When your theology professors are not very good

 Before I go on to recount how Richard Davidson thinks that the Gen. 15 account of God walking between the sacrificed animals is somehow actually a covenant between the Godhead, e.g. God the Father and Jesus Christ pre-incarnation. I thought it would be good to point out his technique of interpretation of the Bible.

  In The Sanctuary Doctrine | Richard Davidson (Part 3) podcast with an interview of Richard Davidson an Andrews University professor. We have these interesting quotes.

Quote: 40:09 Here's Lucifer and he's not allowed to enter into the councils of divinity. And so this jealousy arises. He considers that God is not fair. And so then comes the other Hebrew word in Ezekiel 28 where it says that he was filled with recula which means um (interviewers: is that the violence) no he it it means to let me look let's go to Ezekiel 28. I don't want to speak out of turn here. I get the wrong term. I'll look it up here. Okay. So yes, oh yeah, recula. It is right. If the other word was avala, that means injustice. And then he's filled with reculah, which is slander. And he begins to slander God. Going around from one angel to another saying God can't really be trusted. And so the whole great controversy starts over who can you trust? Can you trust God or not?

Now to clarify he is using Ezk. 28 which says nothing of Lucifer, which is the mistranslation from Is. 14

Ezk. 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. 16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; So he is giving the Hebrew for Violence ESV

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H7404 רְכֻלָּה rkullah (rek-ool-law') n-f. trade (as peddled). [feminine passive participle of H7402] KJV: merchandise, traffic.

Root(s): H7402 The word used according to lexicon is: H2555 חָמָס chamac (chaw-mawce') n-m. 1. violence. 2. (by implication) wrong. 3. (by meton.) unjust gain. [from H2554]

KJV: cruel(-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.

Root(s): H2554

So here he completely takes the verse out of the context of Ezek 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. And asserts it to Satan aka Lucifer, and the"trade" becomes slander going to angel to angel with the slander.

Then he later ends with:

I can put this whole thing that I just told you without mentioning Ellen White once. It's not all in Ezekiel 28. You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. And it's all there in the text. And so one of my favorite things to do is to show from the biblical text. Here is the narrative. And then I say, have you ever heard that somewhere else?

If you're an Adventist, that's what Ellen White says. But I didn't get anything from Ellen White. I'm getting it all from here. And so I don't deny that Ellen White is a prophet. And I don't deny that she had visions and filled in gaps that we may not find explicit in scripture. But I haven't been let down yet that the major contours of what we say about the great controversy and other topics are there in scripture. We've been the lazy ones not to dig them out. And Ellen White herself said, "If you had only studied the scripture like you should have, you wouldn't have needed me." Right? 44:53

He can only make it fit by inserting extra biblical authority into the Bible, in this case a heavy dose of Tradition and John Milton popularization, and this is an Andrews University Theology professor! I get the impression that some do not think the Lucifer Myth is a big deal, but it is; it is the foundation of Ellen Whites Great Controversy theme. And here is an Andrews University professor who seems to think that inserting Satan into Is 14 and Ezk 28 is consistent, yet there is absolutely no hermeneutic method that allows for this. Maybe if somewhere else in Scripture it said those things, you could say they were a foreshadowing in those chapters in Isaiah and Ezekiel. But since the Bible does not give us that, it is just a ploy to support an extra-biblical presumed prophet. Which is one of the reasons that a vast amount of Biblical scholarship rejects what I call the Lucifer Myth.

But that is not all he said. Consider the usage of Proverbs 8 here:

 You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. 

