Was Jesus The Son Of God Before The Earth Was Created?

[TheSkepticChristian]

Paul councils us to prove all things

 

What is the evidence that the Trinity is true? How is the Trinity possible? How is 3 = 1? 

[Vance]

What is the evidence that the Trinity is true? How is the Trinity possible? How is 3 = 1? 

That one is easy.  Three of something equals one of something else.  For example, three High Priests (called and set apart, of course) equal one Bishopric.  Three Divine Persons/Beings equal one Godhead.

[JLHPROF]

The Bible also is not the product of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.. The Bible is a God breathed document, not a product of Roman Catholicism as it was brought together before Catholicism was established as a distinct branch of Christianity.

 

Entirely God-breathed?  Nonsense.

"I know the Bible to be true in all its parts; It contains the words of the Gods, the words of angels, the words of devils, the words of men and, if you are very particular, the words of an ***. "  Brigham Young

 

 

JLH, Paul councils us to prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. You seem to disagree?

 

Not at all.  Paul is exactly correct.  We must prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.  But Paul didn't say to prove ALL things from the BIble (which didn't exist when Paul walked the earth).

[Vance]

You quote that pamphlet all the time.

 

I would like to see a copy of it, along with who published it and when.  A scan or photo of the title page and copyright will be fine, along with the quote on the page itself

I remember that pamphlet. Although I don't remember all that was in it, I do remember that it was one of my favorites.

 

Amazon has it here,

http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Think-Christ-LATTER-SAINTS/dp/B004SVB9CK?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

 

You can get a copy here,

http://www.ldspamphlets.org/What_the_Mormons_Think_of_Christ.htm

[Vance]

The Bible is a God breathed document, not a product of Roman Catholicism as it was brought together before Catholicism was established as a distinct branch of Christianity.

Prove it!!!

[coolrok7]

Skep, why is it that the term God singular (Elohim, with a plural ending) is not Gods or gods in the Old Testament?

The answer is context determines how a term gets translated from Hebrew into English. So it is God (the true God) as contrasted with gods when talking about that which is not God at all but are only idols, pagan deities, 2 Chronicles 13:9, 1 Corinthians 8:1-5)

Edited May 23, 2015 by coolrok7

[TheSkepticChristian]

Skep, why is it that the term God singular (Elohim, with a plural ending) is not Gods or gods in the Old Testament?

The answer is context determines how a term gets translated from Hebrew into English. So it is God (the true God) as contrasted with gods when talking about that which is not God at all but are only idols, pagan deities, 2 Chronicles 13:9, 1 Corinthians 8:1-5)

 

I am not asking why you believe in the Trinity, I am asking for evidence. I am also asking how 3 = 1 is possible?  

Can you please give me an explanation, can you at least speculate? 

[coolrok7]

Evidence in a Biblical context is what is appealed to when someone of faith (in this context, the Christian faith) offers the evidence of what your asking, and you reject it (Biblical Scripture is where the evidence is found), I can't help that because at this point you are being unreasonable.

The reason being that you as a Mormon have been taught that the Bible is not trustworthy or reliable enough so you go beyond the Biblical standard and appeal to the unscriptural writings of Joseph Smith which tends to skew things to the point of not letting the Bible do what it is intended to do which is to bring to the individual, the knowledge of the truth in order to have salvation.

My perspective of course. In a nutshell to answer your question, Matthew 28 has the baptismal command in the name (singular) Father, Son, Holy Spirit that one us baptized unto a relationship to God that one is not born with since Adam and Eve fell into sin and procreate children with an inherited sinful nature.

The remedy for this is being spiritually born again to use Jesus' words.

Moe later, I'm at the end of my break.

Edited May 23, 2015 by coolrok7

[JLHPROF]

Evidence in a Biblical context is what is appealed to when someone of faith (in this context, the Christian faith) offers the evidence of what your asking, and you reject it (Biblical Scripture is where the evidence is found), I can't help that because at this point you are being unreasonable.

 

That is the flaw.  The idea that "Biblical scripture" is the only place where so called evidence of Christianity is found.  There is zero reason to believe that Christianity is ONLY in the Bible.

