janKipo wrote:Just a side point that goes back to the earliest translations. The god of Gen 1 is not Jahweh (or whatever) but Elohim (which is strictly plural, hence all the first person plurals that follow. Notice there is no LORD here, the usual cover for Jahweh, Adonai).
The rest is more theology than I want to get into at the moment, since we are mainly translating an English translation here (or several such) and we can stick to that. I would hope that the tp trat will end up being more inclusive or not sex specific (God doesn't have a penis, after all -- or anything else, come to that), though just how to do the Trinity is a problem -- not one we need deal with in the OT however (or the NT, for that matter, really).
jan Inli wrote:sina kin li jan sin pi kulupu ni.
janKipo wrote:Not to get into theology (Heaven forfend!), but it is not clear just how the plural functions as a singular (it takes plural verb forms, plural pronouns, etc.) I suppose we could go with the royal (well, divine) "we" or we could say that the scribes had a clear monotheism in mind when they copied this older text into the present mishmash (but the older text is not so clearly monotheistic and "Elohim" turns up other places where it clearly is plural in intent).
tp is not alone in having problems with the Trinity, of course, but you do raise an interesting point. I suppose we could use 'lon' and 'jan' for contrast, but that then muddles issues of Christology. In tp's role as an eliminator of verbal debris, this may be the point where it could be useful: it shows that it can't really be said and so refrains (unlike Athanasius et al) from saying it.
The people who think God has a penis also believe that he is a spirit and I maintain that a spiritual penis is, for practical purposes, not a penis at all (skippiing over Mary and the ear bit).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests