I doubt if I have the time to respond to your entire posting this morning, so I'll just take one at a time.

You wrote:

quote:

---

The first reference of the term “satan” in the scripture is to a sheliach acting on behalf of YHWH. Therefore the original use of the term in the Torah refers to YHWH as the first literal satan or satanic cause in B’Midbar (Numbers) 22:22 and again YHWH is referred to as “satan” in 1 Dibre Hayyayim (Chronicles) 21:1 (comp. to 2 Shemuel 24:1). It is only the last few times in the Tanak that “satan” could even be interpreted as a proper noun of a wicked being. Satan is never used as an epithet and it makes no sense to replace elohim with satan for any reason.

---

I reply: If, as you claim, the Hebrew "Satan" is never used as an epithet, the same can certainly be said for "God." Thus, since it doesn't make any sense to replace "Elohim" with "Satan" for any reason, neither does it make any sense to replace "Elohim" with "God."

You wrote:

quote:

---

The term satan is neither one of righteousness or wickedness, it all depends on the context and perspective in which it is being used. I don’t refer to YHWH as my satan, because YHWH is not my adversary. However YHWH may be someone else’s adversary just as he was for a time David’s satan. There is no dishonour in referring to YHWH as a satan in the proper context but I can understand why those unfamiliar with Hebrew might think so.

---

I reply: I am encouraged that you do not consider YHWH as being your adversary [Satan]. However, many who prefer referring to YHWH as their "God" instead of "Almighty" do so on the basis of culturally redefining the term "God" as meaning "Almighty." It's just their way of linguistically adopting the word ... by giving a heathen term a new meaning.

Certainly, if you are not one to "culturally redefine" words and incorporate them into the English language, then you would likely not choose to refer to YHWH as your "Satan," since it means "adversary." However, based upon your rule that Torah endorses the application of heathen epithets to YHWH, you would certainly have no problem with referring to Him as your "Zeus," would you? After all, the root word for "Zeus" is a word that means "to shine." If YHWH is our "light and our salvation," then to show forth that He is the true "shining light," we can honorably refer to Him as "our Zeus," right? Is this properly applying your rule?

By the way, I obtained the information regarding the etymology of the word Zeus at the following URL: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/z/z0012500.html

You wrote:

quote:

---

However the fact that the first satan is YHWH does not prove or disprove that the Torah endorses the application of heathen epithets to YHWH.

---

I reply: I guess you'll have to provide examples from Scripture demonstrating that anyone, at any time, applied an originally heathen epithet to YHWH. I am aware that YHWH referred to Himself as a Baal (husband) in Jeremiah 31:32 and Isaiah 54:5, but the earliest use of this term (in Gen. 20:3) demonstrates that it was simply a generic term meaning "husband" or "master," but was only later applied to heathen idols. Thus, if you choose to identify "Baal" as one of those "heathen epithets" that Torah endorses, I am inclined to disagree. It is a clean word that became corrupted by heathen use.

If you choose to identify "Elohim" as one of those "heathen epithets" that Torah endorses, then I am once again inclined to disagree, for it was certainly used in reference to YHWH in Genesis 1:1 and going forward. Only later was it applied to heathen idols. I don't know about you, but I believe the worship of YHWH preceded heathen worship, so I believe "Elohim" was originally a pure title that was reverently applied to YHWH before anyone so much as dreamed of abandoning the worship of YHWH.

If you choose to identify "Adonai" as one of those "heathen epithets" that Torah endorses, then I am once again inclined to disagree, for it was certainly used in reference to YHWH in Genesis 15:2 and going forward. Only later was it appropriated to heathen idols.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall anyone ever referring to YHWH with a title that was originally a "heathen epithet." It doesn't sound very respectful to me, but more significantly, I don't know of any approved examples of this "rule" of yours being applied by any true believers. The only examples I'm aware of are the taking of originally pure titles, then applying them to heathen idols, thus giving them a heathen appearance. Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that, in their original linguistic use, they were clean and appropriately used in reference to YHWH. Just because some heathens wrongfully apply such originally pure titles as "Baal" to heathen idols doesn't mean it becomes dishonorable to continue using those same titles in reference to YHWH.

God, on the other hand, is the name of an idol whose worship YHWH specifically singled out and condemned. In spite of your insistence that this Hebrew word is not pronounced the same as the English "God," I think you should know that I, like you, have consulted Hebrew experts. The Hebrew experts have told me that we really cannot be certain whether the Canaanite idol Gad's name is pronounced like "sad" or "wad." Everyone seems to have a definite opinion, and everyone is persuaded that theirs is the correct one. The professor of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge, for example, came right out and expressed the possibility that the Masoretes may have been obscuring the pronunciation of this idol's name. He wrote, "My final suggestion is that the masoretes may have been obscuring the reference to the false god GAD." In spite of this admission, he maintains that the proper pronunciation for this idol's name is "Gad" as in "sad."

A professor of Hebrew at The University of Sydney wrote, "It [the pronunciation of "Gad"] depends on what pronunciation tradition you are following. There is no 'a' as in 'sad' in my Hebrew pronunciation, but one of my teachers pronounced the vowel 'patach' as a definite 'sad a.'"

Finally, underscoring the fact that no one can say "for sure" precisely how this idol's name was pronounced, here is what the Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO, had to say: "Larry, the person who said there is no 'a' as in 'sad' [in Hebrew] is correct according to some pronunciations and incorrect according to other pronunciations. Of course, we cannot say with precision just how Biblical Hebrew was pronounced, all we have are approximations. And, as in all living languages, there were dialects in Hebrew in the Biblical period. So, if you ask a group of Hebrew teachers about pronunciation, you will get more than one answer."

Since we really cannot say with certainty whether or not the one "GD" [the idol] was pronounced differently than the other "GD" [Zilpah's son], I believe it is safe to say there is a good possibility that they were both pronounced "gawd." However, just for the record, I believe we would still be having this discussion if the majority of English speakers today referred to the Creator as their "GAD" (as in "sad"). I believe a part of honoring YHWH involves staying as far away as possible from referring to Him with titles that were originally the names of heathen idols. The sheer fact that the two pronunciations are spelled the same in Hebrew is enough to create reasonable doubt. The fact that Hebrew professors agree that they may well have been pronounced the same only makes this word all the more suspect.

Again, there is no Scriptural record of anyone ever applying the names originally attributed to heathen deities as titles for Yahweh. Teaching that the Torah sanctions the application of "heathen epithets" to YHWH opens up an “anything goes” situation insofar as titles that we can honorably apply to Yahweh.

I know I meant to only cover the first portion of your latest response in this posting, but you made one comment that I have decided to address before I quit for the morning.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I have no problem with saying YHWH is my prosperity for He is certainly that. Just because sometime later, by coincidence, men decided to worship prosperity is no bad reflection on YHWH. In fact I think it is a dishonour to not proclaim that YHWH is your prosperity.

---

I reply: This means that you must believe all of the ancient believers dishonored YHWH, then, for none of them took your advice. Show me one place in Scripture where YHWH is ever referred to as "my prosperity" or "my GD." The best I have ever seen is with the example of the name of an Israelite spy named Gaddiel. Some sources indicate his name means "El is my fortune." Others state the name means "Fortune of Gad." I believe a better case could be made for "Gad is my elohim." According to The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 863, the name Gaddiel should be understood as using gad as an appellative. In any case, there is no record of anyone in Scripture specifically referring to YHWH as their "GD" or their "prosperity." If I am mistaken in this, please correct me.

Furthermore, anyone "just accepting" your response without further investigation would truly believe that the Hebrew word spelled "giymel daleth" [GD] must be such an honorable term. However, I am unable to locate in either Strong's or The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon the translation you offer (prosperity). I am, in fact, very curious as to where you came up with the translation "prosperity." Most scholars offer the translation of "good luck" or "fortune."

This same word (#1407 in Strong's) is said to be derived from word #1413 (gadad), which means "to crowd" or "to gash." Indeed, its intrinsic meaning does not seem as honorable as you would make it appear.

