Post Reply Allah, Elohim, and a Moon God
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/08 , edited 4/11/08
Allah, the word comes from the Arabic term al-Ilah. Essentially that translates to “The Deity.” However, it was also used by Pre-Islamic Arabs to worship the highest divinity in their pantheon of deities. During the Mecca of Muhammad’s time, this was the Moon God. The black-stone and Ka’bah were used to worship many deities, but above all else Al-Ilah-the moon. Many evangelicals have used this information to argue that Muslims actually worship the moon-that Allah is nothing more than the revised moon God-and that most Muslims don’t even know this.

Other scholars argue that the Judeo/Christian deity is the same as the Islamic God. We already know the religions are different-there’s no question to that, but are their God’s the same?

This thread is for the discussion of this topic. What follows, you don't have to read. Actually, I'd ask you post your opinion first and then come back and read mine-if'n you would, but here's my arguement:

No, Muslims do not worship the moon. The Qur’an itself says, “…Prostate not the sun or moon, but prostate Allah who created them.” (4:37) This shows that they clearly separate their God from natural occurrence, and that Muslims should worship Allah not through admiration of his creation, but rather admiration of him.

The argument is semantics. However, a title is something instilled by man. Allah has no name, Muslims just have many titles for his various characteristics. As a matter of a fact, I believe there is exactly 99 titles for his various attributes-Allah is a diverse god. We do not define something by its title.

I mean, let’s say I named my daughter Alexandria after Alexander the Great. Does that mean that my daughter is an ancient Greek warlord, maniac imperial, supreme genius, egotistical nut, and sufferer of the divinity complex? No, not at all, because she isn’t defined by her name-it’s just set out to help us communicate. The root of her name does come from Alexander, but that doesn’t mean she is Alexander. What was Muhammad to do? Just pull out a random title from his rear-end? No, he used a title that the Arabs would understand-because speaking is for communication, not confusion.

Is Elohim/Jehovah/Yahweh the same as Allah? No, not at all. Allah may mean God, and the common title for Elohim is God-but titles cannot be used to define something-only a definition. Allah is not the moon God. The moon god was not all-powerful and had partner/children. Allah is and doesn’t.

Likewise, Elohim values love above obedience. Allah values obedience over love. Elohim chose Israel and never went back on that. Allah was angered by the disobedience of Israel and moved on. Elohim ignored Ishmael and chose Isaac. Allah chose the first born. Elohim in triune. The oneness of Allah is a major concentration in Islam. Elohim came down as a man. Allah did not. Elohim is love. (1 John 4:8) Allah can love, but the Qur’an never says he -is- love. Allah communicates through angels. Elohim went directly to his prophets. Allah denies Christ was crucified and that Christ was divine. Elohim calls Christ his son and himself. Allah was never subjected to temptation. Christ was subjected to all temptations. Allah has no name. Elohim gave his name to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

You see, there are just countless definition arguments. Their titles don’t match up, only their roots. However, as I’ve said the roots of something don’t define what that something is. I evolved from an ape-I believe, but I’m not a bleeding primate-am I? You evolved from an ape, and I evolved from an ape, (again, a belief-not technically proven) but we’re not the same people.


Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/11/08
You stated in your introduction to Islam that Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel, and that Gabriel revealed many great things to Mohammed. Would that be the same Gabriel who spoke to Elizabeth and Mary? My understanding of the Muslim faith is that it began with Esau (the brother of Jacob). Am I incorrect about this?

I firmly believe (Gospel according to Kim...not necessarily LDS doctrine) that Elohim (the Jewish God), the Father of Christ (God the Father), and Allah are the same being. Lemme explain: I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Some people believe that Joseph Smith was a pretty good man, but NO prophet (there are no more prophets), others believe that Joseph Smith was a crook and a con man. Who is correct? That is something none of us will know for certain, until after death, and maybe not even then, if the athiests are correct. Does any of this change who Joseph Smith actually was? Joseph was Joseph. What others think of him does not change that. Neither does the beliefs or opinions of any of us change who God really is. Even within the Christian faiths, we all have differing opinions, and when you get enough people with differing opinions, you call is religion. I, personally, believe that ALL spirituality comes from God the Father. It comes in different ways, and in different degrees, but anything that promotes faith and love comes from God.

