No god came into being after yhwh

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,07:22)

Wow, so Jesus is not your Savour?

Hi Keith,

Isaiah 19:20
It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them.

Jesus is the vessel through whom his God chose to save us.  Who is the savior:  the king God sent to rout the enemy, or the God who sent him in the first place?  

There are many saviors in the scriptures, including Saul, David, and Jesus.  But although there are many saviors, there is but “one true Savior” – the One who sent and empowered each and every one of the other ones.

Jesus is one of the “other ones”, for he was clearly SENT by his God to be our savior.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,16:35)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 15 2011,08:27) BUMPED FOR MIKEBOLL: TO ALL: Mikeboll has dogmatically claimed that Jesus is a god who “came into being” after YHWH. Keith has corrected Mike about this many times but Mike has given Keith a deaf ear. Isaiah 43:10 explicitly says that before and after YHWH there was no God “formed.” The LXX uses the Greek “ginomai” for “formed.” Note the word in bold in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 43:10 below. It is the Greek “ginomai” which means “to come into being.” 43:10 γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται No god came into being before or after YHWH. Therefore, Jesus did not come into being but was always “with God” (John 1:1). Mike's only option is to deny that Jesus is a god at all. This would be a step up for him. For denying that Jesus is a god at all is better than confessing Him as a god in the “same sense” as satan. the Roo But that's not REALLY what Isaiah 43:10 says, is it Jack?   Isaiah 43:10 NET © You are my witnesses,” says the Lord, “my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe in me, and understand that I am he. No god was formed before me, and none will outlive me. It would be illogical and untrue for God to say there would be no “els” formed after Him when scripture is full of “els” who were formed after him, right?  How else can He be the “El of els” if there are no other els to be the El of?   mike

Mike

Of course there will be no god to out live him because they are mortals and not gods at all.

The problem you have with the verse is the Greek word for “before” is “paniym” which means face or presence.

The TWOT states… “

This particular word always occurs in the plural, perhaps indicative of the fact that the face is a combination of a number of features. As we shall see below, the face identifies the person and reflects the attitude and sentiments of the person. As such, “panim” can be a substitute for the self or the feelings of the self. In the Bible the “face” (along with the other parts of the body) is described not merely as an exterior instrument in one's physiology, but rather as being engaged in some form of behavioral pattern, and is thus characterized by some personal quality. It is only natural that the face was considered to be extraordinarily revealing vis-à-vis a man's emotions moods and dispositions.“

So in other words God's attitude is in his presence or before his face no god will be formed.

Mike, don't forget all the other scriptures that say there is no god but one, and non other beside him, and non other like him.

Blessings Keith

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,16:44)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,07:22) Wow, so Jesus is not your Savour? Hi Keith, Isaiah 19:20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them. Jesus is the vessel through whom his God chose to save us.  Who is the savior:  the king God sent to rout the enemy, or the God who sent him in the first place?   There are many saviors in the scriptures, including Saul, David, and Jesus.  But although there are many saviors, there is but “one true Savior” – the One who sent and empowered each and every one of the other ones. Jesus is one of the “other ones”, for he was clearly SENT by his God to be our savior. mike

Mike

Jesus is not our Savour by proxy because it is by his own Blood and life that he saved us and redeemed us for himself.

You do see the difference don't you?

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,09:38)

Mike, don't forget all the other scriptures that say there is no god but one, and non other beside him, and non other like him.

I don't only remember them, I embrace them…………for I know what is truly being said by those statements.

Don't YOU forget that it is only the Father, not the Son nor any combination of persons, who is said to be our one true God, okay?  

Keith, how can YHVH be the “God OF gods” if there aren't any other gods?    How can Psalm 82 say, “God stands in the assembly of gods, in the midst of the gods He renders judgement” if there ARE no other gods for Him to “assemble” with or “render judgement” upon?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,09:40)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 15 2011,16:44) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,07:22) Wow, so Jesus is not your Savour? Hi Keith, Isaiah 19:20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them. Jesus is the vessel through whom his God chose to save us.  Who is the savior:  the king God sent to rout the enemy, or the God who sent him in the first place?   There are many saviors in the scriptures, including Saul, David, and Jesus.  But although there are many saviors, there is but “one true Savior” – the One who sent and empowered each and every one of the other ones. Jesus is one of the “other ones”, for he was clearly SENT by his God to be our savior. mike Mike Jesus is not our Savour by proxy because it is by his own Blood and life that he saved us and redeemed us for himself. You do see the difference don't you? WJ

So, if God had decided to have Abraham actually kill Isaac as some sort of sacrifice to atone for us, then Isaac would have been God Almighty?  

