM Revealed.” The full video, well worth watching, is available to Support Members to his website, but the short preview, found at: https://www.nehemiaswall.com/preview-the-great-i-am-revealed (copy this to your browser URL to view), does a descent job of explaining. “In this study Nehemia explains how the ‘I AM’ passage in Exodus 3:14 teaches us the meaning of God’s holy Name. We will see how the great ‘I AM’ was understood by ancient Jews and how this is the key to deciphering both the meaning of YHVH and its pronunciation.” This is NOT a name of eloeheem or a title. It gives us “meaning” and “pronunciation.” The name of eloeheem of the Bible is “יהוה the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you: This shall be My name forever, This My [memorial] for all eternity.” (Exod. 3:15 TNK). Understanding and pronouncing this name is found in “ehyeh asher ehyeh.” His video describes this.
3.) The words אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה (Exod. 3:14 WTT) [ehyeh asher ehyeh] translated into English would be “I will be whom/that I will be.” “I AM WHO I AM” (Exod. 3:14 NAS) is poor translation but was chosen and capitalized by English Christian translators to fit a Trinitarian theology, in my opinion. This translation does not do justice to the Hebrew texts. This is my opinion and my assertion. You are free to disagree, but “I will be whom/that I will be” is the text speaking for itself, without religious “glasses” altering the view. If we translate according to the Hebrew texts, the similarity of Yeshua’s words in the gospel of John become moot. There is no similarity between “I will be whom/that I will be” and “I AM WHO I AM.” There is no similarity as well, as we will soon see, between the original Greek texts of the NT and the Greek LXX translation of the Torah in the Tanakh.
4.) In Exo 3:14 the Greek LXX uses ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν for “I AM WHO I AM” (Exod. 3:14 NAS). This too is poor English translation. Let’s deal with each individual Greek word separately and then, as a whole phrase. ἐγώ [eh-goe] is a Greek personal pronoun that is nominal and singular, that translates (in English) “I.” εἰμι [eh-ee-mee] is an indicative, present tense, active, 1st person, singular verb that translates “am.” ὁ [hoe] is a , nominative, masculine, single, definite article that translates “the (masculine).” ὤν [oen] is a present, active, nominal, masculine, single, participle verb that translates “being/existence.” Participles in Greek and Hebrew are the same as English participles that add ‘-ing’ to the verb root for translation. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν translated into English is “I am the being/existence.” This is NOT the same as ” I AM WHO I AM.”
Now, in John, EVERY TIME Yeshua is quoted saying “I am” ONLY, I say again ONLY, ἐγώ εἰμι (I am_____) is used. This is important for two reasons. First, ἐγώ εἰμι in Greek grammar is used all the time to declare what you are. I am going. I am a pilot. I am a little tea pot, short and stout. Secondly, NOWHERE, again NOWHERE, is ὁ ὤν (“the being/the existence”) used in the Greek by Yeshua for the language declaring himself as YHVH. It is ONLY YHVH, according to the language ὁ ὢν or אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, that is the second “I AM” in “I AM WHO I AM” in the first part of Exo 3″14 and also the “I AM” in “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM’ [ὁ ὢν and אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה] has sent me [ὁ ὢν and אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה] to you.” (Exod. 3:14 NAS). In the second part of Exo 3:14 YHVH declares in Hebrew אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה and in Greek ὁ ὢν ‘has sent you (Moses) to the sons of Israel.’ Yeshua NEVER uses these words in the language of the original Greek texts. Only the English translations indicate this, ON PURPOSE, erroneously.
Do you see the distinction here? ὁ ὢν and אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה are used exclusively for “the being/the existence” in Greek and Hebrew for YHVH, who is sending Moses to the people in the last part of Exo 3:15. Yeshau never declares himself “the being/the existence” that is erroneously translated as “I am” instead of the Greek “the being/the existence” for the second ehyeh in Hebrew of ehyeh asher ehyeh that is ὁ ὤν of ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν in Greek. Only ἐγώ εἰμι, “I am ____” is used by Yeshua and NOT ὁ ὢν, “the being/the existence.” This is HUGE!! The language in Hebrew and in Greek does not match what is claimed by those who quote the gospel of John as Yeshua/Jesus claiming he is YHVH. Period.
So to answer your statement, “I do not understand what do you mean by saying the Us includes us,” I have this to say. Neither the language in Hebrew or in Greek for Exo 3:14 matches the claims made by Christian doctrine and dogma regarding “I AM” used in the book of John in the NT. The original Hebrew for Gen 1:26-27 does not support the English/Christian use of capitals that indicate a Trinitarian dogma that Yeshua and YHVH (different names for different beings) are the same “I AM” nor the same “US.” Using “Us” to indicate a Trinitarian Yeshua/YHVH/Spirit vice the simple “us” that is YHVH and ‘mankind,’ according to the Hebrew grammar of these verses, is not supported by history, language, and context. Again, I would encourage you to email me your email so I can send you the full papers to support my summary. If you have questions after that, we can address them here, for all to see, or privately, as you wish. I am happy to do either.
April 12, 2019 at 3:03 pm /
Sven your explanation was exceptional. There are a lot of us that crave the understanding that you have thus attained and it will take much more reading and in-depth study for us to come close to where you are in your walk. What little understanding I have clearly shows that the Christian theology was tainted when ever it suited them. Up until this year I really had no idea about the history of the Jewish people or Christianity its self. I have read countless books as it seems I can’t get enough information. This is why I am so excited about doing this program. It is also a great bonus to me to be surrounded with others that are hungry for the truth even if it means that we must shed some old beliefs that are brought to light. The BOOK is bringing a better understanding of a perspective that I thought I knew. I’m so glad to be here. Thank you for sharing.
February 25, 2019 at 4:22 am /
I made a typo and a mistake in the 8th sentence of the paragraph following the point 4.) paragraph. I wrote:
It is ONLY YHVH, according to the language ὁ ὢν or אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, that is the second “I AM” in “I AM WHO I AM” in the first part of Exo 3″14 and also the “I AM” in “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM’ [ὁ ὢν and אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה] has sent me [ὁ ὢν and אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה] to you.” (Exod. 3:14 NAS).
It should instead read:
It is ONLY YHVH, according to the language ὁ ὢν or אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה, that is the second “I AM” in “I AM WHO I AM” in the first part of Exo 3:14 and also the “I AM” in “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM’ [ὁ ὢν and אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה] has sent me [Moses] to you.” (Exod. 3:14 NAS).
February 5, 2019 at 9:42 am /
Sven,
As ever your insights are meaningful and worth great contemplation. After my first reading, I know I will reread this entry, just like I sometimes go back and listen to the Torah Pearl sessions.
While I do not have insights to share, I thank you for sharing your research & background knowledge.
January 30, 2019 at 10:27 pm /
Thank you for sharing! In depth for sure and very interesting. Have you checked out the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Revised Mechanical Translation? You might find it interesting. http://ancient-hebrew.org/index.html
Connect With Us
Yes! Add a donation to BFA to my order.
Thank you
Your feedback has been received.
Don't show this again.