JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[101G]

A name being transliterated, translated, transfigurated, translocated or anything else is not evidence.

thanks for confirming this. for this is why the word/term transliterated and translated exist. .... (smile)... LOL, LOL, LOL. it's a shame and IGNORANCE when one try to explain away something but, in the process, just confirm it. ... Oh dear..... my, my, my.

101G.

 

[joelr]

thanks for confirming this. for this is why the word/term transliterated and translated exist. .... (smile)... LOL, LOL, LOL. it's a shame and IGNORANCE when one try to explain away something but, in the process, just confirm it. ... Oh dear..... my, my, my.

101G.

Oh boy. Transliterated and translated exist to put characters names into different languages. Not to prove they are real. I already said this and it didn't take, so we can try another way.

Look here, an explanation of Greek characters FROM MYTHOLOGY that have transliterated names. It doesn't mean Uranus or Apollo were REAL supernatural beings, it means they were real characters in a STORY. SAME WITH JESUS, yes he is real, IN A STORY. Being in a story, written like fiction, using fictive literary devices and tropes, like the Gospels use, isn't evidence something was actually real.



"Transliterated forms of Greek names are used throughout the biography pages of the site rather than their Latin forms, e.g. Kirke instead of Circe, Ouranos for Uranus, Apollon in place of Apollo, etc. The index and introduction pages, however, use the Latin name-forms for ease of reference."

THEOI GREEK MYTHOLOGY - Exploring Mythology in Classical Literature & Art

Welcome to the Theoi Project, a site exploring Greek mythology and the gods in classical literature and art. The aim of the project is to provide a comprehensive, free reference guide to the gods (theoi), spirits (daimones), fabulous creatures (theres) and heroes of ancient Greek mythology and...

www.theoi.com

Yes, I confirmed Jesus is a character in a story! WOW, who knew? Oh look, the transliterated name for Uranus is Ouranos. Hey isn't Uranus a FICTIONAL character???? Yet he's been transliterated. So have all those Greek Gods, wow they must all be real since that is what Transliterated was invented for huh???? Huh, looks like, as usual, you were completely wrong, once again.

I say again, NOT EVIDENCE that he is a real character.

 

[101G]

Look here, an explanation of Greek characters FROM MYTHOLOGY that have transliterated names. It doesn't mean Uranus or Apollo were REAL supernatural beings, it means they were real characters in a STORY. SAME WITH JESUS, yes he is real, IN A STORY. Being in a story, written like fiction, using fictive literary devices and tropes, like the Gospels use, isn't evidence something was actually real.

you got one thing right "JESUS IS REAL"..... (Smile)...
NEXT..........

101G.

 

[joelr]

you got one thing right "JESUS IS REAL"..... (Smile)...
NEXT..........

101G.

Yes, like Harry Potter and Krishna, he is a real fictional character in a story.

 

[101G]

Yes, like Harry Potter and Krishna, he is a real fictional character in a story.

yes, Harry Potter and Krishna, are fictional........ but the LORD JESUS... non fiction. the Lord Jesus is more REAL than U? ...... (smile), lol, lol, lol. you're a creation of his. u are a CREATURE, u are not REAL, so adding to Harry Potter and Krishna, u 2 are fictional. now, are u not glad to KNOW THIS TRUTH. for if u need proof, stay alive for another hundred years.... then we will know if you're fictional or not.... (smile)... LOL, LOL, Oh dear. as the Movie, "Gone with the wind"....... EOS.

101G.

 

[joelr]

yes, Harry Potter and Krishna, are fictional........ but the LORD JESUS... non fiction.

Prove it. Demonstrate evidence. Harry Potter is in a story. Jesus is in a story.

the Lord Jesus is more REAL than U? ...... (smile), lol, lol, lol. you're a creation of his. u are a CREATURE, u are not REAL, so adding to Harry Potter and Krishna, u 2 are fictional. now, are u not glad to KNOW THIS TRUTH.