 

 

The reason being that you as a Mormon have been taught that the Bible is not trustworthy or reliable enough so you go beyond the Biblical standard and appeal to the unscriptural writings of Joseph Smith which tends to skew things to the point of not letting the Bible do what it is intended to do which is to bring to the individual, the knowledge of the truth in order to have salvation.

 

This statement is almost completely false.  We are not taught the Bible is not trustworthy/reliable.  We are taught that it is not complete/all-inclusive.  The Bible itself was built over more than 4000 years.  There has been 2000 years + since then where more can be added.  There is nothing in the Bible (which itself is not a single item but a compilation of dozens of scriptures)  that requires the addition of more scripture is forbidden.  There are a couple of restrictions on adding to specific Biblical books, but nothing preventing adding to the books selected for the Bible by the Christian councils.

 

Just as in the days of Moses there were truths that hadn't been revealed to man, just as Christ and the original 12 established more truths, just as Paul in his epistles added further light to what Christ taught, so knowledge continues.  What Joseph did in revealing further truth is no different than what Paul did after becoming an apostle.  The books of Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, all contain doctrines and teachings NOT in the Old Testament, and not in the accounts of Christ's teachings.  The Bible is NOT all the words of Christ, but the expounding on and revealing of further doctrines by his prophets and apostles, just as Joseph Smith and modern prophets have done.

 

There is NO reason why I should accept the words of Paul and not the words of Joseph Smith.  If I dismiss Joseph Smith for teaching doctrines Christians claim aren't in the teachings of Christ, I would have to dismiss most of Paul's epistles for the very same reason.  And the Revelation of St. John.  Christ never taught that either.

[Spammer]

The Bible also is not the product of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.. The Bible is a God breathed document, not a product of Roman Catholicism as it was brought together before Catholicism was established as a distinct branch of Christianity.

You don't seem to aware of the history of where the Bible came from and how it was compiled. Are you a Protestant? Who do you think first selected the books that would be gathered together for inclusion with a single binding under the name 'Bible'? The Bible is a product of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It's a collection of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts following an approved list of books that itself is the product of Greek and Latin fathers from that church who met in council in the 4th century to determine which books would be included in the canon and considered to be inspired and God-breathed. The criterion for inclusion was whether a particular book was suitable for use in the Sunday liturgy for prayer and reading. The church fathers who met in council to make this determination all belonged to the same church, a single world-wide church that united Greek- and Latin-speaking Christians under a single umbrella with a single form of worship (liturgical) and mode of church organization (bishops, priests, and deacons). The clergy wore robes, liturgical services and prayers were sung or chanted, incense was used, and worship was centered on the Eucharist, celebrated by a priest or bishop at an altar. That church included the Greek patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch (where Christians were first called Christians), Alexandria (established by Mark), and Constantinople; and the Latin Patriarchate of Rome. Sadly, that church is currently separated into Greek and Latin halves. The separation occurred 1,000 years ago. The Greek half is today comprised of the Orthodox Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Aremenians, and the Church of the East); the Latin half is the Roman Catholic Church (which includes members of the various Greek churches who stayed in communion with the Bishop of Rome after the separation). Those churches together comprise the ancient Apostolic church whose representatives met in council to compile the Bible and give it to the world. This is the same church that met in council in Nicea in 325ad and Constantinople in 381 to create and finalize the Nicene Creed, which formalized the dogma of the Holy Trinity. These are indisputable historical facts that all too many American Protestants know nothing about, including those who, like those of us who belong to that ancient church, worship the Holy Trinity. If that ancient church and its council decisions were not God-breathed, then your Bible is not God-breathed. By repudiating that church, either in its Latin (Roman Catholic) or Greek (Orthodox, Coptic) form, Protestants repudiate the validity of the Bible and their claim that the Bible is God-breathed rests on nothing but a vicious circle.

