One page summary of basic facts.

A list of state symbols and emblems with dates of adoption.

Source for a variety of information (including trivia) about Tennessee: includes history, government, state symbols, and registered charities.

Lists famous Tennesseans, with links and other state information.

U.S. Mint website describes the design on the special 25-cent coin issued in 2002.

> Such a person can still
>believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again.

No, he can only put on the _appearance_ of such belief. But the real
McCoy
remains alien to him

where in the Bible does it say that one must believe God is a trinity
in order to be saved? Verses please:

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Bob:

> (1) The Jewish and Christian version of Genesis agree, however the
> interpretations do not.

A distinction that has not been made clearly enough in this thread (or
I have missed it) is between a-priori (what does the text say) and
a-posteriori (what do we believe out of *other* reasons or supported
by *other* texts) understanding of the text. Of all I know, we can say
that we have *no* a-priori understanding: While the usage of the
apparent plural "elohim" with singular verbs is quite normal, its
usage with plural verbs is not, except when a plural is meant.

> (2) Christians believe in the Trinity, therefore believe that "us"
> refers to the Trinity. For them, a very valid belief.

And thus a *possible* but not a *cogent* interpretation.

> (3) Jews do not believe in the Trinity, therefore "us" would have to be
> G-d and his angels. For them, a very valid belief.

Interestingly, some traits in Judaism have a concept resembling the
Trinity but with 10 instead of 3. I wonder whether the plural in
Genesis has ever been proposed to mean these 10 sfirot.

> (4) No amount of discussion will change these core beliefs, so it is
> better to close the subject since neither side will convince the other
> that they are wrong.

Let me add one more interpretation which I find not too far-fetched
from the a-priori standpoint (which does not make it *true*, but only
*possible*):

The plural appears in the context of creating *two* men, male and
female, in the likeness of *one* God. What if the plural were used to
say that man is not androgynous (nor God any of male, female,
androgynous or sex-free)? Rather, the completeness of *one* God can be
mirrored (in the sense of "dmut=likeness") with no less than *two*
men, and *we* is more like two than *I* would have been.

Helmut Richter

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <088.57.10.05.274632000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>>Smoke goes up by itself.
>
>huh? No it doesn't. Personification?

No, it is not 'personification'. Why do you JWs keep seeing