Finally, if you are so desirous of referring to YHWH as "your prosperity," why not just choose the Hebrew word that is commonly translated "prosperity"?? The Hebrew word tôwb (#2896) is translated "prosperity" at least six times, and the Hebrew word shalom (#7965) is translated "prosperity" at least four times. I'm curious as to why you would prefer to refer to YHWH as your "God" {fortune, good luck} instead of your "Shalom" {peace, prosperity}. If I had to choose between "God" and "Shalom" in terms of selecting a way of referring to YHWH as "my Prosperity," I would hands down opt for referring to Him as "my Shalom." At the very least, it is a selection that would avoid any possibility of referring to YHWH with a title that matches the name of an idol whose worship He condemns.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your posting later today.

Yours in Messiah,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
The first reference of the term “satan” in the scripture is to a sheliach acting on behalf of YHWH.

---

1. Heb. "satawn" (no article) = Eng. "adversary" or "foe". This is improperly transliterated "Satan" in 1Chron.21:1 & Ps.109:6.
2. Heb. "HaSatawn" (emphatic article) = Eng. "Satan" (the devil). All the occurrences in Job and Zechariah have this usage.

It might be proper to call YHWH our "adversary" at times, as David implied in some of his prayers, but it would never be proper to call Him our "Satan", because the English "Satan" refers exclusively to "HaSatawn" the devil.

quote:

---

Now if one puts their trust in the Torah and believes it, then one must believe that the son of Israel called GD (pr. god) was not named after a Babelonian deity (pr. gad) but named for the very reason YHWH says he was named, because Leah said “prosperity comes”.

---

Regarding the title "Baal": It's interesting that even though it may have originally (1st use) been a "clean" title, which later came to refer to pagan deities, YHWH has this to say about it in Hos.2:16-17:

quote:

---

16 And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.

---

quote:

---

You also talk about substituting YHWH’s Name as if that has had anything to do with this subject. Tell me, have I ever suggested that we substitute YHWH’s Name? Do you understand the focus of the issue at hand? I will state it again that elohim is not a substitute for YHWH’s Name, and neither is any translation of elohim. It is impossible to substitute YHWH’s name with God.

---

Also, there are the many hundreds of times where they used "God" as a proper noun, where it was actually a common noun (title). English normally requires an article ("a[n]" or "the") before a common noun, whereas proper nouns (names) don't have an article. To properly reflect that "God" was a title instead of a name, they should have rendered it "The God" (aside from the pagan considerations). English has 3 articles - indefinite ("a/an"), definite ("the" pr. "thuh"), and emphatic ("the" pr. "thee"), while Hebrew has only the emphatic "Ha" so far as i'm aware. So the translators have to try and supply the proper articles where needed. They failed miserably when it came to "Elohim".

quote:

---

My purpose in this thread is to champion the truth and if some of the pillars of the SNM suffers collateral damage, so be it – it’s nothing personal. I have not set out to destroy the SNM, but to challenge it’s teachings for the sake of truth and freedom. I however think that as the truth is revealed, the movement may fade away or give way to religious convictions.

---

quote:

---

Regarding the difference between posterior and ulterior etymologies. The ulterior means the ultimate root of a word. ... However the second generation of a word, and it’s consequential 3rd , 4th, 5th generations etc. make up what we call the posterior etymology.

---

There is little point in continuing this way. We can never agree on anything unless you change your preference for a mode of revelation that primarily relies upon conjecture over academia. You reject the proper pronunciation of GAD based upon a conspiracy theory that there is no evidence of. To me the whole case against GOD reads like a well crafted tabloid discovery, an illusion created with smoke and mirrors.

I do thank you for your participation in this debate, you have made me aware of additional points that I can address.

Having responded to a small portion of your posting early this morning, I will now reply to the remaining portion.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now if one puts their trust in the Torah and believes it, then one must believe that the son of Israel called GD (pr. god) was not named after a Babelonian deity (pr. gad) but named for the very reason YHWH says he was named, because Leah said “prosperity comes”.

---

I reply: I have already responded to this claim elsewhere in this thread, so now we are starting to bring up old arguments. As I wrote back on Dec. 28th, the idol named Gad was worshipped in Leah and Rachel's home town of Haran, a fact supported by archaeological evidence. Leah and Rachel were in fact raised in a heathen environment, and Jacob's family was still worshipping idols even after he departed Haran (Gen. 35:2). It should not be considered strange that Leah named Zilpah's son after an idol, for this is indeed something that was practiced, even in the first century CE. Whether we like to admit it or not, the fact is, Jacob tolerated idol worship in his household during his lengthy stay in Haran.

Leah, who gave Zilpah’s son the name “God,” was herself born and raised in the very pagan household of Laban, who himself worshipped many idols (Gen. 31:19, 30). In giving Zilpah’s son his name, Leah uttered the Hebrew equivalent of “Good fortune!” (cf. Gen. 30:11, NIV, NRSV). Could it be that she was raised believing in God, the deity of fortune, in addition to many other such idols? Yes, this is possible, and the fact that Israelites returning to the Promised Land discovered a Canaanite city named “Baal-God” (Lord God) at the foot of Mount Hermon (Josh. 11:17) demonstrates that a deity by this name was indeed worshipped well before the Israelites’ return from Egypt, and very likely well before the days of Abraham. The reference works I have consulted in my research support this premise.¹

According to The Jewish Encyclopedia, “‘Gad’ is perhaps found also in Gen. xxx. 11, where the ketib reading means ‘by the help of Gad!’ the exclamation of Leah at the birth of Zilpah’s son. Indeed, it is quite possible that this narrative arises from a tradition connecting the tribal eponym with the Deity Himself. How wide-spread the cult of Gad, or Fortune, was in the old Canaanitish times may be inferred from the names ‘Baal-gad,’ a city at the foot of Mount Hermon, and ‘Migdal-gad,’ in the territory of Judah.”² According to A Dictionary of the Bible, the word Gad “would seem to have been a native Canaanite word, retained by the Israelites in consequence of the tendency to polytheism which existed among them as late as the time of the Babylonian captivity....”³ The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge includes the following pertinent information regarding this Canaanite idol:

“Gad-melek, ‘Gad is king,’ is an inscription on a stone found in Jerusalem, possibly due to Canaanitic influence. In Arabic the proper name Abd al-Gadd is found, certainly a deity’s name (Wellhausen, Heidentum, p. 146). Isaac of Antioch (Opera, ed. Bickell, ii. 210, Giessen, 1877) reports that tables were prepared on the roofs by his countrymen for Gadda or (pl.) Gadde, and he mentions a ‘demon’ Gadlat as belonging to the city of Beth-hur. Jacob of Sarug speaks of a female goddess of Haran named Gadlat, while by the plural gadde he means demons. It is noteworthy that both of these references fall in with what is shown by comparative religion as happening within the Semitic sphere; (1) the development of a shadowy consort corresponding in name to the male deity, and (2) in a subsequent stage of development or under another religion the degradation of both deities to the rank of demons. Post-Christian Jews, especially the rabbis, used the name as that of a demon. Temples of Gad were known in Syria, and Buxtorf cites a passage which speaks of an image of Gad. Jacob of Sarug says that ‘on the summit of the mountains they now build monasteries instead of beit-gadde’ (i.e., temples to Jupiter and Venus, who were identified with the deities of good luck). In late times Gad appears to have been so popular that his name acquired the sense of ‘genius, godhead.’”⁴

Thus, although the deity of fortune Gad (which is very likely pronounced gawd in Hebrew) isn’t (necessarily) mentioned by name until Isaiah 65:11, this does not mean that it was not worshipped by Laban and his household, and it is thus quite likely that Leah chose to employ this idol’s name as the name for Zilpah’s son in consequence to her having been reared in a heathen household. It is noteworthy that the above reference mentions a goddess named Gadlat, who coincidentally was worshipped in Haran, which just happens to be Laban’s “home town”!⁵ Also interesting is the fact that in the early stages of what is known as the “New Testament era,” post-Messianic Jews used Gad as the name of a demon. Today, however, we are expected by some to regard a word bearing this same spelling and pronunciation (God) as being “a perfectly acceptable English translation” of the Hebrew title Elohim!? In view of where the pronunciation of this word originated, and where this word has been, we have no desire to join that crowd.