Equally troubling is how fragmented Protestantism is (the inevitable product of sola scriptura). The mainline Protestant sects (e.g., Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopal, Presbyterian) are offshoots from the Roman church and the thousands of evangelical churches (including Baptists and all the rest) are all offshoots of those offshoots, or offshoots of the offshoots of the offshoots. After separating from Rome and the church that gave them their Bible, Protestants removed even more books from the Bible for no good reason and on their own authority. Specifically, they're using the wrong Old Testament. The 78-book Bible of the ancient Greek churches uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament canon (the Copts also add the Book of Enoch, so their Bible canon has 79 books). The-73 book Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, with its canon first established by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation, uses the Septuagint but revised it according to the canon established by 2nd Century Jewish rabbis, removing a couple of books used by the Greeks and Copts in the process. The Protestant Bibles (which includes the KJV) have the fewest books and their canon is the most truncated. If we go with the Old Testament used by the first Christians (including some New Testament writers), Protestant Bibles are missing 12 books (13 books if you include Enoch). This is why those of us who belong to that ancient Apostolic church look at Protestants, especially those who belong to certain zany American evangelical groups, and think things like "you're mangling the book we gave you; you chopped it up and we want it back". We think this because the Bible is our book. Our church fathers are the ones who met in council and made the decisions about which books would be included in the New Testament, the basis of all Christian belief. The only reason the New Testament has four Gospels and the collection of the letters of Paul, John, Peter, etc., is because our Greek and Latin church fathers met in council and decided to put them there.

This is bare bones and a lot more can be said on this topic to flesh out details and nuances, but one obvious implication is that the only valid basis for any belief in the God-breathed nature of the Bible is if it rests first on the continuing authority of the ancient church that compiled the Bible or on a newly-established authority (like the Mormons) if that authority needed to be restored by God. Put another way, only those who belong to the ancient church or those who belong to God's restored church (if the ancient church fell) have any basis for believing the Bible is God-breathed.

[And now back to the regular topic of this thread]

Edited May 24, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

What is the evidence that the Trinity is true? How is the Trinity possible? How is 3 = 1?

I'll provide an answer from the perspective of my own tradition (Eastern Orthodox).  The only empirical evidence the Trinity is true comes from the fruits of the Spirit through faith. This knowledge can be acquired in this life through prayer, fasting, and repentance (purification), culminating in union with God Himself (theosis).  Until this happens, we rely on the words of Holy Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the testimony of the Holy Fathers and Saints (those from within that Tradition who, like the Apostles, purified themselves and attained to theosis and knowledge of the divine).  For us, all of these sources unanimously agree that God is Trinity. This is how we know the Trinity is possible.

 

Expanding on this point, what makes the Trinity possible is that God's nature is infinite. God does not dwell in the universe with us, but dwells in eternity outside of time and space. God is infinite and transcends time, space, and any human conception. When we say that God is infinite, we don't mean only that God is a being with infinite powers, but that God Himself in his nature is infinite and utterly without any limitation whatsoever. God's nature as both one and three seems confusing because all of our concepts and definitions about this kind of God and an existence beyond space and time come to us only by way of analogy with human experience, which is by definition finite, limited, and rooted in the material universe. It's common for some Trinitarians to use math to explain how the Trinity is possible, an approach that you rightly critique because the Divine infinite is not and cannot be captured by any human construct like a mathematical infinite. God, He who is above all being, cannot be experienced through sense data and all human concepts are inadequate to capture God's true essence. Human concepts, rooted as they are in our finite existence, by definition are delimiting. Since God is Infinite and without limit, human concepts thus can never fully capture who and what God is. As St. Evagrius of Pontus said, "God cannot be grasped by the mind; if he could be grasped by the mind, he would not be God." All of our rational constructs and evidence from sense data belong to the material universe and cannot penetrate into the eternal divine realm unaided. Our concepts, no matter how refined and precise, can never capture God. We could never have arrived at the doctrine of the Holy Trinity on our own. We only know about God as Holy Trinity because God revealed Himself to us in His Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Divine Logos, who told us about the divine nature through the apostles and His church. We come to know that this is true by the fruits of the Spirit acquired through faith and the divine union, expressed through our efforts to live holy lives within this ancient Tradition. That is the only evidence that counts. Everything else is trying to persuade using language and finite, human concepts that can never fully capture God in His fulness.

