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.

[The Real Truth]

The Lord God says such things simply because of this; He is a contradictory liar. But ultimatley, God is imaginary.

http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm

See with your own eyes that I am correct.

[Melis]

It is probably one of these:

a) copyist error
b) it shouldn't be understood literally
c) hebrew words can have a thousands of meanings for one and the same word
d) it relates to the Holy Trinity
e) something else

But I'd say it is a plain garbage.

[McCulloch]

It is probably one of these:

a) copyist error
b) it shouldn't be understood literally
c) hebrew words can have a thousands of meanings for one and the same word
d) it relates to the Holly Trinity
e) something else

But I'd say it is a plain garbage.

One other possibility:
f) The Hebrew creation myth originated from a polytheist source. With the development of Jewish monotheism, polytheist references were expunged from the myths. This one slipped by.

errata: That would be Holy Trinity not Holly Trinity.

[otseng]

There are some other verses in Genesis that refers to God in the plural sense also.

Gen 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.

Gen 11:6-7 And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So, it's highly doubtful it's a copyist error, since there are at least 3 verses in Genesis alone that refers to God in the plural.

There are also several other verses throughout the Bible that indicate there is more than one God.

So, I see the passage you cited as support for the concept of the trinity.

[Melis]

One other possibility:
f) The Hebrew creation myth originated from a polytheist source. With the development of Jewish monotheism, polytheist references were expunged from the myths. This one slipped by.

errata: That would be Holy Trinity not Holly Trinity.

You could be right - which would be additional case to thinking of the bible as a work of man.

I've corrected holly to holy, thanks.

[Confused]

There are some other verses in Genesis that refers to God in the plural sense also.

Gen 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.

Gen 11:6-7 And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So, it's highly doubtful it's a copyist error, since there are at least 3 verses in Genesis alone that refers to God in the plural.

There are also several other verses throughout the Bible that indicate there is more than one God.

So, I see the passage you cited as support for the concept of the trinity.

Ok, here I will show my ignorance again. The trinity includes the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Correct? But in Genesis Christ (the son) didn't exist yet. Was he not created to save mankind per se (yes I am simplifying a complex issue for the sake of keeping the focus on this thread) after the fall of adam and eve, after Noah, etc.... So how could the Son already exist at the time of the Garden of Eden.

[Confused]

It is probably one of these:

a) copyist error
b) it shouldn't be understood literally
c) hebrew words can have a thousands of meanings for one and the same word
d) it relates to the Holly Trinity
e) something else

But I'd say it is a plain garbage.

One other possibility:
f) The Hebrew creation myth originated from a polytheist source. With the development of Jewish monotheism, polytheist references were expunged from the myths. This one slipped by.

errata: That would be Holy Trinity not Holly Trinity.

Are you refering to the Hebrew myth originating from the Pagan polytheistic source or something else. Once again, my ignorace is showing through so bare with me? Regardless, if it was polytheistic, then what happened to all the other Gods. They find new universes to rule or what?

[McCulloch]

Are you referring to the Hebrew myth originating from the Pagan polytheistic source or something else. Once again, my ignorance is showing through so bear with me? Regardless, if it was polytheistic, then what happened to all the other Gods. They find new universes to rule or what?

The other Gods, in my view, had as much existence as the one surviving God, none.
From the point of view of the myth writers, the other Gods never did exist which is why they wanted to remove all reference to them.
One theory that has been put forth by Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic who has studied and written on the development of religion, is that Yahweh was perceived at one time as the national (or tribal) God of the Hebrew people, Baal was the tribal God of the Canaanites, etc and El was the supreme God who presided over the council of gods. Over time, as the idea of monotheism gained acceptance, the Jewish theologians merged Yahweh with El and relegated the other gods to non-existence. I am not qualified to support or attack her position, but I do find her writing to be quite interesting and accessible.

I am currently reading, The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions by Karen Armstrong which deals with this idea at length.

[FinalEnigma]

The only answer ive heard to try and explain this one is that god is using the plural sense as in the royal 'we'. way back then, kings used to pluralize themselves. that is, they used to say 'we' instead of 'me'. or 'us' instead of 'i'.