Why there is no religious god or goddess by any name.

GeraldtheGnome: First of all out of most religions Christianity is the main one. So any god or goddess of Christianity, by any name, needs to be disproven first.

Reason one. The very first verse out of the first chapter of the Christian Bible is false.

In the beginning ´Élöhîm created the heaven and the earth.

There never was a beginning. If there is at least one god or goddess around somewhere right now then the god or goddess was formed or born or created (if it can be proven) from an Animal, including a Human or a god or goddess or from something else if that is possible. No one can prove that there is or there is not a god or goddess around right now, however every religious claim of every god and goddess can be disproven and was disproven by in the past.

The reality is that Elohim in lowercase or uppercase is the plural of eloah or Eloah. Eloah or eloah only means a god and later on it also was referred to as a name. Only elohim or Elohim means gods even though it mistakenly was also used as a name for a god and from that the one god myth came about. At first it was gender neutral, later on it was only male specific.

So the story is really about the gods and goddesses formed from nothing created the atmosphere and Earth. Unless there was a time that can be proven that a certain scientific law did not apply then the claim is a false one. Which of course would mean that the elohim are made up, so to that the atmosphere and Earth were created from nothing. So unless proven otherwise then there never was a beginning, there never was one around before a beginning, every religious god and goddess is made up since they weren't formed from nothing, also the atmosphere and Earth were never formed from nothing.



Ooh yeah ! She's very hot !

edmund_carey: I believe the plural ending on Elohim is a Hebrew form meaning majesty, something like the "royal we" in English. The word designates the God of the Bible when the writer chooses not to use the proper name, which is "Yahweh". Or, more correctly, when the narrative thread comes from what scholars call the "Yahwistic" tradition, which is different from the "Elohistic". Both narrative traditions are present in the Pentateuch, which was created by weaving them together.

What does "there never was a beginning" mean? Our astrophysics today tells us that the universe we are in had a beginning, popularly known as the "big bang", and no geologist doubts that the assertion "the earth has not been here forever" is a true statement.

GeraldtheGnome: Elohim is the plural of eloah, it is not the plural ending of Elohim/elohim. To claim otherwise makes no sense. What you believe does not matter, look at the original Hebrew meaning rather than this odd belief about majesty and a royal we in English. Elohim, in its original form means gods, eloah means god in its original form. I've come across Yahwist, but not Yahwistic and Elohistic, it looks like it's more or less just a trend to use istic onto the end of anything these days. It's the god of the book, not The God of The Bible. God is a name, a name that doesn't even go back as far as when Christianity started. No one knows what the original name was for the imaginary god who in one of many Hebrew names is referred to as Yahweh. Never use or at the start of a sentence and never put a comma after it. You even used quotation marks in an odd way. Use the word story rather than narrative, story is the more commonly used word after all. I have that Pentateuch means 'five books' or 'The five books'. That word though was never used in Hebrew. Weaving them ? I don't think that weaving was the best word to use, I do get what you mean though.

The cosmos never had a beginning, the examples as to why is shown in the two videos that I have shown on here. I wish more people would use spaces before question marks, whatever. The known Universe possibly had a beginning, even that though is only possible and not known. They have told us, not 'tells us' and do not put the word and after a comma. The Big Bang theory is possibly wrong. An assertion is just a claim of certainty and a word I usually avoid because I dislike it. The Earth, like all other forms of matter, had a beginning and like all other forms of matter it will have an end. Any god, if there is even one, did have a beginning and did not form from nothing. Something does not form from nothing. Even a god is a form of matter.

edmund_carey: Given that the word for God in Hebrew - El - is the name of the principle deity of the polytheistic national cult of the Canaanites, the origin of the term can be pretty dependably dated. The ancient Hebrews began to be a different people (different from Canaanites, i.e.) with a rudimentary culture of their own in the 13th century BC.

The word El as the Hebrew word for God can be dated to that century, but, of course, that means that it existed as the designation of a deity long before that. The proper name for the God of the Bible - Yahweh - is thought to derive from the name of the principle God of a people called the Shasu who lived to the north of the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus - their god was called Yahu. So, that was also around in the 13th century BC.

As for the Teutonic term "God", that would date from much later, but can be traced back as far as Teutonic peoples and languages can be traced, which would be to about the 5th century BC. Either way, Canaanite, Shasu, Hebrew, or Teutonic, the words for the God of the Bible predate Christianity by centuries.

Albert617: The claim that there never was a beginning is scientifically and philosophically false. Most physicists today believe that the entire universe is finite, including Steven Hawking. All of modern science has vindicated the Torah. We now know the universe came into existence, etc.