This is my personal opinion. I haven't done a lot of studying in this field, so it is not a profoundly educated opinion. There are too many similarities in the world's religions now, not to have some commonalities. Of course, it wasn't long ago that a comment was posted (I believe in Intelligent Discussions) that most religions canabalize and plagerize from pre-existing religions, and that accounts for their similarities, however, I posit, that (being Christian, Genesis 1:1...In the beginning) that there was only one God and one religion in the beginning, and all others are seeded from that.

Question: does anyone know where the Magi came from...it only says "out of the east", and that they were kings, or scholars. It also took them 2 years to reach the Christ child (NO...they didn't show up in the manger...that's folk lore, unsubstantiated by the Bible). IF Christianity (or faith in Elohim) wasn't present "in the East", then what were the scholars studying, and why were they so intently looking for the arrival of Christ? This tells me that there is more prophesy and revelations in the world than just the JudeoChristian Bible.

Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/08

kimmm6 wrote:
You stated in your introduction to Islam that Mohammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel, and that Gabriel revealed many great things to Mohammed. Would that be the same Gabriel who spoke to Elizabeth and Mary? My understanding of the Muslim faith is that it began with Esau (the brother of Jacob). Am I incorrect about this?


Well, yes it is the same Gabriel-and no it’s not. I suppose by your definition-yes-by the one I gave, no.

Both the Christian and the Islamic Gabriel are archangels. In Islam and Christianity Gabriel is a messenger. However, Gabriel is also the angel of death in Christianity. In Islam he is not. Most Muslims believe that the Angel of Death is Azraa’eel-but the Qur’an doesn’t actually give a name, that’s just a likely assumption. Suffice to say there is an angel of death in Islam-but he's not Gabriel. (See al-Sajdah 32:11- saying: “Say: The angel of death, who is set over you, will take your souls. Then you shall be brought to your Lord”)

Secularly speaking, Islam began with Muhammad. However, Muhammad taught-and Muslims believe, that Islam started with Adam-and that Adam was a Muslim who praised the Islamic image of God. Another theory is that it started with Ishmael-but, historically speaking, there’s too much question to really get a clear answer. You’re not necessarily incorrect, as far as I’m aware, but depending on who you ask you’d get different answers.

You make a good point. Maybe Allah is Elohim, I’ll need time to mull that all over before I dedicate myself to an opinion though.



I posit, that (being Christian, Genesis 1:1...In the beginning) that there was only one God and one religion in the beginning, and all others are seeded from that.


Well, most historians agree. Genesis suggests that all civilization began at one place. Historians think this is true. We actually agree with most aspects of the stories told in the Torah-though some details and various other items (like the date given for the development of metallurgy) are debated.




Question: does anyone know where the Magi came from...it only says "out of the east", and that they were kings, or scholars. It also took them 2 years to reach the Christ child (NO...they didn't show up in the manger...that's folk lore, unsubstantiated by the Bible). IF Christianity (or faith in Elohim) wasn't present "in the East", then what were the scholars studying, and why were they so intently looking for the arrival of Christ? This tells me that there is more prophesy and revelations in the world than just the Judeo/Christian Bible.


The Magi were a tribe of Zoroastrian priests, and probably came from Persia-likely, on foot. Little is know about Zoroastrianism-but we do know that many of their beliefs coincided with Jewish beliefs. It’s quite likely, then, that they studied the Jewish scriptures. The bible says they saw a star and followed it. If they really did study the Tanakh and Torah they may have recognized the star as the item mentioned in Numbers 24:17.

Certain aspects are shared between Jews and Zoroastrians. We don't know much about the religion in that time, but it's highly possible, maybe even likely, that they believe some of the Jewish prophesies.
Creator
57720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 4/11/08
The Magi didn't just "believe some of the prophesies"...they studied the prophesies, dedicated their lives to understanding, and were prepared for the coming of the signs. When the signs came, they stopped what they were doing, and followed with complete faith. They were prepared for the coming of the Messiah.

