TANACH VS TRINITY

7/27/2019 TANACH VS TRINITY

1/31

Page

1

Tanach is the Jewish Bible Or Jewish Canon. It is not Old Covenant or Old

Teatament. In fact the Greek translations like Septuagint[LXX],Version of

Auuilla,Version ofTheodotion,Version Of Symmachus etc. Were never called as

Old Covenant or Old Testament. It was fairly late that post Iesous Cannon was

established and after it was compiled it still took a long period to Tanach or its

Greek versions as OLD COVENANT OR OLD TESTAMENT.It may be interesting to

note that even Syriac [Aramaic ] Verson was not known as Old or New Testament

or Covenant.

The Hebrew word for Covenant is Brit [tirB]No where in Hebrew Tanach it is

called OLD Covenant Or Old Testament.In is very interesting to note down that

even in the books of New Testament ,the word Old Testament or Old Covenant is

mensioned for HEBRAIC TANACH.

Even Iesous Himself never called the books of Hebraic Tanach as

OLD COVENANT or OLD TESTAMENT.That is why a number ofpeople in Christianity are compelled to think that the post esous

Scriptures and Ante Iesous SCRIPTURES ARE TWO BOOKS and not

a single book of two parts namely OC or OT and NC or NT. So if

the word Bible may be used for each of them them then there are

two Bibles .If the word Bible is confined to Tanach and Its

Translations then there tre two Holy Books in Christianity, namely

Bible and NT.[ If Iesous The ultimate Founder Of Christianity did

not call Hebraic Books Of Hebraic Cannon as old Testament or Old

Covenant then it is to say some thing which even Iesous did not

say in his entire ministery.Not only Iesous but non of his disciples

ever call tis Non Biblical Term s of OT or OC. So it is cincorrect to

use this term even according to New - Testamental standard.]

Words of timeless GOD never grow old and are perpetually not

old.

Other wise the New Testament may be termed as TWO

THOUSAND YEARS OLD TESTAMENT, or some 1700 years old but

still new testament.

Athanasian Christianity believes that the belief of Athanasian

Trinity is found in Hebraic Bible. It is constantly attempted to

prove Athanasian Trinity from the text of Tanach and Lxx. A n

example is Isaiah 9 where the word FATHER is used to apply on

Iesous who is not father even from the standard of Athanasian

Christianity.

An other example is of the Proper Noun Ammanuel, which was not

a noun of Iesous.There is no rule that the literal meanking of a


2/31

Page

1

proper noun may be used to apply aProper Noun On a Person.Yet

it is do so. Genesis is also used to shew that God is a trinity.

There are three most misused verses in Genesis which are constantlybeing misused by A thenasianism in an attempt to prove the Dogma Of

Trinity Of God.

These verse do not prove trinity. It is discussed in some detain since

Athanasianism rejects all the Jewish Commentaries in a single stroke. In this

section there will be a critical study of

The book [ tiSarB ] Read from right to left/

AND THE GOD SAID , >[Genesis -26]

The Hebraic TEXT in PURE LATIN ALPHABETS and Letters is asfollow:

vN tvmD C vN mlsS C mdA hsN mihvlArmaI V


3/31

Page

1

letters. Letter A for Aleph,V for Vau, for AinsS for Sde etc. ]ATTENTION. Any error is writing Hebraic Textin Pure Latin Alphabets is purely accidental.For more accuracy one is advised to consult aTanach in Hebrew.

This is the most problematic verse Of Genesis Of Torah [ PETENTIUCH ] ofJewish

Tanch and Christian OLD COVENENT [OC/ OT]. Athenisian Christians try to provr

the Dogma Of Trinity Of Triune God From this verse.

But this verse does not prove this Dogma in the least sense .

There are some obvious mistakes in its translations in different languages.

They are discussed in several priliminaries.

FIRST PRE MILINARY

The following are the most obvious mistakes in a number of translations.

A] The word said is an incorrect translation. It should be Ordered or

Commanded.Since the Hebrew word IAMR means Command or Order.Why this is translated as SAID instead of ORDERED or COMMANDED is very

obvious. GOD CAN NOT BE COMMANDED AND THIS EXPLODES arguments in

favour of Dogma Of Trinity.

B] The word MAN is once again most fatal mistake in the alleged translations.

The Hebrew Text contains the word ADAM , and not the Word MAN. WhyAthanasian Christianity has rejected the Proper Noun ADAM in these translations

and subtituted the Common Noun MAN in place of It. The answer is once again

quite simple.[1]

Adam is an Individual Human Person , and is not a Human Trinity. If God is a

Divine Trinity then Adam Must be a Human Trinity. Thus to hide this problem the

The Proper Knoun Adam is changed by a Common Noun MAN.

C] INOUR IMAGE is once again an incorrect translation. First the Hebrew word

S-L-M means SHADOW OR PROJECTION.

It does not mean IMAGE. To translate SHADOW as IMAGE is just to force Genesis

to be in Harmony with the ATHANASIAN COMMENTARIES OF YOHONNON OF

NT/NC.


4/31

Page

1

So once more one must neglect this and take the original meaning OF SHADOW.

Also the preposition IN is an incorrect TRANSLATION. The most appropriate

translation is FROM and Not In.

This means ADAM WAS MADE FROM SHADOW OF GOD, ADAM WAS NOT MADE

IN THE IMAGE OF GOD/G-D./

As the word Shadow explodes trinitical interpretations of this verse of Genesis Of

Torah Of Tanach, ATHANASIAN CHRISTIANS TRIED TO TRANSLATE IT BY THE

WORD image, and instead of using the word FROM as the most appropriate

Preposition in the translation deliberately used the preposition IN.

D] One of the worst translations is the translation # IN OUR LIKENESS#.

The Hebrew word is DUMUS which means FIGURE,SHAPE, FORM etc.

The word Cu preceeds it. So the word become Cu-Dumus.