Except I can provide reasonable evidence that I exist. You can write a 14 digit number from pi down, let me look at it and I will tell you the correct numbers.
Please ask Jesus to tell you a 14 digit number from pi that I have written down. Tell me the number Jesus tells you in the next post please.

for if u need proof, stay alive for another hundred years.... then we will know if you're fictional or not.... (smile)... LOL, LOL, Oh dear. as the Movie, "Gone with the wind"....... EOS.

101G.

Shifting the burden to raising an issue weather a person you are speaking with on an actual thread is fiction or not is such a fantastic admission you have zero answers.Variations on odd childrens games ?-( "yeah, well YOU are fiction, prove YOU exist..."). It's like what would happen when a child is told Santa Clause isn't real. ("Uh...Santa exists, you are not real...")

The Gospel version of Jesus is fiction. Evidence suggests this, almost all historical scholarship believes this is the case. It's been established you buy into those beliefs. Doesn't make them true. I would think if you bothered to go to a forum called religious debates you would have actual arguments. Seems I'm wrong on that.

 

[101G]

Prove it. Demonstrate evidence. Harry Potter is in a story. Jesus is in a story.

ERROR on your part. the Lord Jesus is the Story..... are you not still breathing HIS air? ,,,,,,,,,, LOL, LOL,

Except I can provide reasonable evidence that I exist.

yes, because the LORD created u, and you're still breathing his air....... (smile)

Please ask Jesus to tell you a 14 digit number from pi that I have written down

why? U wrote it U ask him. ...... (smile) ... Oh dear....

Shifting the burden to raising an issue weather a person you are speaking with on an actual thread is fiction or not is such a fantastic admission you have zero answers.

personal opinion? LOL, LOL, LOL, trash can.

SO WE CAN TAK THIS AS YOU CANNOT LIVE THAT LONG? THOUGHT SO. proof rendered... LOL, Oh my....

101G

 

[joelr]

ERROR on your part. the Lord Jesus is the Story..... are you not still breathing HIS air? ,,,,,,,,,, LOL, LOL, View attachment 77149

Again, not evidence. Even assuming everyone's personal deity "owns" the air, we have Krishna owning the air, Vishnu owning the air, Allah owning the air, Jesus owning the air, Brahman owning the air...depending on who who talk to.
None of them can prove it and neither can you. I didn't get an air conditioning bill from Jesus? After Jesus tells you the 14 digit number from pi maybe you could have him call me to verify he owns all the air.

(PS - use "LOL" when you say something funny, not just for nonsense)

yes, because the LORD created u, and you're still breathing his air....... (smile)

yes, and Vishnu created me, and Brahman, and Allah, lot's of beings from fictional stories apparently did a lot of creating and owning air.

I say Thor created me. Like you, I have no evidence, proof or any reasonable foundation for my claim. It's all a fantasy.

BTW, I think Thor owns the air as well. He can name the 14 digits from pi as well so looks like he's real.


Bunch of nonsense.

why? U wrote it U ask him. ...... (smile) ... Oh dear.... View attachment 77150

Ok, JESUS, please tell me the 14 digits from pi........Sorry, fictional beings cannot respond. Maybe you will have better luck. I'm not the one who believes he is real.

personal opinion? LOL, LOL, LOL, trash can.

It isn't an opinion, you continuously shift the burden of proof. Please offer some evidence of all this fantasy.

SO WE CAN TAK THIS AS YOU CANNOT LIVE THAT LONG? THOUGHT SO. proof rendered... LOL, Oh my....

101G

The fact that people die isn't proof of any fictional character in a story. Yes fiction lives on. Gandolf from Lord of the Rings will probably be known for all of humanity, longer than even religious characters. He's still fiction.
I ask again, what evidence do you base your beliefs in supernatural beings on? All I'm getting is a run-around of nonsense. Can you justify your claims with evidence?

Wait you actually went out of your way to attach that emoji? Ok, now would be the time.........L.O.L.

 

[101G]

Again, not evidence.

again your EVIDENCE......
Look if you cannot understand the TERMs "Ordinal First or Ordinal Last". you will never get anywhere... so you can end your other evidence.

EOS.

101G.

 

[joelr]

again your EVIDENCE......
Look if you cannot understand the TERMs "Ordinal First or Ordinal Last". you will never get anywhere... so you can end your other evidence.

