The facts as I see them are, (1) there WERE a number of beings referred to in Gen.1:26, but they were not Gods, plural.  And (2) the "word" WAS with God, at all times, but it was not a God-being or person.

Binitarian polytheists prefer that the OT word "God" (Hebrew "elohim") should be translated "family," as in a Greco/Roman pantheon-style "family of gods."  But this idea makes no sense whatsoever, not even in one place.  When the Bible refers to "the Lord your God," as it does some 451 times in the NKJV, they would apparently re-write this to say, "the Lord your Family" or "your Gods," perhaps, "and the Family said, let us make man…". The foolishness of this teaching should be obvious regardless of the gross error of interpretation or even how the grammatical dissonance of such a construct grates upon the ears.  One BC fellow told me, in respect to the Bible NOT using the word "Gods," that the problem "was with the translators."  Sure it was.

The poly-binitarian "family of gods" doctrine is based on a false premise, i. e., that the Hebrew word "elohim" retains its plural characteristics regardless of the context of any given pertinent passage. Contrary to the oft-stated Armstrong poly-binitarian view, elohim is not a "uni-plural" word at all.  It is a plural word used in virtually all cases in the singular sense.  One interesting stratagem binitarians use is to suggest because the English word "God" has several underlying Hebrew words, that fact negates any definitive statement about the oneness of the true God.  Although context is mentioned from time to time in their writings, they typically neglect it in respect to the word "God" or elohim.

In addition, the proponents of binitarian polytheism suggest that the Greek word "logos" translated "Word" in John 1:1 really means "Spokesman." But they are wrong because the Greek word logos does not allow for such an interpretation.  The "spokesman" idea comes from Armstrong church doctrine created in the fertile mind of the founder of that church, the late Herbert W. Armstrong.

As mentioned in a previous issue of The Fellowship Commentator, the word "logos" is defined as "speech, something said, a topic, reasoning, the word uttered, the divine expression, or motive," plus more (Strong's #3056).  No real justification exists to turn this clearly defined, well-known word into a preexistent God-being, a person, a spokesman, or a deity.   FPH

ABOUT TRANSLATIONS…

In evaluating the general character of an English version, it must be remembered that the translators were, by and large, trinitarian and orthodox, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of scripture.  Thus, nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their versions the thoughts that were current in their own minds (Introduction, p.iii, Septuagint, C.L. Brenton, Hendrickson).  They could only translate passages as they understood them, and their understanding came from those before them, generally, or from their teachers.  How foolish it would be to think that a maverick, non-orthodox translator would have been part of an orthodox translating team.

It would be too much, however, to suggest that the orthodox translators translated with dishonest intentions.  It cannot be doubted that they simply wished to express in the English, that which they understood from the original tongues.  The introduction of theological ideas and inaccuracies should be attributed to the incompetence of some of the interpreters and to the tone of the mental and spiritual feeling that was common to them all.      

When the NT was first written, there were no punctuation marks in it.  In fact, the words were all run together one after the other without any separation.  Punctuation and versification entered the text of manuscripts at a much later period.  Obviously, this has created some difficulties for contemporary scholars (and for would-be scholars) since the way a verse is punctuated can have a significant effect on the interpretation of the verse.  One outstanding example is Romans 9:5.  If a major stop is placed after "kata sorka" ("according to the flesh"), then the final section of this verse is a statement about God the Father.  The NEB has "May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!" 

However, if a minor stop is placed at that point, the final words of the sentence speak of Christ.  The NIV has "Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!"  (In a footnote of the NIV Study Bible, it states: "Christ, who is God.  [This is] one of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation.")  Is the translation accurate at this point?  Not according to other versions.  Does it make any difference?  Most scholars believe it does.  Remember: languages are not codes and there is no exact word for word correspondence between the Hebrew or Greek and English (ref: Basic Biblical Greek, W. D. Mounce).

The target passage: "Of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God" (Rom.9:5, NKJV). Notice that the definite article "the" was added to this passage along with the comma after "all."

The Interlinear Bible: "And of whom is the Christ according to flesh, he being God over all, blessed forever."  Young's Literal Translation: "And of whom is the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages."  (Continued...)