It means LIKE OUR FIGURE or Like Our Shape, Or Like Our Form , Or In likeness of

[Our] Figure etc..

NOW THE TRANSATION BECOMES AS FOLLOW:

AND GOD COMMANDED, LET US MAKE ADAM FROM OUR SHADOW ,LIKE OUR FIGURE/FORM.

Second premilinary.

THERE ARE MORE PROBLEMS IN THE hEBREW Non Bebrew translations.

They maybe discussed below.

A] The problem of self imperative sentences.

In a large number of languages an IMPERATIVE SENTENCE or an Imperative Verb

is used for the second Person and not for the first person and the third person.

But in Hebrew an imperative sentence may be for the first or third persons as

well.

This generates a problem in translation and makes translations misguiding.

The Hebrew word N--S-H It is a self imperative VERB in the Hebraicsentence. That is a Peson orders Hnself.A thing which is not found in most of the

languages. So they are forced to translate as Les Us [In the case of First Person

Imperative sentence] or LET HIM OR LET THEM [In the case of third person

imperative sentences]. But hese attempts make ambiguities which are used by

ATHANASIANISM.

In order to convey the actual meaning one may take some liberty from interlinertranslations.


5/31

Page

1

A more accurate translation in regard to sense of the Original Hebraic Text is as

follow.

AND THE GOD COMMANDED [ HIMSELF] MAKE ADAM FROM OUR SHADOW LIKE

[ OUR] FIGURE/FORM. N--S-H is a self commanding verb in plural. But As GOD

CAN NOT BE COMMANDED IT IS JUST A METAPHOR and not a word in real

meaning of the word. [ This is perhaps the best way to convey the Idea of a Self

IMPERATIVE SENTENCE, YET IT IS NOT AN INTERLINER TRANSLATION.] A more

accurate literal meaning may be conveyed by the following translation.

AND THE GODS COMMANDED [ THEMSELVES] MAKE ADAM FROM OUR SHADOW

LIKE [ OUR] FIGURE/FORM,

But although the word Alohem literally means GODS [] PLURAL[], IT IT MEANS A

SINGLE GOD AS A PLURAL IN FORM OF WORD AND SINGULAR IN MEANING

KNOWN AS PLURAL OF MAJESTY MAJESTY, OR A MAJESTIC SINGULAR.

SIMILARLY THE WORD NAS H IS A PLURAL OF MAJESTY . THE ONLY

DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE FORMER WORD IS A NOUN AND THE LATTER WORD IS

A VERB.

Even from the trinitical point of view Logos is God and God can not be

commanded by First or third Hypostases. Even the Trinitical Being cannot

command any one of the Hypostases residing in its Ousia

[SUBSTANCE/GODHEAD].

So even upon the standard of Trinitical Dogmas it is use of a word not in the real

meaning but in the virtual / unreal meaning.

But if some one insists that TRIUNE GOD ORDERS ALL THOSE HYPOSTASES

WHICH RESIDE IN THE OUISA OF THE TRIUNE GOD even then he must have to

accept that as Each Supreme Hypostasis Is God , None of them can be

commanded neither by the Trinitical God or Triune God Or God the Trinity Nor by

any one of the CO-HYPOSTASES dwelling jointly in the Ousia of the Triune God Or

Trinity. So he must have to confess that this WORD is in a Virtual meaning ,

instead of the real meaning of the word.

If virtual then not real and thus the dispute is just upon the two virtual meanings

of a given word, and if so then at least neither of them can be certain , and if none

of then are certain then no argument can be made from uncertain alternatives.

Now translate the original sense as God Ordered themselves or God Order

Himself, each meaning is just a virtual meaning.

THIRD PREMILINARY


6/31

Page

1

THE WORD ELOHEM AND ITS MEANING

The Hebraic word Elohem [ mihvlA] [ Read the Holywords from right to left] is a plural of words Elah [hlA]or Eloah

[hvlA]. The Word Eloah or Elah .means God or god or deityConsequently the plural of them means Gods or gods or deities.

Thus the words Eloah or Elah means God or god, amd the word Elohem means

Gods or gods.

In the real and literal meaning the word ELOHEM can not be used for the Supreme

Being o f Tanakh and the Supreme Being of O.C.

Since both believe in just One God and not in more then one Gods.

And the word ELOHEM does not mean God or god but GODS or gods in its literal

meaning.

From Jewish point of view GOD is UnoUnity or Mono Unity , that is only One

Hypostatic Person In Godhead. The same is tue from the point of view of Unitarian

Christianity and Arian ChristianitFrom Trinitical point of view there is Only One

God Who is a Triune God and a Trinity.

Therefore this God cannot be called GODS or gods . The plurality of Hypostases

in the Divine Ousia [Substance]Of Supreme Being does not allow the words Gods

and gods for the Supreme Being./ One even can not say Divine hypostases are

Gods/ gods , according to the Dogma Of Trinity Of God.

So the word Elohem can not be used for the Supreme Being or theHypostases in the Ousia Of The Supreme Being [Godhead], and additionally not for

the collection of them if the word Elohem means Gods or gods.

If the word Elohem does not mean Gods or gods, then it means God orgod [Plural Of Majesty and Singular in meaning].In this case it does not imply any

plurality of Hypostases in the Ousia Of the Supreme Being. Since it only means

God or god [That is the form of the word is plural yet its meaning is

singular.Unfortunately there is no analogue in English. It may be understood just

by a supposed example. Suppose that the word BOOKS which is the plural of the

word Book is used for a Single Majestic Book.Now the word BOOK does not mean

its Real meaning , the plural Of the word Book, but it means book, plural in form

and singular in MEANING.]. The words God and god does not imply plurality of

Hypostases in the given singular form. The entire discussion in the support of the

Dogma Of Trinity is based on scriptural verses and not on the singular form of the

word God or god.