That sounds pretty bold, but there are at least 6 views on Proverbs 8, and the idea that Christ is given a new office is not one of them; it is also very difficult to get that from Proverbs 8. It would be far easier to assert the Arian view than the new office view. Here is a summary of the main views:

While Proverbs 8 is most universally read as a poem celebrating and personifying wisdom, there are several distinct and rich interpretations regarding who or what Wisdom actually represents. Because biblical poetry is highly artistic, "Lady Wisdom" is not a technical definition but a multifaceted symbol that has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. [1, 2, 3]

The main interpretations of this chapter include:

1. The Theological Interpretation: God’s Wisdom in Creation

In this view, Wisdom is a literary personification of God’s own attribute of order, intelligence, and skill. The passage describes how God used divine wisdom to design the cosmos—making it the "master workman" (or architect) alongside God at the beginning of time. Under this interpretation, Proverbs 8 teaches that the universe is not random; it was created with a logical, moral, and functional design. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. The Christological Interpretation: Jesus Christ

This is a prominent view within Christian theology, particularly in the early church. Because the New Testament (such as in 1 Corinthians 1:24) directly identifies Jesus as the "wisdom of God," early church fathers and theologians interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative and prophetic depiction of God the Son. In this view, Christ existed in eternity past and was the active agent alongside the Father in the creation of the world. [1, 2]

3. The Controversial Arian View: Wisdom as a "Created" Being

This specific interpretation stems from Proverbs 8:22, which reads in some translations (like the Greek Septuagint): “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.” In the third century, a theologian named Arius used this verse to argue that if Jesus is the wisdom of God, and wisdom was created, then Jesus cannot be eternal and is not fully God. This view was later formally declared a heresy by the Council of Nicaea, which established that the verse refers to the "begetting" or "possessing" of an eternal attribute, not a literal creation event in time. [1, 2, 3]

4. The Pneumatological Interpretation: The Holy Spirit

Some Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative expression of the Holy Spirit. Similar to the Holy Spirit, Wisdom is described as being poured out on humanity. She breathes life, truth, and conviction into people, guiding them away from folly and into alignment with God's will. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

5. The Anthropological / Practical Interpretation: The "Art of Living"

Many secular and modern theological commentators treat the personification of Wisdom purely as a highly effective pedagogical tool. In this view, Solomon is writing to "his son" to instill practical, ethical, and social "know-how". Personifying Wisdom as an attractive, noble woman calling out in the city gates contrasts with the seductive "Adulterous Woman" of Proverbs 7. Here, the chapter is a practical call to choose the path of life, justice, and prudence over the destructive path of foolishness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

6. The Comparative Near Eastern Interpretation: Ma'at

From a historical and academic perspective, some biblical historians note that Proverbs 8 shares striking parallels with ancient Egyptian literature. In Egypt, there was a goddess named Ma'at, who represented the cosmic order, truth, and right judgment. These scholars suggest the authors of Proverbs may have used the well-known ancient literary motif of a divine, feminine figure of order to explain God's wisdom to an audience familiar with surrounding Near Eastern cultures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---

Rush Limbaugh on hell

Last week I heard a very troubling thing on the Rush Limbaugh show. Granted Rush is not much of a theologian, that mantle is probably carried more by his brother David Limbaugh but this is really a frightening misinterpretation of the Bible. Here is the section from the Transcripts which save me so much time because he posts his transcripts for free!

From 3-30-2018 Emphasis Added:

You know, Billy Graham said that he was most often asked the question about hell, is there hell, did he believe that there is a hell. And he quoted scripture. He said in the Bible the person that most often talks about hell is Jesus. He said it might surprise you to learn that the person in the Bible who spoke the most about hell’s reality was Jesus. He repeatedly warned people not to take it lightly. And then he quoted Matthew 10:28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
In other words, be afraid of the devil. Do not be afraid of dying. Be afraid of going to hell. And that this admonition was frequently coming from Jesus. So for that to be contradicted by the pope, believe me, is going to shake some people up, if they can’t sweep this away. And, by the way, what happens now to being devil’s advocate? If there’s no hell, there’s no devil. So how can you ever be a devil’s advocate? A whole line of questioning has also been obliterated by the pope!

What a twisted doctrine hell has become if an intelligent man in his 60's has gone through his whole life and thinks that the Devil is in charge of hell. That the Devil is the one who destroys the soul and body. 

Disturbed artists from hundreds of years ago have succeeded in giving Christians a completely distorted view of God

Even those who believe in eternal torment in Hell know that this verse is not about the devil, so at least we can comfort ourselves with that fact.

