Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

According to you delusional angel’s theory, Christ, was just an angel of God, and was created in the 2nd to 5th of the creation in Genesis.

To my understanding, “in the beginning” is like before the start of the creation of heaven and earth. In other words, there is no heaven and earth yet before the beginning. For example, before one starts a project, one can say, before one starts anything on the project, “let’s begin”

Therefore, the train of thought should be, in the beginning, and then, the creation of heaven and earth.

So, according to John 1:1, before God created the heaven and earth, Christ was with God already, but according to your twisted theory, Christ did not exist until the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis.

Now, the mother of all questions is, who was “THE WORD” that was with God in the John 1:1, if Christ existed -ACCORDING TO YOUR TWISTED ANGEL'S THEORY- on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis?

Was there another creation before the creation in Genesis. You could start with this theory, but you will have to change the word “In the beginning” in Genesis with perhaps the “second beginning”, but who will buy this another theory.

Mark 10:6

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Don't forget that "In the beginning" God formed the Heavens and Earth, so there's no way of proving that "In the beginning" refers to a time before that. By your own logic of what "In the beginning" means, the Creation process started immediately without any time before that.

So "your understanding" is basically without much basis as to what the text says. Obviously the people who buy your version of events are brushing off what Genesis says and reading into the text.

Therefore,

Therefore, the train of thought should be, in the beginning, and then, the creation of heaven and earth.

is completely proven to be "delusional" by a basic reading of Genesis. Since it says Creation was begun "in the beginning".

And for the record, this "Twisted" and "Delusional" position is the official Jewish midrashic position, and the one most Trinitarian scholars are adopting now. So why don't you kindly go to the Judaism DIR and tell them how "Twisted" and "Delusional" it is.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jesus most likely stated he was god if he existed. If he did do what the Bible claims and preached his message to all people then this is why he got killed.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus most likely stated he was god if he existed. If he did do what the Bible claims and preached his message to all people then this is why he got killed.

Or he got killed for claiming to be "The son of god" as the text says, "a god", and the "Messiah".

 

[Shermana]

You just made it clearer to the readers who the subject is with this translation.

Who is the subject here again? Christ


Christ according to the flesh. Why according to the flesh?
Because he became flesh?

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth

Why Paul need to say that, “Christ according to the flesh“- this is your twisted translation?

Because Christ was with God in the beginning,

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

and not like your delusional angel’s theory creation on the 2nd or 5th day of the creation in Genesis.

Moses according to the flesh?

How about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob according to the flesh?

How about all God’s prophets according to the flesh?

None of them were described as being “according to the flesh“ but only Christ, because Christ is God.

CHRIST WAS THE SHEKINAH GLORY OF GOD IN OPEN MANIFESTATION.

You can translate the word of God to satisfy your APPETITE, but the “TRUTH” you cannot deny, because the TRUTH IS CHRIST.

The fail is strong with this one.

The Truth is that Christ was "a god" and the Messiah and the truth is that Trinitarians like yourself tend to fail very hard when trying to twist the text to support your claims.

I have never heard this "In the flesh" position utilized by any Trinitarian, do you have a link to demonstrate this line of thought before or is this some revolutionary new attempt to defend the Trinity. What does the word being "made flesh" have anything to do with what you're trying to say? You're spinning out real bad here. You're not even addressing what Romans 9:5 says, and no commentaries agree with what you're saying on this issue as far as I know. Also, feel free to continue to call my translation "delusional" when it's in fact a common translation even among major Trinitarian sources, many who explicitly warn NOT to use this verse as a Trinity proof text. I don't even think you know what you're trying to prove here. Is this related to what I just debunked about your "in the beginning' concept which blatantly ignores that Creation already started "in the beginning" and the text doesn't specify any time in between?

See, when you say things like

"None of them were described as being “according to the flesh“ but only Christ, because Christ is God.
"

That's a nice assertion but it has absolutely no basis within the text itself with what you're trying to say. Christ may be the Representative of Christ, but the text does not at all say whatsoever what you're trying to say that He is the fleshly Embodiment of God Himself. Sorry, no cigar for you.

I take it however you are surrendering on the Romans 9:5 translation issue on how to render "Who is God blessed over all" since you're not even addressing it.

 

[Shermana]

According to your “angel’s theory”, angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis. Therefore, with this delusional angel’s theory of yours, you have claimed that Christ was just an angel of God. If Christ was just an angel then how could He say something like this,

Jn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

"Before the creation of the world" is a further assertion of Christ's preexistence, but according to your delusional angel's theory Christ was created bet, the 2nd and 5th day of the creation in Genesis.