7/31

Page

1

So if the word Elohem means God or god it does not imply any plurality of Divine

Hypostatic Persons in the Divine Ousia [Godhead] Of the Supreme Being [God].

Thus the word Elohem has just the following possibilities.

A] The word Elohem means God or god.

This is the real and primary meaning of the word.[Plural]

B]The word Elohem means Gods or gods. This is the secondary meaning of the

word.[Singular]

C] It means neither of these two meanings[ i.e neither plural nor singular] .

In the first sense it is not useable to God Of Hebraic Scriptures.

In the second sense it doesnot imply any plurality of Hypostases in the DivineOusia [namely Godhead[ If it still implies some sort of plurality of Hypostases and

Hypostatic Plurality in the Divine Ousia then it is neither in the first meaning nor

in the second meaning.

Assuming that the first is the regular meaning and second is the irregular

meaning then the third is the unique meaning which is neither regular nor

irregular but only one of its kind. Word singular in meaning yet implying plurality

of Supreme Hypostases in the Ousia Of Its Grammatical and literal Subject i.e The

Supreme Being. How ever such type of word was not known before the foundation

of Athanasian Christianity.

Now we render some more possible translation of the verse .

AND GODS COMMANDED [THEMSELVES] ,


8/31

Page

1

SIXTH PRIMILINARY

THE HEBRAIC WORD IAMAR is usually translated is SAID instead of commanded.

It amy be translated on the demand of context as said. But its actual meaning is

Commanded.

It may be the case that more number of places may be translated as SAID,yet thre

must be a demand of context to translate it as such. It does not depend upon the

majority or minority of cases but it depend upon the context. If there are more

number of cases where the word is demanded to mean SAID by the context, and less

number of cases where there is no such demand by the context , then it may be

translated as SAID on the demands not because because of the greater number of

demands. I f there is no such demand from the context then it must be translated

as COMMANDED OR COMMAND, SINCE A SHIFT IN MEANING FROM REAL TO

VERTUAL DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE MAJORITY OF CASES BUT UPON THE

DEMANDS, AND THE INDICATIONS OF CONTEXTS, ANS SOME TIME EXTERNAL

INDICATIONS AS WELL. The principle and rule of demands and indications are

independent of majority or minority. This is the key point which must be kept in

mind. So it is incorrect to argue that a greater number of cases demand that it

must be translated as SAID, then this means that every thing has become

TOPSYTERVY , .This is incorrect. The rule is that is thre is only one place where

there is no demand and thousand of places where there are demands, even then

the PRINCIPLE is immutable .

SEVENTH PREMILINARY

If one delete all the prepositions and try to translate with out prepositions one

may get a more pure meaning.

And Ordered Elohem [Himself] Make Adam Like Our Shadow, Like Our

figure.

The Hebraic word Dumus may be translates as Form but it can be easily confused

with the Theological term Form which is Nothing But the Ousia Of Divine SupremeBeing in theological Discussions about Supreme Being. Hebraic Text are confined to the

meanings of Hebrew Language whether Real or Virtual.

8th Preliminary.

They word Elohem does not prove the Dogma Of Trinity, and does not imply any

type of Plurality. One of the simplest proof is as follow.

This proof is directly followed from the word Elohem.

Ifthe Dogma Of Trinity is true then each and every Hypostasis dwelling in the

Divine Ousia [Namely Godhead] Is God , say Logos is God.


9/31

Page

1

Now the question is.

Is Logos Elohem.?

If Logos is NOT then Logos is not GOD. This contradicts the Dogma Of Trinity.

If Logos is, the Logos is Itself A Trinity and a Triune God. This is against the

Dogma Of Trinity To believe that Some Hypostases [atleast one] in Triune God are

Trinities.Thus the dogma of Trinity it self implies that the word Elohem can not be

used as a plural word implying plurality of Hypostases in Divine Ousia or in any

one of the Hypostasis. That is PERHAPS ONE OF THE REASONS ,that a number of

protestants also agree that the word ELOHEM is just a Plural of Majesty.

CONCLUSION

The word Elohem is used as a singular and if it is used as a singular it loses any

type of plurality. To claim that it still implies a sort of plurality say the plurality of

Supreme Hypostases in the Divine Ousia Of the Divine Being is a latter invention.

No Hebraic scholar from the day Hebraic Genesis was written to the advent of

Athanasian Christianity ever consider this type of strange plural-singular

amalgam. Even if God is a Trinity and not a unoUnity or MonoUnity , the word

Elohen when used as a singular loses any implication to the plurality of

Hypostases in the Ousia Of Supreme Being, and if used as a Plural Implies

Plurality of Divine Beings ,not just Plurality Of Hypostases. Even if there are

thousans of Hypostases In Divine Ousia it can not be used in its Plural

meaningsince in this case it means nothing but Gods or gods ,and these words I.E

Gods and gods can not be used for The Supreme Being even if there are

thousands of mutually distinct and incommunicable Divine hypostases in the

Divine Ousia Of Divine Being. Thus this verse does not proves trinity in the least

meaning.

Objection1.

Use of plural of Majesty is an irregular case of Hebrew language. It is incorrect to

prefer an irregular case when it is possible to take a word regular case.

Answer .

A] It is incorrect to reject a case just because it is irregular , since irregulars also

exist. How ever the uses of some irregulars are regulars for certain grammatical

things. Elohem has been a regular case for a God Of Judaism since ages.

No one ever claimed to be irregular for GOD.

It is very strange to claim that all he Hebraic Prophets and all the authors of

Hebraic Scriptures used this irregular word with out knowing that it impliesplurality of Hypostases in the Ousia Of Elohem. If they had the slightest doubt


10/31

Page

1

they would have never used this word for the GOD OF JUDAISM since they did not

believed in the hypostatic plurality in the Ousia Of Elohem Of Judaism

B] If this is an Irregular case then the Christological use of A SINGULAR

IMPLYING THE PLURALITY IN THE OUSIA IS THE UNIQUE CASE OR A PLURAL

ONLY IMPLYING THE HYPOSTATIC PLURALITY IN THE OUSIA

Is the Unique case of Hebrew language. It is then neither regular nor irregular but

purely unique . And if so then even an irregular case is far more preferable then

the alleged this case .

C] It is strange to see that if it is a real plural and not a plural of Majesty then it

does not mean GODS . IF ELOHEM DOES NOT MEANS gods TRHEN IT IS NOT A

PLUTRAL AT ALL, irrespective of the alleged implication of Hyposatatic Plurality

in the Ousia Of the Subject of the word ELOHEM.

OBJECTION 2

There is a plurality in singularity and if so then the plural form of a word is

useable.

Answer.

If so then one can use the word GODS for this plurality but The Dogma Of Trinity

Does not allow to do so even for this case. Are we to assume that there are a

number of GODS in regared to the alleged plurality and only one GOD in regard to

singularity.One is not allowed to claim that there are more then one GOD in

regard to hypostatic plurality and only one GOD in regard to Osiaic Singularity.

If not then then the word ELOHEM does not make any exception.

Since it either means GOD if it is a Plural Of Majesty, and it means GODS if it

means A real Plural.

One Elohem means One God since the word Elohem means God or godif it is

singular in meaning [Plural Of Majesty].

One Elohem means One Gods, if it is a Real Plura [Plural Of Number ]

But this meaning is incorrect even if the Dogma Of Trinity is correct.If

Dogma Of Trinity Does not allow the use Of the plural Of God or god for the

Trinitical Plurality Of Hypostases, the same is true for the WORD ELOHEM if it

means GODS.

If this does not mean Gods or gods then it only means God or god with out any

Implication to the stated above Plurality.[2]


11/31

Page

1

aaa

FOOT NOTES;

[1] THERE FORE THE TRANSLATRIONS AND THE GOD SAID , > IS A BETTER TRANSLATION THAN ,, AND THE GOD

SAID , > .It must be noted than the noun

ADM Must be taken as a proper noun unless and otherwise it becomes

imperative to take it as a common noun in its literal meaning.To translate is as

as Man is incorrect unless and other wise three is some impossibilities [atleast

one]in the text.

[2]The root of the word Elohem is Elah,[ ] and ELOAH is aderivative of Elah. The word ELOHEM [ELOAHEM] is a plural of the word Eloah.

This word is used in Hebraic Tanach for Angels ,Kings, Judges, Chiefs and even

false Gods./gods.

In Exodus,it is used for Moshe [Moses]. This is sufficient to that the word when

used as a singular implies only one person as in the case of Moses [hsM].Thisword does not imply any sort of plurality if it is used as a singular.If the author of

Genesis ever comes to know what arguments are made from his simple texs

which he has authored he would be the most surprised person in the entire

history of authors of religious scriptures.

Notes@ Pure Latin Alphabets are: ABCDEFGHILMNOPQRSTVX

All the other Alphabets are Latin Extended Alphabets with subdivisions.

Hemi Latin Alphabets are: KUY, K and Y were geneally used to write Greek word

with KAPPA or Upsilon.

Non Latin Alphabets are: JW

Special Non Latin Alphabet Z

Note. It is very likely that the famous space research centre NASA is the

Aericanized form of Hebraic Ns-h stated above. That is the words are soselected that there abbreviation becomes Amaricanized form of Genesic N-S-H

END OF PART ONE.

PART TWO:


12/31

Page

1

And the LORD GOD Said, the man has become one of us , ...

The Hebraic TEXT in PURE LATIN ALPHABETS and Letters is asfollow:

[ Gen-22]

...vnmM dhaC hiH mdA H mihlA HVHI rmI V


13/31

Page

1

This is another verse which is used for proving the Dogma Of Trinity. But once

again this verse neither does prove Trinity nor can prove DOGMA OF Trinity.

FIRST PREMILINARY

The word said is once again a mistranslation. It should be Ordered or

Commanded.

And Lord GOD Commanded is a better rather correct translation of Hebraic

words. Similarly the word in Hebrew Text is Hv ADAM [mdA vH] andnot man [rsB]. God knows why the noun ADAN is changed by the word Man and

what are the motives behind this manupolation. We do suggest a number of

reasons but a detail discussion is beyond the scope of present topic.He ADAM do

emphasise ADAM.If GOD Hd used the word it would be correct to translate itby the word MAN, but,God Has Used the word ADAM and this is a ProperNoun . It must be adopted in translation as ADAM .

The word is used in Genesis eg Gen-6-3.It may be noted thatthe word ASAM may only be translated as man WHEN taking it as Adam

contradicteth Hebraic Tanach. Only in this condition one can argue that

the word ADAM is used as a Petaphorical Symbol Of Mankind. Once again

it is independent of majority or minority of cases.

Please Keep it in mind once for all times that if the condition is present in

a greater number of cases and the very same condition is absent in less

number of cases, this does not changes the principle or rule..

Second PRIMILINARY:

The Hebraic word MIMMANU is translated as One Of Us. This is the Grammatical

First Person Translation. It should be translated as a Grammatical Third Person

Translation. Eg Like One Of Them Or One Among them, Or Unparrallel among

them etc.There are atleast 27 places in Hebraic Bible where this word is

translated as a Third Person translation instead of First Person translation.In such

places it is not allowed to translate it is the first person translation. One or two

places are such that there is a possibility of both types of translation. But neither

of them are certain. Even the Most probable is certainly Not Certain. In matter of

believes a certain translation is required not an uncertain translation.


14/31

Page

1

So this verse can neither prove trinity nor this prove trinity on the basis of choice

of translations. since even the most probable translation is not certain,and

necessary condition to prove a Dogma whether the Dogma OF UNITARIANITY

[Mono-Unity/UNI-UNITY] or Trinity] is certainiity which is not fulfiied and not

satisfied.