EOS.

101G.

Saying the words "Ordinal First or Ordinal Last" is not evidence and meaningless. Yahweh was not the first, there were thousands of years of deities before him in Mesopotamia and earlier, all similar.
Yes they all claim to be the creator of everything. All fiction, including Yahweh. If not please provide some evidence. Instead of magic words.

 

[101G]

Saying the words "Ordinal First or Ordinal Last" is not evidence and meaningless. Yahweh was not the first, there were thousands of years of deities before him in Mesopotamia and earlier, all similar.
Yes they all claim to be the creator of everything. All fiction, including Yahweh. If not please provide some evidence. Instead of magic words.

4 ERRORS in one small post.... how unfortunate

NEXT.

101G.

 

[joelr]

4 ERRORS in one small post.... how unfortunate

NEXT.

101G.

So no evidence then? I didn't think so.


The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]


It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.


Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[18][19] but adapted them to their belief in one God,


Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[


Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

The Enuma Elish (also known as The Seven Tablets of Creation) is the Babylonian creation myth whose title is derived from the opening lines of the piece,

www.worldhistory.org

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.
Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.


Relationship to the Bible
Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Hebrew Bible correlate with the Epic of Gilgamesh – notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.


Garden of Eden
The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[64][65] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. However, a major difference between the two stories is that while Enkidu experiences regret regarding his seduction away from nature, this is only temporary: After being confronted by the god Shamash for being ungrateful, Enkidu recants and decides to give the woman who seduced him his final blessing before he dies. This is in contrast to Adam, whose fall from grace is largely portrayed purely as a punishment for disobeying God.

Noah's flood
Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.
Additional biblical parallels[edit]
Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[70]
Many characters in the Epic have mythical biblical parallels, most notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. It is suggested that this story served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[71] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.[72]

 

[101G]

It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.

GINOLJC to all.
who made that assumption?

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]

again, who made that assumption?

Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[18][19] but adapted them to their belief in one God,

another assumption?
let's just STOP this IGNORANCE. let you and I tear into the Genesis account for ourselves and see if what all these assumptions are true..... fair enough?

101G will start.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Notice in the beginning, and NOT AT the beginning, for God has no beginning or End. so the First thing is this, we, (meaning Creation has a beginning), God don't.

Second, God himself in, in, in, his creation IN, IN, IN, the beginning, is a diversity of himself in place, time, order or rank. this is clearly seen in the term beginning. listen to the definition, 101G is using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments. you can check my finding.
so the term "Beginning" set the stage for UNDERSTANDING God and his Creation. listen to the term Beginning,
Beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

note definition #1. "the First". this is an Ordinal designation, and not a Cardinal designation. .... FIRST here is in Ordinal, this is very important. because this word is from H7218 רֹאשׁ ro'sh (roshe) n-m. meaning, the head (as most easily shaken), whether literal or figurative (in many applications, of place, time, rank, itc.). which lead us to,

Third, as being FIRST in an Ordinal designation this dictates. the term "GOD" as to who he is in place, time, order or rank. meaning God is an Ordinal of HIMSELF in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK. this Ordinal designation is defined in the term "FIRST, and "LAST". which answers the US and the OUR in Genesis 1:26 & verse 27 in the singular.

Fourth, the term God, (H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.), here in Genesis 1:1 is a PLURALITY of Ordinal First and Ordinal Last, in PLACE, TIME, ORDER, and RANK, which is an "ECHAD" or a Plurality of H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m. let's see it.

H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433
Compare: H5945, H7706, H8199, H4397

Note definition #3. carefully.

now, the plural of H433,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

so, God is the Ordinal or a plurality of himself in the designation of TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK of himself., NOTE, (in his CREATION). and this designation of ordinal is seen in the "FIRST", and the "LAST" which set the stage of his work in the OT and the NT. these designations are clearly see in scriptures, example, the "Shema", Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
here this "ONE" designation is in Ordinal as "FIRST". let's see, again 101G is using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

there is our answer, definition #2. (as an ordinal) first.). for God is a diversity, or "ANOTHER" of himself to come in FLESH, BONE, and BLOOD, as the Ordinal LAST. First in the OT, Spirit, title LORD. and in the NT, or in the End, spirit, title, Lord, or Last.

now if you want to discuss God, ........... forget all what man said, and let's see what God says.

now, the floor is your, as to what God says about himself in scriptures, and lets discuss first the beginning of God in his creation, and then we can move on.

