Is the God of Genesis 1 El or Yam?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim



I am not familiar with the theory.

But I have commented that Asher, as in Ahayah Asher Ahayah, is the name of the patron deity of Assyria, as the name indicates. Spelling varies but that's normal.

Asher is alse ben Shem and ben Jacob.

And the symbol of the Parsees, the Fravashi, originally was used for Asshur/Asher of Assyria.

Ahura is close to Ashur, very much so, and I would say maybe Mithra would be akin to Shemash maybe, or Tammuz

So I would say it is less theory and more a case of syncretism that is unacknowledged for reasons I don't know.

It's not like we don't know they lived in Mesopotamia, if Asher is a Deity and YHVH says He's Him, it should not even devolve into theory as it's too obvious to have to guess where it came from.

El=Illu=Illah

But not Asher=Asshur?

The Assyrians worshipped God is all that means and like everyone else wasn't monotheistic then.

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Imagine how hard 3 is!!!

I realize why trinitarian anger is so prevalent, you can't serve 2 but 3 makes you insane!

The Son and the Holy Spirit glorify the Father.

Imo, your understanding of the trinity needs work. Idk, Disturbinatti there's a way it makes sense, though it may lead to more questions then answers for you...

The trinity is extra-biblical. The only verse where this so called union appears is the so called Comma Johanneum, a Medieval forgery inserted in a few obsolete bibles, like KJV and others relying on the Medieval manuscript Textus Receptus. It was also included in certain post-Clemenitine versions of the Vulgate and most likely originates from a marginalium to later versions of the Vulgate. Look it up.

ETA: I donot accept the Trinity, somehow the quote tags got mixed up. My only comment here is the § over here. i have no idea why usr «dffrntkndfnml»'s quote was included as if I had wrote it. Deleted the incerted /quote tag.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Are you telling me there is a way to make sense of Trinity?

Because I would disagree on the grounds that the religion that worships it is the one that uses the Bible and as you said it's not in it

Also Jesus pbuh categorically denied being God or that there was anything not one about his God:

"The Lord/YHVH OUR God is ONE God."

It might make sense to a Hindu who doesn't claim to be Monotheistic but it doesn't coming from anyone who does claim to monotheistic.

My friend isn't a book reader or die hard fanatic of religion or really religous at all and not a genius or stupid but definitely has issues with common sense at times is not someone who I ever expected to say this but I gave him credit today as he was telling me that Jesus pbuh can't be God and human so isn't God but for him a mediator because he doesn't feel worthy of approaching God directly.

I told him that you are humble enough to recognize this means you are and told him that Jesus pbuh didn't say "Pray to me."

He said pray to "OUR Father in Heaven."

At which point he understood that Jesus pbuh was no Christian.

And that the Trinity was nonsense he says he always thought was so and I said you would be a Unitarian theologically​.


Anyway it only makes sense to polytheism.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Please read the ETA in the quote you referred to. And no, there is no sense in the trinity. It's extra-biblical and possibly originates from a marginalium to later Vulgates.

But there has never been a person who has successfully made sense of a Monotheistic Trinity because it is impossible to make sense of and violates God's natural laws of mathematics which is not smart to do and attribute to Him Who says otherwise which is what Christianity teaches, contradicting Moses, Jesus pbut and the Bible en total in the process.

3 is 3 and you can metaphorically​ say 3 are 1 but literally it's impossible.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Apologies, I missed that.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Apologies, I missed that.

No problem. Who knows, maybe the Post-Clementine scribes that included the Comma Johanneum messed up the quote tags too lol

a reply to: Disturbinatti

"3 is 3 and you can metaphorically​ say 3 are 1 but literally it's impossible."

Assalaamu alaikum and Ramadan Mubarak.


If you've never seen or known about changes in the state of matter, you would say it is impossible for these three to be one in the same:

1. Ice
2. Liquid water
3. Steam



I am a child of all the world's religions. I rather enjoy the Trimurti as the anthropomorphic embodiment of the universal archetypal forces:

1. Brahma (Creation, Life)
2. Vishnu (Sustainer, Neutrality)
3. Shiva (Destruction, Death)

Truly, everything in this physical existence embodies and follows these three qualities.

a reply to: Sahabi


Thanks for saying that friend.

I am familiar with the water explanation and used it myself as a Christian because I thought it made sense.

But to compare God the Creator to His creation and use the 3 kinds of water, solid liquid and gas is not the type of thing I can accept any longer for one reason at least.

God isn't water, ice isn't liquid, and the 3 forms never occur simultaneously in the same place.

You can mix ice in water and boil it but before you get steam the ice will melt.

It is a seperate scientific fact that doesn't prove the Trinity or that it's possible it's just the standard argument of apologists.

Not something that applies to God in reality or conforms with the statement of 1/3 of said alleged Trinity.