Jesus is the one who OBEYED the COMMAND of his God and came as a sacrificial lamb.  God is the One who SACRIFICED something of His own………….His beloved Son.  Jesus sacrificed something that was a given to him freely in the first place………….his life.  (Please don't take this as me making light of Jesus' sacrifice…..I'm not.  I'm only calling a spade a spade.) 

Keith, were all the other lambs that were sacrificed by the Israelites over the years also God Almighty because THEIR blood was shed to atone for man's sins?

mike

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,14:07)

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 15 2011,15:00) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,11:54) Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 15 2011,11:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2011,08:29) Quote (shimmer @ Jan. 14 2011,16:51) So when you pray KJ and WJ do you pray to Jesus ? Just wondering. terraricca Why, you don't pray to Jesus? How can you be saved unless you “call on the name of Jesus“, and how can you call on him when you can't see him unless you pray to him? Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, “called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours“: 1 Cor 1:2 These things have I written unto “you that believe on the name of the Son of God“; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and “that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God“. And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, “if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us“: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, “we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him“. 1 John 5:13-15 John says our fellowship is with the Father and the Son. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and “truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ“. 1 John 1:3 You cannot have fellowship with someone that you do not communicate with. How can you know Jesus unless you talk (or pray) to him? This does create a problem for the anti Jesus is God crowd, because it would be idolatry to pray to any other being but God.   Blessings WJ WJ no it does not create a problem,but it create one for the ones who like to worship Christ the son of God, wen a king tells that you have to address your request to my son the prince so and so ,is this mean that you have to give the same honor than his father ??even wen the son himself tells you that that honor belong to his father??? WJ,you do not have an argument so you choose to worship Jesus the son of God and you do not worship the father wen you worship the son,right unless you can simultaneous do that ,I mean worship God and the son,and then if you can do that ,answer the question why God says that he is a jealous God and will not give his glory to no one ??that is what you are doing.so you become a men of the wrath of God not the blessing. Pierre t Why didn't you answer the questions? You only created a diversion. Why, you don't pray to Jesus? How can you be saved unless you “call on the name of Jesus“, and how can you call on him when you can't see him unless you pray to him? You cannot have fellowship with someone that you do not communicate with. How can you know Jesus unless you talk (or pray) to him? These are not hard quesitons. Blessings WJ WJ who are you to tell me that i do not have a relationship with the son of God,i tell you i have one and it is deep in my hearth aknowledgement of what Christ did for me by staying obedient to his father in stead of following Adam way,and so teach us the way back to become sons again of the father, you have good knowledge but you deny God over his son,this may not be a good knowledge ,because it is God the father that saves not Christ ,Christ is only the mediator of the grace of God the father. you try to get in the kingdom trough the back door. Pierre T Thanks, I didn't say you didn't have a relationship with Jesus did I? Hence that is the reason for my questions which you still didn't asnwer. But anyway how do you have a relationship with Jesus if you do not pray to him? WJ

WJ

I talk to Jesus and God on a daily base,what you think i would do anyway ??

Pierre

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Mikeboll said:

Quote

But that's not REALLY what Isaiah 43:10 says, is it Jack?   Isaiah 43:10 NET © You are my witnesses,” says the Lord, “my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe in me, and understand that I am he. No god was formed before me, and none will outlive me.

No Mike, It does not say “none shall outlive Me.” See the Online Hebrew Interlinear. It says, ” none shall BECOME after me.”

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa43.pdf

It is the same Hebrew verb used in Exodus 3:14 where God said, “I shall BECOME what I am BECOMING.” It is the same Hebrew verb in Exodus 7:9 which says, “The rod shall BECOME a serpent.”

Keith knows that I consider the NET Bible the same as the NWT. It contains a lot of error in translation. It was compiled by Daniel B. Wallace who says that only his translation is reliable. What does that tell you?

No god came into being before or shall BECOME after YHWH.

Jack

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Mike said to francis:

Quote

I will defend my beliefs using the words of scripture as written in the Hebrew and Greeks texts available to us.  And I will consider and apply any scholarly information that SUPPORTS those scriptures.