I'm not trying to make a case, just describe what we believe and why and answer the question of how we think the Trinity is possible. Here are a few statements by a few Greek church fathers from the 4th Century who say it better than I ever can:

St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: "Men, having left off delighting themselves in the Lord (Ps. 36:4) and rejoicing in the peace of the Church, undertake refined researches regarding some kind of essences, and measure magnitudes, measuring the Son in comparison with the Father, and granting a greater measure to the Father. Who will say to them, 'that which is not subject to number cannot be measured; what is invisible cannot be valued; that which is fleshless cannot be weighed; that which is infinite cannot be compared; that which is incomparable cannot be understood as greater or less, because we know something as "greater" by comparing it with other things, but with something which has no end, the idea of "greater" is unthinkable.' Great is our Lord and great is His strength, and of His understanding there is no measure (Ps. 146:5). What does this mean? Number what has been said, and you will understand the mystery."

St. Basil the Great, brother of St. Gregory of Nyssa, writes: "If you wish to speak or hear about God, renounce your own body, renounce your bodily senses, abandon the earth, abandon the sea, make the air to be beneath you; pass over the seasons of the year, their orderly arrangement, the adornments of the earth; stand above the ether, traverse the stars, their splendor, grandeur, the profit which they provide for the whole world, their good order, brightness, arrangement, movement, and the bond or distance between them. Having passed through all of this in your mind, go about heaven and, standing above it, with your thought alone, observe the beauties which are there: the armies of angels which are above the heavens, the chiefs of the archangels, the glory of the Dominions, the presiding of the Thrones, the Powers, Principalities, Authorities. Having gone past all this and left below the whole of creation in your thoughts, raising your mind beyond the boundaries of it, present to your mind the essence of God, unmoving, unchanging, unalterable, dispassionate, simple, incomplex, indivisible, unapproachable light, unutterable power, infinite magnitude, resplendent glory, most desired goodness, immeasurable beauty that powerfully strikes the wounded soul, but cannot worthily be depicted in words."

St. Basil uses many words to seek to describe the divine nature, but warns that God's true nature cannot be worthily be depicted in words. This paradox is at the center of all of our attempts to describe God. Words can never suffice but we're forced to use them all the same. All of our words and concepts are only applied to God by way of analogy with finite and fallible human beings. This is clearly insufficient. If we desire to acquire true knowledge, and penetrate to that which transcends the limitations of time and space and attain to union with the Infinite, then we must fast, pray, and purify our souls and wait on God to reveal Himself to us. Until then, we wait in faith, basing our faith on the words of our Lord in Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition of the Apostles, both of which are preserved and transmitted by the Church.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Spammer

[Vance]

Evidence in a Biblical context is what is appealed to when someone of faith (in this context, the Christian faith) offers the evidence of what your asking, and you reject it (Biblical Scripture is where the evidence is found), I can't help that because at this point you are being unreasonable.

 

Actually, when I read Bible verses in context I see that Mormon Doctrine permeates the Bible.  What i don't find is your version of "Christian" doctrine being taught.

 

The reason being that you as a Mormon have been taught that the Bible is not trustworthy or reliable enough so you go beyond the Biblical standard . . .

The FACT that there are so many different Christian Churches with such a variety of doctrines which are often contradictory, who appeal to the Bible for the support of these various and contradictory doctrines, is PROOF that the Bible is NOT trustworthy or reliable enough.

 

. . .  and appeal to the unscriptural writings of Joseph Smith

The truth is that the scriptures brought forth by JS are indeed scriptures. And they are far more reliable for establishing correct and consistent doctrine.

 

which tends to skew things to the point of not letting the Bible do what it is intended to do which is to bring to the individual, the knowledge of the truth in order to have salvation.

Actually the opposite is true.  The scriptures brought forth by JS ESTABLISH the truths of the Bible.

 

My perspective of course. In a nutshell to answer your question, Matthew 28 has the baptismal command in the name (singular) Father, Son, Holy Spirit

 

And here you establish the fact that you do not comprehend the English language. 

baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Let's use this same form of English in another situation to show how ridiculous your argument is.