GeraldtheGnome: I do not refer to anything about El as being a national cult of Canaan or by any other name that the region went by at the time since it's like telling someone that Zeus was the national main god of Greece even though Greece was a region at the time instead of a country. So whether a god was believed in by a national cult movement or a national religious movement then the god had to be believed in by those of one country. Canaan, as it is referred to now, was a region made up of countries and tribes, it was never a country. That means that I disagree that El was thought of as being the main god of any national cult or national religion. He was the main god of the religious beliefs of Canaanites in the region of Canaan. Then again they where referred to by similar names to Canaanites, so Canaanites (if the translations are correct) and Canaan are more recent names. El is a Hebrew name and word for a god named God, not the other way around. There was no need for the hypshens. The words pretty dependably were not needed, I understood what was meant without them, they added nothing of importance in the sentence.

Yes, certain countries had gods that were considered to be the national gods or gods of the religion worldwide. The Hebrews broke away from the Canaanites makes sense, using the words 'a different people' is politically correct English which does not make sense and it is best for everyone to avoid doing using 'a different people' which to most is grammatically incorrect, to the politically correct it is considered to be what are the best words to use. I find it confusing and time wasting, I mean that politically correct ways of using words just confuse people make no sense, they are grammatically incorrect and they are a waste of time. None of it impresses anyone even though many that do that think that it does impress others. Even leaving out the word rudimentary from a sentence about the ancient Hebrews would have been the best thing to do. I have not seen or heard anything, apart from on here, that has that Hebrew and that of Hebrews were around as far back as the the thirteenth century BC. There never was a Hebrew name, not word, for God. There was a Hebrew name that later became the name God, first by those who used Early English/Anglo Saxon. Sure the name El possibly and most likely was around longer than the first still intact example of that name and this is most likely also true with the name God. It is however a guess, it most likely is true though even though no one will ever know when and how either of those names originated.

Designation looks like it was used the wrong way as a word. Enough about that by me though. God is a name, god is a generic word for any god, so there is a god of The Bible named God rather than the God of The Bible. When Hebrews first did or at least possibly did used El as the name of a Hebrew god looks more like a few centuries after what I was told on here at the earliest. Existed ? Well I use that only in reference to life forms and to viruses. As for what is the proper name for that particular god, not just God, of The Bible goes, well all of that depends on what name was first used in the first Bible. Well to me a proper Bible is one that has the letters B, i, b, l and e. The only first Bible that has that is a complete English translation Bible. The Coverdale Bible. It was printed in 1535, it's in Early Middle English and it is of course from the time of The Renaissance. There was a dispute of where it was published and printed. In Wikipedia it has that it was printed in The Habsurg Netherlands in Antwerp, what is now in Belgium. Martin Lempereur from France printed it over there. There are some errors in what you see in the link, the guessed publication location and some other things too. Not once though is Yahweh or Yahwe is mentioned in that entire Bible.

https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Coverdale/2/3

At Soleb Temple in the city of Soleb, then a part of Nubia, when it was a part of Egypt but now is in Sudan, the words now translated as 'Shasu of Yahweh' were on the base of a column in the Hypostyle Hall in the temple there. The Temple was built in The Bronze on the orders of Amenhotep the third who reigned in 1386 BC to 1353 BC. The Yahweh reference shows that those who believed in a god named Yahweh worshipped him long before any of the Bible stories are claimed to have happened. They are mentioned again by Rameses two who reigned in 1279 to 1213 BC. The attempts to link the Hebrews and the Habiru tribe with them has been disproven. Originally the religion of Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god to the Canaanites and to the Shasus when the Shasus arrived in the Levant. No whether it was Yahu or Yahweh or Yahwe or whatever is not really known does not matter because the original name is unknown and because the god is made up anyway. That's enough about The Bronze Age.

Loosely it is a Teutonic term even though I don't think of it that way, the name God only went back to The Feudal Age in The Middle Ages. So before 732 AD there was no claimed god named God. There really was never a need for quotation marks. The name God was only originally used in what is now Britain in The Feudal Age, so nothing before 732 AD and even by the end of that age in 1175 AD only those who used English used the name God. There is a guess that the name can be traced back to the fifth century BC. Later on the Dutch, The Frisians and Boers used the name God as most of each of those groups still do today. There were no names for the god, not God, of The Bible before it was around. The Tanakh and what came before it included some names that would eventually be used in The Bible though. Which god though ? There is more than one god mentioned in there.

To Albert. There never was a beginning, to claim that there was is false in every way possible. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks is true, what matters is what is true. What a bad choice of words vindicated is. What is in The Torah is made up. Don't use the collective we when it does not apply to me and to many other people. The universe is not a life form, it doesn't exist and it never did. It does not mean though that the universe is not around.

Nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, everything just becomes something else, it doesn't matter if I refer to any life form, including a Human, it doesn't also matter what form of inorganic material it is. Even a wiped out planet does not simply vanish, it has just changed. This is what is true now, it always was and it always will be. If you do not believe it then by all means try to disprove it.