Genesis has more than one God?

[Confused]

Genesis 3: 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This has always bothered me. If there is only one God, and He is the one speaking in this passage, then two things pop out at me.

1) Who is he speaking to?

2) Why does God refer to Adam and Eve becoming one of US? In the plural sense.

[Confused]

so we can clearly see that Jesus was there with God the Father to create the world. thus creating the "us" and the "we"

If this is true, then the NT is busted. Why? Because the son was to be the sacrifical lamb for mankind. He was mans salvation. That was His purpose was it not? If he was already in existence before creating the world, then God already knew what was going to happen in order to create a son to be the sacrifice. So we have been doomed since creation, not since Adam and Eve.

God knowing in advance what path people will choose doesn't mean he makes their decisions for them. Otherwise, why would God say in Deuteronomy....

"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."

Obviously, the choice is man's. God recommended for them to "choose life."

I still don't recall being given this choice. What you say goes beyond irrational. Why would one agree to life knowing that the average lifespan is approx 70 years ago and it would end in eternal damnation? It can only lead to eternal damnation if one has never heard the voice of God to hold fast to him. As far as love, we don't even want to go down that road.

[Easyrider]

so we can clearly see that Jesus was there with God the Father to create the world. thus creating the "us" and the "we"

If this is true, then the NT is busted. Why? Because the son was to be the sacrifical lamb for mankind. He was mans salvation. That was His purpose was it not? If he was already in existence before creating the world, then God already knew what was going to happen in order to create a son to be the sacrifice. So we have been doomed since creation, not since Adam and Eve.

God knowing in advance what path people will choose doesn't mean he makes their decisions for them. Otherwise, why would God say in Deuteronomy....

"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."

Obviously, the choice is man's. God recommended for them to "choose life."

I still don't recall being given this choice. What you say goes beyond irrational.

Do you not now have a choice to receive God / Jesus or don't you?

Why would one agree to life knowing that the average lifespan is approx 70 years ago and it would end in eternal damnation?

At that time there were prescriptions for death for disobedience to God (note Deuteronomy chapter 28, etc.). There was also eternity to think about.

[Confused]

so we can clearly see that Jesus was there with God the Father to create the world. thus creating the "us" and the "we"

If this is true, then the NT is busted. Why? Because the son was to be the sacrifical lamb for mankind. He was mans salvation. That was His purpose was it not? If he was already in existence before creating the world, then God already knew what was going to happen in order to create a son to be the sacrifice. So we have been doomed since creation, not since Adam and Eve.

God knowing in advance what path people will choose doesn't mean he makes their decisions for them. Otherwise, why would God say in Deuteronomy....

"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."

Obviously, the choice is man's. God recommended for them to "choose life."

I still don't recall being given this choice. What you say goes beyond irrational.

Do you not now have a choice to receive God / Jesus or don't you?

Why would one agree to life knowing that the average lifespan is approx 70 years ago and it would end in eternal damnation?

At that time there were prescriptions for death for disobedience to God (note Deuteronomy chapter 28, etc.). There was also eternity to think about.

Yes, right now I have a choice. But unfortunately, I seldom make decisions without having first thought them through, then weighed the evidence, then made an informed choice. Once I am committed to a decision, I stick with it unless something I learn later is enough to convince me my decision was wrong. This is the reason I had to drop the agostic tag, because I couldn't say I truly fit in with it's line of thinking.

Noting Deuteronomy, these prescriptions are relevant how? Death for disobedience? That was my choice, either die right now or choose to live a life for xxx amount of years, then die. Either way, it would appear I was still condemned to eternity.

All of this is digressing. I still have yet to hear a clear understanding as to how there is more than one God? If it is the "Godhead" trinity, then why speak aloud in the plural sense? So man could record what was said?

[Easyrider]

Noting Deuteronomy, these prescriptions are relevant how? Death for disobedience?

There were also lesser degrees of misfortune besides death, depending on the sin.

That was my choice, either die right now or choose to live a life for xxx amount of years, then die. Either way, it would appear I was still condemned to eternity.

You're condemned (so to speak) to eternity even now, apart from that. At least when you following God in the OT you had the promise of blessings on earth, and eternal life with God afterwards.

