Talk:God/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

only good things?

The Bible ascribes undesirable attributes often interepreted as anthropomorphisms and ignored, such as God's lack of omniscience Genesis 18:20-21, the lack of self control in being malevolently angered and subsequently repenting of the evil he thought to do when rebuked by a man Exodus 34:12. His ability to feel regret Genesis 6:6. Immorality in his ability to justify the killing of a baby as a punishment for another's sin 2 Samuel 12:15. why shouldn't these be mentioned too? Jiohdi 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. This is about the Bible, in other words, the Christian God only. It is unsourced and unattributed - this might belong in Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of the Bible, or somewhere else, but not here. And it must be sourced - by an authority on the Bible, or a noted philosopher, or a similar person or publication. If any of this belongs in this article at all, it must be generic criticism of the Abrahamic God, not the Bible. And again, it must be attributed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing of introduction: My reasons for having that way

"The name God refers to an entity believed by monotheists to exist as a deity and sole creator of the universe.[1]"

Which concept of universe does this refer to? The earth and the stars that can be seen with the naked eye? Does it include galaxies? Obviously, primitive people did not believe in galaxies and thus is not part of their universe. They did believe in the unseen, such as the Holy spirit, but galaxies are not an unseen which their doctrine talks about. So the "universe" according to primitives excludes much of "universe" as it is understood in the modern sense.

Me: "The name God, with "G" capitalized, refers to an entity believed by monotheists to exist as the deity and creator of all that exists.[1] This is usually in the context of various primitive or modern conceptions of the domain of the "heavens and the earth",[2] which is sometimes refered to as the "universe".[3]"

"As of 2007, a majority of human beings are classified as adherents of religions that consider the totality of deity to reside in only one god."

But they do not share this "god". This is why I wrote this:

Me: "As of 2007, a majority of human beings and the largest religious denominations are monotheistic, each of whom is classified as adhering to a "one and only" God."

"While the largest of these, Christianity and Islam, vary in their description they usually hold this entity to be the same Abrahamic god of Judaism.[2]"

The use of the word "these" should refer to a category that includes Christianity and Islam. However the previous sentence talks about "a majority of human beings". Christianity and Islam are faiths, while "a majority of human beings" is not.

Me: "Most are incorporated through various, sometimes contradicting Christian and Islamic views of God, though both of these faiths often consider God as being the Abrahamic god of Judaism.[4]"

Kind regards, Kmarinas86 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well, what's a nice way to put this....no to this: "the Abrahamic god of Judaism.[4]" It is not solely the God of Judaism, in fact the geneolocical link to Ibrahim runs through the mythos of various Semitic peoples. As Christianity grew out of Judaism (specifically the Messianic period), it is a continuation of the same god, but not a Judaic God. In fact, the current version of the Abrahamic God grew out of various stories of the Israelites and the Jews (not synonymous, by the way), so any such pigeon-holing (Judaic) is inaccurate.

Well, this is a nice little factoid, ""As of 2007, a majority of human beings and the largest religious denominations are monotheistic, each of whom is classified as adhering to a "one and only" God."", but so what? The majority is irrelevant in this case. •Jim62sch• 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Various religions believing in one God do not necessarily believe in the same God - but as far as those religions commonly termed Abrahamic is concerned, they do indeed believe in the same God (whereas a one supreme god in Hinduism and Greek philosophy would not fit in here).

The universe or all that exists - both are good ... there is no need to sneek in anything about primitive or modern. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 (smile back) 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Universe is better, I think. •Jim62sch• 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I think that, if the new "intelligent design" paragraph is to be retained, it needs a source from reliable source not affiliated with the Discovery Institute. It's not at all clear that ID offers anything new in the way of demonstrating the existence of God, so unless we find references that suggest that it does offer something new, I don't see its value here. bikeable (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The references have been added.

Note that ID is in fact a Teleological argument and as such has a place in the article. •Jim62sch• 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. Here's what I posted elsewhere: Technically, if you read Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, they go to great lengths to not identify the designer. Yes, Kitzmiller, the Wedge Document, etc. indicate that it is a teleological argument (and I'm a proponent that ID does in fact identify the designer), but in the context of this article, it is not an argument for the existence of G_d because of two points. First, if your POV is that it is a teleological argument, it is usually to dispute the intention of Intelligent Design rather than actually believing it proves anything. I would dare say for you and I, Intelligent Design does not prove the existence of anything, other than the activities of the Discovery Institute. On the other hand, if you actually buy into Intelligent Design, then technically you're buying into the whole argument that it does not identify the designer, and thus, it is not an argument for the existence of G_d. Therefore, I would posit that it does not belong in the article, because it fails to be a good argument for G_d's existence if you support or do not support Intelligent Design. I think the section should be reverted. Orangemarlin 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

the reason I added ID is because it is being used by people who do believe in God as evidence for such a belief, they mask it as an unidentified whatever so they can sneak it into science..but this is not in the science section so it does have merit towards the existance question because when you boil it down, it comes down to the notion of whether or not some awareness was involved in what exists or was it all just blind matter... seems to me that it is blatantly obvious that awareness exists alongside unware elementals now..what is not so obvious is whether it has always existed or is a result of complex unaware stuff... my reasoning is that what has always been must always continue to be and awareness seems to be irreducible to anything else... I find it inconceivable that any amount or any arrangement of data manipulation will ever be able to create awareness of pain or pleasure which I find the true binary of experience and the source of all meaning. not only that, but it is a FACT that we are aware, atleast I am (^_^) and it is not a fact that anything else exists beyond my dream of it. Jiohdi 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree with Jiohdi here: as a teleological argument it is relevant to the article. Oh, one minor quibble, if you accept the Big Bang (as I do), there was no matter for a bit of time as no atoms had formed until about 380K years after the big bang (mostly hydrogen, with some helium and trace amounts of lithium), but I digress. Anyway, the only "awareness" we can verify is our own: all else might exist or might not (as Jiohdi more or less said) or it could be anthropomorphism at its finest.  ;) •Jim62sch• 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

40% of the references in this article are now related to Intelligent Design. :P --Merzul 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

It might be nice to explain that the representation of God is tabu in Islam. •Jim62sch• 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure -- I tend to think that that fact is part of a much larger discussion about representation and imagery in religion in general. For starters, I think that any representation of people is forbidden by Islam, so it's not just Allah. Many religions have all sorts of conventions, if not rules, about representation (for example, the Buddha was not represented as a human figure for hundreds of years after his death). This would be great to have in the article, but I think it deserves more complete coverage than the single fact about Islam. bikeable (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The only person I'm aware of who cannot be represented is Mohammed as the Great Prophet, and even when he is mentioned, "peace and blessings be upon his name" follows. Beyond that, I'm not aware of any other proscriptions (although pictures of the dead may be one -- I don't remember). We really meed a practicisng Muslim to answer this -- I've read the Qur'an (twice), but much of this is tradition (possibly found in the Hadith?). •Jim62sch• 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the Hadith, but to what extent it is followed, I do not know -- it seems not to be followed. [1] •Jim62sch• 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific perspective - NPOV issue

The current final sentence/paragraph in the Scientific perspective section has an NPOV issue, I believe. Here is what it states:

To date, no one has scientifically proven or disproven the existence of any god(s) nor has anyone proposed a generally acceptable method to do so, as such existence or non-existence is outside the realm of science, given that deities are generally considered to be supernatural or paranormal.

The problem is that you can make a similar statement about anything. For example:

To date, no one has scientifically proven or disproven the existence of any celestial teapots nor has anyone proposed a generally acceptable method to do so, as such existence or non-existence is outside the realm of science, given that celestial teapots are generally considered not possible to be too small and insignificant to be scientifically discoverable.

The implication is that there is something special about God that takes this topic out of the realm of science. It's a point of view, to be sure, but it's not a neutral one. --Serge 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference being that God as a supernatural being is per se beyond the realm of natural science. Not because there is no such method - there can be no such method because He is beyond natural science. Celestial teapots, if something akin to objects flying in space could very well be detected by the means of natural science. Natural science limits itself to the things within its grasp (methodological materialism) and cannot and mustnot got beyond that - hence it cannot prove or disprove God (or other supernatural entities).

So the passage above is inaccurate but not POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's inaccurate, but the point you make is what I was trying to say. •Jim62sch• 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's fixed now. Maybe. •Jim62sch• 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not fixed. Here is what it currently says:

No one has scientifically proven or disproven the existence of any god(s), as deities are supernatural beings beyond the realm of natural science.

No one has scientifically proven or disproven the existence of unicorns either. The fact that the existence of god(s) have not been proven or disproven has nothing to do with their alleged supernatural attributes, and everything to do with them being pure fantasy (that is, something for which there is no empirical evidence of existence), like unicorns, ghosts, witches, goblins, mermaids, two-headed llamas and celestial teapots. Note that you can also say:

No one has scientifically proven or disproven the existence of any god(s), as deities choose to live in an alternate dimension.

It's nonsense. --Serge 20:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Serge, no one is discussing attributes, and supernatural is a much nicer than "fantasy-creatures". I would prefer that the entire sentence/concept/thought/idea be taken out and shot as it is bloody apropos de rien •Jim62sch• 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one's proven the existence of logic either. --Shirahadasha 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The hard thing about science and God is that science can only look into this dimension. It can explain everything to the extend that whatever they are conducting isn't travelling faster then light, and is in our dimension. Our dimension of matter and materials. God is out of dimension, for He created dimension. There should be enough proof to understand that there is a God, when you look at the order of both the universe, and life itself. If you look at the vastness of space, and know space has no boundry. Anything beyond space is scientifically unexplainable. If you look at life, and how life is tuned to be. How in life you need male and female, and how those 2 complete separate beings need to unite to create new life. how complex even the smallest amoeba is, and that it has an intelligence! Scientists can explain the working of DNA, and of chemical bonds, but they cannot explain anything as life itself. Therefor, if science can't explain life and selfawareness of themselves, how will they explain God? If God created the universe, and life, and mankind, and there's an order to the extend that life on this planet has survived many billion years allready, how could we think we can fathom God who created it all? That there is an order in both the universe, and life!

Men isn't created to produce and try to survive the billions of years on this planet earth, to then simply die out.

There's much more to say about this topic!

Speculative dilemmas

We really need a better title for this sub-section; the above is virtually meaningless. •Jim62sch• 20:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Philosophical dilemmas" there you go!☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's much better, although I'm still not sure that dilemma is the proper word. •Jim62sch• 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Non-fundamentalist views" ►►► ☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Str1977's change is perfect. •Jim62sch• 10:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

This really needs to be rewritten:

"Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God. Panentheism holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. The distinctions between the two are subtle, and some consider them unhelpful. It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church, Theosophy, Hinduism, some divisions of Buddhism, and Taoism, along with many varying denominations and individuals within denominations. Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, paints a pantheistic/panentheistic view of God — which has wide acceptance in Hasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder The Baal Shem Tov — but only as an addition to the Jewish view of a personal god, not in the original pantheistic sense that denies or limits persona to God."

"...and some consider them unhelpful" Some who? Sources? "...It is also the view of the Liberal Catholic Church..." It what? Pantheism or panentheism? "...sense that denies or limits persona to God." Huh? I think I know what is meant, but ... •Jim62sch• 11:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean you actually understood that in some sense? I thought it came from a random word generator. Orangemarlin 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the paragraph was about pantheism originally. The two sentences about panentheism were added afterward, but the rest of the text was not adjusted to compensate. "Persona" in the last sentence was the result of someone aiming at a learnéd-sounding word for "personhood" and missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csernica (talk • contribs)

That's precisely what must have happened, or... since persona/personhood is limited to God, the person who wrote it was no such thing, perhaps it was indeed a random word generator. --Merzul 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or twenty monkeys sitting at typewriters.  ;) •Jim62sch• 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

more names of God

Jiohdi or G.O.D. the Generator Of Dreams, is the name used by members of the small but growing church of cyberia www.jiohdi.orgJiohdi 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Orangemarlin 05:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Any conclusive references?

"Research in comparative mythology shows a linguistic correlation between Levantine Yaw and Yahweh, suggesting that the god may in some manner be the predecessor in the sense of an evolving religion of Yahweh." I didn't find any references pointing to this. According to the Yam (god) article, there is some dispute that YHWH and Yam are related at all, and no concensus that Yam was a "predecessor". This sounds like an originally Wikipedian theory. -- WolfieInu 06:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening line violates NPOV?

This is what the opening line currently states:

The term God most commonly refers to the deity in monotheistic religions, usually held to be the creator of the universe.

I think this violates NPOV (and is incorrect) because "the deity in ... " implies that all monotheistic religions recognize the same deity. How about:

The term God commonly refers to a particular monotheistic deity, or to a broad and general conception of a monotheistic deity, usually held to be the creator of the universe.

--Serge 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica solves it by saying roughly all monotheistic religions believe in a god that they consider the Supreme Being and the creator of the universe. Leaving open whether it is one and the same God or different gods that they believe in. --Merzul 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good, except religions don't believe anything, adherents do, and "believe exists" is more clear than "believe in". But how do we put it so it makes sense in the context of the opening line of this article? Perhaps this:

The term God most commonly refers to a god that adherents of all monotheistic religions believe exists and they consider to be the Supreme Being and the creator of the universe.

How's that? --Serge 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of God

Re this edit: "if Deus is the Latin word for God, then Allah is the Arabic word" -- there is inconsistency throughout the entire article regarding name vs word vs term, singling out Allah is inane and raises a few questions that I won't go into here. In addition, Deus is the Catholic name for God in a Latin mass, "deus" is simply the Latin word for "god" (a god, any god, pick one).
In any case, given that the title of the section is "Names of God" it would seem logical that we pick a better way to handle this. If one is to argue that "Allah" is not a name, then none are, and the title of the section needs to be changed. •Jim62sch• 16:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes, and added some fact tags. I would suggest that editors with an interest in keeping the terms that need cites get moving on finding cites. •Jim62sch• 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, neither Deus nor Theos nor Allah are names - they are simply the word "God" in different languages.

Specifically, there is no such thing as a Catholic name, certainly not Deus.

PS. "Deus" is not a "later" representation" of "Theos" (sure the Vulgate was not yet written, but there were other Latin translations, anyway translations have nothing to do with it - the word was used) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PPS. If you insist that Vulfila did not translate any Latin (which is correct) than we can simply remove the reference to "Deus" here. But we shouldn't include wrong information. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then remove Deus. Allah is in fact a name. Theos (which was written theos) is not. Deus, is a name -- the capitalisation served to separate it from the the other dei. When you become a linguist you can piss in my pool, until such time, piss somewhere else. •Jim62sch• 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say that this is nonsense. Arguments from capitalisation only work in English as neither Latin nor Old Greek knew the distinction between keys. Apparently your civility was only short-lived and only WP:AGF prevents me from thinking it fake.

I would suggest that you first read this policy, and also WP:CIVIL and, since you are talking about "your pool", WP:OWN. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The pool refers to linguistics (as you could easily figure out from my sentence), not to the article hence WP:OWN is not applicable. The point, therefore, is that you are making changes without any discernable knowledge of linguistics or etymology. As for civility, when you continue to make the same changes having been shown that your changes are incorrect I think a little anger on my part is warranted. In other areas, your edits to the article have improved it.

As for Latin and Greek, you are incorrect: by the time of the 3rd century, Latin had differentiated between majuscule and miniscule letters. Greek too (see Koine Greek) had made these distinctions, adopting miniscule letters on MSs. While many inscriptions continued to be done in majuscule letters (primarily for the ease of the engravers (see also Boustrophedon), with no breaks between words, most manuscrips had abandoned that form. Certainly by the time the NT was written (in Greek) and then later translated into Latin, capitalisation did matter. •Jim62sch• 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, I beg to differ. I do indeed have some knowledge on linguistics.

I have not leaped into incivility - you have, even if the pool is linguistics.

I have restored my changes because there was no substance behind your objection. I don't see that as incivil.

Allah is the Arab word for God, derived in some way from the Aramaic/Hebrew El/Elohim. Of course it could be seen as a name but so could any noun (cf. the latin "nomen").

The same applies for Deus and Theos - it is only English that has this obsession with capitalisation. You need not show that there were majuscles and minuscles but that using them this or that way makes a differences to the meaning of the words - which it doesn't. Please do not read English conditions into other languages - they are bad enough in English nowadays, don't wreck up ancient languages. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Scant apparently. The fact tag you added re montheistic vs polytheist relions (God vs god) was questioning something that even the least talented linguist would know was true. I added a cite, took me all of one minute.

Your restoration was indeed peculiar, as Greek manuscrips had noved away from being solely upper case during the Koine period. (I know I 'splained this already, but perhaps repetition might help). Additionally, the nonsense of English orthography being based on Latin does need to be sourced: at what point did this occur? Certainly not early on, but most likely after 1066 ahen Norman influence changed English orthography.

Allah is not derived from El/Elohim/Eloah/Eloi. All are derived from the same Semitic root that predates Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. I'm really beginning to sense a certain anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bias in your edits.

Only English? That's just too funny. Grab a bible in any Indo-European language you might be able to read and tell me if the name of God in that Language is capitalised. As for your comments re "ancient languages": do you read and write Latin and Greek? I do. •Jim62sch• 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting external links for the names of God: (Christian and Judaic)

http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html

http://www.characterbuildingforfamilies.com/names.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ProDigit (talk • contribs)

I will try to ignore your less-on-topic remarks and focus on the actual issue:

So you added a reference for the fact that this distinction is drawn in English! Big deal. That was never the question. The article text did not talk about English specifically and to make a statement for more than one language Webster is not enough.

In fact, your Webster quote does not support your view as it lists "God" as one meaning of the word "god" and not as a separate morpheme. That the distinction by capitalisation exists in English never was a matter of contention.

But in fact, I was talking about Latin and Greek and neither draws such a distinction between deus and Deus or theos and Theos. (And to statisfy your curiosity, I read Latin but not Greek! But your problems are not of a linguistical nature.)

The question whether God is capitalized is other languages is simplified by you: the issue is whether a language considers "God" as a different word from "god" - I know of no language other than English that does that. "Gott" is capitalized in German but there's no reason to that other than every German noun being capitalised. Your supposed reasoning can actually only happen in a language that has done away with capitalisation. And even than, it doesn't turn God into a name. "God" is capitalised by Christians out of reverence, not because it is a name (is "He" or "His" a name? Is "Lord"? Is "LOrd"? Is "LORD"?)

Also, reread AGF as this has nothing to do with a pro- or anti-Muslim bias. Arab Christians use the word "Allah" too, you know. And why would I argue that "God", "Theos", "Deus" are words and not names of God out of a anti-Muslim bias.

Also I am quite puzzled what you mean by "Additionally, the nonsense of English orthography being based on Latin does need to be sourced" What are you talking to me? I never wrote anything like that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To make my point clear, Jim: do you have any evidence for capitalization being used in LATIN or GREEK to indicate a morphological difference between Deus and deus/Theos and theos. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point regarding "name" is a rather picayune one. Bigger question: Does God have a name? According to you, I'd hve to guess that the answer is no, as el, and the rest just mean 'god', just as elohim simply means "gods". In any case, read these and you might begin to see the light regarding capitalisation [2], [3], [4]. The differentiation serves as the purpose of separating the god of monotheism from other gods.

I know you didn't write that sentence: I was pointing out that it's a nonsensical sentence.

Compare this Gen 1:1 and this line 6. I'll get to the Greek later, but if you can't read it, it isn't going to be of much help. •Jim62sch• 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy: "Με τον γενικό όρο Θεός (πληθ. θεοί) στη σύγχρονη χριστιανική ελληνική γλώσσα εννοείται η θεότητα ή υπέρτατη οντότητα που φέρεται κυρίως στις μεγάλες μονοθεϊστικές θρησκείες ως Δημιουργός του Κόσμου. Στην αρχαιότητα στην βοιωτική διάλεκτο σύμφωνα με το λεξικό Liddell-Scott η λέξη απαντάτο ως θιός ή σιός, στην Λακωνική σιός, στη Δωρική θεύς, στη μετάφραση των Εβδομήκοντα και στην Καινή Διαθήκη, ως θεός. Η έκταση της δικαιοδοσίας της έννοιας του θεού ή των Θεών στην Ελληνική Μυθολογία ήτοι στη Κοσμογονία ποικίλλει από μυθολογία σε μυθολογία. Ως θέαινα ή θεά απαντάται η θηλυκή θεότητα, παρούσα κυρίως στις πολυθεϊστικές θρησκείες." •Jim62sch• 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I can't read the sentence, probably some words but not the sentence. Anyway, your comparison above again doesn't prove anything as you are linking to modern editions of ancient texts and even if the capitalisation were in the original, there is no indication why the authors made this nor that it was/is a commonly accepted rule among Latin speakers.