What a pile of horse hockey! Mike says that he will consider scholarly information that supports the scriptures. Yet he endorses the NET which goes against the scriptures in Isaiah 43:10. Daniel B. Wallace (NET Editor) says that Isaiah 43:10 says, “None shall outlive Me.” But the verb is yhwh which is translated “shall become.” God said, “None shall become after Me.”

So much for Mike's nonsensical claim that he considers scholarship that supports the scripture. What a dupe!

Roo

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,11:11)

Mikeboll said: Quote But that's not REALLY what Isaiah 43:10 says, is it Jack?   Isaiah 43:10 NET © You are my witnesses,” says the Lord, “my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe in me, and understand that I am he. No god was formed before me, and none will outlive me. No Mike, It does not say “none shall outlive Me.” See the Online Hebrew Interlinear. It says, ” none shall BECOME after me.” http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa43.pdf It is the same Hebrew verb used in Exodus 3:14 where God said, “I shall BECOME what I am BECOMING.” It is the same Hebrew verb in Exodus 7:9 which says, “The rod shall BECOME a serpent.” Keith knows that I consider the NET Bible the same as the NWT. It contains a lot of error in translation. It was compiled by Daniel B. Wallace who says that only his translation is reliable. What does that tell you? No god came into being before or shall BECOME after YHWH. Jack

Hi Jack,

You don't like the NETBible translation?  Here, try the NASB:

NASB ©
“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

The actual Hebrew says: “and after me, there will not be”.

Based on the actual Hebrew, AND THE FACT THAT WE KNOW THERE WERE OTHER ELOHIM, I'd say the NET has it right.

Jack, what about Psalm 82:1?  As Elohim stands in the assembly of Els, which elohim do you think He was judging?  In light of this scripture, how can you think the phrase “no other elohim apart from me” means that no other elohim even exists?

How about Psalm 138:1?

NKJV ©
<> I will praise You with my whole heart; Before the gods I will sing praises to You.

Which elohim is David singing praises about THE Elohim to?

I read a commentary about this one that was funny:

If this occurrence of elohim means un-gods, King David is saying something similar to, “Dear wife, I'm singing your praises in front of a bunch of prostitutes.” King David is probably pointing at the kings of the earth he mentions in verse 4.  

Man, there are too many people called “elohim” in scripture for you to dwell and obsess on this scripture that obviously means “no elohim will outlive the Elohim of elohim”.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,11:20)

Mike said to francis: Quote I will defend my beliefs using the words of scripture as written in the Hebrew and Greeks texts available to us.  And I will consider and apply any scholarly information that SUPPORTS those scriptures. What a pile of horse hockey! Mike says that he will consider scholarly information that supports the scriptures. Yet he endorses the NET which goes against the scriptures in Isaiah 43:10. Daniel B. Wallace (NET Editor) says that Isaiah 43:10 says, “None shall outlive Me.” But the verb is yhwh which is translated “shall become.” God said, “None shall become after Me.” So much for Mike's nonsensical claim that he considers scholarship that supports the scripture. What a dupe! Roo

Really Jack?  What is a “half truth” again?  Aren't YOU the one who likes to instruct people about “half truths”?  

The word “yhwh” apparently can mean many things.  This is from NETNotes and Blue Letter Bible:

hayah
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

In the very first definition, we can easily see two different meanings that confirm the NET translation of the Hebrew as, “and after me, there will not be”.

Face it Jack, there are many who are called elohim, yet for us, there is but One…………THE FATHER. Sound familiar?

mike

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

TO ALL:

Mike CONVENIENTLY ignores that the NET Bible's footnote indicates that the Hebrew for Isaiah 43:10 says “and after me, there will not be.”

Quote

10tn Heb “and after me, there will not be”; NASB “there will be none after Me.”

I pointed this out to Mike last year and he continues with his dishonest ways. It is dishonest on Mike's part to give the editor's reading “outlive” without also mentioning that the editor also gives what the Hebrew ACTUALLY SAYS.

The Hebrew uses the verb “yhwh” which means “shall become.” It is the word the Messenger used of Himself when saying, “I shall become (yhwh) what I am becoming” (Exodus 3:14).

The same verb is used also in the statement, “The rod shall become (yhwh) a serpent” (Exodus 7:9).