You wrote:

quote:

---

It is obvious that she did not name her son after an idol because the very first use of GD in the scriptures refers to Leah’s son and not to an idol. She never made any reference to Gad. If you can read the Hebrew text you will see that in B’reshith (Genesis) 30:11 both times GD appears as qametz showing no connection to the idol GD which is patach. This is how we know the idol is pronounced GAD and not GOD. When you deliberately swap these vowels you are doing an underhanded trick. Now if you reject the Masoretic nikud which is represents the most ancient pronunciation then you must be relying upon the Sephardi-Arabic nikud which does not represent biblical Hebrew.

---

I reply: First of all, the son was Zilpah's son, not Leah's. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, there is at the very least an ancient dispute over whether or not Leah named Zilpah's son after an idol. Certainly, if you are enamored with the title "God," I can expect you to take the side of those who believe she simply named her son "Fortune," or as you translate it, "Prosperity." As for the pronunciation of the vowels, I have already covered this. You are relying on a Masoretic system that wasn't even put into the Hebrew text until the 7th century. Even so, you expect us to believe there couldn't have been any differences in dialect that could have affected a long "a" versus a short "a." As the Hebrew professors I quoted this morning acknowledge, those differences in dialect were there, and they could have easily affected the pronunciation from one dialect to another. On top of this, another professor acknowledges the possibility that the Masoretes deliberately covered up the pronunciation of this idol's name. When we factor in all these possibilities, the choice for me becomes clear: Steer clear of any possibility of referring to YHWH with a title pronounced and spelled the same as the name of an idol whose worship He condemns.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You need to learn how the pronunciation of the English “God” came about. We don’t have to go back very far to learn that God is the centumized form of the labiovelar aspiration.

---

I reply: Actually, just to make certain I'm not "off track" with the pronunciation I have shown, I have simply contacted professors who are kind enough to share their wisdom in a non-condescending manner. I gave you a sampling of what I was told in this morning's posting. If I were to get as precise as you seem to indicate I need to get, I would have to bring a tape recorder on a time travel journey to the first century and beyond. All I really was aiming for was whether or not there is a possibility of a pronunciation match between the name of Zilpah's son and the name of the Canaanite idol of fortune. The answer is yes.

You wrote:

quote:

---

But most originally it contained no velar at all! The earliest forms of God do not appear anything like Gad. So without your gimel your etymological theory seems rather unlikely. We’d have to believe the velar was dropped, forgotten, and then by coincidence was spontaneously reintroduced. The God pronunciation is such a recent and natural development that it strains all credibility that it could have ever been exactly like the original form – which no source agrees with.

---

I reply: As I understand the etymological journey that you are trying to present for the English "God," since you are removing the "giymel," you must be referring to the Sanskrit hu? Sorry, but I'm inclined to believe that the traces of the idol God as found in ancient folklore offers a much more credible etymological journey than the one you submit.

If I were to implicitly trust the etymological guesswork presented by those who come up with the reasoning that "God" is traced to "hu," I might just buy into the reasoning you offer. However, I am much more persuaded by the obvious connections traced by the ancient Gad-El-glas worship in Ireland, the connection it likely has with the Teutonic Gott, plus the same word in Russian means "reptile" and forms a part of the word for fortune-teller. I understand that you interpret all these facts as either false data or "coincidences" while accepting what I believe is an unlikely connection between "God" and "hu." I do not share your interpretation of the facts.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I have no problem with saying YHWH is my prosperity for He is certainly that. Just because sometime later, by coincidence, men decided to worship prosperity is no bad reflection on YHWH. In fact I think it is a dishonour to not proclaim that YHWH is your prosperity.

---

Since I already responded to the above commentary this morning, I will simply reiterate that you are here adding a translation of "Gad" (prosperity) that I have never before seen in my research. Instead, I have seen "good luck and fortune." I do understand the desire to enhance the translation so as to make it appear more attractive, but I believe the reasoning behind the "good luck" and "fortune" translations was to actually distinguish the inherent meaning of Gad from the more righteous translation of "prosperity," which is reserved for such words as shalom. Thus, if I were to share your desire to refer to YHWH as "my prosperity," I would refer to Him as "my Shalom" instead of "my God."

You wrote:

quote:

---

We also know YHWH approves of this name on the New Yerushalem. One thing you can not explain is why YHWH would inscribe the name of an idol GD on the gate of His New Yerushalem and dishonour himself. I can explain it: because it is not considered the name of an idol.

---

I reply: The difference is, the name of the gate of His New Yerushalem is not applied to Himself. It is a name that was given to one of Ya'aqob's sons, and as I've explained before, just because a man is named after a heathen idol doesn't mean his name should be changed when he comes to the Faith. Just ask Apollos. YHWH could put Apollos' name on one of the gates of the New Yerushalem ... wouldn't bother me in the least. Apollos, in spite of being named after a heathen idol, became a mighty messenger of truth. I believe His name, though not to be found on one of those gates, will be found in the Book of Life, and that, too, does not dishonor YHWH. The dishonor would come in referring to YHWH as "our Apollos."

You wrote:

quote:

---

(1) You ask why I don’t refer to YHWH as my Zebulon, and the answer is because we are talking about the translation of elohim. Now zebulon does not translate elohim, and because it is a Hebrew term it can not translate another Hebrew term. (2) But because you believe that we can create epithets from Hebrew and apply them to YHWH then you shouldn’t have any problem if I create YHWH my gawd.

---

I reply: (1) Please understand that I understand that this is all about the translation of "elohim." I'm not sure if you are deliberately confusing this issue, but you have just finished defending the "inherently nice meaning of 'Gad'" by saying it would be a dishonour to not refer to YHWH as "our prosperity," so you have just defended referring to YHWH with your translation of the Hebrew GD, even though I'm sure you would agree that "prosperity" (like the translation of Zebulun, i.e., "dwelling") doesn't translate "elohim." So neither GD nor Zebulun translate "Elohim," yet you believe it is a dishonor to not refer to YHWH with the translation of GD. Never mind the translation of Zebulun ...

You thus choose to abide by your understanding of the evolutionary journey of the Sanskrit hu, believing that, in spite of its heathen origin, it makes quite the acceptable word if we assign it the English meaning of "Almighty." Or do you believe the expression "to pour, to offer sacrifice" makes an appropriate translation of Elohim? By promoting "God" as you do, this is indeed the etymological root meaning that you are infusing as the translation of Elohim.

(2) Where did you come up with the understanding that I believe we can create epithets from Hebrew and apply them to YHWH? If you are referring to the example of Zebulun that I had provided, then you obviously missed a point I made on Dec. 26th. My original point was, if you must choose a name found on the 12 gates of the New Yerushalem to translate "elohim," then why not choose one with an inherently pure origin, such as "Zebulun"? On December 26th, I elaborated as follows: "Many who promote "God" justify its use as a title because it will be on one of the 12 gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12). I can only respond by noting that, even if the name "God" didn't have a heathen origin, I would have a difficult time justifying applying the name of any man as a title for YHWH. Each of those twelve tribes eventually abandoned YHWH and (collectively) turned to idol worship. To take the name of any of those tribes and then apply it to YHWH as an "honorable title" seems disgraceful in itself ... but to take a name that also happens to match the name of an idol whose worship YHWH condemns is contemptible to me."

I believe I made it very clear in the above remark that I do not believe we can create epithets from Hebrew ... especially ones that are known to be the names of men. You thus misrepresented me again, effectively adding to the frustration of discussing this issue with you.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I know you believe that there are “too many similarities” between God and Gad, but if we add them up, there are even less similar than the Hebrew and English “dog”.

---

I reply: Upon reading the above remark, I was expecting you to proceed with adding up the similarities between the Hebrew and English "dog," but you simply moved on without offering any examples. Therefore, here are some examples of similarities between "God" and "Gad."

* According to Hebrew scholars, they both could very well have been pronounced identically. Since we cannot bring a tape recorder back in time 2,000 years, neither party is able to prove anything either way, although we know that the "Gad" in Baal Gad is most certainly vowel-pointed so as to be pronounced "Baal Gawd." In fact, I believe the evidence favors this reasoning.

* Both are used for heathen idol worship.

I'm sure some folks could come up with additional similarities, but those are the two "biggies." So far as I can tell, the English "dog" does not trace to "idol worship," although I'm sure some cultures probably worshipped dogs, since reprobate man has pretty much worshipped everything but the Creator Himself. Futhermore, the Hebrew word pronounced "dog" (word #1709) means "fish."

You wrote:

quote:

---

It is obvious that you do make some reference to the hermeneutic rule of ‘first use’ which is common in bible translation theory. The real problem that I see is that you do not apply it consistently. You claim to apply this to some words like elohim and baal and yet not to others. If you applied this rule to satan and gad then we wouldn’t be having this debate and you could have avoided your regrets about participating.

---

I reply: I would like to suggest that you reread my posting from Dec. 4th where I acknowledge that I would not recommend referring to YHWH as "my Satan" because it would be the same as admitting that he is your "adversary." Here is what I wrote: "Since the title “Satan” means “adversary,” I personally cannot recommend that anyone who wants to be on Yahweh’s side refer to Him with such a title. But of course, since a part of borrowing names/titles from other languages is culturally redefining them to suit our desires, someone might conceivably choose to redefine "Satan" as “Almighty” and thus justify using that title in reference to Yahweh."

Since you, in this case at least, do not support culturally redefining "Satan" and applying that term to YHWH, I must say that I agree with you on this particular point. However, you then proceed to break that rule by culturally redefining even the etymological root word that you recognize for "God." Its root origin means "to pour" or "offer in sacrifice," or even "to invoke." Nevertheless, in spite of this intrinsic meaning, you dub it an acceptable translation of the Hebrew Elohim. And you accuse me of being inconsistent?

One more thing: In the original critique that I wrote in response to the study "The Truth Regarding Divine Titles," I made it clear that "adversary" is indeed used in Scripture as a title for YHWH. Here is what I wrote:

"Not only this, but the fact that 'satan' means 'adversary' can equally be applied either to Yahweh or to the devil, for Yahweh is indeed an adversary to those who defy Him and is even referred to as an adversary in the Bible."

The above comment can be found at the following URL, for those interested in checking it out: http://www.geocities.com/dabar_olam/Articles/Installment6.html

Well, I will stop for now at this point of my response to your last posting. You gave me lots to respond to, so I hope you don't mind if I respond in segments, as time allows. I will work on completing my response tonight.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

¹The reference works we consulted agree that the deity God (rendered Gad in English translations) was most likely worshipped in Canaan prior to the birth of Zilpah’s son. From The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume IV, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, 1908, p. 418, we read the following regarding the origin of the Canaanite deity Gad: “The origin of the god Gad is in doubt. It is possible that he arose as the personification of the abstract concept of good fortune, though it must be said that this process is not usual in the Semitic sphere. None of the Old Testament passages which bear on the question are very early, unless the view of the critical school be correct which inclines to the belief that the tribe of Gad, like that of Asher, took its name from the god. The newer explanation of the composite origin of the Hebrew nation as including clans absorbed by conquest, tradition recording this fact by assigning to the clans so absorbed a humbler origin as the descendants of concubines, would make for an early origin of the deity. But these conclusions are by no means universally accepted, and the worship, even the existence, of Gad in strictly Canaanitic provenance earlier than the Exile rests on the two place names Baal-gad and Migdal-gad (ut. sup.).” According to A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume II, edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D., Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1899, p. 76, “A trace of the Syr. worship of Gad is regarded as being indicated by the exclamation of Leah when Zilpah, her maid, bore Jacob a son (Gn 30).” This same reference adds that Gad was “a native Canaanite word, retained by the Israelites in consequence of the tendency to polytheism which existed among them as late as the time of the Babylonian captivity....” Finally, this reference gives the following conclusion: “Further testimony to the worship of Gad in Canaan is to be found in the place-names Baal-gad (Jos. 11¹⁷ 12⁷ 13⁵), where Baal was worshipped as god of fortune, and Migdal-gad (Jos 15³⁷), ‘the tower of Gad.’”

²From The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume V, Isidore Singer, Ph.D., Projector and Managing Editor, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and London, 1910, p. 544. Note: On this same page we read, “The suggestion has been made that the name of the tribe is derived from Gad, the god of luck.”

³From A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume II, edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D., Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1899, p. 76.

⁴From The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume IV, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, 1908, p. 418.

⁵Other references validate the fact that the deity Gad (pronounced gawd) was worshipped in Haran, the home town of Laban. According to The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon Press, New York and Nashville, item “Gad (Deity),” p. 335, “The nature of the deity is clear from an Aramaic-Greek bilingual inscription from Palmyra, where he is identified with tu,ch, ‘Fortune.’ His cult was particularly popular in the Hauran.”

I am not arguing against translating elohim as 'mighty one' or something reasonable - only against prohibiting god as a translation of such. I personally prefer to use two terms, almighty and god. Almighty works well because it is already in the plural form just like elohim is. The context determines whether it is in the plural or singular sense. Although god doesn't have the forementioned advantage it does have other advantages such as it's ambiguity, common use, and same usage as elah. By using these two terms I believe one can preserve a greater sense of the Hebrew grammar.

Without getting into the technicality of how I decide which term to use I think it would be better just to demonstrate and perhaps you'll understand better that way.

In passages like Shemot (Exodus) 3:15 And the Almighty also said to Mosheh: Tell the children of Israel that YHWH the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Itzhaq, the God of Yacob has sent me, and; this is My name forever and My memorial from generation to generation.

Or where YHWH ELOHIM appears I would translate it YHWH Almighty. When referring to other elohim perhaps "mighty ones" is alright, but "gods" seems to communicate the concept more easily and precisely without need for an explanation of what "mighty ones" are. As you can see this leaves no doubt as to what god we are referring to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
... this leaves no doubt as to what god we are referring to.

---

Yes!

Thank you.

I am glad you got something good out of my post. Sometime we'll have to try and explain the concept of sheliach, which I believe is essential to understand the scriptures. If you like, a simple explanation of sheliach is somewhat like an ambassador or agent. It is quite impossible to tell what actually originated from pagan use or not. Larry sometimes refers to the first use in scripture, but at other times first use historically, anthropologically, or archeologically. Baal certainly predates the scriptures and our earliest known use was in idolatry. But earliest use doesn't necessarily mean original use. I don't believe that the term god originated in heathen worship nor was it the name of an idol, I believe it has innocent origins.

Perhaps you didn't understand my statement that it is impossible to substitute 'YHWH' with God. What I meant was, that it is impossible to be proper in doing so. What the KJV translators did was improper and can not be considered proper. What non-Hebrew, non-Aramaic readers need are effective and full translations so they can easily comprehend the scriptures. If we start reverting back to Hebrew terms then we really aren't translating anymore as some sacred name translation have done. Some of them have only made the scriptures more confusing.

You brought up something that I believe is a very good point, and I hope you don't mind if I add a little commentary.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Regarding the title "Baal": It's interesting that even though it may have originally (1st use) been a "clean" title, which later came to refer to pagan deities, YHWH has this to say about it in Hos.2:16-17:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If YHWH doesn't want to be called by this "innocent" title that became used as the name of an idol, then the name of the idol "G_d" falls into the same class, even if its 1st use was "innocent".

---

I reply: Again, that is a terrific point, except I wish you would have highlighted your use of the words "even if," as I have found that unless you do this, people regard it as a concession of some sort.

Nevertheless, I would like to present an EVEN IF scenario ...

What IF the Hebrew name GD had an inherently pure meaning and origin?

As Chuck has already pointed out, the term Baal, though it apparently was an "originally clean" title, later became a title that YHWH no longer appreciates. Could this be because of the common association it came to have with idol worship? I would answer yes.