In Genesis it says,

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Can you religiously forum-ly explain this?

And also for the record, the Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. There's no reason to assume they were created on days 2-5 or even 1. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction. (And the idea that "Bara" only entails to God Himself and not gods is based on seemingly circular reasoning from apologists, especially when other forms are used for "God Created" ). Or the "Word" was created as the Prototype and Vehicle of Existence before the Creation process as it clearly says in Proverbs 8. There are a few plausible explanations besides the one you want to assert as the only one. Think about that.

 

[BornAgain]

It means counselor, comforter or helper. I don't see how that's relevant to what I said though.

Jn 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[BornAgain]

And also for the record, the Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself.

There's no reason to assume they were created on days 2-5 or even 1.

It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.

(And the idea that "Bara" only entails to God Himself and not gods is based on seemingly circular reasoning from apologists, especially when other forms are used for "God Created" ). Or the "Word" was created as the Prototype and Vehicle of Existence before the Creation process as it clearly says in Proverbs 8. There are a few plausible explanations besides the one you want to assert as the only one. Think about that.

First you claimed angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis, then when challenged you said, “Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

HOW SICK IS THIS?

THEORY, AND THEORY ON TOP OF THEORIES. AN ENDLESS THEORY ABOUT ANGELS. “ANGELS MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ITSELF” YOU ARE NOT EVEN SURE OF YOUR OWN CHAMELOENIC THEORIES ABOUT YOUR ANGELS.

WHO’S GONNA BELIEVE YOU NOW WITH THAT SICK THEORY OF YOURS?

Obviously the people who buy your version of events are brushing off what Genesis says and reading into the text.

I based my argument in the book of Genesis. You should read your own post about your endless theory about angels.

You know Jay Leno has a better argument than you about your angel’s theory.

 

[BornAgain]

It means counselor, comforter or helper. I don't see how that's relevant to what I said though.

Can you tell the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost” in classic Greek?

 

[BornAgain]

Don't forget that "In the beginning" God formed the Heavens and Earth, so there's no way of proving that "In the beginning" refers to a time before that.

By your own logic of what "In the beginning" means, the Creation process started immediately without any time before that.

So "your understanding" is basically without much basis as to what the text says. Obviously the people who buy your version of events are brushing off what Genesis says and reading into the text.

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I think you are drifting away from the real issue here. What we are arguing here is your angel’s theories. Angels, according to your twisted theory were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis. You have claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ was just an angel of God. Therefore, Christ was just a creation of God on the 2nd to 5th of the creation in Genesis -this is according to your delusional twisted theory about angels.

Why don’t we just stick on this argument?

 

[Philomath]

Can you tell the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost” in classic Greek?

I don't know. But once again how is any of this relevant to whether or not Jesus said he was God?

 

[BornAgain]

And for the record, this "Twisted" and "Delusional" position is the official Jewish midrashic position, and the one most Trinitarian scholars are adopting now. So why don't you kindly go to the Judaism DIR and tell them how "Twisted" and "Delusional" it is.

Run out of argument and pointing again to the “SCHOLARS”.

Scholars says this, scholars says that.

Correct me if I am wrong, the midrashic is the Jewish or rabbis’ interpretation or exposition of Tanakh -not canonized of course. Tanakh, also known as the Masoretic Text or the Jewish bible.

Reading Genesis 1:1 -Tanakh version- *In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

I do not think that Jewish midrashic would even support this interpretation of yours. That is blasphemy to any Jewish rabbis.

When I claimed or state to be true, that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, I never use the word “MAY” because I am absolutely positively sure that Christ is really God. Using the word “MAY” express doubt, and since your statements always differs from each other, its what readers of this RF should expect from you, nothing but doubts.

Say it with conviction, or from the heart, and not what the scholars were saying and not saying.

 

[BornAgain]

I don't know. But once again how is any of this relevant to whether or not Jesus said he was God?

You don't know!

Since you do not know the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost”, how are you going to understand even if I tell you the answer?

Can you tell the difference between Allos and Heteros?

Mixing religions with different ideologies or philosophies is a tough business, especially to the minds. It will really tax or put heavy burden to the minds. You have to interconnect different philosophies or writings so that they may not interact negatively with each other. That is the reason why some religions compromised their beliefs just to cater others to join their religions. This is the reason why they agreed with each other, compromising their faith for the better unity of all religions.

If I agree with you that the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, then I compromise my faith just to be one with you.

But the apostle Paul wrote in,

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The chief reason why believers/Christians must not enter any compromising relationship with unbelievers is that they belong exclusively to God. The body of Christ form "the temple [or sanctuary] of the living God".

