Then I am guilty of an anachronism I’ve ‘known’ for 40 years. Thanks! And it must therefore be a Divine Counsel. If I’d accepted this as a believer it would have had an incalculable influence, the greater the further back in to fundamentalism. It’s henotheistic monolatry, fossilized still in C5th BCE Judaism, late in the evolution of strict monotheism and the relegation to mere created angels. Until Jesus. And Satan.
1 Like
Yet another example of missig thhe point because of a specific understanding.
The Royal We is only an example of a usage of We not a definitive definition.
IOW you do not have to be Royal to use it and be understood,
Richard
I guess most Christians would accept that there are angels, cherubim and other ‘spiritual’ creatures mentioned in the biblical scriptures. There is only one God but there are created beings that belong to the realm of ‘heaven’, the invisible one. The ‘elohim’ are those creatures.
Biblical scriptures mention different tasks and roles for these ‘elohim’.
One role is ‘angels’ that means ‘messengers’ - it is a description of a task or role, not necessarily of a ‘species’ or ‘kind’.
Some ‘elohim’ seem to have a role that includes responsibilities and some authority over an area or nation.
One interpretation is that some of the idols served as pagan ‘gods’ pointed to these ‘elohim’. A pagan ‘god’ may have been an ‘elohim’, not just an imaginary idol. The pagan ‘god’ was a created being and could be compared to a mighty human ruler, except that as an ‘elohim’, it had more power, did not have an ordinary human body, and would live much longer than any humans. How long is a matter of speculation, possibly until God decides to end its’ existence.
Is this henoteistic monolatry? Not in the sense that there would be many comparable gods. There is only one original Creator, the others are just created beings.
1 Like
Not in the text. From the beginning. How old are angels?
These creatures, ‘elohim’, are mentioned in the texts of the OT.
There are verses suggesting that the ‘elohim’ were created before humans and possibly before all terrestrial animals. Such passages are, at least, the ‘we’ in Genesis 1, the cherubim in Genesis 3:24, the poetic expressions of ‘sons of god’ rejoicing when God created.
It is a matter of interpretation how we understand these verses but this idea fits very well to the ANE worldview.
How old are angels?
If we speak of ‘elohim’, possibly older than humanity.
If we speak of other ‘angelos’ (messengers), depends on who the ‘messenger’ was.
Riiiight. So six hundred million years then. And they are entirely parochial to Earth. Does each of the infinite number of inhabited worlds from eternity have its own heavenly host? Do they all get a Satan?
That would be nice to know. My guess is that all the planets or solar systems do not have its own heavenly host but it is just a guess. I do not even believe that all the sites on earth are ruled or guarded by an ‘elohim’ - but I could be wrong.
You seem to have an assumption that there is an ‘infinite number of inhabited worlds’. That is a statement of faith as we do not know how many planets host life. Possibly more than one but proving it may be difficult.
1 Like
No it’s a statement of reason from science. Knowledge based. Reason alone suffices actually. Uniformitarianism. There’s a proper philosophy for you. Whatever we know, science, is average, mesoscopic. Wherever you are, in the eternal infinity of nature, you’re in the middle, half way. ‘Knowing’ anything else is unreason.
Since when has that been the case in any document? When commoners do it, it’s grandiose or what!
The use of we as a pronoun
[
In summary, “we” is a versatile pronoun that serves various purposes in English grammar, from emphasizing the subject to including the audience in academic writing
(https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=0745bb1adc2983a0e53bf106610e4788f57161b584feffbd4e9f32818c15b601JmltdHM9MTc2MDgzMjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=36a5dbd1-2b57-688e-3cd7-d6102abb69b9&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9sYW5nZWVrLmNvL2VuL2dyYW1tYXIvY291cnNlLzI1MC93ZQ&ntb=1)
IOW plenty
Perhaps you would like to ask the author what they thought they meant? Would it matter?
In the context of the text it basically means total agreement, or certainty.
However, .also in the context of the writing it does not express the true nature of God. It is not that sort of writing. Anymore than you would expect a serpent to be talking, or a tree to give eternal life.
Richard
So you don’t know.
You refusd the last link, try this one
The fact that it was coined in the UK does not mean that this sort of usage was not already used or known.
Richard
ChatGPT: “The fact that English/European monarchs used the royal we tells you nothing about Hebrew usage, and mainstream Hebrew grammars say the “royal we” (pluralis maiestatis) is not used for first-person pronouns in Biblical Hebrew. When God says “Let us make …” (Gen 1:26), the better-supported explanations are things like the divine council—not a Hebrew “royal we.” (hebrewsyntax.org)
What the evidence says:
-
In English/Latin courts the royal we emerges in the late 12th century (Henry II/Richard I, via ecclesiastical chancery practice). That’s medieval Europe, not ancient Israel. (Quartz)
-
In Biblical Hebrew, grammars distinguish honorific/majestic plurals of nouns (e.g., Elohim) from pronouns/verbs. They explicitly note there’s no Hebrew “royal we” in the sense of a king or God saying “we” to mean “I.” (hebrewsyntax.org)
-
On Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make …”), major studies argue the plural reflects God addressing the heavenly court (divine council), not a royal-we convention. This view is widely attested in the scholarly literature. (Digital Commons)
So Richard’s inference—“because European monarchs used it, Hebrews (or God) did too”—doesn’t follow linguistically or historically. Different language, different era, different convention.
2 Likes
I’m sure it was universally known, used in every ethne, tribe and culture by everyone, orally. But they never wrote it down until then. What does that Bing search say?
- It says: “Romae cum fueris, fac quod Romani faciunt, nisi Ricardus te iubet facere quod ipse dicit.”
2 Likes
Zu befehl.
The time has come I think.
There we are. Done.
[As in there’s a reply below I cannot see.]
1 Like
Let’s see
“Fac” is an issue, in some ways, because of its similarity to a well-known English profanity pronunciation words
No prizes for the intent then.
Richard
My point was “When in Rome, do as the Romans do—unless Richard tells you to do what he says,” i.e., you’re quibbling about English royal usage instead of addressing Hebrew usage.
“Fac = Latin ‘do,’ not an English four-letter word 
. Back to the point: do you have a Hebrew grammar that documents a first-person royal-we? Otherwise, Gen 1:26 is still best read as divine-council language, not an English-style royal we.”
2 Likes
Do you?
Funny, I thought this forum was about exchange of ideas, even banter. Shame people have to take it so seriosly.
Since when was this Forum at the cutting edge of human knowledge and understanding?
It’s a shame when people insist on taking everything so seriously.
Richard
Kind of hard to tell whether you’re being serious or being out on a lark. I thought you were being serious.
1 Like