In article , Bob says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>> >It would be interesting to know if their version of Gen 1:26 reads
>the
>> >same.
>>
>> It does. It reads (following an ad hoc transcription scheme):
>>
>> WYMR(sg) ELHIM N"SH (ambiguous) ADM BTsLMNU (plural!) KDMNUThNU
>(plural!)
>>
>> And don't let the ambiguous from N"SH fool you. The Jews themselves
>translated
>> it as "let US make" in the LXX translation of this very
verse. Even
>Aquila and
>> Theodotion never disputed the correctness of this translation.
>
>Ok, I questioned a Rabbi about this subject.

Well, that is a significant improvement over your approach to this topic so far.

> He stated that Gen 1:26
>("Let US make...")

So are you finally convinced that your previous suggestion is impossible? Are
you finally convinced that it was impossible for Christian scribes to
interpolate this verse with the plurals 'us'?

>refers to God conferring with the angels as a
>courtesy to them during the "planning stage" for man's creation.

But this explanation is also impossible. And its refutation was clinched long
ago, despite what your Rabbi says.


>However the actual creation of man in 1:27 is done singularly by God,
>as only He can do.  Makes sense to me! Case closed.

The case is FAR from 'closed'. You should not have been so easily fooled by the
weak argument that God used the plural because He was 'conferring' with the
angels. If you had realized how utterly worthless this argument is, you would
realize that the case is NOT closed.

And yes, it is _utterly_ worthless. How would saying "let US"
create, when He
_means_ "I shall create", be a _courtesy_? Can those who advance
this ridiculous
argument even give us examples where a king uses such language as a 'courtesy'
to members of his court? Can they give such an example that is even
approximately contemporaneous with the composition of Gen 1:26? Of course not.
That is why the argument is worthless. Whoever first cooked this up was grasping
at straws to try to hide the evidence that this _is_ an early allusion to
Trinity.

It is too bad that this "makes sense" to you. It really should
not. For it makes
no sense whatsoever.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/6/05 8:04:36 PM ---