Stop the insanity

Who is god speaking with in Genesis 1:26 ?
"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."

How has this been explained by theologians and why would something so contradictory have been allowed or overlooked when the OT was compiled.

I`ve never heard anyone on either side of the argument address this issue.
I did hear it explained by Zacharia Sitchin. (author of the 12th planet and other books on the fringes of science)
Sitchin claims that the "us" and "our" in Genesis is referring to earlier Sumerian/Babylonian creation myths about a group of sky gods (AN,EA,ENKI and that whole bunch) coming down to Earth to get the ball rolling.
Theres no question that many stories and ideas in the OT have their roots in Mesoptamian mythology (Adam & Eve,the flood,Moses in the basket etc...),but is this really where gods mystery colleague(s) originates?
It would make sense if it did,but Sitchin was wrong about so many things that it`s hard to take his word on anything.

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Stop the insanity ]

ThomasCassidy

I have always viewed Genesis 1:26 and other similar verses as an anthropomorphism that would allow we single-person beings to understand the transcendent thoughts of a triune being.

Marduk

Christian apologists like to claim the 'us' comes from the use of the high plural term Elohim, God is so big you see he uses a plural name, get it? More rational folks and scholars agree the 'us' is from the old Sumarian myths and days when there were many gods mucking about.

Stop the insanity

The logical progression does seem to go from Sumerian pantheon to plural Elohim. This is what I had figured,but was never able to have it verified.
Like I said,I had only heard Sitchin make the claim,but the bulk of his theory is so off the wall that it`s hard to take anything he says seriously.

His theory would make an awesome movie though!

Storm and Stress

Concering Gen 1:26...there are several options.

1. God is using the "royal" we.

2. God is refering the heavenly Host.

3. God is refering to the Trinity.

As for Sitchin's book The 12Th Planet, a book of high speculation, and the latest darling of the Chariots of the Gods and X Files crowd is not a new idea.

The idea that we are the products of ancient tampering by ancient beings from the Cosmos
can be seen in such films as 2001:A Space Odyessy. "Open the bay pod doors HAL.", oh sorry I digressed..anyway..

To be sure Stichin's book makes the Dienatics crowd with tales of Venusians and soul travel look like a cartoon. However, a planet on a what is it, 3,600 orbit, would mean that the 12th Planet would be a block of ice on it's farthest sling of the orbit.

Stop the insanity

Huh? You really can`t be serious.
The OT is the Jewish bible written and put together by Jews,NOT the Christians. Most Christians think everything throughout religious history has been done for them so your assumptions come as no shock to me.

How could the Jews include the bogus idea of the Christian Trinty while writing the OT. This Trinity bologna was conjured up hundreds of years later as yet another ridiculous Christian attempt to make their screwed together religion sound somewhat plausible.

Your two other assumptions are also highly dubious,but at least they were not as insulting to the religion who actually owns the book in question.

I did not say that I support Sitchins theory. What I said was that it was the only place I recall ever reading any explanation for the plural god in Genesis.
Your rather uninformed bashing of his theory was not necessary.
It may also interest you to know that Sitchins theory was made public with his first book (The 12th planet) in the mid 70`s. It`s hardly "the most recent darling" as you put it..

My vote goes to natural evolution,but I will concede that if I was forced at gunpoint to make a choice about what to put my "faith" in (Sitchins theory or Christianity),I would choose Sitchins half baked theory over the Christian nonsense in a heartbeat.
The universe is full of endless possibilities for alien life that could be far superior to our own. Did aliens come here and mess with our DNA? NO theres no evidence to support it at all,but it`s not that it`s impossible and would at least be done using science and technology.

The bible and Christianity on the other hand claim that we are the product of magic and supernatural powers.
How can anyone in todays world consider this as a possibilty?
I propose that there are many more mentally ill people wandering around the planet than we are aware of. Theres simply no other explanation.

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Stop the insanity ]

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Stop the insanity ]

xoc

OH YEAH! And accusing the Jews of ripping off Sumerian myths in foundation of their religion IS not insulting to Jews? You can chastise Christians if we believe, like many Jews, the Bible is God's Word(and therefore has relevent meaning)? You SPIT on their religion in and then condemn us that we differ on interpretations?

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: a_theistnotatheist ]

Stop the insanity

Even though you have edited out calling me a hypocrite,your message is still quite clear.
Heres what I`m gonna do for you. I promise from now on to SPIT on all religions equally.
Though I do have to admit that your particular religion really gets my salivary glands extra juicy!

Marduk

STI said:

"I did not say that I support Sitchins theory. What I said was that it was the only place I recall ever reading
any explanation for the plural god in Genesis."

Isaac Asimov's "Guide to the Bible" has this theory as well as many of the scholars from the series on A & E "Mysteries of the Bible" it was not invented by Sitchin himself, in fact he may even give his resources in The 12th Planet" one of his few books with semi decent footnotes, he's become rather sloppy since then, though I must confess I enjoy his books, they really would make a good movie.

Stop the insanity

He was pretty sloppy right from the beginning if you ask me. Key elements of his theory depend upon the translation of the Sumerian "Shem" and "MU". The problem is,of course, that he`s the only guy who can somehow translate these words into "spacesuit" and "rocketship"! His books were really what got me thinking about religion and ancient history. Prior to that I had just ignored it all while under the assumption that religions had it all wrong and couldnt possibly be real. I didnt know why they had it wrong,but I just had hunch that they were.

I ended up reading a giant stack of similar books from other authors including Pye,Hancock,Von Daniken,Childress,Drake,Chatelain,Kolosimo. I also read more mainstream material about Sumer including the research of Samual Kramer.

Most of the books listed above go against the theory of evolution so I read books from Behe and Denton to try and find holes in the theory.
All of this research I was doing had introduced me to creationism and all the many flaws and utter stupidity in the bible.
Like I said,I always assumed religion must have it all wrong,but I had NO idea how wrong it all was and how much trouble it has been causing in the world.

On one hand I`d like to thank Sitchin since it was his theory that started my progression of enlightenment,but on the other hand I feel bad for him.
The backbone of his theory relies upon a literal translation of the OT. His premise is that the mythology in the bible is based on things that actually happened earlier in history prior to civilization popping up in Sumer.
Poor sitchin is stuck in a rut with religious fundamentlists. His purpose is much different than the fundamentalist,but he`s still right along side them rowing a boat to nowhere.