THIRD PREMILINARY:

The word MIMMANU is a compound word formed by the combination oftwo words a]Mn [nM]. B]H. [Vow [els are omitedIf vovels are inserted then the word may be read as is Min and Hu respectively.

Mn and Hv If joined they become MINHU [MNH]. [[HnM [[FROM RIGHT TO LFT]A NUN nun was added to join them. It became Min-nahu [Mnnhv].[vhnnM] [[FROM RIGHT TO LFT]

Ha or h was changed by n so it become MIN-NA-NU [Mnnnv].[nvnnM] [[FROM RIGHT TO LFT]

First two Nuns were then changed by mem with a DAGISH.

So it changed into MIMMANU [Mmnv].[nvnM] [[FROM RIGHT TO LFT]

From the very origin it is a Grammatical Third Person Pronoun.

So the better and more accurate translation is as follow>

I] And the LORD GOD Said, HE ADAM has become one of THEM , to know good

and [Evil].


15/31

Page

1

Ii[And the LORD GOD Commanded, Now [behold] Adam has become one among

them , to know good and [Evil].

III]AND IHVH GOD COMMANDED HE ADAM BECAME ONE OF THEM............

IV] AND IHVH GOD [ GOD IHVH] COMMANDED , HE ADAM BECAME [DID BECOME ]

UNIQUE AMONG THEM......

FOR THOSE WHO LIKE TO RECIEVE MORE HEBRAIC MEANING THE FOLLOWING

LESS ENGLISH TRANSLATION ARE PRESENTED.

V] AND IHVH GOD [ GOD IHVH] COMMANDED , HE ADAM BECAME DID BE ONE

OUT OF THOSE/ ONE OUT OF THAT...............

The word Behold is not present in HEBRAIC SENTENCE OF GENESIS. Yet one is

supposed to suppose it in sense while reading the text, or to add it in mind while

reading the text. How ever if some one does not it is equally correct sinse it is

optional, cont a compulsion..

It may be noted that there are several plases in Tanach where this word isused as third person pronoun.

FORTH PRIMILINARY

The Hebrew word Cahud[dhC]may be translated as Unique, One without Parrall,with out a partner, unparralle only one [among them ] , With Out A

Compeer.etc.

So a still better translation is as follow;

Lord Lord God Commanded [Some one].Now behold Adam is become with out a

compeer among them by having the Knowledge of Good and Bad [Evil].

Onkelos explains it as IAHIDI. [ idihaI]

Fifth Premilinary.


16/31

Page

1

If God is talking and conversing in a company of angels, supermundales, spiritual

and heavenly beings, cherubs, etc God can say One Of Us.

To claim that God can not include himself among heavenly Suppositums is like

the claim that God can not incarnate in Iesous to live among people.

God cansome how manifest among angles, and other heavenly rational

suppostums with or with out assuming their natures if He can incarnate in human

beings by assuming human nature to live among human beings.

So there may be some created and made persons and hypostases not in Divine

Ousia but out of Divine Ousia.Thus this cannot prove any type of plurality in Divine

Ousia.

To Claim that God cannot include Himself among Heavenly Rational Suppositums

sayAngelic Beings, Supermundales,Spiritual Beings,Spirits, cherubs etc.a claim

like .S uch a claim that God Cannot

Assume Angelic Nature but can Assume human nature is like the claim that God

Cannot Assume Femail human Nature but Can Only Assume Male human Nature.

Obviously only a dogmatic mind can accept such strange claims. But a Rational

mind cannot accept such claims. What form of Christology is this that if it is

claimed


17/31

Page

1

vhR ptS siA vmsI aL dsA mtpS mS hlbN V hrdNbhH


18/31

Page

1

First Premilinary.

Hebrew wordHabaa is derived from Hebrew word Yihib.This means to Give, to put,

to place, to depart.

It is some times used as an Auxilry verb in order to shew motivation or it is used

to motivate for an act which is to be done.

It does not imply plurality of Hypostases in Divine Ousia Of Supreme Being. It may

be the case that God shew his Motivation by using this word and plural form is

just a Plural Of Majesty. So it only means Let Me Go or Let me Give Or Let me

Depart etc

Second Pemilinary.

If the word Haba conveys the sense of a Self Imperative Verb , then it must be

known thatno one can commoand God to do an Act. A self command is not a real

command in particular not a command for God. Thus this implies that the

sentence cannot be taken literally but figuratively or metaphorically.If even such

places of Jewish Tanach cannot be taken in Vertual sense then this means that

there is no Versr intire Bible which can be taken not Literally i.e figuratively or

metaphorically.

Athanasians become Literalist when they see literal approach supporst the

Dogma Of Trinity and Figuratists and Metaphorists if they find

figurative or metaphorical approach suppors their DOGMA.

THIRD PREMILINARY.

This interpretation does not matches with the Dogma which is suppposed to be

proved from this verse. A very strange case indeed.

There are only two possible cases if the Dogma Of Tinity is Assumed To Be True.

EITHER The TRIUNE GOD or GOD THE TRINITY is commanding all the Hypostases

Existing in the Divine Ousia Of The Triune Trinity or Any One Of The Hypostasis

living in the Divine Ousia Of TRIUNE GOD is commanding to the rest of neighbour

Hypostases dwelling in the same Ousia.

Dogma Of Trinity asserts that these Hypostases can talk and can converse with

each other and listen to each other if they will so.

But as each Hypostasis in the Divine Ousia Is God then no one can order or

command God. In both cases this verse can not be translated literally.


19/31

Page

1

Thus this is not in real sense or meaning , but in vertual sense or meaning.So in

either case whether there is a Trinity or Uni-Unity the words of the verse are not

in the primery meaning.

If the word of the verse are not in their real meanings then the verse cannot be

used to disprove or to prove the Dogma Of Trinity.