101G.

 

[joelr]

GINOLJC to all.
who made that assumption?

All scholars who compare Genesis to far older Mesopotamian myths -

These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

again, who made that assumption?

All historical Biblical scholars. Most Biblical scholars in theology even consider Genesis to be myth. There are a few fundamentalists however in that field.

another assumption?

All comparisons done by PhD historians qualified to compare ancient text. Here is one, Dr Kipp, PhD

The Bible Needed Ancient Myth's


Dr Josh and Dr Kipp

3:15
The obvious to scholars, Genesis and other OT, is beholden to ancient Near Eastern myths and other literatures, it’s patently obvious..

13:12 - scholars determine literary connections with very rigorous techniques


13:50 - Obviously clear Bible is doing the same thing

15:50 quote on scholars understanding literary borrowing and textual dependence in Bible


Of course the irony here is then there is you, with no degree or qualification of any kind saying "uh uh, it's true"..
Sure, and the Earth is flat also.

let's just STOP this IGNORANCE. let you and I tear into the Genesis account for ourselves and see if what all these assumptions are true..... fair enough?

you read Hebrew?

101G will start.

guess not. This is an English translation. Scholars are comparing the Hebrew to Mesopotamian text. What you are doing here is meaningless.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Notice in the beginning, and NOT AT the beginning, for God has no beginning or End. so the First thing is this, we, (meaning Creation has a beginning), God don't.

Wow. Guess what, in the Enuma Elish that God alredy existed also. They wrote it first as well.
The following translation comes from Mesopotamian Creation Stories by W.G. Lambert -

When the heavens above did not exist,
2 And earth beneath had not come into being —
3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,

Second, God himself in, in, in, his creation IN, IN, IN, the beginning, is a diversity of himself in place, time, order or rank. this is clearly seen in the term beginning. listen to the definition, 101G is using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments. you can check my finding.
so the term "Beginning" set the stage for UNDERSTANDING God and his Creation. listen to the term Beginning,
Beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

The Hindu creation story is also older. Also is a being at the beginning, creating everything:

"Brhadaryanka Upanishad 1.4: the world is said to have come into existence because the Primeval One, having become bored being the only being in existence, split Itself into a variety of forms and manifestations (i.e., the material world and all of its beings) so that, through them, It could experience a loving and playful relationship with Itself."

Because the Israelite writers wrote "beginning" doesn't demonstrate anything except they used the word "beginning" in their fiction.

In the Hindu creation only God exists as well and everything is God.

note definition #1. "the First". this is an Ordinal designation, and not a Cardinal designation. .... FIRST here is in Ordinal, this is very important. because this word is from H7218 רֹאשׁ ro'sh (roshe) n-m. meaning, the head (as most easily shaken), whether literal or figurative (in many applications, of place, time, rank, itc.). which lead us to,

Third, as being FIRST in an Ordinal designation this dictates. the term "GOD" as to who he is in place, time, order or rank. meaning God is an Ordinal of HIMSELF in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK. this Ordinal designation is defined in the term "FIRST, and "LAST". which answers the US and the OUR in Genesis 1:26 & verse 27 in the singular.

Oh you find "fist" to be special. Good then you should become a type of Hindu because their primeval God was definitely first -
"Brahma is the Hindu creator god. He is also known as the Grandfather and as a later equivalent of Prajapati, the primeval first god. "

Fourth, the term God, (H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.), here in Genesis 1:1 is a PLURALITY of Ordinal First and Ordinal Last, in PLACE, TIME, ORDER, and RANK, which is an "ECHAD" or a Plurality of H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m. let's see it.

H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433
Compare: H5945, H7706, H8199, H4397

Note definition #3. carefully.

now, the plural of H433,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

Sorry, Elohim is a rip off from Canaanite religion which is where the Israelites came from.