Fear God Alone (Matthew 10:28)

Because God is judge in the end, we should not fear even persecutors who threaten death (vv. 26, 28). Mortals can destroy only one's body, while God can resurrect the body for damnation and destroy the whole person (with eternal torture; compare 3:12; 25:46). The choice is not between courage and fear but has to do with whom we will fear more (Minear 1950:169). Jesus may here recall the Jewish martyr tradition, which exhorted its followers not to fear those who think they can kill, because eternal suffering awaits the soul that disobeys God's command (4 Macc 13:14-15).

IVP New Testament Commentaries are made available by the generosity of InterVarsity Press.

One of the myths about forgiveness

A friend brought to my attention the following article from the religion section of the Huff Post. First I would say that if you get your religion ideas from the Huff Post you are probably in trouble. But since it gets wide readership I thought I would reply to one of the sections of the article. The article is entitled 5 Myths About Forgiveness in the Bible by Maria Mayo M. Div., M.A.

In my response to my friend I think I disagreed with all but one of her 5 points. The one I agreed with was point 5 Forgiveness sets you free. Which I don't even think is a widely held view by anyone, but I would like to focus on her third point for this article: 

          3. Jesus forgives his attackers from the cross.

Luke's depiction of Jesus on the cross is often cited as the quintessential example of unconditional forgiveness. As he is being crucified, Jesus cries out, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Readers often take this to mean that Jesus forgives those who are attacking him. However, a closer look at the syntax reveals that Jesus is not, in fact, forgiving his attackers; rather, he is praying that God might do so.
It is possible that the lack of repentance from his attackers prevents Jesus from forgiving the men directly, since he has taught his followers that repentance is a requirement for forgiveness. Also, earlier in the Gospel of Luke Jesus instructs his disciples to "pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:38). While his prayer from the cross is a perfect model of this teaching, it is not an explicit act of forgiveness.

This is troubling because of its confusion about who Jesus Christ is. Most readers of the New Testament have recognized that Jesus not only claimed to be the son of God, but that He was One with God, such as:

John 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (KJV)

This equality with God was it seems a heavy emphasis in the Gospel of John. He began the gospel with:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. n him was life, and that life was the light of men. (NIV)

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)

It was of course not just the writer of John that felt this way the author of the book of Matthew seems to be of the same opinion with his use of Emmanuel, God with us. There are very clearly strong biblical reasons why Jesus is considered to be God, it is why the early church derived the doctrine of the Trinity as a way to explain God who was in fact at multiple places at one time. It seems people have no problem with the idea of God as omnipresent but they get a little bogged down when physicality is involved. As if such a thing as a human body should stop God from being God. You can imagine the confusion if Jesus had said I am God right here and now pray to me. The physicality of God would become the issue and they would be even more confused when the physical God was no longer around, where did He go and where was He before He was born on earth. There are ideas that take time to develop and that explains why Jesus prayed to God the Father, as an example of how man should pray to God, but not in a way that was for Himself or separate from God. Even when troubled by impending horrors the concern for His physical comfort took second place to the will of God which was also His will. Not only did Jesus say to pray for those who abuse you but to forgive them.

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (NIV)

The book of Matthew also points out that Jesus demonstrated His ability to forgive sins:

Matt 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." (NIV)

What Jesus did on the cross was far more then to ask God to forgive sins but to demonstrate that through love sins were forgiven even to the extent as Peter preached:

Acts 3:13-20

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see."Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-- even Jesus. (NIV)

The forgiveness was there offered for all, but forgiveness is of little value if you still are an enemy of God, if you don't accept the forgiveness you remain in a state of animosity of your part. There is no renewal, no refreshing just our anger and rebellion, no healing. At the cross Jesus is not asking God to forgive, it is God showing us what forgiveness is like, that love reaches out even to those who reject God even while they reject God with cruelty and hatred. God was reaching out, He is still reaching out.

Faith is Accepting the Grace of God

Most people when they think of faith think of a belief in something or someone. Something that is not fully happened yet so it can't be claimed to be a reality yet it is something that is expected to occur. We have faith that the building we are in will not simply collapse on us. Just as that faith in the building is either based upon our visual perceptions or our confidence in the builders and the inspectors and the host of people involved in creating a building, faith is never based upon just beliefs it should always be based upon evidence.

This frustrates many traditional type Christians. I was led to the following quote of Ravi Zacharias from a comment on Spectrum, (an open letter to Educate Truth). The commenter said of tand article by someone who used the Ravi Zacharias quote; “He mocks the "blind faith" of Christians, relying on the writings of Ravi Zacharias, a critic of the Bible.” Here is some of what Zacharias wrote:

If a pastor says, “All we need is the Bible,” what does he say to a man who says, “All I need is the Quran”? It is a solipsistic method of arguing.

The pastor is saying, “All I need is my own point of reference and nothing more than that.” Even the gospel was verified by external references. The Bible is a book of history, a book of geography, not just a book of spiritual assertions.

The fact is the resurrection from the dead was the ultimate proof that in history — and in empirically verifiable means — the Word of God was made certain. Otherwise, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration would have been good enough. But the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19: “We have the Word of the prophets made more certain … as to a light shining in a dark place.” He testified to the authority and person of Christ, and the resurrected person of Christ.

To believe, “All we need is the Bible and nothing more,” is what the monks believed in medieval times, and they resorted to monasteries. We all know the end of that story. This argument may be good enough for those who are convinced the Bible is authority. The Bible, however, is not authoritative in culture or in a world of counter-perspectives. To say that it is authoritative in these situations is to deny both how the Bible defends itself and how our young people need to defend the Bible’s sufficiency.

There is little point in giving quotes from the blind faith side of things because they have nothing to stand upon aside from their tradition. Tradition may be good, bad or indifferent but if it is not inquired about it has tremendous potential for harm. A few examples of harmful traditions would include these:

...”[F]female circumcision/genital mutilation, facial scarring, the force-feeding of women, early or forced marriage, nutritional taboos, traditional practices associated with childbirth, dowry-related crimes, honor crimes, and the consequences of son preference...”

Faith is not based upon tradition, it is not a product of blind choice and it is not merely the assumptions that what you hope for will happen or what you can't see is there. When the Bible says: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1it is an expression of the results of faith not the reason for the faith. As the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary says:

“Instead, he treats faith with reference to the future. It is that trust in God that enables believers to press on steadfastly whatever the future holds for them. They know that they can rely on God. So the writer's method is to select some of the great people in the history of God's people and to show briefly how faith motivated all of them and led them forward, no matter how difficult the circumstances.”

Faith was based upon their understanding of God, their experience with God, tradition may have been involved but it is only one part of the overall experience and knowledge, information and reality that creates the understanding of God as someone who can be trusted, someone who is a friend and not an enemy.

Few of us would be so foolish as to say we believe in anything by blind faith. Religion seems to be the one clear exception...well perhaps certain conspiracy theories as well. But generally it is not seen as a reasonable position to base anything on blind faith. What happens in traditional Christianity however is that traditional understanding and practices of Biblical interpretation become the excuse to accept blind faith. If someone uses different techniques to interpret the Bible so that it does not conflict with scientific reality, the traditionalist scoffs at the more reasoned explanation.

But the traditionalist does not want to admit that his faith is in a particular form of Bible interpretation technique, so instead they will say that they are simply following the Bible, or the plain reading of the Bible. Thus if you disagree or have a different interpretation you are going against the Bible in their view. If reason, history, science or any other form of reality disagrees with their interpretation they assert their fidelity to the Bible by which they mean their traditional interpretation of the Biblical texts.

Faith is not found in methods of Bible interpretation, it is not found in tradition, it is based upon the reality of the historical person of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God. A revelation of the love and acceptance of even His enemies and His power over death and His promises of reconciliation. Faith is built on evidence and it is only faith in God, not interpretations, because we can and historically have been wrong in interpretations. But faith is about who God is, Faith is the acceptance of the gracious character of our God. Other things may fail us but if our God is love, the love revealed by Christ then we have good reasons for belief in better things to come.

Dwight Nelson and Allah

I often wonder when listening to some Adventist Pastors how totally out of touch with the world around them they are. This week brought several elements, together that really should focus us on some of these leadership problems in Adventism.

First a bit of sad news as reported on the First Things Website:

Shahbaz Bhatti was a Catholic and a Pakistani minister for the defense of minorities who dedicated his life to the “struggle for human equality, social justice, religious freedom, and to uplift and empower the religious minorities’ communities.” He was assasinated yesterday because of his opposition to the country’s blasphemy law:

Watch his testimony recorded before his death with the instruction to be published if he died: https://youtu.be/oBTBqUJomRE

Last week I received an email of a letter or article by someone who had a problem with the emerging church, it was not specific and was pretty much the usual they don't have the truth so they must be against us view. So I thought I would look up the author and see what else he wrote. He is pretty much a run of the mill Traditional SDA of dubious interpretation abilities but I did discover something interesting. On a website where he has some articles I found this article entitled “SDA Pastor Dwight Nelson says "Allah is GOD" and that "ALLAH IS THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE”

The article by Phil Moore correctly points us to the following:

In a sermon on Sabbath Dec. 11, 2010, Dr. (Pastor) Dwight Nelson of Pioneer Memorial SDA Church told the world on air, 3ABN and via the Internet that: "Allah is the name of the LIVING GOD; ALLAH IS THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE."

This sermon was titled "Star Still Rising Over Islam" ...

After listening to the suggested area I saw that Phil Moore had given an accurate description of what Pastor Nelson said. Moore's analysis I will leave to you to read if you are interested, it did not strike me as anything special so I will offer up my view on Nelson's statements. While you can download the file from the above link I will give you a transcript of the relevant statements.

Leading me to this question. (unintelligible) If God was able to shine the light of truth upon those children of the East [wise men at Jesus birth] Those sons of Ishmael 2000 years ago come folks think with me could he not would he not be doing the same today? Among the same people's of the East? By the millions are there not honest hearted seekers after truth in the Muslim faith too? Huh? And if the answer is yes and by the way I believe the answer is yes then does it not follow that Bethlehem not Rome ought to be our example today? And that instead of alienating the children of the East with our anti Islamic rhetoric we ought to be at the forefront of a movement that seeks to share with them the light that shines upon both of our communities of faith.

I recently listened to a series of CD lectures given by the late Dr. Robert Darnell a member of our community of faith, an expert on Islamic studies, he's an anthropologist. In which he carefully chronicled how that the Koran teaches the seeds of every divine truth that you and I embrace. The seeds are all there. It was Darnell's lifelong mission and conviction cultivate those seeds in dialog with the children of the East and in an hour of history when the West is turning against those children ought we not to be the first to raise up our voices in their behalf?

Think. Why shouldn't we? For what if, by the way that story of Christmas could hardly let us do otherwise could it? What if the spirit the mighty spirit of Allah by the way I got some letters from viewers after that last teaching, and one viewer said don't you know that the name Allah is a name for Lucifer? I hope you never never never never never embrace that. Allah listen carefully now Allah is closer to Elohim the Hebrew name for god then is our English word god. In fact hold on to your seats the English name for god is a Nordic pagan god. We have taken a pagan god's name and we've said that is the name of our God. And we all call him god. That's a pagan a Nordic pagan myth. So don't you ever get pushed into the corner where your saying Allah is a demonic name, Allah is the name of the living God. Allah is the creator of the Universe, Allah is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael Jethro, Job and even Baalim.

What if through dreams the mighty spirit of Allah is raising up a movement within Islam in preparation for the Messiah's return. Would we not want to partner with that mission? I want to end with a story...

The main thing we should deal with are as follows:

--the Koran teaches the seeds of every divine truth that Christians embrace.

--Allah is closer to Elohim the Hebrew name for god then is our English word god

--the English name for god is a Nordic pagan god.

--We have taken a pagan god's name

--Allah is the god of the Old Testament folks.

