That’s certainly understandable, but in this particular case I’m not sure there’s any ambiguity that requires careful interpretation.
As for referring to supernatural beings, I’d like to hear more about this because in a lot of cases any kind of “supernatural being” kind of territory you get into is rooted in these very verses that have been, in my estimation, greatly misunderstood. Like the very common idea that the “sons of God” are angels. Some translations go so far as to just translate it as “angels”. Even though this directly contradicts other passages… like pretty much the entire message of Hebrews 1.
Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?
So, if singular, who’s “us”?
My guess is that your statement about image having nothing to do with biology is at least strongly based on the idea that God created us in His image? Which comes from this line. Am I wrong?
My point was that keying in on that one word isn’t going to help. By that reasoning, it’s all Adam every time that word is used.