You are on page 1of 22

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 of people 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 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 constantly being 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 , << LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE>>[ Genesis -26]
The Hebraic TEXT in PURE LATIN ALPHABETS and Letters is as follow:

vN tvmD C vN mlsS C mdA hsN mihvlA rmaI V


<<........ARROW OF DIRECTION.................<<
WARNING. DO NOT TRY TO READ THE HOLY TEXT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
OTHER WISE IT WILL BE A DISGRACE TO THE HOLY TEXT.
[Hebrew Text in PURE Latin Alphabets written from right to left, with out
vewels. I is used for J or Y,Vis used for U and W,C is used for K .The first
letter of each word is a Capital Letter and rest of the letters of each word
are in Small letters. Letter A for Aleph,V for Vau, for Ain sS for Sde etc. ]
ATTENTION. Any error is writing Hebraic Text in Pure Latin Alphabets is
purely accidental. For more accuracy one is advised to consult a Tanach in
Hebrew.
This is the most problematic verse Of Genesis Of Torah [ PETENTIUCH ] of Jewish 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

. Why Athanasian 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.


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 Hebraic sentence. 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 interliner translations.
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
THE WORD ELOHEM AND ITS MEANING

The Hebraic word Elohem

[ mihvlA] [ Read the Holy words from right to left] is a

plural of words Elah [hlA]or Eloah [hvlA]. The Word Eloah

or Elah means God or god or deity.

Consequently 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 the Hypostases 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 or god [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.
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 Divine Ousia [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] ,<< MAKE ADAM FROM [OUR] SHADOW IN LIKENESS OF OUR
FIGURE/FORM/]
This meaning is incorrect even according to Dogma of Trinity since the Words Gods and gods are not allowed to use for
the Supreme Being or for the Hypostases dwelling inside the Ousia Of The Supreme Being. So replacing the word Gods

by the word Elohem does not make the meaning correct if the word Elohem is used in the meaning of the word Gods or
gods.
If the word Elohem is used in the meaning of the word God or god then the word is not in the plural meaning and it does
not imply plurality and multiplicity of Supreme Hypostases in the Ousia Of The Supreme Being.All the Hebraic Lexitonists,
Grammarians and Scripturists never thought of implication of plurality of hypostasis in the Ousia Of God while using this
word for God .
This is a sufficient proof that to claim that it still imply plurality of hypostases inside the Divine Ousia even when it is not
used as a Plural is a latter openion . One may reject the latter opinion and prefer the former opinion .
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 Supreme Being 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.
If the Dogma Of Trinity is true then each and every Hypostasis dwelling in the Divine Ousia [Namely Godhead] Is God ,
say Logos is God.
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 implies plurality of Hypostases in the Ousia Of Elohem. If they had the slightest doubt 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]
aaa

FOOT NOTES;
[1] THERE FORE THE TRANSLATRIONS AND THE GOD SAID , << LET US MAKE ADAM IN OUR IMAGE>>

IS A BETTER TRANSLATION THAN ,, AND THE GOD SAID , << LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE>> .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 a derivative 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].This word 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 so selected that there abbreviation becomes Amaricanized form
of Genesic N-S-H

END OF PART ONE.


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

The Hebraic TEXT in PURE LATIN ALPHABETS and Letters is as follow:

[ Gen-22]

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


<<........ARROW OF DIRECTION.................<<
WARNING. DO NOT TRY TO READ THE HOLY TEXT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
OTHER WISE IT WILL BE A DISGRACE TO THE HOLY TEXT.
[Hebrew Text in PURE Latin Alphabets written from right to left, with out
vewels. I is used for J or Y,Vis used for U and W,C is used for K .The first
letter of each word is a Capital Letter and rest of the letters of each word
are in Small letters. Letter A for Aleph,V for Vau, for Ain sS for Sde etc. ]
ATTENTION. Any error is writing Hebraic Text AND IN in Pure Latin
Alphabets is purely accidental. For more accuracy one is advised to
consult a Tanach in Hebrew.