So, even if I tell you the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost” you would not understand because your mind is set-up already before you asked this question, *“But can you show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus explicitly, outright says that he is God?”

If you are able to find the answer, -the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost”- then it would probably help you understand why Christians believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God. In addition, Since Omnism believed in all religions, with the help of the Holy Ghost or the Counselor, I could tell you more about the Lord Jesus Christ so that you too could believe what we believed.

 

[Philomath]

You don't know!

Since you do not know the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost”, how are you going to understand even if I tell you the answer?

Can you tell the difference between Allos and Heteros?

Mixing religions with different ideologies or philosophies is a tough business, especially to the minds. It will really tax or put heavy burden to the minds. You have to interconnect different philosophies or writings so that they may not interact negatively with each other. That is the reason why some religions compromised their beliefs just to cater others to join their religions. This is the reason why they agreed with each other, compromising their faith for the better unity of all religions.

If I agree with you that the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, then I compromise my faith just to be one with you.

But the apostle Paul wrote in,

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The chief reason why believers/Christians must not enter any compromising relationship with unbelievers is that they belong exclusively to God. The body of Christ form "the temple [or sanctuary] of the living God".

So, even if I tell you the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost” you would not understand because your mind is set-up already before you asked this question, *“But can you show me a verse in the Bible where Jesus explicitly, outright says that he is God?”

If you are able to find the answer, -the difference between the “Counselor, Comforter, or Helper” and “the Holy Ghost”- then it would probably help you understand why Christians believed that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God. In addition, Since Omnism believed in all religions, with the help of the Holy Ghost or the Counselor, I could tell you more about the Lord Jesus Christ so that you too could believe what we believed.

Why the need for such a long post? And you've still failed to present a single verse where Jesus explicitly says "I am God". If you find one, show me and post it.

 

[Shermana]

Run out of argument and pointing again to the “SCHOLARS”.

Scholars says this, scholars says that.

Correct me if I am wrong, the midrashic is the Jewish or rabbis’ interpretation or exposition of Tanakh -not canonized of course. Tanakh, also known as the Masoretic Text or the Jewish bible.

Reading Genesis 1:1 -Tanakh version- *In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

I do not think that Jewish midrashic would even support this interpretation of yours. That is blasphemy to any Jewish rabbis.

When I claimed or state to be true, that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, I never use the word “MAY” because I am absolutely positively sure that Christ is really God. Using the word “MAY” express doubt, and since your statements always differs from each other, its what readers of this RF should expect from you, nothing but doubts.

Say it with conviction, or from the heart, and not what the scholars were saying and not saying.

I don't think you understand what the meaning is of bringing up what Trinitarian scholars say. I appreciate your utter and total disdain for the world of scholarship and promoting your view as the only one that matters, and I'm glad that you're positively certain in your beliefs. I am too, that Jesus is NOT God. In fact, I'm willing to even put my beliefs to my life and holdings. Especially with people who are irrational and refuse to debate properly, I'm willing to bring it down to a matter of saying "Let the one of us who is wrong lose everything they own and the other receive the value of what they own", amen?

And if its such blasphemy, I offered you to bring it up to the Judaism DIR and telling them how "twisted" and "delusional" it is regarding the Angels being the "us" in Genesis 1:26, what's stopping you? This is the official Jewish position regarding Genesis 1:26, so why can't it extend to 1:1 as well?

It's not blasphemy to say the Angels (aka "gods") were doing the creating. Calling my position blasphemous is not a valid counterargument. It's not blasphemous at all. What's blasphemous is to say that God is some 3-person entity.

 

[Shermana]

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I think you are drifting away from the real issue here. What we are arguing here is your angel’s theories. Angels, according to your twisted theory were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis. You have claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ was just an angel of God. Therefore, Christ was just a creation of God on the 2nd to 5th of the creation in Genesis -this is according to your delusional twisted theory about angels.

Why don’t we just stick on this argument?

I think you're completely ignoring what I said about your fail-filled attempt to use the concept of "in the beginning" to mean some kind of time before the Creation process, ignoring what I said about the Logos Theology and the "Word" ("Wisdom") being the First Created being, and then calling my idea "delusional" as if that somehow defeats what I said.

If you're not going to actually address what I say, don't bother. Save it for the apologetic website where you don't have to actually back your claims.

 

[Shermana]

First you claimed angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis, then when challenged you said, “Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

HOW SICK IS THIS?

THEORY, AND THEORY ON TOP OF THEORIES. AN ENDLESS THEORY ABOUT ANGELS. “ANGELS MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ITSELF” YOU ARE NOT EVEN SURE OF YOUR OWN CHAMELOENIC THEORIES ABOUT YOUR ANGELS.