Elohim, singular Eloah, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim), and the Messiah—is usually employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel, whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh (q.v.). When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a further identification Elohim ḥayyim, meaning “the living God.”

Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections.

In the original OT it meant other deities that Yahweh sat at a council at with.

Elohim | Ancient, Monotheistic, Supreme Being | Britannica

Elohim, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim),

www.britannica.com

 

[joelr]

so, God is the Ordinal or a plurality of himself in the designation of TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK of himself., NOTE, (in his CREATION). and this designation of ordinal is seen in the "FIRST", and the "LAST" which set the stage of his work in the OT and the NT. these designations are clearly see in scriptures, example, the "Shema", Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
here this "ONE" designation is in Ordinal as "FIRST". let's see, again 101G is using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
ONE: H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

there is our answer, definition #2. (as an ordinal) first.). for God is a diversity, or "ANOTHER" of himself to come in FLESH, BONE, and BLOOD, as the Ordinal LAST. First in the OT, Spirit, title LORD. and in the NT, or in the End, spirit, title, Lord, or Last.

This is all nonsense gematra or numerology basically. They used "one" because they were promoting monotheism. I can make up this nonsense for Inana or any deity, but it's a waste of time and complete crank.
Every God in every nation had the claim that they were first and created everything. Yahweh is taking attributes from older Near Eastern Gods and is equally as fictitious.

Yes "first and last" go together. So all the Mystery religions with a Supreme God and a dying/rising son/daughter must be real as well.
Strong's number, transliteration, the phonetic of some Hebrew words do not mean a fictitious story is true. They do not mean anything.
This can be done with the Quran and Arabic. You can spend time doing whatever you like. I would suggest actually reading some Dr Joel Baden instead of finding nonsensical connections between Hebrew and strong's numbers. Yes "one" is a common word in all religious fiction.
Wow.

now if you want to discuss God, ........... forget all what man said, and let's see what God says.

now, the floor is your, as to what God says about himself in scriptures, and lets discuss first the beginning of God in his creation, and then we can move on.

101G.

There is no words from God because the Pentateuch is a mythology created by people. There are 2 creation strories and 2 flood stories, both reactions to Mesopotamian flood and creation stories.

The floor has always been mine. You haven't offered one single shred of evidence yet. A bunch of nonsense ramblings about "One/First", which ALL Gods lay claim too says nothing except you like some sort of gematra.
If this is evidence then you have made the case, this stuff isn't real. Conspiracy theory numerology just demonstrates this further.

 

[101G]

All scholars who compare Genesis to far older Mesopotamian myths -

These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”


All historical Biblical scholars. Most Biblical scholars in theology even consider Genesis to be myth. There are a few fundamentalists however in that field.



All comparisons done by PhD historians qualified to compare ancient text. Here is one, Dr Kipp, PhD

The Bible Needed Ancient Myth's


Dr Josh and Dr Kipp

3:15
The obvious to scholars, Genesis and other OT, is beholden to ancient Near Eastern myths and other literatures, it’s patently obvious..

13:12 - scholars determine literary connections with very rigorous techniques


13:50 - Obviously clear Bible is doing the same thing

15:50 quote on scholars understanding literary borrowing and textual dependence in Bible


Of course the irony here is then there is you, with no degree or qualification of any kind saying "uh uh, it's true"..
Sure, and the Earth is flat also.





you read Hebrew?


guess not. This is an English translation. Scholars are comparing the Hebrew to Mesopotamian text. What you are doing here is meaningless.

Wow. Guess what, in the Enuma Elish that God alredy existed also. They wrote it first as well.
The following translation comes from Mesopotamian Creation Stories by W.G. Lambert -

When the heavens above did not exist,
2 And earth beneath had not come into being —
3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,




The Hindu creation story is also older. Also is a being at the beginning, creating everything:

"Brhadaryanka Upanishad 1.4: the world is said to have come into existence because the Primeval One, having become bored being the only being in existence, split Itself into a variety of forms and manifestations (i.e., the material world and all of its beings) so that, through them, It could experience a loving and playful relationship with Itself."

