The two Giants of religion

[placebofactor]

Most of us, and most all theologians believe we are now in the last days. Will there be a one-world religion under the Kingship of the Antichrist?

My question is, “Will the two giants of religion, Catholicism and Islam come to a compromise concerning the Father in Heaven and Allah? Will there be any single issue that could bring the two together, giving the appearance of co-equality between the two giants of world religion and a form of togetherness between the two Gods they worship?

In 1916, and on three separate occasions, three young children, Lucia Santos, and her two cousins claimed to have witnessed apparitions of an angel in the region of Ourem Portugal. These sightings continued until 5/13/1917 when, while tending sheep they claimed to have witnessed the apparition of what they claimed to be the Virgin Mary.

Mary is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady. The only serious rival to her in their creed would be Fatima, the daughter of Mohammed. But after the death of Fatima, Mohammed wrote: Thou shalt be the most blessed of women in Paradise, after Mary. In a variant of the text Fatima is made to say; I surpass all the women, except Mary.”

Mary has played an important role in the Muslim and Catholic world. Perhaps as Catholic Bishop Sheen noted, “She (Mary) will be the bridge that connects two vastly different cultures, and the common mother who keeps her children talking.” So, the question, “Does the Lady of Fatima, Mary, and Mohamad’s daughter Fatima have any future role in Vatican-Muslim dialogue in these end days?

[Difflugia]

but it was never "Elohim."

It was when Genesis 1 was written.

In the beginning, when Elohim began to create the heavens and the Earth...

Elohim in Genesis 1 never has a definite article, but from context it's always treated as definite. By Hebrew rules, that's a name! What's funny is that I'd expect one of Jehovah's Witnesses to be acutely aware of just how important the presence or absence of a definite article can be!

[onewithhim]

but it was never "Elohim."

It was when Genesis 1 was written.

In the beginning, when Elohim began to create the heavens and the Earth...

Elohim in Genesis 1 never has a definite article, but from context it's always treated as definite. By Hebrew rules, that's a name! What's funny is that I'd expect one of Jehovah's Witnesses to be acutely aware of just how important the presence or absence of a definite article can be!

You are right. We do understand that. I just have to say that "Elohim" is a title, meaning "god." It is not the name of God.

[Difflugia]

You are right. We do understand that. I just have to say that "Elohim" is a title, meaning "god."

If it were so, it would be written differently.

It is not the name of God.

It absolutely is if the Hebrew text is authoritative. In Hebrew, titles are written either with a definite article or in the construct state. In Genesis 1 and many, many other places, Elohim is written as otherwise only names are written.

Your argument is that there is a rule in Hebrew that only applies to titles of God and your only evidence for it is that you don't like the theological implications of the text without your personal rule.

[onewithhim]

You are right. We do understand that. I just have to say that "Elohim" is a title, meaning "god."

If it were so, it would be written differently.

It is not the name of God.

It absolutely is if the Hebrew text is authoritative. In Hebrew, titles are written either with a definite article or in the construct state. In Genesis 1 and many, many other places, Elohim is written as otherwise only names are written.

Your argument is that there is a rule in Hebrew that only applies to titles of God and your only evidence for it is that you don't like the theological implications of the text without your personal rule.

I'll go with Psalm 83:18 in the KJV and other versions: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

[Difflugia]

Your argument is that there is a rule in Hebrew that only applies to titles of God and your only evidence for it is that you don't like the theological implications of the text without your personal rule.

I'll go with Psalm 83:18 in the KJV and other versions: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

That doesn't actually change anything. First, even if that verse means what you think it does, you've offered no reason beyond baseless repetition to think that Hebrew grammar is different in the one, single case that causes you theological discomfort.

Second, that verse doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that God is the only one whose name is Yahweh, not that Yahweh is the only name that He has. More-or-less literally, the phrase is "(you), (your name) [is] (Yahweh) (to you alone)." The "alone" applies to "you," not "your name."

[servant1]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #20]

El is short for Elohim= a Hebrew word= not a name ever.

[Difflugia]

El is short for Elohim= a Hebrew word= not a name ever.

Nonsense. El and Elohim are distinct Hebrew words.

El was the name of a Canaanite deity that became conflated with Yahweh. Eloah is a Hebrew word that generically means "god." Elohim is the plural of Eloah.

Despite being plural, Elohim later became used as a generic appellative for specific gods and in those cases takes singular verbs and adjectives. This appears in the Bible in 1 Kings 11:33, referring to Astarte as "god of the Sidonians," Chemosh as "god of Moab," and Milcom as "god of the sons of Ammon." Note, however, that each time, Elohim is in the construct state, indicating that it's a title rather than a personal name. This is likely how it was originally used of Yahweh, but even later became used as a proper name. This is mentioned in the earlier grammatical rule that I linked for you:

"In a few instances original appellatives have completely assumed the character of real proper names, and are therefore used without the article; thus אֱלֹהִים God, to denote the one true God (as elsewhere יהוה)"

This is TD&D, however, where the Bible itself trumps even the most rigorous scholarship and this is all merely academic, as it were. YHWH, El, and Elohim are all treated as proper, personal names of God in multiple verses across multiple books of the Old Testament. Q.E.D.

[servant1]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #27]

FACT= In the Hebrew language, Elohim translates-the supreme one--the mighty one or God for the true living God= never as plural for him. It is not a name.

[historia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #27]

FACT= In the Hebrew language, Elohim translates-the supreme one--the mighty one or God for the true living God= never as plural for him. It is not a name.

You've given us no good reason to think this is a "fact," and Difflugia has demonstrated pretty convincingly to the contrary.

If you want to convince anyone else, you'll have to do better than this. The rest of us have no reason to believe you if you can't cite any evidence or scholarship to support your assertions.

[onewithhim]

Your argument is that there is a rule in Hebrew that only applies to titles of God and your only evidence for it is that you don't like the theological implications of the text without your personal rule.

I'll go with Psalm 83:18 in the KJV and other versions: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

That doesn't actually change anything. First, even if that verse means what you think it does, you've offered no reason beyond baseless repetition to think that Hebrew grammar is different in the one, single case that causes you theological discomfort.

Second, that verse doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that God is the only one whose name is Yahweh, not that Yahweh is the only name that He has. More-or-less literally, the phrase is "(you), (your name) [is] (Yahweh) (to you alone)." The "alone" applies to "you," not "your name."

Why is His name included in almost 7,000 places in the Scriptures? Wherever the "LORD" appears in the texts of Bibles that eliminated His name, that is where His name should be. Whether "Jehovah," "Yahweh," or the Hebrew letters signifying His name (YHWH).....in Hebrew "Yhodh He' WaW He'." It really doesn't matter if He is referred to as "Elohim" in Genesis. Be that as it may. There are 7,000 other places that His name is included in the verses.