Good questions:

1) The final paragraph is meant to infer that the JPS is only partly correct, since the “seed” does have plural connotations. However, the text is clearly singular in its form and immediate context, and therefore should be rendered singular in the translation. Although I’m not familiar with the JPS translation process, I can’t help but assume that they translated the pronouns as “they” to guard against any Christian typological references. So, to answer your question, I do NOT think the JPS translation is viable based on the text, although we should not rule out entirely the collective sense of “seed.”

2) Both senses of “seed” have an impact on the larger theological structures of the Bible, but there is no way to explain that exhaustively in this comment. Suffice it to say, I think if “seed” is ONLY plural, which I cannot accept, it casts doubt on many other passages in the OT and the NT. The result is a misunderstanding of 2 Samuel 7, the Servant in Isaiah, and ultimately Jesus’ role as the Lamb of God (as well as many other texts).

Two Questions: 1) Your concluding paragraph left me a bit confused. Are you arguing that the JPS translation is viable but you would prefer a translation that maintains the singular force?

2) Does either translation have an impact on how we read biblical theology or do both lead us to the same conclusions?