I know this is off topic...but only by a little. You said that certain aspects are shared between Zoroastrians and Jews, and certain aspects are shared between Jews and Christians, and certain aspects are shared between Christians and Muslims. With an open mind, it is very easy to see the common threads between religions, and imagine a common "ancestry".
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/08

kimmm6 wrote:

The Magi didn't just "believe some of the prophesies"...they studied the prophesies, dedicated their lives to understanding, and were prepared for the coming of the signs. When the signs came, they stopped what they were doing, and followed with complete faith. They were prepared for the coming of the Messiah.

I know this is off topic...but only by a little. You said that certain aspects are shared between Zoroastrians and Jews, and certain aspects are shared between Jews and Christians, and certain aspects are shared between Christians and Muslims. With an open mind, it is very easy to see the common threads between religions, and imagine a common "ancestry".


Well, as I said, historians do believe that most major religions reign from a common source. It’s a pretty wildly accepted theory-really.
661 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39
Offline
Posted 7/7/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

Allah, the word comes from the Arabic term al-Ilah. Essentially that translates to “The Deity.” However, it was also used by Pre-Islamic Arabs to worship the highest divinity in their pantheon of deities. During the Mecca of Muhammad’s time, this was the Moon God. The black-stone and Ka’bah were used to worship many deities, but above all else Al-Ilah-the moon. Many evangelicals have used this information to argue that Muslims actually worship the moon-that Allah is nothing more than the revised moon God-and that most Muslims don’t even know this.

Other scholars argue that the Judeo/Christian deity is the same as the Islamic God. We already know the religions are different-there’s no question to that, but are their God’s the same?

This thread is for the discussion of this topic. What follows, you don't have to read. Actually, I'd ask you post your opinion first and then come back and read mine-if'n you would, but here's my arguement:


OK, responding to just the above first. Allah doesn't actually translate to "the deity" if I catch the correct word roots. That is what it translates to NOW, but language changes. Al comes from the same early semitic root word as El from Elohim. The suffix in both is a redoubler that is used to indicate that this is the greatest among gods.

The moon god of the time in question, and there were several, may have been Aglibol or Nanna-Suen. Most would lean towards the latter for the following reasons. Nanna-Suen had a number of daughters notably Ishtar. As such a crescent moon with a star can be used to denote him. You get a strict lunar calendar with solar intercalation being looked at as a sin and against nature. Nanna-Suen (or a similar god) would also have been the chief god of the city, meaning that to take the city with any hope to hold it would require acceptance of the local god. This was a common tactic through the middle east if a city was to be taken into a small empire without completely crushing the people.

There is some wiggle room here. Allah had several daughters, but they can be closest linked to the moon god Orotalt. Before it's desecration and destruction, the temple was a coming together of many peoples. A symbol of peace and unity of spirit, as such it housed gods from all over the reason. This very openness made it somewhat easy to take by force of arms, but it means we can't know exactly which god Allah was based upon for an absolute certainty.

Now keep in mind that just because a god of the moon was the root of Allah does not mean that the early muslims worshiped the moon. having lordship over something was not the same thing as being that thing. Nanna-Suen was also the god of time (thus the lunar calendar.) Additionally the god had an early blending with derivations of Christian belief.

So what's all this mean? It means that whatever god the Muslims worship that it is a distinct entity from any that came before it despite any links or similarities.

So, not the same, but how closely linked is Allah to Elohim? Well to find this out we need to look at the roots of Elohim. We know that he was the god of the Jewish patriarchs, but unfortunately Elohim needs to be taken in context. It does not refer to any specific god unless noted upon in context. El as we know from earlier means lord, and was the title of two Akkadian gods: El the god of heaven, and El the lord of the hosts. The former was the father of the gods, and the creator of the universe. The second was the head of the pantheon and also held the title of father of the gods even though he was the son of the first El.