WHO’S GONNA BELIEVE YOU NOW WITH THAT SICK THEORY OF YOURS?


I based my argument in the book of Genesis. You should read your own post about your endless theory about angels.

You know Jay Leno has a better argument than you about your angel’s theory.

So basically your idea of a counter-reply is to call my theory SICK and then act as if I'm wrong for using the word "May" while totally ignoring the issue of Wisdom in Proverbs 8.

If you have such a problem with "theories", you would definitely hate these Trinitarians who try to force fit the Trinity into Genesis 1:26 and talk about the "Plural Unity" and such. It's not exactly like the text is clear to the point there's no need for deep exegesis.

 

[BornAgain]

I don't think you understand what the meaning is of bringing up what Trinitarian scholars say. I appreciate your utter and total disdain for the world of scholarship and promoting your view as the only one that matters, and I'm glad that you're positively certain in your beliefs. I am too, that Jesus is NOT God. In fact, I'm willing to even put my beliefs to my life and holdings. Especially with people who are irrational and refuse to debate properly, I'm willing to bring it down to a matter of saying "Let the one of us who is wrong lose everything they own and the other receive the value of what they own", amen?

And if its such blasphemy, I offered you to bring it up to the Judaism DIR and telling them how "twisted" and "delusional" it is regarding the Angels being the "us" in Genesis 1:26, what's stopping you? This is the official Jewish position regarding Genesis 1:26, so why can't it extend to 1:1 as well?

It's not blasphemy to say the Angels (aka "gods") were doing the creating. Calling my position blasphemous is not a valid counterargument. It's not blasphemous at all. What's blasphemous is to say that God is some 3-person entity.

YOU WROTE:
First you claimed angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis, then when challenged you said, “Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

THIS IS A MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1-2

I forgot to mention how incorrect R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is when he states that “Seven things were created before the world was created. They are: The Torah, Gehinnom, the Garden of Eden, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance, and the Name of the Messiah” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter III, p. 10-11). If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness. R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation. Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos/SHERMANA? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1). As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos/SHERMANA should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

NOW, TELL ME IF YOU DID NOT BLASPHEME THE WORD OF GOD WITH YOUR DELUSIONAL ANGEL'S THEORY.

DO YOU ALWAYS INTIMIDATE PEOPLE ONLINE? YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR MIND. I FACED PEOPLE LIKE YOU EVERYDAY AND YOU THINK YOU CAN SCARE WITH YOUR TACTICS ONLINE?

 

[BornAgain]

And if its such blasphemy, I offered you to bring it up to the Judaism DIR and telling them how "twisted" and "delusional" it is regarding the Angels being the "us" in Genesis 1:26, what's stopping you? This is the official Jewish position regarding Genesis 1:26, so why can't it extend to 1:1 as well?

In Genesis 1:1 The Elohim [is plural in form, but is singular in construction ], and you think they were

“Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

According to your NEWEST theory the “us” in Genesis 1:1 and 1:26 are angels and God.

According to your NEWEST theory there was a creation before Genesis 1:1
YOU WROTE:
Don't forget that "In the beginning" God formed the Heavens and Earth, so there's no way of proving that "In the beginning" refers to a time before that.

I WROTE:
To my understanding, “in the beginning” is like before the start of the creation of heaven and earth. In other word, there is no heaven and earth yet before the beginning. For example, before one starts a project, one can say, before one starts anything on the project, “let’s begin”

Therefore, the train of thought should be, in the beginning, and then, the creation of heaven and earth.

So, according to John 1:1, before God created the heaven and earth, Christ was with God already, but according to your twisted theory, Christ did not exist until the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis.

MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1

The Holy One, blessed be He, has always existed and continues to exist eternally outside of the perimeters of time, for He Himself created time ex nihilo. Wise Rambam identifies time with motion, particularly motion of the spheres (cf. Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter XXX, p. 212). So let us not be ignorant; let us see that time began when motion began. This is in agreement with the pagans as well, for the Philosopher himself believed that time itself could not be imagined without a beginning (cf. Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter XXX, p. 212). The Holy One, blessed be He, decided from the beginning that His creation would be bound by the perimeters of time, for “there is […] a time for every affair under the heavens” (Ecclesiastes 3.1).

So, if your NEW theory about the creation of angels is right, -they were created before "TIME" the creation of the world- then this MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1 -which you relied on heavily is wrong.

ANOTHER MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1

But has the Holy One, blessed be He, created the heavens and the earth from a blueprint? It is foolishness to believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, consulted a blueprint to create the heavens and the earth, for the Holy One, blessed be He, is perfect and does not need to consult a plan to create.