Forth Premilinary.

It may be the case that God in the company of Angels and Super mundales

wanted to come down . That is he wanted to come down with them and not with

out them . If it ias argued that it is outb of Angelic and Supermundalic Powers to

change human minds and to delete their former languagess from their memories

and to write new languages in the memory of their minds and brains, it can ot

disprove this rendering of the verse.

Since it is one of the weak objections of polymics.

1] If God Is So Omnipotent then Gd Can Give Powers To Angels etc. to do so.

2] If this Omnipotent God Does not have Omnipotence to to Grant this sort of

power to Angels and Supermundfales, even then there are certain solutions to

this problem not necessarilyb the trinitical one.

1] It is evident from Hebraic Tanach renamed as Hebraic Bible and Grrek

Septuagint renamed as Old Covenant that Miracles are the WORKS and ACTS ofGOD EVEN IF THEY ARE SHOWN BY humaqn beings. So the act of changing the

language was actually the Act of GOD but was shown by Angels accomanying

GOD during his comming mensioned above. The word let us does shew and only

shew the Miracles performed by Angels and Supermundales who accompanied

GOD during the Descension Of GOD AND HEAVENLY BEINGS on the planet earth..

2] This is some what theological interpretation of the verse.

In ATHANASIAN Christology it is said that the Human Nature Of Christ is not a

Person.This Human Nature is almost like a HUMAN PERSON yet it lacks something so that it fails to be a Person.

Now Athanasian Christologists have debated since long what is the actual

difference between a Human Person and the Human Natrure Of Christr which falls

short of being a person. Ifnot a human person then this Human Nature stated

above is NOT a HUMAN BEING. IUt is still undecided what is the actual difference

between these two, and Athanasian Theologists anf Christologists are still

disputing . Yet one thing is certain if the Hypostatic Union ceases then the Human

Nature Of Christ will immediately upgrade to a human person consequently to a

human being.


20/31

Page

1

bUT IF the Hypostatic Union is some how RESTORED the immediate

consequence is that the Upgraded human person shall immediately revert to the

Original Human Nature.

Thus we can say that the angels , Supermundales were United with God to form

Hypostatic Unions and in this process these Heavenly Persons and Suppositums

were reverted to Angelic and Supermundalic Natures. Now the plurality is just in

regard to non divine natures and unity is with respect to Divine Natures.

But after the Divine mission of changing the languages of humans the Hypostatic

Union ceased . A ll the Natures were restored to their respective Personalities

and persons, and SUPPOSITUMNESSES.

Thus what so ever done by angles is just like the Miracles appearently shewn by

the human nature of Iesous , even if the Human Natre did not have the power to

show any Miracle.

This is one of those places where Christology can be used against The Dogma Of

Trinity.

OBJECTION.

HYPOSTTIC UNION REQUIRES A HYPOSTASIS AND UNITARIANITY DISBELIEVES

IN HYPOSTASIS.

ANSWER.

The difference between Unitarianity abd Trinity is that Unitarianity believes in

only One Hypostasis in Godhead while Trinity believes in more that one hypostses

in Godhead. Although Unitarian sects like Bible Students, YAHVAH Wtnesses etc

do not mention the exact relation between Godhead and Hypostasis but it

appears that the only difference between them is on the number of Hypostases in

GODHEAD.Since they reject the plurality of Hypostaticm Persons in Divine Ousia

[Godhead] but this does not mean that they reject he singularity Of Hypostses

and Hypostatic Persons in the GODHEAD. Rationally if an Unitarian sect what so

ever it may be have the following options.

1] Either It believe that there is only one Hypostasis in Divine Ousia or it believe

that God is a Hypostasis with out any Ousia, or it believe that OUSIA is in

Hypostasis.

If It is believed that Ousia is in the Hypostasis , then or Hypostasis is in the Ousia

then such a Hypostatic Union is possible. It is incorrect to claim that if there are

more then Hypostases in the Divine Ousia then any one of the Hypostasis can

form a hypostatic union anf if there is only one hypostasis then this hypostasis

can not form a hypostatic union. Such a claim is irrational and self reasoned.


21/31

Page

1

If it is believed that God is a HYPOSTASIS WITH OUT AN OUSIA then such a claim

may not be accepted. But even then the ability of a Hypostasis to form a

Hypostatic union doee not depend on the existence or non existence of

Ousia.How ever I personally Opine thatr there can be NO HYPOSTASIS IF THERE

IS NO OUSIA. in the case if there is ONLY ONE HYPOSTASIS in the DIVINE OUSIA[Renamed as Godhead for convinence] Then the Ousia is not Distinct From the

Only Hypostsis which is in it or in which it is or both, and Ousia is Highly

communicable to the Only Hypostasis. But Ousia is not the Hypostasis since it

is so communicable to the Only Hypiostasis that it does not exist apart from the

Hypopstasis even if it is Per se subsistent.

Any how Trinity can not be proved. This interpretation nullify the arguments in

supoprt of trinity.

Even the minutest possibility of this interpretation breaks all the arguments fromthis verse in support of trinity ones for all.

Notes.There are a number of places in Genesis where the Hebrew text says God

Commanded, and it is translated as GOD SAID.

tHE FAMOUS VERSE . And THE GOD SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT MAY ALSO BE

TRANSLATED AS

rvA ihI V rvA ihI mihlA rmaI V

WARNING. DO NOT TRY TO READ THE HOLY TEXT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. OTHER WISE IT WILL BE A

DISGRACE TO THE HOLY TEXT.

AND THE GOD COMMANDED ,' LET THERE BE LIGHT';.

Or more simply and more correctly

And God Commanded. Be [ O] Light, AND LIGHT

BECAME.

The sense of the sentence may be manifested in

English as follow.


22/31

Page

1

And God commanded, EXIST [O] LIGHT AND LIGHT EXISTED.

