Changes

Hebrew: "Eesh Elohim" may mean " man is God (a man is God)" or "man of God". (To mean either one, "Eesh" must be placed before "Elohim", already reducing flexibility in syntax). There is nothing at the end of these words to indicate what part of speech they are. So we must look outside to the context to determine whether the meaning is, or probably is, "man is God" or "man of God"  The context decides for us that 'man is God' is highly unlikely and that "man of God"is highly probable.  

Hebrew: "Eesh Elohim" may mean " man is God (a man is God)" or "man of God". (To mean either one, "Eesh" must be placed before "Elohim", already reducing flexibility in syntax). There is nothing at the end of these words to indicate what part of speech they are. So we must look outside to the context to determine whether the meaning is, or probably is, "man is God" or "man of God"  The context decides for us that 'man is God' is highly unlikely and that "man of God"is highly probable.  

[[Greek]]: "anthropos" (man) has "os" attached to the root "anthrop". This "os" tell us that this word is nominative and the subject of the sentence. Theou (of God) has "ou",  meaning "of" attached to the root of "The" meaning God.  So there is no mistaking the meaning of "man of God"  whether we have the word order of "anthropos theou" or "theou anthropos", or even separate the words by other modifying or qualifying words. This allows for a variety of syntactical relations in Greek, and the general context is less determinative for meaning as it is in the Semitic group of languages. In addition, either one, "theou anthropos" or "anthropos theou" is stylisticly correct, or, at least,  if not equally correct, it is for reasons other than being considered now.   

[[Greek]]: "anthropos" (man) has "os" attached to the root "anthrop". This "os" tell us that this word is nominative and the subject of the sentence. Theou (of God) has "ou",  meaning "of" attached to the root of "The" meaning God.  So there is no mistaking the meaning of "man of God"  whether we have the word order of "anthropos theou" or "theou anthropos", or even separate the words by other modifying or qualifying words (Example: "What is this new being spoken by you teaching?" Acts 17:19 - bad English but good Greek). This allows for a variety of syntactical relations in Greek, and the general context is less determinative for meaning as it is in the Semitic group of languages. In addition, either one, "theou anthropos" or "anthropos theou" is stylisticly correct, or, at least,  if not equally correct, it is for reasons other than being considered now.   

English : Though an Indo-European lannguage, words can be somewhat flexible and precise in meaning (but nevertheless stylistic stiff), by changing word order and insertion, in this case, of the word "of". Example. "the man of God"  and " of God, the man" means the same thing but the latter is stilted. "man" and "God" have nothing to indicate which is subject, object, etc.  

English : Though an Indo-European lannguage, words can be somewhat flexible and precise in meaning (but nevertheless stylistic stiff), by changing word order and insertion, in this case, of the word "of". Example. "the man of God"  and " of God, the man" means the same thing but the latter is stilted. "man" and "God" have nothing to indicate which is subject, object, etc.