 

[The altitude of the beach and of the plain and of the mountain vary.

[mfbukowski]

I remember that pamphlet. Although I don't remember all that was in it, I do remember that it was one of my favorites.

 

Amazon has it here,

http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Think-Christ-LATTER-SAINTS/dp/B004SVB9CK?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

 

You can get a copy here,

http://www.ldspamphlets.org/What_the_Mormons_Think_of_Christ.htm

Written by Bruce R McConkie 40 years ago.

 

That is coolrok7's total understanding of the church.  That speaks volumes.

Edited May 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You don't seem to aware of the history of where the Bible came from and how it was compiled. Are you a Protestant? Who do you think first selected the books that would be gathered together for inclusion with a single binding under the name 'Bible'? The Bible is a product of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It's a collection of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts following an approved list of books that itself is the product of Greek and Latin fathers from that church who met in council in the 4th century to determine which books would be included in the canon and considered to be inspired and God-breathed. The criterion for inclusion was whether a particular book was suitable for use in the Sunday liturgy for prayer and reading. The church fathers who met in council to make this determination all belonged to the same church, a single world-wide church that united Greek- and Latin-speaking Christians under a single umbrella with a single form of worship (liturgical) and mode of church organization (bishops, priests, and deacons). The clergy wore robes, liturgical services and prayers were sung or chanted, incense was used, and worship was centered on the Eucharist, celebrated by a priest or bishop at an altar. That church included the Greek patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch (where Christians were first called Christians), Alexandria (established by Mark), and Constantinople; and the Latin Patriarchate of Rome. Sadly, that church is currently separated into Greek and Latin halves. The separation occurred 1,000 years ago. The Greek half is today comprised of the Orthodox Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Aremenians, and the Church of the East); the Latin half is the Roman Catholic Church (which includes members of the various Greek churches who stayed in communion with the Bishop of Rome after the separation). Those churches together comprise the ancient Apostolic church whose representatives met in council to compile the Bible and give it to the world. This is the same church that met in council in Nicea in 325ad and Constantinople in 381 to create and finalize the Nicene Creed, which formalized the dogma of the Holy Trinity. These are indisputable historical facts that all too many American Protestants know nothing about, including those who, like those of us who belong to that ancient church, worship the Holy Trinity. If that ancient church and its council decisions were not God-breathed, then your Bible is not God-breathed. By repudiating that church, either in its Latin (Roman Catholic) or Greek (Orthodox, Coptic) form, Protestants repudiate the validity of the Bible and their claim that the Bible is God-breathed rests on nothing but a vicious circle.

Equally troubling is how fragmented Protestantism is (the inevitable product of sola scriptura). The mainline Protestant sects (e.g., Lutherans, Anglican/Episcopal, Presbyterian) are offshoots from the Roman church and the thousands of evangelical churches (including Baptists and all the rest) are all offshoots of those offshoots, or offshoots of the offshoots of the offshoots. After separating from Rome and the church that gave them their Bible, Protestants removed even more books from the Bible for no good reason and on their own authority. Specifically, they're using the wrong Old Testament. The 78-book Bible of the ancient Greek churches uses the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament canon (the Copts also add the Book of Enoch, so their Bible canon has 79 books). The-73 book Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, with its canon first established by Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation, uses the Septuagint but revised it according to the canon established by 2nd Century Jewish rabbis, removing a couple of books used by the Greeks and Copts in the process. The Protestant Bibles (which includes the KJV) have the fewest books and their canon is the most truncated. If we go with the Old Testament used by the first Christians (including some New Testament writers), Protestant Bibles are missing 12 books (13 books if you include Enoch). This is why those of us who belong to that ancient Apostolic church look at Protestants, especially those who belong to certain zany American evangelical groups, and think things like "you're mangling the book we gave you; you chopped it up and we want it back". We think this because the Bible is our book. Our church fathers are the ones who met in council and made the decisions about which books would be included in the New Testament, the basis of all Christian belief. The only reason the New Testament has four Gospels and the collection of the letters of Paul, John, Peter, etc., is because our Greek and Latin church fathers met in council and decided to put them there.

