The majority of people have a completely erroneous idea of who or what “God” is. The following inferences are extracted from the phrase in Genesis 1, which says “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” in its literal form.
From the Bible we can deduct these facts:
We know of no other entity from the very beginning but God, and at some point before the creation of man, God had to have created entities somehow related to him.
It doesn’t make sense that God would speak to himself in the plural form (“us”, “our”). Therefore it is obvious that God is speaking to someone other than himself (or themselves).
Since from the very beginning there is no evidence whatsoever that there were no other entities other than God, the others (“us”, “our”) referred to in this phrase could only have come from God (or gods).
Since these to whom God was speaking have come from God, for the sake of reference, we could call them “sons of God” and are “begotten sons of God” in some way.
Since God is quoted to have said “our image” and “our likeness” we can assume that the other entities are related to and are of the same substance as God in some way.
To start from the beginning: Elohim in Hebrew is the plural form of Eloah, which is the God of Israel in the Old Testament. The reason for the plural form may not be intentional to show there is more than one god (unless the others are gods also, being his sons), but obviously to grammatically be in agreement with “us” and “our”. There are obviously multiple entities involved with the creation of man:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Gen 1:26)
The fact that there were multiple entities involved in the creation of man, could only mean one thing: the ones God was speaking to were “begotten” of God: the sons of God.
Sons of God are not angels and demons. Angels and demons are concepts derived from later Judaic tradition and early Christianity and most likely Greek.
Adam was also a son of God as it says in Luke 3:38:
“Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”
Obviously, Adam was a created son of God not a “begotten” one. There is a difference. Therefore, Adam was evidently created with the genetic substance of God and the others were begotten of God.
In original manuscripts, before the copies of the Gospels were modified, it said Jesus was the “first” begotten son of God. Later it was changed to read the “only” begotten son of God.
This obviously had something to do with forcing the scriptures agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. The point here is not about the Trinity, but to demonstrate that there is a difference between a begotten son of God, and Man, the creations of God.
Note that the verse in Gen 1:26 uses the words “our image” and “our likeness”. “Image” here suggests to look like and “likeness” suggests to behave like.
So here we have multiple entities involved with the creation of man who would create man to look similar to God and behave similar to God.
Man was created a physical being, and since Adam and Eve hid from God, this suggests that they could see God and they knew God could see them, and that God also was material — in some respect — and that he was not invisible.
So since man was created in God’s image, logically, He must have looked similar to a man with eyes, nose, mouth, ears, a head… etc. From reading about God’s interaction with Adam and Eve in Genesis it’s clear that he could see them, hear them and communicate with them.
Throughout the Bible we see that God has a behaviour — very similar to man’s — in that he loves, gets angry, hates, gets jealous, etc: Man is made in the likeness of God.
Logically, God has DNA that is compatible to man’s. It says that the sons of God bare children to the daughters of men:
“That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…”
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” (Gen 6:2,4)
It doesn’t say that the sons of God married the daughters of men, it just says that they “came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them…” They just took them and had sex with them. These were the source of the giants in the Earth before the great flood. The expression “came in unto” in the Bible means literally, they had sex.
Now there are lots of interpretations as to who were the sons of God, to explain away the idea that God had begotten sons, but just taking it for what it literally says: “the sons of God”, with no interpretations, God would have had to have a wife to have sons, just like Adam.
After all, man was created in the image and likeness of God. If man had a wife for procreation, then God also must have had a wife — after all, he had sons.
In fact, there is evidence from archeology that God had a wife that they worshiped in the temple together with God, who was considered his divine equal. It is said that she had seventy sons. In Hebrew there are inscriptions: “Yahweh and his Asherah”.
If God had sons, it follows that his sons were able to have sex, and not just the “fallen angels” as is proposed by some.
There is no evidence in the Bible that the sons of God were not able have sex, nor even prohibited to engage in sex. It is only an assumption by Christology that it was the “fallen angels” that had sex with the daughters of men.
However, the word angel is a translation for what is literally “sons of God”. The Greek word for angel actually means messenger, which is much different than “son of God”.
According to the Bible, the flood was for the purpose of destroying all of God’s creation since man had become “exceedingly evil”. To make a long story short, God’s flood supposedly killed all life from the Earth except for Noah, his family and the animals Noah brought with him into the Ark.
There were giants in the Earth before the flood, who were offspring of the sons of God with the daughters of men as was previously mentioned. And there were giants in the Earth after the flood.
“And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” (Numbers 13:33)
Now either there were giants that survived the flood that was supposed to destroy every living thing on the Earth, except for those in the Ark, or the sons of God had sex again with the descendants of Noah and there became giants in the Earth again.
Which ever way it was is not the point. The point here is that since the giants were descendants of the sons of God with the daughters of men, and we see once again that whoever God is has DNA that is compatible with man.
In Nature we know that different species can not be crossed. For example, a dog couldn’t be crossed with a cat. However, a Zebra can be crossed with a horse, since they are of the same species — they are genetically compatible.
The evidence points to the fact that in the Bible, God was not an invisible being, but was some type of a physical entity; who looked similar to and behaved similar to man whom he created; and above all was genetically compatible with humans.
This brings out some important concepts here:
- All men are genetic descendants of God.
- God and men are genetically compatible.
- The Sons of God are begotten not created as is Adam.
- Since Man was made to look similar to and behave similar to God, the inverse must be true: God looks similar to and behaves similar to man.
- God is not invisible.
Next: The Great Plan | God is not Invisible Part 2