The text in question reads: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes [Genesis 18:27]." The italics, of course, indicate the addition by the translators of the words "am but" to the text; whereas Moses actually wrote it thus: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which dust and ashes [Genesis 18:27]:"
Much of the canon reads clumsily, if left to it's own devices, and this verse is no exception. It's obvious to anyone who's read the King James version of the 'Holy Bible' that the help of the translators is often necessary to make the text sensible. However, the question here, as elsewhere, is: is this particular help necessary? Without it, the text indicates the LORD is a man like to any other man of Adam's line, at least inasmuch as he is, as Adam was, "dust and ashes." Is this possible?
If the LORD made Adam– as God made the sons of God– in his own image, after his own likeness: where do their similarities end and the uniqueness of each begin? Is the LORD but a corruptible man like unto the one he presumably made? I don't personally recall anywhere in the canon where the LORD is characterized as anything but a man. One quick example which comes immediately to mind is that which Moses wrote of the LORD after he allegedly saved the children of Israel from the pursuing Egyptians in the Red Sea.
Moses, presumably in a state of extreme euphoria, wrote of the LORD, after exiting the bounds of the sea, "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name [Exodus 15:3]." Conversely, Samuel, when lying about the LORD, said: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent [1 Samuel 15:29];" but, again, Sammy was lying. Perhaps the LORD is himself what he said Adam was: a mud patty with magic breath. If he even exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment