
Mauro Biglino
In this book, I focus on the identity and character of Yahweh and the meaning of the term “Elohim.” When we read the term “God” in the Bible, this usually comes from the Hebrew term “Elohim.” However, at least when I worked for Edizioni San Paolo, the term “Elohim” was left untranslated into the interlinear edition of the Bible that we prepared for scholars and academia.
In the Bibles available to the public, the same term was translated as “God.” Therefore, where people read “God” and believe that the biblical authors wrote the equivalent of the word “God,” scholars read the term “Elohim.”
Charles W.
Sam Torode
Raymond Story
LCTX
I saw Mauro Biglino in a conversation with Paul Wallis who gave a strong recommendation for this book. Mr Biglino impressed me so much I couldn’t wait to read it and so glad I did. It’s not hyperbolic for me to say it filled in some gaps within my own cosmology of how the world came to be the way it is today. I realized archetypal patterns by Yahweh that world leaders today are embodying to the detriment of humanity.
Steefen
…to the detriment of humanity.
LCTX
Steefen
YouTube Channel: The 5th Kind
Video: “The Governor of the Elohim is Not Who You Think!” Vatican Translator Mauro Biglino & Paul Wallis

Steefen
With Yahweh being a member of the Elohim, one can see why Jesus had something negative to say about Yahweh in Exodus.
With Yahweh being less than God, less than omnipotent, less than omnicient, less than immortal, one can see why Jesus had a different notion of God.

Mauro Biglino
Yahweh is not the god of theology. Yahweh is the governor of one people–the family of Jacob. Elyon assigned Yahweh to the family of Jacob (Deuteronomy).
Paul Wallis
The behavior of Yahweh and the other Elohim is very immoral.
Steefen
Jesus wasn’t happy with the behavior of Yahweh–but he was happy with the behavior of the Father.
Mauro Biglino
The Bible speaks of Elohim, Elyon, Yahweh, Milcom, Chemosh, and so on. They were different figures, not an abstract, omnipotent god [god of theology].
Steefen
Milcom, also Malcham, was the national deity of the Ammonites, a Canaanite god associated with the root “mlk” (king) and closely related to Baal. Solomon built a high place for Milcom on the Mount of Olives but it was destroyed by King Josiah.
Chemosh was the national deity of the Moabites and, at times, the Ammonites, often referred to as the “abomination of Moab” in the Bible. His name may mean “destroyer” or “subduer,” and his worship was tied to national identity, military victory, and was sometimes associated with human sacrifice. King Solomon introduced Chemosh worship to Israel, and later, King Josiah destroyed the Israelite cult of Chemosh.
Laban later confronts Jacob: “Why did you steal my gods?”
This shows Abraham’s relatives in Haran (Laban, Bethuel’s household) actively possessed and revered other deities.
Genesis 31:19, 30-32
with abominations they provoked Him to anger.
They sacrificed to demons, not to God,
to gods (elohim) they had not known,
to new ones that had come recently,
whom your fathers did not fear.”

Steefen
Where in the Bible does Elyon assign various elohim to various peoples?
Answer:
Deuteronomy 32:8–9
In the Masoretic Text (MT) it reads:
“When the Most High (Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel.
But the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.”
But in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutj, 4QDeutq) and in the Septuagint (LXX), the reading is different:
“When the Most High (Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God (benei elohim).
But the LORD’s portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.”
Implications
- In the older text (DSS/LXX), Elyon divides humanity among the divine council (the sons of God / elohim). Each nation receives its patron deity.
- Israel, however, is reserved for Yahweh alone.

Mauro Biglino
The morality of these beings is often terrible.
Yahweh orders extermination, man, women, children, animals.
Yahweh was just one of the Elohim.
Steefen
Yea, but Elyon did not call him onto the carpet for that.
Mauro Biglino
El Shaddai does not mean almighty, it means I am the violent elohim.
Paul Wallis
The destroyer.
Deut. 32 and Psalm 82 – Yahweh is a junior elohim.
Steefen
Ruach the Hebrew word for “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit,” and it refers to the invisible, animating energy that sustains life and represents God’s personal presence and power. The term encompasses both physical phenomena, like a strong wind or the breath in our lungs, and the spiritual concepts of a divine spirit or a person’s inner vitality.
Kavod a Hebrew word meaning honor, glory, splendor, weight, and reverence, signifying a heavy, tangible presence of God or respect for human dignity. In a biblical context, it refers to the visible, weighty glory of God that fills sacred spaces like the Tabernacle and the Temple or the inherent value and dignity of every person.
Mauro Biglino
Kavod is not that misleading definition. Ruach is not that misleading definition.