I would like to give an example of a word that most likely had a "clean origin," but became corrupted, and is now repulsive to many, especially to Jews. The name I'm referring to: HITLER.

The name "Hitler," according to Wikipedia.com, may have originally meant "shepherd." This is a nice "clean" meaning, if this is indeed what this name originally meant in the German language.

Needless to say, this name became the epitome of despicable names, not only for Judaism, but for all who embrace human rights.

Now this is where the "EVEN IF" / "WHAT IF" scenario comes into play. Let's suppose that, down the road someday, somehow, either through a popular fad or by some freakish linguistic coincidence, a word pronounced "hitler" evolves its way into the English culture as a culturally accepted synonym for the word "friend." As a Jew, how would you feel about this linguistic development? Speaking for myself, even though I am not a Jew, and even if no one else had complained about the incorporation of that "new word" into the English language, I would protest at every opportunity!

Let's say that, down the road sometime later, someone you just met said, "Hey, let's be hitlers!!"

I don't know about you, but I would say, "Please do not ever use that term in my presence." I would then most likely offer the reason why the term is so repugnant to me.

The new acquaintance might say, "Hey, you have a real hang-up, man! If you do the research, you will see that 'hitler,' in its original sense, is a clean word. If you have an issue with that word because of what one man did to it, then I figure that's YOUR problem!"

QUESTION: I gave you my own personal feelings about how I would react to the new culturally-accepted word "hitler." How would you have reacted?

Even if Hitler was originally a "clean" word, what one man did to that name has forever tainted it. Especially if I were Jewish, and even more so if I had lost relatives in Hitler's death camps, I would detest the newly adopted English word for "friend." I wouldn't care what the word "hitler" means to today's "hip society," it would only serve to remind me of the horrible things associated with the man who bore that name, and it would certainly not mean anything close to "friend" to me.

Even if "Gad" was originally a "clean" word, what mankind did to that word has forever tainted it. It became the name of an idol whose worship was specifically singled out and condemned by YHWH. Not that I could ever hope to put myself in the place of YHWH, but I nevertheless have a difficult time believing that, after what mankind has done to the name "Gad," He would be well pleased for future mankind to overlook the disdain that He has expressed towards this idol ... not only overlooking His expressed abhorrence for it, but then culturally redefining the word as "Mighty One" and applying it to Him as an "honorable title."

How could this honor Him? Hasn't He expressed His feelings about Gad in plain enough terms?

Of course, someone defending the culturally-accepted "hitler" might say something like, "Well, Adolf Hitler's last name isn't pronounced quite the same as the word we use today. Our word 'hitler' is pronounced 'hitlur,' whereas Adolf's last name was pronounced 'heedlar.' The two terms aren't really the same, so your 'smoke and mirrors' attempts at tricking people into believing the word 'hitler' is offensive to Jews is just an overactive imagination."

I hope this potential scenario helps others to see what has been done with the word "GD." It is spelled exactly the same way as the name of an idol whose worship YHWH condemns, and some scholars agree that it is very likely pronounced the same as well. Can anyone prove that it isn't? No, they cannot.

As I have so often said, this issue is all about honor and it's about choices. We have so many alternate choices that we can use in place of "God": Almighty, Mighty One, Supreme, Sovereign, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. There are lots of choices. Let's go for the best.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

Before i continue responding to the posting you submitted last night, i thought I would take a minute to respond to this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
There is little point in continuing this way. We can never agree on anything unless you change your preference for a mode of revelation that primarily relies upon conjecture over academia.

---

I reply: The way what you wrote reads, it's as though you're saying we will not agree on anything unless I change my preference over to one primarily relying upon conjecture. (?) I trust this isn't what you were really trying to convey, though, and i do believe I know what your intent is with your comment.

I believe your opinion is that i am currently relying on conjecture. However, i believe i have demonstrated otherwise. Since you didn't present any specific "conjectures" that you believe i have come up with, i will simply leave it at that for now.

You added:

quote:

---

You reject the proper pronunciation of GAD based upon a conspiracy theory that there is no evidence of.

---

I reply: On the contrary ... i believe you are referring to the quote from the professor of Hebrew at The University of Cambridge in which he recognizes the possibility that the Masoretes may have been obscuring the pronunciation of the name of the Canaanite idol of fortune. If you will notice carefully, both he and i used the terms "possibility" and "may have been." I am hopeful that you are able to recognize that this does not constitute a "full-fledged" rejection of what you consider the "proper pronunciation of GAD." I believe in considering all the possibilities and in exploring all the options before making a final declaration regarding the precise pronunciation of that word.

Indeed, i have elsewhere in this thread stated that even if it should be eventually be shown that this idol's name was originally pronounced "GAD," i would still have a problem with "GOD," simply because, regardless of the precise pronunciation, both terms are spelled identically in Hebrew, and i will allow for differences of dialect to have influenced pronunciation variances.

Right now, based upon all the evidence i have seen, i am persuaded that the Canaanite idol's name is pronounced gawd, but i am not going to dogmatically declare that yours "has to be wrong." I would need a recording device and a journey through time before i would do such a thing.

You wrote:

quote:

---

To me the whole case against GOD reads like a well crafted tabloid discovery, an illusion created with smoke and mirrors.

---

I reply: ... and to me, this is a matter of doing my best to make certain i honor YHWH, not only by calling upon Him with the name He gave to Himself, but also with any titles i use in reference to Him. If there is any possibility that a title i use matches the name of an idol whose worship He condemns, then i don't want to use that title in reference to Him.

I am thankful that i have never taken any interest in magic, smoke and mirrors and such, so although i know those are terms used in magic tricks, i really don't know in what way and how, so i really don't know exactly what you're referring to, except that it looks like you're trying to insult my methods of research. I also don't read the "tabloids," so i'm not really with you on that one, either, although i hear there are some pretty strange stories in those magazines. All i know is, i'm doing my best to please the Father and His Son, and the evidence shows that the name of the idol whose worship He condemns surfaced in ancient Ireland [Gad-El-glas], Russia [Gad], and Germany [Gott]. You can call it what you want; i call it evidence.

I do find it fascinating that you keep bringing up "smoke and mirrors" and magic tricks rhetoric against me, as though i am trying to conjure up some kind of supernatural spell or whatever in sharing my findings here. What makes it all so fascinating is the irony of it all. You see, i have come here plainly identifying myself as Larry Acheson ... a truth seeker with no ax to grind, no web site to plug, no ministry to promote and no following to impress. I believe i have been completely "up front" with you and everyone else here, and i have nothing to hide whatsoever. You, on the other hand, come here in disguise, masquerading yourself with a "screen name" to protect your own identity. I wonder which of us comes closest, in the eyes of YHWH, to operating with "smoke and mirrors"?

Furthermore, time and again, you have demonstrated what i would call a veiled manner of offering evidence, i.e., you don't list your sources. In fact, when i called upon you to document your remarks, you smugly refused to do so, stating, "I deliberately did not offer any documentation whatsoever. Why? Because it is not hard to learn if what I wrote was factual. Whether or not one posts sources shouldn't ultimately matter, since I always check out the information anyways." (This comment was posted back on 12-05-2004 at 04:36 AM, page 2 of this thread).

Now you tell me, in the interest of responsible journalism: Would the person who deliberately leaves out documentation be more apt to use "smoke and mirrors" or would it be the person who insists upon it? I strive to offer documentation at every turn, but since i am not perfect, there are times when i will neglect to do so. Nevertheless, when called upon to produce my sources, i have always done so. You know this to be true.