Because the Israelite writers wrote "beginning" doesn't demonstrate anything except they used the word "beginning" in their fiction.

In the Hindu creation only God exists as well and everything is God.



Oh you find "fist" to be special. Good then you should become a type of Hindu because their primeval God was definitely first -
"Brahma is the Hindu creator god. He is also known as the Grandfather and as a later equivalent of Prajapati, the primeval first god. "






Sorry, Elohim is a rip off from Canaanite religion which is where the Israelites came from.

Elohim, singular Eloah, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim), and the Messiah—is usually employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel, whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh (q.v.). When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a further identification Elohim ḥayyim, meaning “the living God.”

Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological reflections.

In the original OT it meant other deities that Yahweh sat at a council at with.

Elohim | Ancient, Monotheistic, Supreme Being | Britannica

Elohim, (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels, kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim),

www.britannica.com

keep on listing to men, ... and yourself, instead of God.
you said, "Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense." and that's you big mistake.... you don't understand how God is a plurality of himself. it's called the "ECHAD"... lol, Oh dear.

this is exactly what 101G speak of... no one understand the "ECHAD" of God. this is why God said, Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

now last time 101G can careless what man and mythology say or do not say. I careless. now if you think you understand the ECHAD, answer this "is this plurality of God, is it in seperate persons, or in diversity of ONE person in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK.

if you cannot answer in TRUTH then there is nothing 101G can discuss with you.... (smile).

101G.

 

[101G]

This is all nonsense gematra or numerology basically. They used "one" because they were promoting monotheism. I can make up this nonsense for Inana or any deity, but it's a waste of time and complete crank.
Every God in every nation had the claim that they were first and created everything. Yahweh is taking attributes from older Near Eastern Gods and is equally as fictitious.

Yes "first and last" go together. So all the Mystery religions with a Supreme God and a dying/rising son/daughter must be real as well.
Strong's number, transliteration, the phonetic of some Hebrew words do not mean a fictitious story is true. They do not mean anything.
This can be done with the Quran and Arabic. You can spend time doing whatever you like. I would suggest actually reading some Dr Joel Baden instead of finding nonsensical connections between Hebrew and strong's numbers. Yes "one" is a common word in all religious fiction.
Wow.



There is no words from God because the Pentateuch is a mythology created by people. There are 2 creation strories and 2 flood stories, both reactions to Mesopotamian flood and creation stories.

The floor has always been mine. You haven't offered one single shred of evidence yet. A bunch of nonsense ramblings about "One/First", which ALL Gods lay claim too says nothing except you like some sort of gematra.
If this is evidence then you have made the case, this stuff isn't real. Conspiracy theory numerology just demonstrates this further.

ERROR, Good day

101G.

 

[joelr]

keep on listing to men, ... and yourself, instead of God.

There is no God. If you think you can hear him then please ask him to tell you the 14 digit number I have written down.

you said, "Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense." and that's you big mistake.... you don't understand how God is a plurality of himself. it's called the "ECHAD"... lol, Oh dear.

this is exactly what 101G speak of... no one understand the "ECHAD" of God. this is why God said, Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

First, not all Hebrew scholars even agree with this and Elohim in the context of the time it was written was ANOTHER GOD.
"
A case is often argued by some Bible expositors that the Hebrew adjective echad means a "compound unity." From this, many say the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) literally means:

Hear, O Israel:
The LORD our God,
The LORD is a compound unity.

This translation is then taken to be primary evidence that the Jewish Bible teaches the plural nature of God, which then validates, many believe, the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity.


In my view this interpretation of echad in the Shema is not correct, because it is based on the premises of systematic or dogmatic theology, not on Biblical Theology.

The following study focuses on three reasons why the historic Christian interpretation of echad in the Shema cannot be validated from Scripture.
First
Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible. To say it means "compound unity" confines the word to a narrow category that doesn't match all its varied uses by the biblical writers. It's like saying the word elohim only refers to the true God. When, in fact, elohim is used for false gods and goddesses, angelic beings, the judges of Israel, the king of Israel, and the Messiah. It's necessary to qualify the phrase "it means…"

Hebrew Streams: "Echad" in the Shema

once again you seem to be using made up Bible code nonsense. The context of the word in scripture is covered in that link.

now last time 101G can careless what man and mythology say or do not say. I careless. now if you think you understand the ECHAD, answer this "is this plurality of God, is it in seperate persons, or in diversity of ONE person in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK.