I still have yet to hear a clear understanding as to how there is more than one God? If it is the "Godhead" trinity, then why speak aloud in the plural sense? So man could record what was said?

Why not speak in the plural sense? What's wrong with that?

[Confused]

Noting Deuteronomy, these prescriptions are relevant how? Death for disobedience?

There were also lesser degrees of misfortune besides death, depending on the sin.

That was my choice, either die right now or choose to live a life for xxx amount of years, then die. Either way, it would appear I was still condemned to eternity.

You're condemned (so to speak) to eternity even now, apart from that. At least when you following God in the OT you had the promise of blessings on earth, and eternal life with God afterwards.

I still have yet to hear a clear understanding as to how there is more than one God? If it is the "Godhead" trinity, then why speak aloud in the plural sense? So man could record what was said?

Why not speak in the plural sense? What's wrong with that?

Actually, by the laws of the God of the OT, I have been condemned without any hope of salvation for 13 years. By the God of the NT, who is the God of the OT, I have a chance of salvation through Christ. Or am I interpreting this wrong as well? It makes little sense to me how they are both the same God, yet one says to stone a person to death while another says to forgive them.

Why not speak in the plural sense? Because the God of the OT was a jealous and veangful God who said you shall not worship any other God but Him. If He is the only God, the only creator, then there should not be any other Gods, and if he is the only God, then why use plurals at all? Why even mention other Gods? Is there but one God or is there more?

[Easyrider]

Actually, by the laws of the God of the OT, I have been condemned without any hope of salvation for 13 years. By the God of the NT, who is the God of the OT, I have a chance of salvation through Christ. Or am I interpreting this wrong as well? It makes little sense to me how they are both the same God, yet one says to stone a person to death while another says to forgive them.

They are different Covenants. The OT by strict Law and the NT by Grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. Some ask why the change? My own theory is that God wanted people to see that they could not keep the law in its fullness, which prepared them for the Covenant of Grace.

Why not speak in the plural sense? Because the God of the OT was a jealous and veangful God who said you shall not worship any other God but Him. If He is the only God, the only creator, then there should not be any other Gods, and if he is the only God, then why use plurals at all? Why even mention other Gods? Is there but one God or is there more?

God is triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Imagine they are all three in one locale. Does one say to the others, "Let ME create man in my image...." Or is it proper to say, "Let us create man in our image...."? The latter makes better sense to me.

[Cathar1950]

If you say so? How many covenants are there? Your theory doesn't move me.
His laws seem to have been made for the Jews so how does that teach the gentiles all about grace? I would think even the Jews felt grace. So they couldn't keep the law in its fullness and just ignoring it and getting your sins forgiven is some how better? How about they are human inventions?
There was no Triune God when this stuff was being written. There was a Tribal God that had not yet become universal competing with other gods that created man. That YHWH was the creator is a late addition to the stories. It is us because the gods created us in the old stories. These gods where like El, Baal, Asherah, Ea, Anu, Yam and Yaw. Keep it honest not apologetic. That is the historical nature of the beast. Your theory ignores the reality, history, and sense that even the late biblical communities enjoyed. Why do you read a triune god into the story when we know it has nothing to do with a triune god? That is your particular theology and beyond that is irrelevant to the passages written or read before a monotheistic theology even developed in the times of its culture.. They hardly had a good theory in 400 CE that alone one back then. There was a pantheon or pantheons of gods when the stories were written even up to the exile. If they had not thought the stuff sacred to a few priests and royalty and used for rule under the Persians they would not have kept the stuff in it. Thank god not everyone could read and understand when they started deciding what was worth keeping and what wasn't worth repeating. It seems largely accidental what was kept and passed down except for its control value.

[Easyrider]

If you say so? How many covenants are there? Your theory doesn't move me.
His laws seem to have been made for the Jews so how does that teach the gentiles all about grace?

The earliest converts / disciples weren't gentiles. But the OT does say, "I will make you a light to the gentiles."

There was no Triune God when this stuff was being written.

Yes, there was.

There was a Tribal God that had not yet become universal competing with other gods that created man. That YHWH was the creator is a late addition to the stories. .... Keep it honest not apologetic.