To clearly demonstrate to everyone your clear lack of desire to offer documentation for your controversial remarks, back on Dec. 31st you flatly refused to offer documentation for your statement that Theos was "the name of the Cretian god" (a claim you made on p. 6 of this thread). Since i have done extensive research in investigating whether or not there was ever an idol named "Theos" worshipped by any culture in history, your comment piqued my interest. Since i have not been able to find any such evidence pointing to any idols named "Theos," i am left to believe that your remark is simply false until you demonstrate otherwise. In the interest of proving to all that your information comes from a reliable source, all you had to do was offer us your source of information to validate your remark, but you wouldn't do it! Why not? Well, here is the excuse you offered:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew back on 12-31-2004 at 03:22 PM (see page 8 of this thread):
You wanted to know why I did not take the first opportunity to share with you information concerning Theos that I knew you were searching for. I do not want to share that information with you because I don't want to see it abused as part of an act in your sacred name roadshow.

---

Of course, i believe the above is a ridiculous piece of rationale, and indicates that you are not being honest with me. Truth is truth, so if i would abuse the truth, may YHWH be the judge of that, not you. It's as though you're afraid of sharing truth ... or maybe you simply are not telling the truth when you say you have the information proving "Theos" to be the name of an idol? Since you are not really being up-front about anything, including your own identity, i believe i know who it is who is really operating with a "smoke and mirrors" tactic ... and so does YHWH.

Indeed, if i am as guilty of using a "smoke and mirrors" tactic as you would like to persuade others to believe, then this is truly a case of "the pot calling the kettle black."

One parting comment ...

You wrote in another posting:

quote:

---

Baal certainly predates the scriptures and our earliest known use was in idolatry.

---

I reply: Please, show us the evidence substantiating your claim here. Also, since YHWH referred to Himself as having been a Baal (Husband) to the children of Israel, and since you must believe He was borrowing an originally heathen term in order to refer to Himself in this way ... what term do you believe He would have used before the heathens "invented" the term "Baal"?

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:

I am glad you got something good out of my post. Sometime we'll have to try and explain the concept of sheliach, which I believe is essential to understand the scriptures. If you like, a simple explanation of sheliach is somewhat like an ambassador or agent. ... I don't believe that the term god originated in heathen worship nor was it the name of an idol, I believe it has innocent origins.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you didn't understand my statement that it is impossible to substitute 'YHWH' with God. What I meant was, that it is impossible to be proper in doing so. What the KJV translators did was improper and can not be considered proper. What non-Hebrew, non-Aramaic readers need are effective and full translations so they can easily comprehend the scriptures. If we start reverting back to Hebrew terms (like "sheliach"? Sorry, i couldn't resist) then we really aren't translating anymore as some sacred name translation have done. Some of them have only made the scriptures more confusing.

---

YHWH bless.

Some of you might recall my mention of corresponding with a teenaged Jewish young man, and I thought you might enjoy reading this from his most recent letter. Not sure of "correct protocol" or whatever, I had cautiously written "YHWH" within my own letter, and this was the young man's response:

quote:

---

... again thank you for responding so quickly. One thing I must tell you is that the word YHWH, you do not need to worry about spelling it out, since there is no "w" sound in Hebrew, the english word for G-d or YHWH with the e and a, so you can spell Yahweh in really english (I'm not trying to sound like niener niener niener I know more, but I just thought I might share this with you).

Actually thinking about it now the english word G-d with the o can not really be said in Hebrew either, the only way I ever said His name is Hashem or Hay and Uod. Anyway this is getting pointless since I do not have Dagash (a Hebrew writing program) at this school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:

Some of you might recall my mention of corresponding with a teenaged Jewish young man, and I thought you might enjoy reading this from his most recent letter. Not sure of "correct protocol" or whatever, I had cautiously written "YHWH" within my own letter, and this was the young man's response:

"... again thank you for responding so quickly. One thing I must tell you is that the word YHWH, you do not need to worry about spelling it out, since there is no "w" sound in Hebrew, the english word for G-d or YHWH with the e and a, so you can spell Yahweh in really english (I'm not trying to sound like niener niener niener I know more, but I just thought I might share this with you).
Actually thinking about it now the english word G-d with the o can not really be said in Hebrew either, the only way I ever said His name is Hashem or Hay and Uod. Anyway this is getting pointless since I do not have Dagash (a Hebrew writing program) at this school.

---

quote:

---

"...there is no "W" sound in Hebrew..."

---

(Of course, the young man may be thinking of Yiddish, instead of Hebrew.)

quote:

---

"...'G_d' with the 'o' cannot really be said in Hebrew..."

---

quote:

---

"...the only way I ever said His name is 'Hashem' or 'Hay' and 'Uod'."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
I might have enjoyed reading it more if i could understand what he said. Actually, i think i understood 3 things, all of which i question ...

---

Greetings, Chuck, and can you understand why a response such as yours is why I am extremely hesitant about inviting that young man here?

In any case, here is part of what I just wrote to him:

quote:

---

Shalom ...

Thank you for your comments about the word "YHWH". At least in part, I had written it cautiously because I know so little about it and did not want to offend.

Question: Might you have any thoughts related to the spelling "Yahuah"?

But of course, you are certainly under no obligation there.

... (body of our on-going discussion about "religion" removed) ...

Question: Might you be at all interested in an on-line discussion board where conversations and discussions such as ours (and many more kinds) take place?

For the most part, folks there are what could be called "Messianic" or "Sacred Name", and some of my own favorites are Jewish, but not everyone there is always ... well, not always as "nice" as people should be. However, there are some of us there who go wherever we do (in conversation and/or discussion) after beginning here:

---
Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
... the first and most important article of faith is the shema, that YHWH is one, and there is only one YHWH. I have learned from experience that unless that most basic point is agreed upon there can be no right fellowship. It is the most basic truth of our faith.
---

Blessings ...

---

"Father, forgive us our gross insensitivities."
------------

PS: I do realize you might never have seen this, Chuck:

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/002081.html

Peace ...

In the interest of answering all of your questions, comments and charges, i am continuing where i left off the other day in my response to your posting of 01/03/2004.

More SNM Condemnation Allegations & Bearing False Witness

You wrote:

quote:

---

While it is true that the SNM doesn’t directly condemn anyone for anything, they make it their business to tell us that we are under the condemnation of the Law. But what if we are not under such condemnation, would that not make them false accusers? Are not false accusers under the condemnation of the Law? Satan does not judge or condemn anyone either, but stands before YHWH accusing us all. The Law says not to bear false witness, if there is even a 1% possibility that you are bearing false witness, then why take the chance?

---

I reply: You frequently make broad references to the Sacred Name Movement, using the very general word "they," and yet you direct the references to me (or am i becoming paranoid?). Otherwise, who is "they"? This wouldn't be so bad if any of the accusations you bring were actually true. As it is, they are false charges, so far as i can tell. You keep bringing up the "condemnation of the SNM" for some reason ... i can only imagine why you have made this your theme, but i won't mention it here. Instead, i will only respond that June and i know of absolutely no one in the SNM who says that you or anyone is "under the condemnation of the Law." It thus appears that when you level the charge of "false accusers" at those of my persuasion, it is in fact YOU who is the real "false accuser."

For the record, all i've been doing all along is defending my belief that the English God is very likely pronounced the same (if not identically) as the name of the Canaanite idol of fortune. I have produced testimony from Hebrew scholars attesting to this possibility. I do not believe we honor YHWH by referring to Him with a title whose pronunciation matches the name of a heathen idol, especially an idol whose worship He specifically condemns. Rather than risk dishonoring YHWH, i have repeatedly suggested that we come up with alternate titles that are unquestionably "clean." You have effectively attempted to convert the above into "bearing false witness," which is nonsense.

Substituting YHWH's Name

You wrote:

quote:

---

You also talk about substituting YHWH’s Name as if that has had anything to do with this subject. Tell me, have I ever suggested that we substitute YHWH’s Name? Do you understand the focus of the issue at hand? I will state it again that elohim is not a substitute for YHWH’s Name, and neither is any translation of elohim. it is impossible to substitute YHWH’s name with God.