First, does the Koran teach the seeds of every divine truth that Christians embrace? Read John chapter One. The Word became flesh and lived among us. That Jesus Christ is God, does the Koran teach that Jesus was God incarnate or that Jesus was a great prophet who did not die on the cross and who never was resurrected from the dead? The central core of Christianity is who is Christ yet here we have an SDA pastor telling us that the seed of the central core of Christianity is found in the Koran which even though written 600 years after the time of the New Testament denies Christ to be God or to have died on the cross and the resurrection.

Which means either Pastor Nelson is willingly ignorant of the Koran or he is lying or what he means by seeds is something like a concept that is present in such a tiny way that it is infinitesimal. Now think about this, the Koran is written hundreds of years after the New Testament and thousands of years after the Old Testament, would you really expect a divine addendum of truth to discredit the previous inspiration or to offer only seeds of what was previously clearly expressed? See more in the article Revisiting the Quran’s gross errors concerning Christian theology

Allah and Elohim are related, but they are both words from paganism since paganism predates all monotheistic religions, even if one believes there was always one true religion they were it seems outnumbered by the surrounding cultures. In the article Is the Word Allah Similar to Elohim? by Penny Warren B.A., M.A., D.D we read the following:

The Hebrew title of God is "Elohim;" in Arabic it's "Allah." These two words for God have a common bond that most people don't understand. Both of these words have their origin in pagan deities of the ancient past...

Webster’s Dictionary gives the definition and etymology of Allah as follows. Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah."

Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."

According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names.

Most Christians should know by now how frequently the “El” term is used in the Old Testament for various gods and in peoples names honoring their god.

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl [1]). It is the usual word for "God" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods".[2]

Is the god the name of a Nordic pagan deity? The short answer is no, in the following article

Etymology of the Name God :

 Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.

According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God  is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.
Nonetheless, it is also interesting to note the similarity to the ancient Persian word for God which is Khoda.

The following is a survey of some of the efforts of those who have been trying to decipher the ancient roots of the word God:

What is nice about this article is that it then quotes multiple reference works, you don't have to go all over the place, just scroll down the page. 

Of course the whole concept of god means that there will be overlap between any and every superhuman being in whatever country or culture. The obnoxious thing about Pastor Nelson is he ignores this simple fact so that he can denigrate god in English because we don't speak Aramaic or Hebrew and those two languages that we don't use, are closer being they were near to each other in origins.

It is hard to even formulate an argument against such foolish ideas as Pastor Nelson presents. It is as if he desires to ignore the hatred and cruelty through much of the Islamic world, he acts as if when we observe the cruelty and violence it is anti-Islamic rhetoric. Well, the fact is there is a lot of problems going on in the world of Islam and Pastors like Nelson do nothing to help the situation with fictional facts and intentional distortions of the truth. He should be ashamed of himself and if he wants to deal with something a little closer to the heart of Adventism's love of eschatology he might consider the Islamic tradition of the 12th Imam and it's possible connection to the Christian conception of the anti-Christ. 

Glenn Beck The Twelfth Imam 2/4/2010 Part 1

Glenn Beck Part 2 The Twelfth Imam- 2-17-2011

Glenn Beck Part 3 The Twelfth Imam- 2-17-2011

Speaking of the news, only this last week Louis Farrakhan stated that the Great Mahdi is present in the world now.

This is a sign that The Great Mahdi that the Muslim world has been looking for is present in the world. That “The Christ” that you hoped for, “The Christ” that you longed for is present in the world. And all tyrants will be set down—God is stimulating the rise of the masses, and soon it will come to America's shores. Indeed it has already begun.

Lastly here is a good short article on Why Christians do not accept Muhammad as a prophet.

I would like to take a more conciliatory approach to answer this question by starting with some common grounds that Islam has with Christianity about Jesus:

1. That Jesus historically existed
2. That Jesus was a true prophet sent by God, the God of Abraham
3. That Jesus had the title "the anointed one" although understood differently in Islam as al-Masīḥ
4. That Jesus has the title the Word (Logos) although understood differently in Islam as kalimat Allāh
5. That Jesus was born without sin and remained without sin
6. That Jesus was born to Mary as a result of virginal conception
7. That Jesus performed miracles including raising people from the dead
8. That Jesus had foreknowledge of what was hidden to others
9. That Jesus is an important religious model, possessing the highest knowledge and intimacy with God
10. That Jesus was raised up to heaven (although this is not unanimous among Islam scholars)
11. That on the Day of Judgment (Yawm al-qiyāmah) Jesus will be witness against the wicked and destroy the anti-Christ (al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl)