This is bare bones and a lot more can be said on this topic to flesh out details and nuances, but one obvious implication is that the only valid basis for any belief in the God-breathed nature of the Bible is if it rests first on the authority of the continuing authority of the ancient church that compiled the Bible or on a newly-established authority (like the Mormons) if that authority needed to be restored by God. Put another way, only those who belong to the ancient church or those who belong to God's restored church (if the ancient church fell) have any basis for believing the Bible is God-breathed.

[And now back to the regular topic of this thread]

You are right, of course but I have not seen an Evangelical who deals well with the idea that the Bible was created and canonized by Catholics and that the entire idea of the Trinity also is a product of Catholicism.

 

How could a Catholic come up with something "God breathed"?  Protestants have to deal with that question and they typically have a really hard time with it, along with the idea that the Trinity really is Catholic dogma based on Catholic tradition.

 

That's one of the reasons I could never be Protestant- their position makes no sense to me.  If I ever became convinced that I should not be Mormon I would probably become some kind of Eastern Orthodox.

[coolrok7]

May I ask if anyone can tell us what Bible the Mormon Church accepts as part of what they call The Standard Works of the Church?

[JLHPROF]

May I ask if anyone can tell us what Bible the Mormon Church accepts as part of what they call The Standard Works of the Church?

 

Current published version is the King James Version with an appendix containing some of the Joseph Smith translation.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Evidence in a Biblical context is what is appealed to when someone of faith (in this context, the Christian faith) offers the evidence of what your asking, and you reject it (Biblical Scripture is where the evidence is found), I can't help that because at this point you are being unreasonable.

 

 

 

May I ask if anyone can tell us what Bible the Mormon Church accepts as part of what they call The Standard Works of the Church?

 

May I ask how 3 = 1? How is the Trinity possible? 

[coolrok7]

Skep, that is not what is being taught.

From Biblical teaching, there is one God (elohim).

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. These three in Matthew 28 are what is implied in Genesis 1, In the beginning God created".

Are there any translations that say gods in Genesis 1?

[Vance]

Are there any translations that say gods in Genesis 1?

Yes.

 

The "Abraham" translation. Found here, http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4

 

And now you can go on a rant about that as well.

[JLHPROF]

Skep, that is not what is being taught.

From Biblical teaching, there is one God (elohim).

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. These three in Matthew 28 are what is implied in Genesis 1, In the beginning God created".

Are there any translations that say gods in Genesis 1?

 

It is an assumption on your part that the plurality inherent in "Elohim" refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the Trinity.

The idea that Elohim means the Trinity is an interesting bit of speculation but as far as I know it is one without any backing in the origin of the word.

[coolrok7]

Vance, that is not a Biblical translation which us what I asked for.

[coolrok7]

JLH, it is from the Hebrew text of Genesis, Elohim translated in the singular, God, never gods.

[Vance]

Vance, that is not a Biblical translation which us what I asked for.

Actually, you didn't specify that it be a "Biblical translation".  And it is the Joseph Smith translation of the Abrahamic version of Genesis 1.

[Vance]

JLH, it is from the Hebrew text of Genesis, Elohim translated in the singular, God, never gods.

And yet, according to Strong's Concordance http://yrm.org/bible/strongsPopup.php?strongsnum=430&OTNT=1

Elohim or elohiym is "plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense;"

 

So, there you have it.

[coolrok7]

I was specifically talking about Genesis 1:1 It was implied any Biblical translation. All the ones I've ever looked at it is always God (also any where else when identifying God as opposed to the false gods of pagan nations.

 

In my post 343 just before I asked for any translation I had already stated-- From Biblical teaching, there is one God (elohim). You provided in your post 344, the Abraham (so-called translation) which is not a Biblical translation but from an Egyptian book of the dead papyrus.

 

Also under 433 it says, a deity or the Deity:--God, god "elohiym"

 

Joseph's Smith's book of Abraham is not a translation although it is claimed to be so it doesn't count outside Mormonism. I'm talking Biblical Judaism/Christianity.

Edited May 25, 2015 by coolrok7