"The Lord OUR God is ONE God worship HIM..."

And thus the Trinity is an innovation of men who wanted to deify a man.

a reply to: Sahabi


But to be clear as I said Hindus don't claim to be Monotheists and that is honest where as Christians do claim that.

Without scripture to support it at that.

It's just the dishonesty I don't like. If Christianity admitted it was polytheistic​ and has deified a man I will have to say the same about them as I do with respect to and for Hindus who despite their polytheism are considered people of the Book in India by most.

As are Christians who also are polytheists.

A courtesy Christians, (besides the Catholics, which angers many Christians) don't extend to anyone is the right to go to Heaven regardless of religion for being righteous whether Sabians, Magians all will be judged by their deeds and though it is the worst of sins to assign partners to God in Islam we don't apply our Law to them.

I am very critical of Christianity because I am all too aware of the inherent hatred they usually have for even other denominations that they don't admit but it is clear when they speak of them.


When they say either accept the Nicene Creed or you have no chance of going to Heaven they are no more than Spiritual terrorists.

So the fact that their theology isn't derived from the Bible and Jesus pbuh didn't teach what they do if he actually said any of those words (we don't know) is just despicable in light of this.

And to bring it into topic the word Deacon is derived from Dagan and why they wear that fish hat is because of Oannes who they made John the Baptizer pbuh resemble because his name is Iohanne in Greek and close. Carl Jung commented on this as I always look for others that share what I notice and the observations I make, I was surprised to find he said that too.

Like Tammuz/Tammus/Thomas. The twin shephard.

It's not the religion that irritates me it's the refusal to acknowledge it's an innovation of men centuries after Christ, Trinity.

Or the refusal to admit 3 isn't ever 1.

I am tolerant but I am critical too. I try and maintain a healthy balance. Because it's not the fault of the flock if the shepherd leads them astray I don't blame Christians I blame pastors and esteem the Arian like Unitarian Church for its bravery.

They are despised by evangelism.

Because they follow the words in the Bible and the Trinitarians of men.

Catholics, for all their wicked hypocrisy, have no problem with a multi religous Heaven and what it means is Catholics are freed from the shackles of the with us or against us mentality.

I don't trust the RCC much but I respect that.

a reply to: Sahabi


Don't imagine for a second I don't see how profound a notion the metaphor of live giving and sustaining water is in comparison to God and as an explanation for the Hindu Trinity.

I have meditated on it often without involving a comparison to God because it's the only substance with the capability of existing in 3 types of matter without changing into a different substance and probably period.

I just don't see it applicable to the God of Jesus pbuh or compatible with his teachings about God.

Water was a purifying element to Jesus pbuh and rain a display of God sustaining the earth, something he was able to control was the weather which was a power he was given by God to show us that God isn't nature Himself but the author of it.

Yam would be a great candidate for a trinitarian god I wonder why it was not so?

Asherah of the Sea and if I can speculate Mot probably has in his domain a lake of Fire which creates steam when close to water or can be killed by it if gets too close.

So that would be the 3 "water deities" of my hypothetical Trinitarian god, I just am left with including ice.

As it rises up to the heights where the god of the mountain dwells it is turned into snowflakes which settle atop the mountain as, eventually, snow and ice.

That was actually fun. I might write on it.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

I meant no direct allusion to water, nor am I promoting trinitarianism, simply; multiplicity from singularity.

It is only my personal opinion that; one's character, conduct, and deeds are extraordinarily more relevant and essential than faith or belief.

I say this as a disclaimer that; many of the attacks you just launched against Christianity may be redirected towards Islam, and there are many viable critiques against Islam that hold just as much weight as these critiques of yours against Christianity.

I am more focused on extending a hand of Brotherhood to all of existence, rather than segregating the universe based upon relative and subjective opinionated belief.

a reply to: Sahabi


I need to work on my tact I didn't mean to make the impression I was under the impression you were doing anything you just denied.

I see why you would think that.

But I get lost in my own ideas sometimes it wasn't a criticism of your words just my thoughts in response to it and a continuation of what prompted your reply.

I enjoyed your comment and apologize for the misunderstanding.

a reply to: Sahabi


Although I am interested in what you are trying to say I said in criticism about Christianity that applies to Islam.

We don't believe in Trinity. Most of their doctrines we reject entirely.

And our theology is the Qur'an and the Hadiths are far from the authoritative Word of God it is if we use those as traditions it doesn't contradict the Qur'an.

I acknowledge we have traditions outside of the Qur'an but not that our theology ever contradicts it. Not in the way I am accustomed to practice Islam. Can't really speak for over a billion people but it doesn't effect my deeds what Shia or Naqshabandi, or Nusayyri pagans, and your modern quasi-Sufic orders that sold their souls to the west deviate from the faith and will do anything to propagate their teachings, they are dupes to me who don't see​.