But Islam denies the following Christian teachings about Jesus:

1. That the 4 canonical gospels faithfully recorded the teaching of Jesus and about Jesus. Instead, Muslim scholars consider the true gospel, Injīl, to be lost or hopelessly corrupted in the form of the NT gospels we have today, thus consider information about Jesus in the Quran as more authoritative.
2. That Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, with the full implications of what Jesus said to be understood in Christianity as,
   • being the second person of the Trinity and thus having pre-existence before conception
   • being fully divine yet fully human (i.e. Incarnation according to the Chalcedonian definition)
3. That Jesus was crucified until he was truly dead on the cross (see journal articles on medical evidence and a 2021 review of medical views). Instead, Muslim scholars's view is more similar to Gnosticism or Docetism (see the 2009 School of Oriental and African Studies journal article The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive?).
4. That having truly died on the cross and buried in a cave tomb Jesus was raised from the dead on Resurrection Sunday. Muslim scholars believe that he was taken down from the cross alive (though unconscious) and later recuperated from his wounds.
5. That the Counselor/Advocate whom Jesus sent in John 14 and John 16 is the Holy Spirit. Instead Muslim scholars understand Jesus to mean Muhammad (pbuh) (see here, refuted here).
6. That Jesus is present in Spirit in the world today (see What is the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives today?). Instead Muslim scholars understand Quran references to "Holy Spirit" (Rūḥ al-qudus) to refer to the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) (pbuh). The Quraanic Exegesis article Who Is the Holy Spirit? concludes:

   So it is clear that Ruh al-Qudus here refers to Jibril… No one suggests that Ruh al-Qudus means the life of Allah ; nor is this indicated by the wording and this phrase is never used in that sense.” (Daqaiq al-Tafsir, part 2, p. 92)

Although Islamic prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spoke highly of Jesus as possibly greater than the OT prophets before him, and spoke highly of his mother Mary as well, all branches of Christianity cannot accept Muhammad (pbuh) on the same level as all canonized OT prophets and as the prophet Jesus himself because Muhammad (pbuh) denied that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Instead, Muhammad (pbuh) believed that Jesus, as a holy prophet sent by the true God, would never have "blasphemed" God by claiming to be God himself.

It's a pity that he probably got the wrong idea of the Trinity, thinking that Christians taught what we now call Tritheism (see Islamic view of the Trinity). Naturally, as Christians today ALSO denounce Tritheism as a denial of monotheism, this distorted view of the Trinity led him to exhort Christians to repent, such as in Quran Surah 5:116-118:

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

CONCLUSION: Since Jesus's being the Son of God whose true death on the cross and who is present in spirit in our lives today are both so central to salvation, and since true faith has to be based on agreeing with this, there is no way that any Christian can accept Muhammad (pbuh) as a true prophet despite many things he taught in common.

Christians trust that the 4 canonized gospels are the only authentic ones, that the other NT letters and books give us trustworthy accounts of what Jesus taught, trustworthy understanding of who Jesus is, and trustworthy interpretation of the OT. No true prophet would teach truths contrary to the truths presented in the Christian Bible.

Sources

1. University of Alberta Muslim Students' Association pamphlet Jesus: a Prophet of Islam
2. Vox 2019 article Muslims love Jesus, too: 6 things you didn't know about Jesus in Islam
3. U.S. Catholic magazine 2016 article What do Muslims think of Jesus?
4. Christianity Today 2002 article Is the God of Muhammad the Father of Jesus
5. Wikipedia article Jesus in Islam
6. Wikipedia article Names and titles of Jesus in the Quran
7. Wikipedia article Islamic views on Jesus' death
8. Wikipedia article Second Coming - Islam
9. Wikipedia article Messiah - Islam

 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89037/why-don-t-christians-accept-muhammad-as-the-true-prophet