Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew / Let Us

CherubRam

New member
Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis 1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.

And Genesis 1:27 clarifies immediately by saying, "And God created man in His image"

Thus, it is still Yahwah who is Elohiym, who created man.

The contradictions are outrageous, and an assault on the mind, particularly when we are expected to just believe. Thinking of Isaiah 1:18 - "Come now let us reason together"...

To reason together, using the mind. Yet the trinity doctrine defies reason, and admits to it thru means of being a mystery.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Genesis 1:26 is a horrific proof-text for Trinitarians, but is often one of the default go-to verses for a nominal gloss as an apologetic.

But I'd really prefer to see detractors post a much more thorough treatment of the Excellent/Majestic plural if they're going to challenge its use by Trinitarians.

So... I'd like to see a more thoroughly-developed and -presented expansion of what has been posted here.
 

CherubRam

New member
The royal "we", or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty"), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a sovereign (e.g., a monarch or sultan) or religious leader (e.g., the Pope or a bishop). The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism.

Speakers employing the royal we refer to themselves using a grammatical number other than the singular (i.e., in plural or dual form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The royal "we", or majestic plural (pluralis majestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty"), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a sovereign (e.g., a monarch or sultan) or religious leader (e.g., the Pope or a bishop). The more general word for the use of we to refer to oneself is nosism.

Speakers employing the royal we refer to themselves using a grammatical number other than the singular (i.e., in plural or dual form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

Yes, I'm very familiar. I was refering to an expanded treatment of the usages of the Excellent Plural throughout scripture rather than just a definition and overview.
 

RevTestament

New member
Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis 1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"
No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.
 

CherubRam

New member
No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.

All who will inherit life immortal are (elohiym / gods.)
Psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are (“gods”; elohim) you are all sons of the Most High.’ 7 But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

The people in heaven are also called elohiym.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Royal or Majestic we in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis 1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.
In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?
Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness​
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Genesis 1:26 is a horrific proof-text for Trinitarians, but is often one of the default go-to verses for a nominal gloss as an apologetic.

But I'd really prefer to see detractors post a much more thorough treatment of the Excellent/Majestic plural if they're going to challenge its use by Trinitarians.

So... I'd like to see a more thoroughly-developed and -presented expansion of what has been posted here.

In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?
Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness​

Doesn't look like a "default" verse to me. Thanks, Tam. :thumb:
 

CherubRam

New member
In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?
Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness​

That would be God (Yahwah) addressing the people in the kingdom of heaven. Yahwah alone created man.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 

StanJ

New member
It's not royal or majestic, it's descriptive of WHO our triune God is.
I suggest you read Gen 18 to see the THREE men that appeared to Abraham as GOD.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In your example, a group (us) is playing soccer; and the group (us) includes the one that is talking.
In other words, one said it, but it was a group (which includes the one speaking) that did the actual action of playing soccer.

Thus, in Genesis; who is the group (us) that did the actual action of creating man in their (group) image?
Genesis 1 KJV
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness​


That would be God (Yahwah) addressing the people in the kingdom of heaven. Yahwah alone created man.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Doesn't fit your analogy of the soccer players.
In your analogy, those that are going to be doing the soccer playing are the one speaking AND the ones being spoken to.

In other words, there is a GROUP of soccer players, not a SINGLE individual soccer player, that are going to do the soccer playing.
A single group .... soccer players.
One group --- multiple players.

The next verse would read:
So soccer players (one group with multiple individuals --- like the one GOD) played soccer (created man after our likeness --- like the one GOD).
 

CherubRam

New member
It's not royal or majestic, it's descriptive of WHO our triune God is.
I suggest you read Gen 18 to see the THREE men that appeared to Abraham as GOD.

Genesis 18:2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby.

Two of the men are called "angels." There is no indication that the person called "lord" is God (Yahwah.)

Most likely the person being called lord is Yahshua AKA The (Angel / Messenger) of The Lord.


Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:
 

CherubRam

New member
Doesn't fit your analogy of the soccer players.
In your analogy, those that are going to be doing the soccer playing are the one speaking AND the ones being spoken to.

In other words, there is a GROUP of soccer players, not a SINGLE individual soccer player, that are going to do the soccer playing.
A single group .... soccer players.
One group --- multiple players.