The word O in translation does not exit in HEBRAIC TEXT. One must omit it if he wants to be

more Hebraic. That is why they are written in squire brackets. Omitting them gives

translations like these given below:

And God commanded, EXIST , LIGHT AND LIGHT EXISTED

OR

And God commanded, BE , LIGHT AND LIGHT DID BE

OR

And God commanded, BE , LIGHT AND LIGHT BECAME.

One may see that such a constant distortion of Hebraic senses and meanings can

not be unintentionally.

There must be some motive and some mission behind it. Even if it can be

translated as said instead of commanded, even then it is never informed that an

other translation is possible.

The translation Let There be light is according to Trinitical Approach, that is GOD

is saying to some one that he may let the light to become [or to exist.]But there isno Let there be but Be , Avery direct command , with out the letting of any one

else, ruling out any possibility of saying to any hypothetical Hypostasis in the

Ousia Of the Sayer.

A similar game is played in Yohanon when no translator informs in general that

the Greek word LOGOS may also be translated as Reason.

Since to translate as In the bigening was the Reason, and Reason Was With the

God, AND The Reason was [the] God , DOES SHAKES THE OLD CONCEPT

conceived in minds by translations like In the Begging was the word.


23/31

Page

1

END OF PART THREE

Part four.AND EARTH WAS WITOUT FORM AND VOID< AND DARKNESS WAS UPON THA FACE OF

DEEP [WATER]

. AND SPIRIT OF GOD WAS MOVING/ BLOWING TO AND FRO.

[GENESIS -1-2]

This verse is deliberately translated incorrect in order to shew that the

Mentioned Spirit is the Third Hypostasis in the Ousia of Triune GOD of Trinity.]

THE HEBRAIC TEXT IN HEBREW AND PURE LATIN ALPHABETS AND LETTERS IS

AS FOLLOW..

............................................

Mim H inP lA tphrM mihlA hVR V mvhT inP lA xshH V vhB V vhS htiH ssrA.H V


24/31

Page

1

THE ACTUAL TRANSLATION.

AND THE EARTH [ARS] WAS NOT INHABITENT AND EMPTY ,AND

DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF WATER. AND RUH OF GOD WAS A

HETCHER ON THE FACE OF WATER[S]

A]

B] One may see the word by word comparesion of the most mistranslatedpart of the verse. See that to translate Spirit Of God Or Wind Or Air Of God

was moving to and fro is an in correct translation for all times and

eternities.. What so ever it was -= it was sitting like a bird on the face of

water not moving at all.[whether it be spirit or wind or air]

Mim H inP lA tphrM mihlA hvR V

WARNING. DO NOT TRY TO READ THE HOLY TEXT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.OTHER WISE IT WILL BE A DISGRACE TO THE HOLY TEXT

V = And V

Ruhh[Ruh]= wind, air,spirit.ghost,soul hvR Alhim=God mihlA Mrhhpt=To Sit on somelike like a bird sits on its eggs to get them hatch

tphrM Al= on,upon lA

Pni= face inP

H=the H.

Mim= waterMim The construction Ruhh Alhim implies Ruh OfAlohim./Alhim.


25/31

Page

1

Thus the meaning is as follow.

Thus the meaning is as follow.

[ Like a bird which sits on eggs to get

them HATCHED] Since there is no

continuous tense in Hebrew Neither Past

continuous nor Present Continous. [Itmay not be

reminded that Future continuous is beyond all

Hebraic thoughts,since it is the most obvious fact

of Hebrew language.] and the only possibilities are

indefinite tense [sit, sat] or active particibles [not

present participles like sitting, but sitter, or one

that sits, or one that does sit.It may however be

noted that Past Participles are in closeapproximation to Passive Participles]

The Hebraic word Ruh is deliberately kept conserved in the translation since the point is to

shew the static nature of Ruh, and not the Dynamic nature of It irrespective of the proper

alternative of it.


26/31

Page

1

FIRST PRIMILINARY

HOSHIX [XSH] means Darrkess . This means that there was no lightbut there was water etc. The may contemplate that there was no light and the

Earth was inhabitant. No biological living thing was on Earth.

No thing could be seen since there was no light to see. Every thing was in

darkness. But there was earth in its actual form. No thing shews that there was

no form of Earth. Such a translation is misleading.

This also shews that there was liquid water [not ice].

Second preliminary

The verse does not say that earth was formless and void. In does say it was

INHABITANT and EMPTY.

Once again one may sense some trinitical conspiracy behind this sort of

translation.

This is to induce the concept of Philosophical Form and Voidness [CHOAS] in

Genesis which can be used for supporting the DOGMA of Trinity Of GOD.

Third preliminary.

The word TUHUM [mvhT] means Water . May be translates as deposits of

water.But this is less verbal and Water is relatively and comparatively a better

translation .

FORTH PRIMILINARY

The word RUH is translated as Spirit. But it may be translated as AIR or Wind. A

spirit is neither solid nor liquid nor gas. Even Human Spirits [ghosts] are neither

solid nor liquid nor gas. But the wind or air does shew gaseous form of matter.

When compare to Water the liquid form , it is suggested that it is air or wind and

not the spirit of or souls or ghost.

So This Air of GOD, OR WIND OF GOD only means that Air5 or wind what so ever it

might be was not a Suppostum in general and a rational Suppositum in particular

and certainly Not a Hypostasis residing in the Ouasia Of Triune God with

neighbouring Hypostases.


27/31

Page

1

But we shall see that air is more correct translation then wind since Wind is

blowing air in a particular direction, and it moves from one place to another place

in a particular direction. But this air was not moving at all. There for it is AIR and

just air even if one may translate it as Wind [BLOWING/MOVING AIR IN A

PATRTICULAR DIRECTION.]

FIFTH PRIMILINARY

The Hebrew word MARAPHAT means hatching.