Yet Mike wants us to believe the NET's garbage translation that God said that no other gods shall “outlive” Him. This proves nothing about God's being eternal ALL BY HIMSELF. This could could mean that other gods exist as long as God exists.

KJ Jr.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Jack,

You're doing it again.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,20:15)

Mike CONVENIENTLY ignores that the NET Bible's footnote indicates that the Hebrew for Isaiah 43:10 says “and after me, there will not be.”

I quoted that in blue two posts ago.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,20:15)

10tn Heb “and after me, there will not be”; NASB “there will be none after Me.”

I quoted that in blue two posts ago.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,20:15)

I pointed this out to Mike last year and he continues with his dishonest ways. It is dishonest on Mike's part to give the editor's reading “outlive” without also mentioning that the editor also gives what the Hebrew ACTUALLY SAYS.

I made a point of saying “this is what the actual Hebrew says” two posts ago.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,20:15)

The Hebrew uses the verb “yhwh” which means “shall become.” It is the word the Messenger used of Himself when saying, “I shall become (yhwh) what I am becoming” (Exodus 3:14).

You mean to say “it COULD mean shall become”.  The word could also mean “exist” and “to be”. I posted this one post ago.  But I'm glad you have now become convinced that it isn't positively “I AM”, and therefore John 8:58 can't possibly be misconstrued as a Jesus is God proof text.  

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,20:15)

The same verb is used also in the statement, “The rod shall become (yhwh) a serpent” (Exodus 7:9).

Yes…………the word certainly CAN mean “become”. I posted this one post ago.

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 16 2011,20:15)

Yet Mike wants us to believe the NET's garbage translation that God said that no other gods shall “outlive” Him. This proves nothing about God's being eternal ALL BY HIMSELF. This could could mean that other gods exist as long as God exists.

Yes, I suppose it could mean that other gods, such as Jesus, will exist as long as God Almighty does.  The difference is that none of those other gods came before YHVH, and none of them will outlive Him.  But if YHVH chooses to, He can let those other leaders live as long as He wants them to…………even forever alongside Himself.

peace and love,
mike

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Mike wrote:

Quote

You mean to say “it COULD mean shall become”.  The word could also mean “exist” and “to be”.

Mike,

No I don't mean it COULD mean to “exist or to be.” It means “to become.” It means that no god BECAME besides God. Wallace's rendering “outlive” is totally ridiculous and the man has a lot of critics among the scholars.

Quote

But I'm glad you have now become convinced that it isn't positively “I AM”,

What? I NEVER said that yhwh means “I Am.” Your are confusing me with someone else. I have ALWAYS said that it means “I shall become.”

Quote

Yes, I suppose it could mean that other gods, such as Jesus, will exist as long as God Almighty does.

There you have it folks! Mike's polytheism has now been clearly established. He admits that other gods exist and will exist as long as God even though  the first part of the verse CLEARLY says, “Besides me there was no god formed.”

There was no god even formed besides God.

Jack

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

TO ALL:

The Septuagint translates “yhwh” which means “shall become” with the Greek “eyeneto” which means “became.” In other words, the Seventy Jewish scholars took God to be saying that after Him no god came to be.

43:10 γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται

Now Mike is trying to pass off Wallace's rubbish translation which reads “outlive.” Mike is saying that other gods exist but shall not “outlive” God. Personally I will take the Seventy Jewish scholars over Wallace. They said that after God no god “came to be.” Jesus an the apostles quoted the Seventy 67% of the time. Wallace had not even been though of yet.

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 17 2011,01:49)

What? I NEVER said that yhwh means “I Am.” Your are confusing me with someone else. I have ALWAYS said that it means “I shall become.”

Good!  Then we'll NEVER see you making the famous trinitarian claim that Jesus was saying “I AM” in John 8:58, “proving” he was God Almighty, right?   RIGHT, JACK?  Please acknowledge this point.  

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 17 2011,01:49)

There you have it folks! Mike's polytheism has now been clearly established. He admits that other gods exist and will exist as long as God even though  the first part of the verse CLEARLY says, “Besides me there was no god formed.”

Of course I admit other elohim exist……….the scriptures clearly say so.  

And I have not yet seen a translation that says “BESIDES ME”, Jack.  I have seen many, including the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV that say “BEFORE ME”.

Face it Jack, other elohim DID and DO exist.  Why don't you respond to the scriptures I posted earlier?  Respond to Psalm 82:1 and 138:1 for me.  

