That’s quite a leap there. Are you going on anything but assumption that “our” refers to the Trinity?
What else could it be? It wouldn’t make sense for him to be referring to the angels, since the angels are not sharing in the creation process.
Two other possibilities are, a royal ‘We’ or it’s a remnant of the polytheistic past.
What was meant is indeed a plural ‘us Gods’.
It could mean 2, 3, 4 or any number of unnamed entities, or it could mean a royal “we”. I’m asking why you automatically assume that it could only mean the Trinity?
OK you’re right, it doesn’t specify the Trinity exactly, but it specifies multiple persons involved in creating, as God.
From the rest of the Bible, we gain knowledge of the other persons of God to whom He is referring.
More evidence from creation:
Gen. 1:2 “but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.”
The “spirit” of God, doing something different from God the creator? What is this “spirit”, if not another God-being?
It sounds to me like you are starting with the assumption, and if a passage can be made to fit somehow you automatically lock in the only meaning that fits your assumption.
Either a God-being is bound by falsifiability, in which case your statement is begging the question, or a God-being is not bound by falsifiability, in which case *any *human conception is meaningless, including the conception you are holding in your mind right now.
What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.
Either God is a fit topic for discussion in which case logical analysis is appropriate, or God is not a fit topic for discussion, full stop.
I’d be really surprised to find that the royal we exists outside of the English language.
When you take Genesis 1 together with the numerous places where the Bible days God alone is the creator, it narrows the options a little.
And I’d be really surprised if “we” means three. Taking both of these out the equation still leaves us with an infinite number of options. Saying that “1=3” seems to be more of a jump than the possibility that a polythistic religion slowly developed into a monothistic religion, but if your personal beliefs require you to fit a square peg into a round hole, so be it.
Sure it does.
German royalty even had another quirk, whereby the person adressed would be adressed as ‘he’.
As in Frederick the Great when adressing a pandour taking aim at him; “He! He doesn’t even have powder in his pan!”
OK - I guess I’m not all that surprised after all, as English and German are closely related, but does it exist in Biblical Hebrew? And does it take the same form as we see in Gen 1?
It’s not really about equating one and three. it’s like this:
[ul]
[li]Gen1 has God saying “Let us make XYZ”[/li][li]Lots of other Bible verses say God alone created XYZ[/li][li]John 1 says:[/li][/ul]
There are plenty of reasonable ways to interpret this (for example: it’s a contradiction), but one is: Jesus is of one being with the creator Godhead.
My personal beliefs are irrelevant.
It seems like retrofitting to me. It’s not like the Israelites knew that the concept of a Trinity would be developed many centuries later-what was written down at that time had to make sense for them then. It wasn’t written down then stored away in a vault with a stickynote that read “Do not open until the concept of The Trinity is developed!”.
another possible interpetation of the OT events (leaving out the fairly clear connotation of John)
For Gen1 compared to “god alone did it” - in Gen 1 - he was talking to an audience (angels I suppose) and does not indicate directly that the “us” had anthying to do with the creation other than being a witness (heh) to it.
For “God alone did it” - he was the ‘cause’ - if it were not for GOD, none of this would have happened - nothing to do with what else may (or may not) have witnessed/assisted the events.
Some aspects of God do not fit into our ideas of logic, that is true. That is why we say “It is a mystery.” That is often said about the “God is both 3 and 1” paradox. That doesn’t mean that God is “not a fit topic for discussion” it simply means we aren’t going to ever properly comprehend that aspect of God.
In other words, it is fine to discuss, but you are never going to have the issue fully satisfied and understood.
And who gets to decide which are which?
That’s funny, because I see this happening with evolution and the fossil record all the time.
(note: I know creatures evolve. I do not think evolution explains all of life on earth)
No one “gets” to decide. That is just my opinion. Which is also correct 
What a bizarre question.
Not as bizarre as trying to bring up the “Evolution vs. Creation” off-topic to justify retrofitting the Trinity concept into the Old Testament. The question isn’t bizarre, and your answer is rather dismissive.