Swell theory. Where's the beef to back up this latest belch of yours?

[Confused]

Actually, by the laws of the God of the OT, I have been condemned without any hope of salvation for 13 years. By the God of the NT, who is the God of the OT, I have a chance of salvation through Christ. Or am I interpreting this wrong as well? It makes little sense to me how they are both the same God, yet one says to stone a person to death while another says to forgive them.

They are different Covenants. The OT by strict Law and the NT by Grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. Some ask why the change? My own theory is that God wanted people to see that they could not keep the law in its fullness, which prepared them for the Covenant of Grace.

Why not speak in the plural sense? Because the God of the OT was a jealous and veangful God who said you shall not worship any other God but Him. If He is the only God, the only creator, then there should not be any other Gods, and if he is the only God, then why use plurals at all? Why even mention other Gods? Is there but one God or is there more?

God is triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Imagine they are all three in one locale. Does one say to the others, "Let ME create man in my image...." Or is it proper to say, "Let us create man in our image...."? The latter makes better sense to me.

Ok, I got your first point but it is quite a bit over my head, so I will have to research the covenant of grace etc.... before I can respond.

2: the first makes sense to me if there is but one God, the second makes sense if there is more than one God. Now, you lose me again with the triune. Not the concept in general, rather the concept as a whole. First: are all three distinct entities? If so, then there are 3 Gods. If not, then why does one entity need to speak aloud to himself if he is one entity, even if he has 3 personalities.

[Cathar1950]

You're condemned (so to speak) to eternity even now, apart from that. At least when you following God in the OT you had the promise of blessings on earth, and eternal life with God afterwards.

Why not speak in the plural sense? What's wrong with that?

It couldn’t be because man could record what was said being he wasn’t there. I see something wrong with speaking in the third person. I don’t think you get the ancient writing at all Easyrider. You seem to have an inability to look at it in any way that isn’t projecting you biases and predispositions unto the literature or the culture where it was created. That makes you either with little imagination or less then dishonest. .
How do you know that she is condemned for eternity already? That seems to be nothing more then a threatening opinion based on how you have decided to read the literature.
If she follows the OT and gets all that you could want or need, then what is the point of the NT except for ease? "Snow job" is what keeps popping into my mind.

[quote"Confused"] Actually, by the laws of the God of the OT, I have been condemned without any hope of salvation for 13 years. By the God of the NT, who is the God of the OT, I have a chance of salvation through Christ. Or am I interpreting this wrong as well? It makes little sense to me how they are both the same God, yet one says to stone a person to death while another says to forgive them...
Why not speak in the plural sense? Because the God of the OT was a jealous and veangful God who said you shall not worship any other God but Him. If He is the only God, the only creator, then there should not be any other Gods, and if he is the only God, then why use plurals at all? Why even mention other Gods? Is there but one God or is there more[/quote]?

It seems to me the simplest explanation is that they are human inventions and fictions. They reflect the writer’s ideas and the communities they addressed. If the stories are from God and true then they got a mess on their hands but if they take God off the hook and realize they are human creation, God does not need to explain himself unless we actually know something about God. The best they can come up with is knowledge about the unknowable and excuses.
I don’t think you are confused but that their stories are more confusing due to their limited yet presumed interpretation of ancient stories they have some how internalized beyond reason.


Cathar1950:

There was a Tribal God that had not yet become universal competing with other gods that created man. That YHWH was the creator is a late addition to the stories. .... Keep it honest not apologetic.

Swell theory. Where's the beef to back up this latest belch of yours?

You should read more and BS less.
It is hardly a “belch” and even you know that. Even a honest reading of the OT can show you that you are wrong. At least try and adjust to the last century. Denying the obvious does not help your cause.

Cathar1950:

There was no Triune God when this stuff was being written.

Yes, there was.

There was no Trinitarian doctrine or thought before The first century or later (I am being generous) and until it was decided on it was an open issue. It is still being debated.

Ok, I got your first point but it is quite a bit over my head, so I will have to research the covenant of grace etc.... before I can respond.

It is not over your head Confused it is convoluted. Don’t blame yourself for other's shortcomings.