---

I reply: This is simply another misrepresentation on your part. Yes, i am opposed to substituting anything for YHWH's name, but I have not brought that point up in this thread at all. The only time you might be confused about my having mentioned this would be one of the occasions when i had to defend myself against your persistent claims that the SNM (which would include me) condemns those who refer to YHWH as "our God." In order to defend myself against one of those charges (on January 1st), i copied a response that i had previously given you in a posting that i submitted [on Dec. 20th] in the thread entitled "The Definition of a 'Sacred Namer'." Here, then, is the instance where i wrote about "substituting YHWH's name," but it was only originally given as a part of my "definition of a Sacred Namer" ... in that thread. It only appears in this thread because I was called upon to (once again) defend my position that i condemn no one for referring to YHWH as "their God," so I simply copied and pasted that response here for you to see. Thus, if you wouldn't keep bringing up that accusation, the following would never have appeared in this thread, but would have remained in the "Definition of a Sacred Namer" thread:

I believe one way to honor the Father is by respectfully calling upon Him by His name. When we use substitutes, I believe we bring dishonor.

Summarizing this point, then, i have never (to this point, at least) accused you of substituting YHWH's name. You simply didn't understand that i was only copying and pasting that comment from another thread as a necessary inclusion to my commentary in this thread, defending that I condemn no one for referring to YHWH as "our God."

The Alleged "Pillars" of the Sacred Name Movement

You wrote:

quote:

---

My purpose in this thread is to champion the truth and if some of the pillars of the SNM suffers collateral damage, so be it – it’s nothing personal. I have not set out to destroy the SNM, but to challenge it’s teachings for the sake of truth and freedom. I however think that as the truth is revealed, the movement may fade away or give way to religious convictions. Now since you well know what the other tenets (pillars) of the SNM are there is no need for me to repeat them.

---

I reply: Regarding your purpose in this thread: The "truth" you are championing favors referring to YHWH, at the very best with a title whose spelling is a 100% match with the name of the idol whose worship is specifically condemned by YHWH (Is. 65:11-16). At worst, this title's pronunciation also matches the pronunciation of that idol's name. This is a "truth" that i would not be boasting about.

As for the "other tenets (pillars) of the SNM" that you mention not having a need to repeat, unless i'm mistaken, you never offered anything in the first place that you could repeat, even if you wanted to, at least not in this thread, for on January 1^st i asked you to clearly state what "pillars" you were referring to with your original reference (12/31/2004) to "pillars of the SNM movement," but you never did so. Since you insinuate that you have already given me what you perceive as being the "pillars" of the SNM, i am left to believe that you must be referring to the Dec. 18th posting that you submitted to the "Definition of a 'Sacred Namer'" thread. The only thing is, in that particular thread, you didn't call them "pillars," you called them "the SNM premise." Here is your perception of the SNM premise as given on 12-18-2004:

quote:

---

The premise of the SNM as I see it is that the name of YHWH should never be substituted, and that J should not be used in spelling or pronouncing the Messiah’s name because Jesus is a disguise of the name Zeus. If the names are incorrect then YHWH is displeased, or just ignores one’s pleas for salvation. Paganism is to be rooted out of everything especially language which leads to a list of prohibited words. These words only need to have a vague homophonic resemblance to the name of any of 10,483 or more idols past or present to be prohibited. Attempts at etymological analysis are often made. Guilt by association and circumstantial evidence is basis of the general exegesis. Having felt that they have been deceived or shortchanged all Christian and Jewish customs come under suspicion and regard for any tradition is cast away in favour of bold and sometimes reckless new interpretations, sometimes for the better and sometimes not

---

Since the above constitutes what you apparently term "pillars," here is an itemized list of what you are thus attempting to aid in being "removed, collapsed, or abandoned to decay":

1) that the name of YHWH should never be substituted
2) that J should not be used in spelling or pronouncing the Messiah’s name because Jesus is a disguise of the name Zeus.
3) If the names are incorrect then YHWH is displeased, or just ignores one’s pleas for salvation.
4) Paganism is to be rooted out of everything especially language which leads to a list of prohibited words.
5) Guilt by association and circumstantial evidence is basis of the general exegesis.
6) Having felt that they have been deceived or shortchanged all Christian and Jewish customs come under suspicion and regard for any tradition is cast away in favour of bold and sometimes reckless new interpretations ...
7) The [SNM] condemnation of "god" is one of them. If the anti-god pillar is removed then the movement will have weaker support. [You added this one on December 31st]

Since you definitely do leave the impression that all of the above are the "pillars" you were referring to, and since you seem to emanate no sorrow in noting their "imminent" removal and collapse, it certainly does appear that one of the pillars you are willing to see removed is Pillar Number 1. Hmmm, maybe i should have focused on substituting the name of YHWH with you after all?

As i mentioned in my original response to the above "pillars" / "premise," the only one of your "pillars" that i totally agree with is Pillar Number 1. With regard to the other "pillars," i compared you to a senator who insists on tacking on various unnecessary or otherwise bad amendments to an otherwise very good bill.

As it is, i believe the SNM "pillar" i have previously given lines up well enough with the one that Chuck gave the other day:

quote:

---

The main "pillars" of the SNM from my perspective are (1) the restoration of the Name of YHWH to the Scriptures where it was substituted with "LORD" & "GOD" (this in itself makes both words suspect), and (2) using it in our personal conversation so people will have no question as to which One we are talking about.

---

I believe Chuck's "pillar identifcation" lines up nicely with the one I have previously given (in Jan. 1st posting). It appears, then, that you are making up "pillars" that really aren't even there. I'm sure a few people ascribe to various of the "pillars," but to throw that broad blanket over everyone who calls upon YHWH is very unfair.

Did YHWH Condemn "God" or Not?

You wrote:

quote:

---

(a) Nowhere in the Hebrew bible does the English word “God” appear, so YHWH could not have condemned God through the prophet Yeshayahu. (b) To be the English word God, it would have to be spelled the same (Gimel-waw-dalet) and have the same meaning and usage just to start with. (c) if YHWH condemned a name in Hebrew that sounded like ‘GOD’ then he condemned the son of Israel, did He really do that? Of course not.

---

I reply: The above comments are simply absurd. Here's why:

(a) Of course the "English word 'God'" doesn't appear in the Hebrew Bible ... but its spelling (minus the vowel, of course) does. I don't believe there is any question that, to transliterate the "English word 'God'" into Hebrew, you render it "gimel, daleth," which is a precise spelling match with the idol whose worship YHWH condemns. It appears that, with regard to this word's Hebrew pronunciation, you are relying on the same folks who gave us the vowel-pointing for "Jehovah." Sure, they mis-vowel-pointed the Tetragrammaton [i think you would agree with that], but if i dare to consider the possibility that they also obscured the pronunciation of the idol of fortune, i am regarded as a "conspiracy theorist."

(b) This is simply an incorrect statement on your part. Not only does that remark undermine the scholarship of James Strong, but it also goes against the information I have been given from various Hebrew professors. They concur that the spelling (Gimel - dalet) = either "God" or "Gad." Some professors, in fact, maintain that the correct pronunciation can only be "God." None of them have stated that the pronunciation can only be "gad" as in "sad." Also, i think it is a "given" that words with the same spelling do not have to have the "same meaning and usage." I gave you a very clear example of that yesterday with regard to the Hebrew word "shalom."

(c) Just because YHWH condemns an idol named "God" doesn't mean He condemns the son of Jacob who has that name! I believe you really do know better than to draw this sort of analogy! I'm sure YHWH condemns the worship of the idol Apollo, too. Does this mean the righteous Jew named Apollos is condemned, too? I'm sure I could come up with other examples to illustrate the absurdity of this reasoning if i took the time to pursue it.

Our Credentials

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now you have offered an etymology of your own creation. To be fair, what credentials do you have to be creating etymologies, especially when they conflict with all other known professional ones?

---

I reply: I doubt if my credentials are all that different from yours, but nevertheless, this isn't about my credentials anyway. I have simply researched this topic to the best of my ability, and i believe my findings are based upon sound research, not "conjecture," as you attempt to portray it. With regard to the "etymologies" that you believe I create, I beg to differ. From my perspective, as the tribes of Israel scattered, they brought "God worship" with them, and i believe they likely retained legends of this idol even after some of them adopted Christianity. Thus, it is no surprise to me that in Ireland, we not only find surviving remnants of Baal worship, but also the title El, and last but not least, God worship. From your perspective, "the two concepts couldn't be more disparate." From mine, the connection is obvious.

