To which I replied:
To which Smith replied:
At least part of the conclusion implied by Metcalfe’s original post, as well as your post which affirmed his, is that the text at Abr. 1:13 points to a “god [made in the image] of Pharaoh,” which, of course, describes the Imsety figure.
And yet, as I have noted above, the text does not read as you and Metcalfe would have us believe:
Metcalfe: “… a god [like unto] Pharaoh …”
Smith: “… a god [made in the image] of Pharaoh …”
No, the text reads: “… a god like unto that of Pharaoh …” or (taking the same liberty you have to “reword” the text) “… a god like unto [the god] of Pharaoh …”.
This, of course, is very different, for it does not suggest the figure of Imsety, but is non-descript in its application.
That is the conclusion you have based on a misreading of the text, and it makes all the difference, for the addition of “Koash” (Korash) does not, in any way, supplant any perceived association between “… a god like unto that of Pharaoh …” and the figure of Imsety. The later addition of Korash (associated with the Imsety figure) does not “transform the meaning of the phrase” in any way at all; it in no way conflicts with the original meaning of the text (which text was retained, with no loss of meaning), but merely moves the referent of that text to the crocodile figure, where it belongs.
Edit: corrected minor grammatical error
Edited by William Schryver, 13 April 2010 - 08:29 PM.