HaRaAYaH

I hope you know more about Jewish worship than you do about Hebrew grammar where your knowledge is clearly limited.

Littlejohn

Sorry...a "gazillion" sounds as a "fantastic-illion"?..

Those cases where the verbal form that accompanied the noun "Elhoim" remained in the plural is because it is escaped from the "pious" hands of scribes at the service of the new religious caste of Jerusalem: that of ADON-ai, to mean us!

This caste was "convissuta" (to live together) in Palestine with that of Amen for several centuries, until at the seventh century BC, when, thank the complacent King Josiah, it succeeded in establishing itself as the dominant caste over the various Jewish religious world of time. Priests of that caste exploited the power thus conquered out, to suppress all other cults, including that official of AMEN, which then was called only "Yahweh". In practice, one repeated in Judea all that happened about 6 centuries earlier in Egypt!

About 10 centuries after, something quite similar happened in the Roman Empire. This time it was the religious caste of Catholic-Christian worship to make the master, thanks to complacent of the Emperor Constantine First and his not good descendants. There is only one wonders whether the "occhiuti" (as "occhi di rapaci") Catholic bishops were inspired or not by the two past events above described.

There are several biblical testimonies under which Yahweh was called "ELHOAH". In the canonical gospels we instead find "Elhoi." Was it the same thing or there was originally a difference between the two terms?.. It's such aspect more likely that the first hypothesis. Indeed, the term Elhoah is a typically female name, and I doubt that the first Jews called their God with a female name! Elhoah in reality was much more appropriate to indicate Asherat, the goddess the original Jewish trinity, formed, along with Asherat, by the God of Abraham and the god of Moses: that the most important of all. It's therefore highly likely that the term Elhoi, as found in the canonical Gospels, served to indicate both the God of Abraham than that of Moses. When one wanted to indicate both, they used the plural Elhoim.

Ah! .. Now would be I to change the rules of Jewish grammar?!... It seems to me that to introduce new rules is precisely you!

In Israelite forums in which I am compared, my interlocutors have tried, as indeed do you, to demonstrate in a thousand ways that Elhoim besides being a plural could also be used as a singular, but NONE of them is recourse to the absurd rule that you invented, under which is the verbal form to determine whether a name ending with "-im", shall be meant as a singular or as a plural name!

The current justification was that such Israelites acknowledged that it (Elhoim) was a plural, but that it was deliberately chosen to maximize the prerogatives of Yaweh: in a few words, a sort of "plural maestatis"!

Since the argument that you have raised is of a purely exquisite rational exercise , let's try to proceed second logic.

''And God said: let Us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

All first of, it should be noted that we have here TWO plural: "let Us make" and "our". Secondly, to whom God says "let Us make man etc. etc.", if he was the unique God? ... Would you like to say that perhaps at that time God had the habit of drinking?... Or, more rationally, he ordered and someone else running?

If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the NEXT verse by, "And they created man in their image."

The fact that what follows is: "God created man in His own image", is an indication that who running was not the same God that ordered: "let Us make man etc. etc.", otherwise God would have been a madman since he spoke by alone!

I see that you have shown only a short stretch of the sentence Gen. 1:27. So I try to compensate your forgetfulness:

"..God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

"..in the image of God He created him.." ..Who is .." He"??..

"God created man in his image and likeness .... male and female He created them"

So, if your grammatical logic is not like the skin of the genitals, that more one pull it and more itself stretches, here it is clear that the appearance of God shall be that of an androgynous! .. Or the explanation is much simpler (and much more realistic compared to the "panzane" through which the rabbinical apologists attempt, against all logical sense (almost that 3000 years have passed in vain!), to justify and explain what is neither justifiable nor explainable, unless one want make to appear the own interlocutor as a jerk!..

The evidence about my position I have already provided and also they are as redundants. Moreover, unlike from the yours, which seem rather "climbing on mirrors", my are inspired by common sense logic. However, but you refuse to take note of it, and the speech resembles, in always more increased way, to one between "deaf". Is it worth continuing on this "binary"?... I think so no!


Littlejohn

________________

all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.

HaRaAYaH

There is no point in continuing the discussion. You have offered zero proof. Not a single citation. You are free to believe what you want since facts obviously DO NOT dissuade you.

I am out of here.