"One other issue in Genesis 1:26 deserves mention. The Lord says," Let us make man in our image," a potentially odd comment in a monotheistic creation account. Since the next verse emphasizes "God created man in his own image" and stresses "he created" male and female, it is improbable that any other deity is invoked in Genesis 1:26. It is more likely that a plurality of personality is meant, since both God and the Spirit of God appear in Genesis 1. It is not likely that the Lord addresses angels and other celestial beings. To interpret the phrase in this manner implies that these beings share creator status with the Lord." -Paul R. House (Old Testament Theology, p.61-62)
House lays out a doctrine of the Creator God without so much as a hint of a mention of Jesus. The best we get is a brief excursus on a possible "plurality of personality" within Genesis 1.
We were required to use this volume as a textbook for OT Survey at The Master's College (John Macarthur's school). This might give you some idea of how easily a system whose hermeneutical presupposition revolves around innerrancy can inculcate a smooth doctrine of Creation without even explicitly mentioning the Christic principle. In other words, inerrantists are not impeachably safe from errant theological views of the Bible.
Talking about Creation without making any mention of Jesus is just another example of bad natural theology. If we profess that all things were created through Jesus, why do we blush at the thought of placing this in our books? Do we think the Most High would have us ignore one person of the Trinity in our exegesis of Genesis 1, especially in light of the fact that his apostles didn't? Or is the theological fact that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth brought all things into being such a trifling matter that we may safely neglect it?