And so, Bere**** Rabbah is incorrect when it says, “Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, consulted the Torah when he created the world” (Bere**** Rabbah, I:2F.).

The Torah did not exist prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the Holy One, blessed be He, is so perfect that He does not need to consult a third party to create the heavens and the earth, since it is already part of His divine nature to know how to create the heavens and the earth. For,
“Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you” (Jeremiah 32:17). -

YOU WROTE:
“Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, is SO PERFECT that He does not need to consult a third party to create the heavens and the earth

YOU SHOULD CHANGE YOUR POSITION ABOUT YOUR ANGEL'S THEORY.

 

[BornAgain]

SEPTUAGINT The first and most important of a number of ancient translations of the Hebrew OT into Greek. The story of the origin of the Septuagint is told in the Letter of Aristeas, a pseudepigraphical book written in the second half of the second century B.C. It states that Ptolemy II (called Philadelphus, the king of Egypt, 285-247) wished to have a translation of the Jewish law for his famous library in Alexandria. At his request the high priest Eleazer of Jerusalem sent 72 men, 6 from each tribe, to Egypt with a scroll of the Law. In 72 days they translated one section each from this scroll and afterward decided on the wording together. So the version was called the Septuagint (the translation of the 70, abbreviated LXX). Later writers elaborated on this story to the effect that the 72 had translated the whole OT (not the Pentateuch only), each independently of the other, in seclusion. The exact agreement of the 72 copies proved the work's inspiration, or divinely inspired to be precise.

It is generally agreed that the Pentateuch was translated from Hebrew into Greek in Egypt around the time of Ptolemy II, ca. 280 B.C. The rest of the OT was done at a later date.

The fact that the LXX was not made all at once is plain by the unevenness of its character. Some parts, e.g., the Pentateuch, are a rather literal and accurate translation of the Hebrew text. Other books, such as 1 and 2 Samuel, differ greatly from the Masoretic Text (our present Hebrew Bible). Recent finds at Qumran ("The Dead Sea Scrolls") include a Hebrew MS of Samuel whose text seems very close to the LXX of this book.

The LXX Daniel was such a free paraphrase that it was set aside in favor of a later translation made by Theodotion. The LXX Jeremiah is one-seventh, and the LXX Job is about one-fourth shorter than the Masoretic Text.

The LXX came to have great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews. Its use in the synagogues of the Dispersion made it one of the most important missionary aids. Probably it was the first work of substantial size ever to be translated into another language. When the NT quotes from the OT, as it frequently does, the form of the quotation often follows the LXX.

So, why we need this history about LXX?

The early Christian church, built largely on converts from the synagogues of the Greek-speaking world, took over the LXX as their Bible -remember no NT yet at this time. Their use of it, to prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, caused a change in the Jews' attitude toward it.

Ac 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Soon after A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX and went back to the Hebrew version, and it became a Christian book.

Our oldest copies of the LXX today are from the three great Greek MSS of the Bible from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.--Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. The textual criticism of the LXX is a difficult task.

The LXX is of use in two ways to biblical studies today: 1. It is a valuable witness to the understanding of the OT in pre-Christian days. 2. The LXX is a very important tool for use in the science of textual criticism--the attempt to bring to light the original text of the Bible. In quite a few cases the Masoretic Text and the LXX do not agree. A person knowing neither of the original languages can sense the difference by comparing Amos 9:11-12 with Acts 15:16-17. James quotes Amos, and his quotation agrees in general with the LXX, which is quite different from the Masoretic Text. Of course, the great majority of the differences between the two are inconsequential.

 

[BornAgain]

And if its such blasphemy, I offered you to bring it up to the Judaism DIR and telling them how "twisted" and "delusional" it is regarding the Angels being the "us" in Genesis 1:26, what's stopping you? This is the official Jewish position regarding Genesis 1:26, so why can't it extend to 1:1 as well?

WHY DO YOU THINK THE JEWS ABANDONED THE LXX WHEN IT’S THEY WHO SAID, “IT IS DIVINELY INSPIRED”?

Ac 18:28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures/LXX that Jesus was Christ.

Jn 5:39 Search the scriptures/LXX; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

The JEWS abandoned the LXX because of Christ. They saw Christ from Genesis to the Prophets writings with their divinely inspired LXX, and since they killed, and rejected the Messiah, they could not admit their own wrongdoing, or they could not face the mirror -THE LXX-, so they gave up the DIVINELY INSPIRED LXX.

What you are seeing in Genesis 1:1 and 1:26 are not angels and God, but the TRINITY.