The next verse would read:
So soccer players (one group with multiple individuals --- like the one GOD) played soccer (created man after our likeness --- like the one GOD).

:chuckle: :hammer:
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
No, not really. You see Jesus is also plainly referred to as Elohim in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

I have shown this to you before, but you regurgitate the same invalid assertions repeatedly.

And we are told that Jesus created the earth. Jesus is also YHWH with the Father, so as YHWH Elohim they created the earth.
While this does not necessarily prove the "doctrine of the trinity," it does disprove you.

You want to allege a "royal we" where it supports your theory but ignore where it does not such as:

Deuteronomy 10:17

17 For the Lord your God is God[El] of elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now in some places it is used as a singular noun such as the word family would be, but a family still refers to more than one personage.

Since Moses is referred to as Elohim in Exodus 7:1 KJV, you are the one who needs to rethink your conclusions.

Jesus himself taught that God refers to men as God, John 10:34-35, therefore to conclude that the man Jesus Christ is the God is inappropriate for that in itself is insufficient evidence
 
Last edited:

daqq

Well-known member
Acts 7:53
53. [You] which received the Torah by the instrumentality of Angelon [Elohim-Angels?] and have not kept-observed-preserved it.


1) Elohim can be the Son as well as the Seven Holy Elohim-Angels, ("We").
2) Only YHWH Elohim is the Father.

Does the Father "know good and evil"?
Be careful before you answer:

Genesis 3:21-23 KJV (Masoretic Hebrew Text)
21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22. And the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23. Therefore the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Genesis 3:21-23 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
21 And the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and clothed them.
22 And God
[Elohim] said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever—
23 So the Lord God [YHWH Elohim] sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken.

http://biblehub.com/sep/genesis/3.htm

Genesis 3:22 in the Masoretic Text has YHWH Elohim saying, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil", while the Septuagint has only [the] Elohim saying the same. Which one is correct? There is no other place where we read anything about the Father "knowing good and evil", this is the only place I know of where such a thing is even hinted at, and I would suggest that one of these renderings is corrupted in a failed attempt to lend support to a purely monotheistic viewpoint which did not need this sort of "help" to be proven true. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Elohim-Angelon, and the Word was Elohim.
 

StanJ

New member
Acts 7:53
53. [You] which received the Torah by the instrumentality of Angelon [Elohim-Angels?] and have not kept-observed-preserved it.
Does the Father "know good and evil"?

Acts 7:53 (NIV) is about the OC, not the NC, and it is ἄγγελος (angelos), NOT θεός (theos). Your continued prevarication of scripture is well known and NOT trusted.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Acts 7:53 (NIV) is about the OC, not the NC, and it is ἄγγελος (angelos), NOT θεός (theos). Your continued prevarication of scripture is well known and NOT trusted.

Haha, your own obfuscation and denial of the truths that are shown to you from the Scripture are what is well known. In fact when I last showed this to you it was you who tried to belittle me as if I did not know the difference between TaNaK and the Brit Chadashah writings because you did not want to admit what you saw in the Psalm which again substantiates my point herein:

Hebrews 2:6-9 KJV
6. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7. Thou madest him a little lower than the
angels; [GSN#0032 aggelos] thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels [GSN#0032 aggelos] for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.


Would you like to explain WHY it is that here in the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews the word Elohim is rendered as Aggelos-Angels? Of course you would not like to do so because, for one, you cannot; and, for two, you do nothing more than the same things that you are always accusing others of doing: prevarication, obfuscation, insubordination, blasphemication, buffoonerication. :crackup:

Psalms 8:4-5 KJV
4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5. For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, [HSN#0430 'Elohiym] and hast crowned him with glory and honour.


And WHY does the KJV render Elohim in the above passage as "angels"? Did you even know this was the case? You should have because IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO YOU ONCE BEFORE. :chuckle:

Psalms 8:4-5 ASV
4. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5. For thou hast made him but little lower than
God, [HSN#0430 'Elohiym] And crownest him with glory and honor.

It is not that I enjoy giving you the attention that you crave so much from everyone but, rather, that you are a useful tool for spreading, (and constantly repeating) the truth from the Scripture. :)

:sheep:
 
Top