Paul Wallis:
On Translation …
around 21:00 to 23:40
For generation people have been translating these texts as spiritual stories.
Now, in the 21st century, we’ve got other comparisons we can make … we can read these passages, these are not a spiritual encounters, they are technological encounters.
Steefen:
Wow.
Mauro Biglino:
It’s enough to read The Bible without the lenses of the theologians, without doctrine, without the lenses of dogma.
p/u at 27:35 of 1:18.07

It’s enough to read The Bible without the lenses of the theologians, without doctrine, without the lenses of dogma.
But not without context. Without which you’re just projecting your own wants and desires into the text. Soon, inevitably, you’ve discovered what it “really” means.

Mauro:
It’s enough to read The Bible without the lenses of the theologians, without doctrine, without the lenses of dogma.
SJB:
Context is needed.
Steefen:
Mauro has context. The context is in the manuscript he translated.
He’s not projecting anything.
He knows the real meaning before the theology, before the doctrine, before the dogma.
What do you, SJB, think the real meaning is? Is it different from what Mauro is sharing with us?
BJH1960 is shortcutting flowing a an argument, a position.
What is BJH1960 avoiding? Listening, thinking, and discussing.
And you wonder why I have stopped responding.
There’s a point where the criticism of Sitchin breaks down and so does the argumentative laziness does also.
One thing I will say before I produce a PowerPoint YouTube video about it is, despite how Anu, Enlil, Enkik, Belet-il, and the Igigi got here, Atrahasis says they were here; and the Elohim were here.
Zechariah Sitchin was a big part of the Ancient Astronauts mythology. He came up with the idea of the Annunaki being aliens from an unknown planet Nibiru. His whimsical interpretations of Sumerian mythology are based on an almost complete lack of understanding of the language and culture. No one with any actual scholarly expertise takes him seriously at all. Needless to say he’s very popular on YouTube.
Behind all this ancient aliens conspiracy stuff lurks the frankly racist idea that our ancestors were too stupid to come up with all their cultural achievements without assistance from the Space Folk. A nicely colonialist notion that the “primitives” always require the intervention of a technologically superior civilization to set them on the upward path.

Stephen, thanks for that on Sitchin.
What remarkable achievements our ancestors were able to accomplish on their own.
I hate to say it but it sure seems as if the popularity of such YouTube videos seems to be directly connected to how little the person producing them actually understands.
Steefen said:
What is BJH1960 avoiding? Listening, thinking, and discussing.
I think it would have been more accurate if you had said I avoid automatically accepting whatever you happen to believe without giving it any thought.
I will say I find it extremely odd that someone who deems themselves an argumentation specialist chooses not to respond to questions.
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7iQd1jQtB666H7J9qEDoAGeXRsVZI-FvX3aKTyybAPsm3M-_qwuWe4u1ASizptFyDSdmSeJ4R83IQChWCcAU70fT4VckcFvckIUgggQYS5_oyaOiNhzjVzb8jnBJS0vMKAHpyCC8nCqgG76qBPDHHYIAxxgLPWqmj3Ug8ZEdxCkXkR0TqJcyOJsPQZxz5PyuMRJsoEszs_9z6c83LV9KTsj0SN3MIRivt9EMOAyvweA.CAmpUBQUI-FHN-6y5p-Apj_p-BbQUNNETocN-J_-qBM&dib_tag=se&keywords=Mauro+Biglino&qid=1782247846&sprefix=mauro+biglino%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-3
49 ratings averaging 4.7 stars 86% are 5 stars, 93% are 4 stars are better.
I know this book is not in the bibliography of my book, Historical Accuracy.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)