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] and not 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

it would be correct to translate it by


and this is a Proper Noun .
It must be adopted in

scope of present topic.He ADAM do emphasise ADAM.If GOD Hd used the word
the word MAN, but,God Has Used the word ADAM
translation as ADAM

The word is used in Genesis eg Gen-6-3.It may be noted that the 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.
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 of two words a]Mn

els are omited]


If 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


[vhnnM] [[FROM RIGHT TO LFT]

[Mnnhv].

[ nM]. B]H. [Vow

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].

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

is used as third person pronoun.

FORTH PRIMILINARY
The Hebrew word Cahud[dhC]

may be translated as Unique, One with out 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.
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 <<God Cannot Assume Human Nature >>.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 << God Can
incarnate to become a human and Can live among them for Thirty Three years
[APPROXIMATELY] but can not Menisfest to become an angel or a Supermundale by Assuming their Natures just for
speaking some sentences. Obviously such a Christology is unacceptable and CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.
Thus if it can be believed that God Can Incarnate and become a man by Assuming a Human Nature and Can live among
Humans for 33 years then such believers cannotr deny That God Can also Menifest and become an Angle by assuming
Angelic Nature and Can live in trheir Companyfor some time atleast at the time of speaking these words and sentences.

End OF Part Two.

Part Three
Let Us Go Down...........[Genesis-11-7]



vhR ptS siA vmsI aL dsA mtpS mS hlbN V hrdN bhH

<<........ARROW OF DIRECTION.................<<
WARNING. DO NOT TRY TO READ THE HOLY TEXT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
OTHER WISE IT WILL BE A DISGRACE TO THE HOLY TEXT.
[Hebrew Text in PURE Latin Alphabets written from right to left, with out
vowels. I is used for J or Y,Vis used for U and W,C is used for K .The first
letter of each word is a Capital Letter and rest of the letters of each word
are in Small letters. Letter A for Aleph,V for Vau, for Ain sS for Sde etc. ]
ATTENTION. Any error is writing Hebraic Text in Hebraic or in Pure Latin
Alphabets is purely accidental. For more accuracy one is advised to
consult a Tanach in Hebrew.

This verse is also used to prove Trinity from the Test Of Genesis Of Petentuch Of Holy Tanach .It is argued that it is
beyond angelic power
the change the minds of people, in a very short period of timeso that they are compelled to change their languages , and
two forget their mother tongues instantly, all with out noticing what has happen to them.
Thus the only suggestion is that God spoke to all Hypostases inside His Ousia.
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.
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 of GOD 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 some thing 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.

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.
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 from this 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.
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 is no 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.

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

<<........ARROW OF DIRECTION.................<<
WARNING. DO NOT TRY TO READ THE HOLY TEXT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
OTHER WISE IT WILL BE A DISGRACE TO THE HOLY TEXT.
[Hebrew Text in PURE Latin Alphabets written from right to left, with out vowels. I is used for J or Y,Vis used for U
and W,C is used for K .The first letter of each word is a Capital Letter and rest of the letters of each word are in
Small letters. Letter A for Aleph,V for Vau, for Ain sS/ss for Sde etc. ]
ATTENTION. Any error is writing Hebraic Text in Pure Latin Alphabets is purely accidental. For more accuracy
one is advised to consult a Tanach in Hebrew.

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]<1>
A]

B] One may see the word by word comparesion of the most mistranslated part 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
Alhim=God mihlA

hvR

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= water Mim

The construction Ruhh Alhim implies Ruh Of Alohim./Alhim.

Thus the meaning is as follow.


Thus the meaning is as follow.
<< the Ruh Of GOD was sitting on the face of water[ Like a bird which sits on
eggs to get them hatch]

Or more accurately the meaning is as follow.


<< the Ruh Of GOD was sitter on the face of water>> [ 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. [It may 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 close approximation 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.

FIRST PRIMILINARY

HOSHIX

[ XSH] means Darrkess . This means that there was no light but 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.
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].But this 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 CORRECT TRANSLATION.
Seventh Preliminary

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

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.
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 a Hypostasis 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.
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.

.................................................................................... <1> iT MAY BE TRANSLATED AS


PLURAL OR SINGULAR DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT.

.<2> 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.

You might also like