Sure, God has a name and skipping the issue whether His actual name has been revealed to humans, some words or terms have been used as names, most prominently the tetragrammaton. This is why Jews avoided pronouncing it - because it is considered the name which should not be misused. As for the rest, I would classify them more as honorifics, titles and simply words of description. Noone would think that Elisabeth II's name was Queen.

As always, WP articles cannot be references for WP articles.

To end on a positive note: I share your doubts about Yallah. However, I thought one fact tag was enough for the entire passage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that French, Spanish and Catalan are not "ancient languages" I really can't link to an ancient form of those. Nonetheless, Augustine capped Deus, so it's not just a Germanic phenomenon, nor uis it really all that new. In fact the French link explains the diff between caps and no caps very well. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to copy the def of "dieu" from my French dictionary: in any case, the caps makes a difference. (there's always this [5]).

I added another fact tag because Yallah seems unattested; the other one was there for Allah being used by Arab Christians. In both cases, we really do need a ref, but I can't find one (could be I'm looking it up incorrectly). Cheers. •Jim62sch• 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that the word is capitalised is not enough. The question is, is it because it was common to distinguish the One from the many by that. That other latin sources don't do it (see the posting below) shows that this cannot be the case. The reason for capitalising God is reverence and in English this turned out to be a common distinguishing marker. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I make no claim to scholarship in either Latin or Greek, but you don't have to be very well-educated in the subject to look at a selection of manuscripts from antiquity to medieval and see that the word for "God" was not capitalized. (As it happens, I was just looking at a 14th century French manuscript [6], Luke 21:25-32, and "die(r?)" split between the penultimate/ultimate lines isn't capitalized.) Neither were proper names, which makes the context ambiguous. But it seems to me that the modern custom is also ambiguous since we capitalize pronouns that refer to the Deity. We don't do this in Wikipedia because we do treat "God" as if it was a name, but I don't think we can deduce from this that it really is. So is the capitalization as for a name, or as a divine honorific? While it's certainly arguable that modern English uses "God" as a name, whether or not ancient languages did is a different question, and I don't see that any real references have been brought to bear here on either side.

"Allah" is exactly analogous to "God". It's not exclusive to Islam, as Arabic-speaking Christians also use it to refer to God. The most credible etymology for it I've seen derives it from al-illah, "the god", originally a generic term for whatever god a particular Arab tribe considered the highest. See the discussion here [7]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I made that point about the derivation of Allah already. Thanks.

For the rest, see the following versions of Genesis 1:1. Capitalisation is not an English phenomenon, although the capping of pronouns occurs less frequently in other languages (see Romanian and Dutch). The word (name) for god in each language is bolded, but the caps are preserved as in the original:

Albanian -- Në fillim Perëndia krijoi qiejt dhe token

Romanian -- La început, Dumnezeu a fšcut cerurile şi pšmîntul.

German -- Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde.

Bulgarian -- В началото Бог създаде небето и земята.

Danish -- I Begyndelsen skabte Gud Himmelen og Jorden.

Spanish -- En el principio creó Dios los cielos y la tierra.

French -- Au commencement, Dieu créa les cieux et la terre.

Icelandic -- Í upphafi skapaði Guð himin og jörð.

Dutch -- In het begin heeft God de hemelen en de aarde gemaakt.

Italian -- Nel principio DIO creò i cieli e la terra.

Norwegian -- I begynnelsen skapte Gud himmelen og jorden.

Portuguese -- Quando Deus começou criando o firmamento e a Terra

Swedish -- Allt började när Gud skapade himlen och jorden.

Latin (i.e., Vulgate) -- in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram

Now, the 1st commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me.), same order as above, same rules:

Nuk do të kesh perëndi të tjerë para meje.

Sš nu ai alţi dumnezei afarš de Mine

Du sollst keine anderen Götter neben mir haben

Да нямаш други богове освен мене

Du må ikke have andre Guder end mig

No tendrás dioses ajenos delante de mí

Tu n'auras pas d'autres dieux devant ma face.

Þú skalt ekki hafa aðra guði en mig

U mag geen andere goden aanbidden dan Mij.

Non avrai altri dei davanti a me.

Du skal ikke ha andre guder foruten mig

Não prestem culto a outros deuses senão a mim

Du ska inte tillbe några andra gudar än mig

As we can see, with the exception of German (lexical reasons) and Danish, all the other languages do not cap "gods" as they are not refering to (the) God. ref. •Jim62sch• 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)