So Echad doesn't mean that in context. Next, all of the Hebrew meanings, first, one, unity, so on........are words. Yahweh is a fictional character. The author wrote about a make-believe God and used some Hebrew words. One, First, whatever. That is how fiction works. You create beings and give them attributes.
How you think this demonstrates it's true is bizarre. The Hindu supreme being is also first, but in Sanskrit. Wow, still not true.

if you cannot answer in TRUTH then there is nothing 101G can discuss with you.... (smile).

101G.

I have only been giving what is the best attempts at truth. You have given meaningless anecdotal nonsense and somehow assumed this means something. Yet if anyone else used the same nonsense to suggest Allah, Brahman or Krishna was true you would likely laugh. Because it's a terrible attempt at proof.
Even your Bible code is using incorrect ideas about Hebrew.
Echad???? That is actually funny. Your proof............ECHAD!

 

[joelr]

ERROR, Good day

101G.

Ok, well that was easy. Saying "error" without evidence is conceding the point. It's just doing it in a sore loser kind of way.

 

[joelr]

Good, and since you're IGNORANT of God, see U.

common sense has to kick in sometimes. both are ADAM and both was formed, with decay before Sin came in. there was no sin, or decay. the man was not older than the woman. how absurd. she was taken from the FIRST ADAM, same bones, same Flesh. my God is there a brain in the House in use.

ok YT, how old was Adam when God formed the Woman? ..... thank you.... my God how hard is it?

101G.

Speaking of not knowing things, that is a fable, complete with talking animals (as all fables have) which you are taking as a literal story.

"If you think that's the story of Adam and Eve from the Bible, you're right. But it's also a story common to other religions. Nearly every ancient culture told its own set of creation myths and they share a remarkable number of similarities, including key elements of the Adam and Eve story: humans fashioned from clay, a trickster figure who subverts the gods' plans for creation, and a woman taking the blame for sin and pain.

Interestingly, many scholars believe that the Adam and Eve story from Chapter 2 of Genesis was actually written first, around 950 B.C.E. in Palestine, according to Thury. The "In the beginning" version from Chapter 1 was written 400 years later during the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews were living in exile. The priestly Jewish author of Chapter 1 wrote his account to directly refute the Babylonian creation myths, which credited gods like Marduk and Tiamat with creating heaven and earth.

Mankind Made from Clay​

Adam isn't called by name until nearly the end of Chapter 2 (before that, he's simply "the man"), and his name is actually a clever play on words. Adam is created from the "dust of the ground" — usually interpreted as earth or clay — and the Hebrew word for "ground" is "adamah." So Adam's name is basically dirt.

This is a common theme in creation myths the world over. In China, the goddess Nüwa took a walk among the majesties of creation, but she grew lonely, so she paused along the banks of a river and began to fashion creatures out of clay. After making a few animals, Nüwa got bored, and catching her beautiful reflection in the river, decided to create creatures in her own image and name them humans.

In Ovid's "Metamorphosis," written in Ancient Rome, the gods first separated light from dark, then earth from sky, then created all of the animals before deciding to make "[a]n animal with higher intellect, more noble, able — one to rule the rest." Borrowing from older mythological sources, Ovid credited Prometheus with making men "by mixing new-made earth with fresh rainwater; and when he fashioned man, his mold recalled the masters of all things, the gods."

In one Egyptian creation myth, the god Amun commands the ram-headed god Khmun to create human beings "as a potter who molds clay on a potter's wheel." And according to Sumerian creation myths, which are some of the oldest on record, the primeval mother goddess Namma created mankind to do chores for the gods and birthed them by placing clay in her womb.

The Story of Adam and Eve Is Not Unique to the Bible

The first man and woman are formed from clay to live in paradise until they are forced to leave because of deceit. It's a biblical story but also one found in many other cultures.

people.howstuffworks.com