Confused yet? It gets worse. Elohim, in biblical texts, was used to refer to the head of the gods in religious texts. The custom in Sumer (Abraham was an Akkadian, but the Akkadians and the Sumerians shared a religion) was never to approach the gods directly. This may have been a way to avoid using their personal god's name directly. That means context is even more important. (Why is context important? Alla was the name of a group of medium sized demons known in the region in times contemporary with the writing of parts of the bible, but predating the Quran by over a thousand years.)

You can occasionally see indications as to which god the latter version is talking about by looking at the myths. In the flood myth it was El the lord of hosts who called forth the rain, and Ea who saved the lone king and his animals. We really can't look at the garden of Eden myth because there are a lot of garden stories in Sumer, and Eden is the Sumerian word for garden.

Looking at the commandments reads just like any other covenant that a family might have with their personal god. It was even written in the two tablet format common in contracts of the day. We can however note the distinct similarity

So to answer the question, no, not the same origin. El lord of heaven, was the father of El lord of hosts, was the father in law of Nanna-Suen lord of time.
661 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39
Offline
Posted 7/7/08

kimmm6 wrote:

The Magi didn't just "believe some of the prophesies"...they studied the prophesies, dedicated their lives to understanding, and were prepared for the coming of the signs. When the signs came, they stopped what they were doing, and followed with complete faith. They were prepared for the coming of the Messiah.

I know this is off topic...but only by a little. You said that certain aspects are shared between Zoroastrians and Jews, and certain aspects are shared between Jews and Christians, and certain aspects are shared between Christians and Muslims. With an open mind, it is very easy to see the common threads between religions, and imagine a common "ancestry".


Someone else has probably already mentioned this, but if not here goes. The Magi were almost definitely Zoroastrean astrologers. They were probably not kings, but advisers to kings. They would have been one of the most dominant religions in the area with their strongest near by center of worship being Iran.

The similarities in religion are not actually direct though. Zoroastreanism is a highly dualistic religion with a strong belief in absolute good and absolute evil. Judaism didn't develop these elements until later. The book of Enoch shows a strong blending of Zoroastrean, Jewish, and Mesopotamian belief.

As the teachings of Jesus reflect a stronger connection to Escene belief than they do to other sects it is likely he would have read that text.
Member
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/08 , edited 7/7/08

LordShangYang wrote: OK, responding to just the above first. Allah doesn't actually translate to "the deity" if I catch the correct word roots. That is what it translates to NOW, but language changes. Al comes from the same early semitic root word as El from Elohim.


The translation I gave for al-Ilah was completely technical. In Arabic there are no gender neutral words. The “Al” is the masculine form of “the,” similar to “he,” but used in a different grammatical position.

As far as Ilah it technically means “Goddess,” because Il is the root for “deity,” but “ah” suggest feminine gender. However, because the masculine “Al,” cancels the feminine “ah” Allah simply translates to “The Deity.”

You said that my translation of al-Ilah is only modern, but that’s not true. Actually, the modern meaning is “The One True Deity,” personifying the Islamic divinity as the one supreme holder of godhood.

However, this isn’t actually his name. Allah is merely a title used to personify an attribute of the Islamic divinity. There are actually ninety nine titles. “The Beloved,” “The Creator,” “The Judge,” “The ext.”

To address the rest of your argument, there’s an error. You point out that despite etymological similarities in title Allah isn’t necessarily the afore mentioned divinity of Arabic polytheism.


So what's all this mean? It means that whatever god the Muslims worship that it is a distinct entity from any that came before it despite any links or similarities.


Then you say it’s necessary to investigate the roots of the word Elohim to decide rather or not Allah and the Judeo/Christian God are the same.


how closely linked is Allah to Elohim? Well to find this out we need to look at the roots of Elohim



There are two errors in this.

The first is, as you just attested, that you can’t identify a being by their title. That is to say that even if the Jews called god “Steve,” and the Muslims called him “Ted” doesn’t mean they’re talking about different people. Simultaneously, just because I name my child “Allah,” doesn’t mean my kid is suddenly god.