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 17 2011,01:49)

There was no god even formed besides God.

Sorry, Charlie.    It says there was no God who existed before Him, and none will exist beyond Him.  

You're on the scripturally losing end of this one, Jack…………which is par for the course.  

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Jan. 17 2011,02:24)

TO ALL: The Septuagint translates “yhwh” which means “shall become” with the Greek “eyeneto” which means “became.” In other words, the Seventy Jewish scholars took God to be saying that after Him no god came to be. 43:10 γενεσθε μοι μαρτυρες καγω μαρτυς λεγει κυριος ο θεος και ο παις ον εξελεξαμην ινα γνωτε και πιστευσητε και συνητε οτι εγω ειμι εμπροσθεν μου ουκ εγενετο αλλος θεος και μετ' εμε ουκ εσται Now Mike is trying to pass off Wallace's rubbish translation which reads “outlive.” Mike is saying that other gods exist but shall not “outlive” God. Personally I will take the Seventy Jewish scholars over Wallace. They said that after God no god “came to be.” Jesus an the apostles quoted the Seventy 67% of the time. Wallace had not even been though of yet. Jack

Jack, I've noticed both in this thread and the “Francis” thread, you spend 99% of your time posting insults and funny little ridiculing graphics.  Why not spend a little more time on the ISSUE?  For example, the ISSUE here is not Wallace from NETNotes, is it?  The issue is that what YOU want Isaiah 43:10 to say doesn't really jive with the rest of the scriptures that clearly teach us about other elohim.

Deal with THAT, not my “dishonesty”………which btw, you never even bothered to apologize about.  You called me dishonest for NOT including things in my post that I clearly DID include.  What?  No, “I'm sorry” for the false accusation and implication?  

Hey Jr., isn't it those kind of things that got your dad his tiles?  

peace and love,
mike

[Istari]

Gentlemen,

I don't believe that 'YHVH' means 'I will become'.
Since God Almighty is immutable how can He 'Become' anything other than what He already is?

Since God Almighty is 'the Complete and All Powerful God above all Gods' what more is there for Him to become?

See here, try the phrase, 'I Am'.

What does this convey to you, what essence does this convey?

This is what it conveys to me: 'One who always was, always is, and always will be'.

See, God Almighty always was, always is and always will be, God Almighty!

He is, he just is. If God can change then to what can he change to? A greater God?? How, he already is that greater God!

I can think of no greater name for an Almighty, everlasting, immutable, all powerful being, than 'I AM'. It is beautifully simple and embodies all that he is.

God said, 'I Am whom I Am…': how can I describe myself!
He continued, 'therefore you should say unto them, “I Am” has sent you'
Until that moment, God did not have a name, per se!
And why would he need one? A name is only required to identify one thong from another. But, if there is only ONE of a thing, why would it need a name? From what is it being distinguished?

See, there were no other 'Gods' known to the Israelites until they started mixing with other tribes and nations. Even then, they remained faithful in calling on their ONE God until they were enslaved to the Egyptians. Here they started falling into worshipping Egyptian Gods and calling on their names as these were sensual Gods, visible and tangible with names.
At this point it was necessary to distinguish the ONE TRUE GOD from all other so-called Gods, therefore God Almighty, the God known to Abraham, the God known to Isaac, the God known to Jacob, gave Himself an identifier, a Name that described him totally: 'I AM [everything]'.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Istari,

I hear and acknowledge your vote for “I AM” and your reasons behind it.  I prefer the NWT translation of “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be”.

But no one really knows for sure, so there's no grounds on which to form a debate about it.

You could be right, or I could be right.  There's no way to tell for sure, so let's just agree to disagree on this one.

peace and love,
mike

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Mike said to Keith:

Quote

You say WE have “two gods”?  We acknowledge that the scriptures are loaded with many who have been given the title “god” by one person or another.

Exactly Mike! They were GIVEN the TITLE God. That is, they were APPOINTED to rule over God's people. But there was no god “formed” besides God or that “came to be” after Him (Is. 43:10).

Do you comprehend now?

Roo

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Mike said to Keith:

Quote

Keith, is there more than one “powerful ruler” mentioned in the scriptures?  Are they all YHVH God Most High?

But they were APPOINTED powerful rulers and not “formed” besides God or “came to be” after Him (Is. 43:10).

Right Mike?

Jack

[Author]

Posts