It is the position of a [female] Bird sitting on her eggs to hatch them. A bird some

times even swells her body to cover her eggs.

So Hatcher bird is the true representative of Ruh hence it is some what

condensed air with some pressure on water since a bird does press her eggs by

her own weight.

This is the static Ruh of Hebraic Genesis and the Ruh of translations is dynamic

since it blows or moves to and fro.

This is deliberately done just to reject the concept of a Created Ruh [AIR]. The

concept of Hypostatic Spirit moving to and fro on the face of wather may

correspond to the movement of Hypostatic Spirit or Ghost when it incarnated in a

dove by assuming the nature of the bird dove.

But Ruh is air which has some pressure on the face or surface of Water[s].Butthis air is pressing water and this air is reffered to God. This means that God was

the creator of this Ruh. The reference of the RUH to God is of creative nature and

not of hypostatic nature.

SIXTH PRIMILINARY.

The word face may be taken as SURFANCE like SUFACE of water instead of face

of water but if the Hebraic words are concern Face Of Water is preferred over

Surface of water even if the word surface is more easy to conceive in minds for a

student of Chemistry or Physics yet Laxitonically FACE IS THE CORRECTTRANSLATION.

Seventh Preliminary

A more close translation close in meaning is as follow,.


28/31

Page

1

AND THE EARTH [ARS] WAS NOT -HABITENT AND

EMPTY ,AND DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF

WATER. AND RUH OF GOD WAS SITTING LIKE A

BIRD WHICH HATCHES [HER EGGS] ON THE FACE

[SURFACE]OF WATER[S]

Or more Hebraically as:

AND THE EARTH [ARS] WAS NOT IN-HABITENT

AND EMPTY ,AND DARKNESS WAS UPON THE

FACE OF WATER. AND RUH OF GOD SAT LIKE A

BIRD WHICH HATCHES [HER EGGS] ON THE FACE

[SURFACE] OF WATER[S].

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO

GRAMMATICAL CONTINOUS TENSE OR VERB IN

HEBREW. THERE FORE THE BEST ENGLISH

ALTERNATIVE IS THE INDEFINITE TENSE AND

MEANING. WHETHER IT BE PAST OR PRESENT OR

FUTURE.It may be noted that GOD never required a

continuous tense to Express His Sentences.

Seventh Preliminary.

A moving Spirit is more close to trinitical Spirit

rather than a not moving spirit , that is why the

dynamic translation is made rejecting the original

Hebraic word.


29/31

Page

1

Athanasianism believes that Spirit is a Divine

Hypostatic Suppoitum . Unitarianisms are divided

over the issue of the spirit. Some believe that it is

a created Suppositum, some believe that it is a

NON SUPPOSITUMIC FORCE, and some believe

that is some thing created which is some time

Suppositumized by God and Other times is

reverted to Non Suppositumic state as according

to Will Of God. Question is that if this is aHypostasis living in the Divine Ousia Of Sureme

Being then it cannot drift away from the Ousia,

hence it can not be on the waters with out

assuming a non eternal nature. But a HYPOSASIS

CAN ASSUME ONLY a human nature, that is why if

the spirit is a Hypostasis then it must have

assumed some human nature before moving to and

fro other wise with out assuming any nature it

cannot come on earth since it can not be drifted

from Ousia leaving behind neighbouring

hypostases and to land on earth to move to and

fro.

CONCLUSION.

THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS NOT MOVING TO OR FRO

AND NOT BLOWING BUT SITTING AND HATCHING

DEPOSITS OF WATHER.


30/31

Page

1

THIS SPIRIT WAS NEITHER A CREATED

SUPPOSTUM NOR A HYPOSTATIC SUPPOSITUM

BUT

A WIND. [A NON SUPPOSITUMIC THING]

As it is clear that in trinitical Christology No

Hypostasis inDivine Ousia Of Triune God has

power to assume the nature OF AIR OR WIND OR

WATHER, AND HAS ONLY POWER TO BECOME

MALE HUMAN BEING By assuming [MALE] human

nature, AND PERHAPS [MALE] DOVES AS WELL By

assuming [MALE] Dove Nature .IT IS TRIED TO

SKIP THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH DOES NOT

CONCORDM WITH TRINITY AND RELATED

TRNITICAL DOGMAS, THEY HAVE

MISTRANSLATED THE STATIC RUH OF HEBRAIC

TEXTY IN FEVOR OF DYNAMIC RUH OF

TRANSLATIONS. ONCE AGAIN KEEP IN MIND

ONCE FOR ALL TIMES THAT THE HEBRAIC WORD

does not mean To Move To And Fro.


31/31

Page

1

.................................................................................... iT MAY BE TRANSLATED AS PLURAL OR SINGULAR DEPENDING UPON THE

CONTEXT.

,

. The words SPIRIT and GHOST were once used in almost same sense. But

now a Spirit may be Good or Bad or Neutral. But a ghost is always bad except in

the case the word Holy is before it, Such a distinction has made a problem .Since

it may not be objectionable to a number of persons to call Holy Spirit As Spirit Of

God, But It may be objectionable to many of them to call HOLY GHOST as Ghost

Of God.

It is very interesting to note once for all that even then Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit

are two English terms used for the one and the same Trinitical Hypostasis as

according to English believers of Dogma Of Trinity. This is the reason that the

incorrect translation And Spirit Of God Was Moving To And Fro is never translated

as And Ghost Of God Was Moving To And Fro.

But fortunately the word ghost when refers to the founder of Christianity Yeshua

or Isu still convey a good meaning. One still find about Yeshua /Iesus that He gave

up the Ghost, instead of he gave up the Spirit. But once again the reason to keep

this word is to save believers in the Trinitical Dogma from believing that Issus

gave up the Ruh Of Elohem OR The Pnuma Of Theos mensioned in their

translation of Genesis.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tanachandtorah
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

TANACH VS TRINITY

Documents