Let’s look at Alexander. In Greece and the Western world he was called, “Alexander the Great.” In Persian and the Eastern world he was, “Alexander the Accursed.” Two totally different titles referring to the same person. This shows that one side believe his character was “accursed,” and the other that his character was “great.” It also shows they called him by different titles.

In short, neither the name nor supposed characteristics of personality and history can be relied upon to decide if these two deities are the same. You simply have to investigate the roots of the deities themselves-not there names, as you, I, and countless theologians have been tempted to do in the past.

Islam originated as a revolutionized sect of Judaism and Christianity. What did Muhammad teach? He taught that the god of the Judaic prophets had come to him and presented him with a message. According to Muhammad the Judaic god-who he called al-Ilah for cultural reasons-had come to him and told him that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted, edited, and manipulated his message. They no longer understood the true nature of their god.

So, you see, Muhammad-the founder of Islam-taught of the Judaic god. “Allah” and “Elohim” are the same deities-by root.

The second error is that Allah is not the name of Islamic divinity, and Elohim is a term used to substitute the name of the Judaic divinity. So, your investigation wasn’t actually investigating the etymology of the names of these gods, but rather terms used to reference them.

According to Islam god has no name. According to Judaism nobody can pronounce his name. To quote my blog:


According to Exodus, when Moses asked God for his name God replied with a long lost Hebrew term that was purposefully designed to be spoken only in first person. In other words, you could not use (verbally or in writing) this term without referring to yourself as God. To avoid this blasphemy Moses removed the vowels and left the Tetragrammaton: YHWH.

The trial of this was that oral recitation of the scriptures has ever been a major cornerstone in Judeo/Christian worship and nobody could pronounce YHWH. To get around this boundary early manuscripts substituted it with Elohim, old English bibles replaced it with Jehovah, and most modern bibles use Yahweh.





Ah, now in this quote:


how closely linked is Allah to Elohim? Well to find this out we need to look at the roots of Elohim


Perhaps you meant investigate the roots of the god represented by the term Elohim? Well, that’s not really what you did. What you did was investigate the etymology. But, let’s ignore that for a moment because you were onto a good point. However, there’s still an error. It’s not actually necessary to investigate the roots of Elohim-because this deity came first.

Actually, it’s only necessary to investigate the roots of Allah. Where did Allah come from? Well, once again Muhammad taught that the Judaic God came to him. So, once again, by root Allah and Elohim are two terms making reference to the same entity.

Whatever the case, I am immensely grateful for your contribution to this thread. It was incredibly interesting to read, and I was actually educated about some things. I’m always happy to see somebody post in this group, especially when they actually give some thought to those posts! You seem very intellectual (from what I've seen so far,) and I’m glad to have you here.


LordShangYang wrote:

Someone else has probably already mentioned this, but if not here goes. The Magi were almost definitely Zoroastrean astrologers. They were probably not kings, but advisers to kings. They would have been one of the most dominant religions in the area with their strongest near by center of worship being Iran.

The similarities in religion are not actually direct though. Zoroastreanism is a highly dualistic religion with a strong belief in absolute good and absolute evil. Judaism didn't develop these elements until later. The book of Enoch shows a strong blending of Zoroastrean, Jewish, and Mesopotamian belief.

As the teachings of Jesus reflect a stronger connection to Escene belief than they do to other sects it is likely he would have read that text.


Yeah, I more or less told her what you did:


The Magi were a tribe of Zoroastrian priests, and probably came from Persia-likely, on foot. Little is know about Zoroastrianism-but we do know that many of their beliefs coincided with Jewish beliefs. It’s quite likely, then, that they studied the Jewish scriptures. The bible says they saw a star and followed it. If they really did study the Tanakh and Torah they may have recognized the star as the item mentioned in Numbers 24:17.

Certain aspects are shared between Jews and Zoroastrians. We don't know much about the religion in that time, but it's highly possible, maybe even likely, that they believe some of the Jewish prophesies


*edit compiled posts - ~Kimmm6

Member
41 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 8/23/08
Ha, ha, ha! Never play with missionaries. They mastered the way of translation. Pick another field.
You must be logged in to post.