Join Now


Meet new people from all over the world, make friends, change your status, upload photos, earn points, & so much more! Chat, post comments or questions on our forum, or send private emails to your friends! There is so much to do and Learn here at World's Last Chance! Join our growing Christian Community Today and receive your Free Gift!

or sign in with your account below:

eCourses Completion Status

Genesis 1:26 (Part #3) | Exposing the False Trinity Doctrine

The King James Version (KJV) is mostly used in these lessons. Click here to access the KJV online.
Click here to start the quiz

Genesis 1:26 (Part #3)

4. Elohim

Trinitarians also have a habit of presuming the Hebrew word Elohim is plural for the purpose of indicating multiple persons are being identified. As such, the question at hand becomes further confused by this mistaken assumption. We know that other plural Hebrew words are used to refer to single persons in the Scripture. We also know that Elohim is used to refer to single personages such as a single pagan G-d. A review of Scripture also shows that Elohim was used to refer to the Father alone, a single person (compare Acts 3:22-25 to Deuteronomy 18:15-18; compare Hebrews 1:9 to Psalm 45:7; compare Hebrews 10:7 to Psalm 40:7-8). Indeed, Trinitarians themselves inconsistently claim Elohim is used to refer to one single person named Yahushua (compare Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6) while at the same time claiming the word necessarily refers to multiple persons. That doesn't make any sense. And it hardly makes any sense whatsoever to insist the reason Elohim is plural to signify a plurality of persons when we also know Elohim is used in the Scriptures to refer to a single person.

Conversely, G-d Himself calls multiple human judges "Elohim". We would hardly supposed these judges are a single multi-personal being. And again, second century Jews translated the word Elohim as "angels," a translation ratified by the inspired Hebrews writer at Hebrews 2:7. We would not conclude angels are a single multi-personal being. These obvious facts are simply ignored by Trinitarians since they are not convenient to their claims and contradict their claims.

Elohim is a grammatically masculine plural Hebrew noun. Elohim is the Hebrew word which is normally translated as "G-d" in English Bibles when it is accompanied by a singular verb. The word Elohim appears to be the plural form of Eloah which is also used in the Scriptures. G-d is also called El, Elyon, or El Elyon in singular form. Scholars, Trinitarian or otherwise, do not agree upon the reason why Elohim appears in plural form and offer a range of proposed reasons. However, the Scriptural facts show us quite plainly that Elohim cannot possibly be plural for the purpose of signifying multiple personages.

5. Cohortative Mood aka "Common Sense"

Another error on the part of many Trinitarians is the confusion of equating Elohim with "us." There is nothing in the Hebrew grammar which indicates the "us" and "our" group are to be identified as Elohim. In other words, the Hebrew grammar is not identifying Elohim as "us" (or vice versa). Such a conclusion does cannot be extracted from the grammar but requires the faulty practice of eisegesis. It is not unusual in any language for one person to speak on behalf of a group. Moreover, the text actually reads, "Elohim He said, "Let us..." And while it says "HE said" in singular verb form, it also says "Let US make" in plural verb form. Note that it does not say, "THEY said, 'Let US make.'" In any language, this indicates that the speaker is including himself with other identities and speaking on behalf of the group in which he is including himself. In other words, with respect to the grammar itself, we can only say that Elohim is a singular "HE" who is speaking on behalf of the "us" group in which He is including Himself.

6. Adam is a Multi-personal Being too?

At this point, Trinitarians note that Elohim says that man will be created in "our" image and then we read that man was created in "his" image. However, Trinitarians simply assume here that one three-person-being refers to himself (or themselves) as "us" and then by the singular pronounoun "he", implying the possessive "our" refers to the same identity as the singular possessive "his." Put another way, Trinitarians imagine that the three persons ("us") are a singular "he," and strangely presume the verse haphazardly shifts between identifying G-d with the singular personal pronouns, "he/his/him," and plural personal pronouns, "we/our/us," even though this violates and ignores the commonly understood use and purposes of pronouns in human language.

The Trinitarian error here is further illustrated by observing how this passage also refers to man in both singular and plural terms. We read, "Let us make man in our image" and then "let them rule." We also read, "G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d He created him" and we then read, "male and female He created them." Genesis 5:2 also explains how G-d called them "ADAM." Note also Genesis 3:22 where it says "the man has become like one of us" even though it necessarily pertains to both Adam and Eve. Trinitarians inconsistently conclude that this kind of plural language at Genesis 1:26 means Elohim is a single multi-personal being while denying that this same kind of plural language in reference to Adam would then mean Adam is also multi-personal being. If we used the same kind of reasoning process as Trinitarians use, we would need to necessarily conclude Adam is a multi-personal being, something which is obviously ridiculous.

7. The Hebrew Grammar

When the plural Hebrew word Elohim is used in Scripture to refer to multiple G-ds, a plural verb is associated with Elohim rather than a singular verb. This singularity or plurality of the verbs used with Elohim is how we know whether it refers to a singular G-d or to plural G-ds. When the one G-d of Israel is in view, singular verbs are associated with Elohim. While Elohim is a plural noun, all the verbs which accompany the word Elohim in Genesis 1:26-27 are singular, not plural. The only verb that is plural is "Let us make." But this does not itself indicate that Elohim is an "US." From the grammar alone, we can only conclude that Elohim is speaking on behalf of a group of identities.

One must also ask why plural and singular verbs are used in this verse. While it says "Let us make", plural, we also then read that "He" created, not "They" created. We must also keep in mind that "us" is simply a second person plural where "they" is a corresponding third person plural. If we were to understand that Elohim is a WE, then we should also expect the verse to then say, "THEY created in THEIR image" rather than "HE created in HIS image." But this is not what occurs. The identities "we" or "us" or the possessive "our" are necessarily a "they" and "them" or possessive "their." But we do not find that THEY created; we find HE created.

Elohim speaks with a plural verb, "Let us make" but the passage also refers to Elohim with a singular verb which literally says, "HE said, 'Let us make...'" This should immediately indicate to readers that one person, "HE" is speaking on behalf of a group, "US." Trinitarians suggest that the grammar here is because G-d is a singular multi-personal being and can therefore speak this way. However, such a claim is wildly tenuous since it reads Trinitarian doctrine back into an ancient text written for strictly monotheistic Israelites who had no concept of a three-person-G-d. It also conveniently ignores the fact that Adam is portrayed in both singular and plural terms in this passage yet no one presumes Adam is a multi-personal being. Such claims also suggest that Trinitarians would like to believe that you can never really tell just who is speaking - the Triune G-d as a singular "I," or any one of the three persons of the Triune G-d as a singular "I," or the Triune G-d as a plural "We," and so on. Moreover, if G-d is just one person, this would not be an unusual way to speak. For example, we might read, "The President said, 'Let us persevere.'" Nobody would conclude the President is a multi-personal being or that he speaks this way because he is both a singular and a multi-personal being. In other words, the only reason anyone would interpret this verse as Trinitarians do, is for the sake of their own Trinitarian tradition.