On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Alien]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?

Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.

I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".

[Alien]

Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.

Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"

OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.

Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?

The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!

Blast!  Why didn't you tell me about this in 1974 before I did 5 years doing chemistry O-Level, 2 years doing chemistry A-level and a chemistry degree?

"Chemical reactions occur 'because they do.'"

O-levels take 2 years, Alien.

You wot? I learnt chemistry for my chemistry O-level over 5 years.

We may be able to discern patterns in the way things behave, and thereby set up rules to the phenomena we see, but we can never know ultimately why they behave as they do. This is because this is all we do observe phenomena not the things-in-themselves.

So you are unable to come to conclusions about why they are like they are? Why is that? If you only apply scientific methods you will never come to know why science works, I would grant you that. That is one of the limitations of science.

Yes, you've wasted your life, mate. First science and then Christianity.

Nope, both have been good for me.

[Alien]

...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "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.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Yes, done that. And?

You're just nit-picking. I was referring to the overall sentiment of it. Just because I paraphrased it and didn't quote it exactly doesn't change what it is saying. It is possible to say the same thing in different ways.

You didn't paraphrase it; you misquoted it.

[jeremyp]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

[Alien]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

[Jack Knave]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?

Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.

I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".

How you came to think that that was what I thought I don't know. I suggest you reread my post. If A isn't certain then A' is a possibility.

[Jack Knave]

We may be able to discern patterns in the way things behave, and thereby set up rules to the phenomena we see, but we can never know ultimately why they behave as they do. This is because this is all we do observe phenomena not the things-in-themselves.

So you are unable to come to conclusions about why they are like they are? Why is that? If you only apply scientific methods you will never come to know why science works, I would grant you that. That is one of the limitations of science.

Your last bit contradicts your first bit!!! What are you trying to say?

So you have something more powerful than science to understand the physical world of matter and its forces? You can discern things-in-themselves can you?

Yes, you've wasted your life, mate. First science and then Christianity.

Nope, both have been good for me.

Yeah! How?

[Jack Knave]

...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.

Where? Are you certain of that?

"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?

Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?

Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."

You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.

Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.

May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "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.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Yes, done that. And?

You're just nit-picking. I was referring to the overall sentiment of it. Just because I paraphrased it and didn't quote it exactly doesn't change what it is saying. It is possible to say the same thing in different ways.

You didn't paraphrase it; you misquoted it.

And you're nit-picking where no nit-picking is required. Its meaning is as I say because that is what it expresses.

[Alien]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?

Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.

I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".

How you came to think that that was what I thought I don't know. I suggest you reread my post. If A isn't certain then A' is a possibility.

You said that I was trying to steer "the gullible fool towards my notion of what God is". Who is the gullible fool you were thinking of?

I have said that the cause of the universe is plausibly personal. That does not mean that it certainly is personal. Anyone who understands what "plausible" means will realise that, surely? So, no, I am not trying to fool anyone.

[Jack Knave]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

[Jack Knave]

Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...

OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?

I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.

So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?

Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.

I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".

How you came to think that that was what I thought I don't know. I suggest you reread my post. If A isn't certain then A' is a possibility.

You said that I was trying to steer "the gullible fool towards my notion of what God is". Who is the gullible fool you were thinking of?

I have said that the cause of the universe is plausibly personal. That does not mean that it certainly is personal. Anyone who understands what "plausible" means will realise that, surely? So, no, I am not trying to fool anyone.

That should be 'fools', the poor souls you are trying to convert and will not doubt from weakness succumb to you deceit.

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

[Alien]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?

Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.

[Alien]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

[Jack Knave]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?

Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.

The Queen is referring to her court, who are all humans and of her 'clan'.

If what you say is right then why did the translators not adjust it to suit. It clearly says 'God said' and It uses the term 'we'. If it is obvious that only one person is talking then why wasn't the 'we' been replaced by 'I'? Or if the Hebrew word for God is plural then why doesn't it say "the Gods said". (so what you are saying about the Hebrew is that when it says God anywhere in the Bible it actually means "the Gods"?)

Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT.

But it does in Gen 11:7 (well in the NIV) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." If God, singular, is so powerful why would It need anyone else to help with this task, say like the angels?

[jeremyp]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

Us: plural.

[Jack Knave]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

[Jack Knave]

Alien

I would like a cogent and serious reply to the first bit of #106, please.

[Alien]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?

Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.

The Queen is referring to her court, who are all humans and of her 'clan'.

If what you say is right then why did the translators not adjust it to suit. It clearly says 'God said' and It uses the term 'we'. If it is obvious that only one person is talking then why wasn't the 'we' been replaced by 'I'? Or if the Hebrew word for God is plural then why doesn't it say "the Gods said". (so what you are saying about the Hebrew is that when it says God anywhere in the Bible it actually means "the Gods"?)

Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT.

But it does in Gen 11:7 (well in the NIV) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." If God, singular, is so powerful why would It need anyone else to help with this task, say like the angels?

Elohim is a plural word, yet when it is used to speak of God the verb form it takes is singular. A literal rendering would be "Gods is great". This demonstrates that, at least with the word elohim where it refers to God, a plural is used to depict a singular being. This bit is not controversial.

As for the "we" bits we have been discussing, this seems to be something similar, as I say not unlike the Queen (allegedly) saying, "We are not amused?" I am giving an analogy there and analogies do not prove anything, though they may illustrate something. The use of "we" and "us" by God in Genesis is not proof of him speaking of there being gods/Gods plural. That is all.

As for how it is translated, sometimes it is not possible to translate something into another language without a fairly long explanation.

[Alien]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

Us: plural.

Where is the word "gods" in the Hebrew?

[jeremyp]

Us: plural.

Where is the word "gods" in the Hebrew?

"Us" includes the person speaking which, in Gen 3:22 is God.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this fight because, when I first responded, I was assuming that you were disputing the idea that Genesis says that Adam became like a god or gods at all.  It was only just before the last post I made that I've checked back and realised it is only a dispute over how many gods there were present. I'll accept your Royal We point.

[Alien]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"

"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."

[Dicky Underpants]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

[Jack Knave]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?

It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?

Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.

The Queen is referring to her court, who are all humans and of her 'clan'.

If what you say is right then why did the translators not adjust it to suit. It clearly says 'God said' and It uses the term 'we'. If it is obvious that only one person is talking then why wasn't the 'we' been replaced by 'I'? Or if the Hebrew word for God is plural then why doesn't it say "the Gods said". (so what you are saying about the Hebrew is that when it says God anywhere in the Bible it actually means "the Gods"?)

Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT.

But it does in Gen 11:7 (well in the NIV) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." If God, singular, is so powerful why would It need anyone else to help with this task, say like the angels?

Elohim is a plural word, yet when it is used to speak of God the verb form it takes is singular. A literal rendering would be "Gods is great". This demonstrates that, at least with the word elohim where it refers to God, a plural is used to depict a singular being. This bit is not controversial.

As for the "we" bits we have been discussing, this seems to be something similar, as I say not unlike the Queen (allegedly) saying, "We are not amused?" I am giving an analogy there and analogies do not prove anything, though they may illustrate something. The use of "we" and "us" by God in Genesis is not proof of him speaking of there being gods/Gods plural. That is all.

As for how it is translated, sometimes it is not possible to translate something into another language without a fairly long explanation.

I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?

And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.

And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.

[Jack Knave]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"

"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."

It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.

The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.

I await your presentation.

[Jack Knave]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.