I follow a Sunni and Ash'ari theology that doesn't deviate in the least and most Sunnis don't, are the majority, and that Islam has a mind boggling amount of sects isn't the fault of its pure theology which is the majority.

a reply to: Sahabi


I don't know if you know but British intelligence agencies have thoroughly corrupted Islam with its devious tactics and the French colonizers and Americans too, they sponsored the Sabbatean Arabians called "Savdis" or if you transliterate a Hebrew Vav to b which is acceptable you get ''Sabdi Arabia."

I am not fooled by the suggestion of coincidence in matters like this and to go further "Dubai" is but an anagram for Abiud as in Hiram Abiud.

I know France installed the wicked Nusayyri.

Britain the Donmeh-Sabbateans/Young Turks false converts to Islam.

Instigated the Arabians to war with the Ottoman Empire.

Worked with Hasan al-Banna. Afghani.

I recommend you don't get me going please.

I will just add that neither 7r or 12r Shiism is loyal to Islam or the Qur'an and an entirely different religion whose Imam Mahdi bears a striking resemblance to the one eyed dajjal of our books and states the scripture of the Jews will rule in the End Times because ibn Saba was an infiltrator and engineered it and a Yahudi.

Wahhabism refuses to call the Qur'an Holy and made an English translation begging to be used as propaganda and is, full of corrupted Wahhabi interpretations.

Salafism is subservient secretly to the MB.

None teach true Islam or even want to be acknowledged for doing so and claim it only to harm Islam's image.

All but the Shias are modern Western sponsored, and the Shias are united with Israel, again, secretly and that means the west.

Every religion on earth has been subject to infiltration and corruption by the West and it's various alliances, Jesuits, Frankists, Donneh, the list is mind boggling.

Even the infiltrators are infiltrated.

a reply to: Sahabi


I am not offended​ or angry and really would like to know what you mean, if any truth is to it I will admit it.

I contend that the diversity of sects in Islam is a testament to its tolerance and the fact that they exist proves it.

There is no real war to be the true Islam that is natural to Islam as diversity has been tolerated and even celebrated at times.

A diverse religion is not a battle to be the one true Islam but a recognition of the right to certain variances in interpretation that rarely led to any being declared heretics, certainly some should have been like the Ismailis but they are the 7rs today so what can I say but that Islam just does tolerate diversity and only Wahhabis and Salafi like groups, Western backed, don't.

Flip side they even corrupted Sufism the most beautiful but vulnerable part of Islam because of its tolerance and acceptance of foreign texts as holy it has been subjugated and basically westernized into such un Islamic practices as Mariolatry and goddess worship.

Maryamiyya is Nusayyri/Alawi in N. America.

They pose as Sufis.

They believe women don't have souls.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Islam reveres the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus; correct?

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Islam reveres the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus; correct?

Worships. Reveres, loves.

But I guarantee you that has nothing to do with what you said about my statements against Christianity being applicable to Islam which is not true.

Nothing I said about Christian theology is applicable to Islam as my criticism was legit and Islam is true Monotheism, not fake trinitarian.

I imagine you are settling me up for a follow-up question. Rhetorical questions usually are followed up and if that is the entirety of your assertion... I hope it isn't and anticipate your follow up to see if what you claimed about my statements in relation to Christianity being applicable to Islam at times, has any validity whatsoever. I don't think it does.

Can't wait!!!

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Allah, is both theologically and etymologically related and derived from the Canaanite God "El".

Prior to Muhammad ibn Abdullah's religious mission,.... can you provide any historic evidence illustrating that El, Il, Ilah, or Allah were completely sovereign deities outside of a pantheon?

From what I have encountered, El, Il, and Allah were always viewed as the "Father of the Gods" by all peoples, having a consort and ruling over a pantheon, until Yahwists decided to focus solely on YHWH and Muhammad decided to focus solely on Allah.

Islam teaches that there was only monotheism until polytheism crept in, however, all historic and existential evidence says that the Semetic Religions began as polytheistic and only later morphed into monotheism. Monotheism only arose as individual tribes, villages, and city-states began to either promote their local deity as sovereign and supreme (as seen with Yahwists), or as they began to neglect the pantheons in favor of the sole worship of "The Father of the Gods".

I am alluding to polytheism in general, not accusing Islam of Trinitarianism.

a reply to: Sahabi


What need have I to?

Israelites were Canaanites are half Canaanite and were pagan.

Aren't.

That doesn't reflect current theology it's ancient history.

In that Arabians werw pagans is part of history and the mission of God's Messenger corrected the error and was extraordinarily blessed because of it

Mohammed's saws grandfather was the first to attempt to revive Monotheism and was unsuccessful so there is proof of Monotheism in Arabia before Islam that wasn't Jewish.

Also Salma bint Amr was Israelite so do you think she'd have been allowed to wed a pagan?

The Bible answers that for you.