Connections or Flukes?

You wrote:

quote:

---

I agree god is connected to gott but that is as far as I go with you. There is no connection between gott and Gadelglas. This is where you rely upon your imagination. There is obviously no connection between gad the troop and gad the reptile, the two concepts couldn’t be more disparate. You also pay no heed to the context of the language in which the words appear. You seem to think one is speaking all the same word.

---

I reply: I believe what i have found is far removed from "relying upon my imagination." The connections i have mentioned are more than "flukes" or "anomalies." Maybe, if all we found in Ireland was some idol named Gad-glas, i could understand how someone might think it was "just a coincidence" that there existed an idol named "Gad" in Canaan and a separate, unrelated idol named "Gad" in Ireland. However, when you factor in El and Baal, the only way i can see that a person wouldn't see the obvious connection is if he or she refused to see it. I'm wondering just how many other idols mentioned in Scripture would have to be recorded as being worshipped in Ireland before you began to think, "Hmmm, maybe there is a connection ...."

Regarding the context of the language in which the words appear, this really has very little, if anything, to do with it, for we all know what time can do to meanings and understandings of words, and even names. The fact that both the Russian word Gad and the Irish word Gad mean "serpent" or "reptile" certainly implies (strongly) that there is a connection between those words. And the fact that the Russian word "gadalka" means "fortune-teller" strongly suggests a connection to the Canaanite idol of fortune. So even the context of the language in which that word appears suggests a connection. From your perspective, this is an overactive imagination. From my perspective, this is a subconscious refusal, based upon a strong bias, to allow yourself to see beyond what you want to see.

This is especially evident in your comment, "There is obviously no connection between gad the troop and gad the reptile, the two concepts couldn’t be more disparate." I know you understand that "gad the troop" is also "Gad the idol of fortune," but i sense you didn't want to include the "fortune" aspect of that deity because that might call someone's attention to the fact that the Russian word containing Gad (Gadalka) means "fortune-teller." Perhaps you reason that if no one brings up this idol's "fortune" aspect, it will eventually "go away." And if they should happen to bring it up, we can simply tell them, "Oh, that's just a coincidence."

Is "God" a Coincidental Homophone?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Your treatment of interlanguage homophones seems inconsistent. While you do acknowledge the existence of homophones or coincidences, it is unclear whether you think all the English homophones are derived directly from Hebrew. it is also unclear if you believe God is directly or indirectly derived from Hebrew.

---

I reply: I keep seeing charges of "inconsistency," which is the same consistent tactic i encountered in a similar discussion four years ago, but each time the charges were (and are) groundless. The one above is one such groundless charge. Under certain circumstances, I might regard the English "God" as a "coincidental homophone." However, in view of the unlikely emergence of two Canaanite idols (Baal and Gad), plus a Canaanite title (El), in ancient Ireland, plus the Russian connection i have already described, not to mention the Germanic "Gott," I regard this instance to be more than some quirky "homophone." I believe this is evidence of a connection.

By the way, just to be clear: I do believe "God" is directly derived from Hebrew.

Trifling Over the Precise Pronunciation of "GD"?

You wrote:

quote:

---

But God and Gad are not even homophones, because the idol is not pronounced as “god”. I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt that you simply are replying upon what some have told you. I am not saying your sources are wrong, but this goes back to asking the RiGHT question. Only asking how gimel-dalet is pronounced is not enough to secure an accurate answer. You would first have to distinguish which of the two words spelled gimel-dalet you are referring to. Then you must ask for it using the Ashkenazi or ancient Hebrew nikud system rather than the Sephardic. Once you have specified these two variables then you can start to consider the responses. The only correct pronunciation for the idol is “gad” which sounds like the American “bad”. The correct pronunciation for the son of israel is “god”. Someone said that we shouldn’t be so picky over vowel pronunciations, however it is very important to pronounce them correctly or one miscommunicate and confound the listener. It’s amazing to think that some might base a whole doctrine or even a movement on the mispronunciation of a single vowel. But since there really is no phonetic match, and no usage match, there really is no connection at all.

---

I reply: I have essentially already responded to the above in this posting, but just to summarize ... even if you were correct that there "really is not phonetic match," the transliterated spelling [English God ---> Hebrew gimel, daleth (GD)] would still match.

To vividly illustrate the dilemma posed by the above truth, here is a follow-up from the "hitler" scenario i offered the other day: I doubt if any conscientious Jew would appreciate it if the spelling "hitler" somehow crept into the English language with the culturally-accepted meaning of "friend" or "buddy." But let's say that we alter the pronunciation so as to give that letter "i" in that word a "long 'i' sound" (as in "heightler"). Thus, although this new English common noun is spelled "hitler," it is pronounced "heightler." Would altering the pronunciation of that word appease the Jewish people?

Although I'm not Jewish, I will frankly tell you that altering the pronunciation would not appease me in any way.

In the same way, all this nitpicking over the precise pronunciation of the name Gad is, for me, a lot of trifling. The fact that I know there is a strong possibility of an exact match is really all I need to persuade me to steer clear of that word as an honorable title for our Heavenly Father.

Encore Explanation: The Elimination of All Heathen Words

You wrote:

quote:

---

I have to wonder why stop at those few words, there are hundreds of other disparate words that all contain the letters GAD- or even GOD- certainly they must all be related right? How is it you decide whether they are or not? Not all words are related, quite often words are invented spontaneously as man invents them. For example I just invented the word kolugee, it refers to something that is stuck between your teeth. if it sounds or appears like some other word, that is just coincidence.

---

I reply: Apparently you have completely missed my entire point, after all this time of discussing this issue. This isn't about eliminating all the heathen words that have worked their way into the English language, this is about choosing an honorable title for our Creator. Certainly, if you were to start promoting calling YHWH by some other words that contain the letters GAD (such as "gadfly"), i would once again state my opinion that you are dishonoring YHWH in so doing.

You can invent all the new words you want, so far as I'm concerned, but i would be careful about arbitrarily applying them to our Creator. For example, if the word you "just happened to invent" just happened to be the word "nehushtan," i would once again caution you against applying it as a title in reference to our Heavenly Father.

Was There a Teutonic Idol Named "Gott"?

You wrote:

quote:

---

I appreciate very much that you admit there was never any Teutonic idol named God. Hopefully this truth catches on.

---

I reply: Once again, you have misrepresented my words. My exact words [in my Jan. 2^nd posting] were that i haven't seen any evidence that there was a Teutonic idol named God. You apparently took this as an admission from me that there never was one, and have chosen to "run with it." To vividly illustrate how you misrepresented me, I will copy and paste my exact words below:

I, like you, have never seen any evidence that there was an actual Teutonic idol named Gott or God. Does this mean there wasn't ever an idol by that name worshipped by those people? I would say no.

Does the above constitute an admission that there "was never any Teutonic idol named God"? I'm sorry that you have to resort to this type of tactic. I honestly believe that if all these misrepresentations would stop, we could make some progress in this discussion. Although i have not yet seen the evidence that there was a Teutonic idol named Gott or God, i nevertheless suspect that anciently, before the term came to be applied generically to all deities, it was indeed the name of an idol they worshipped. I do not openly promote this suspicion because it is a personal hunch that cannot be defended by hard evidence. However, since you have misrepresented my remark as being an "admission," i believe i should offer this explanation to demonstrate otherwise.

Misrepresenting Forlong and a Native Irish Speaker

You wrote:

quote:

---

But let’s not pretend that you found a god named “God” yet. You can deny it all you want, but you were plainly told God is not the pronunciation of Gadelglas (or Gad anyways) by a native Irish speaker and you were told by Forlong that his origin of Gadelglas is Cush.

---

I reply: Just as you misrepresented my words (above), so you have misrepresented the words of J.G.R. Forlong. I went over this one in my posting of Dec. 28th (& Dec. 20th), but you have simply glossed over what i wrote. I see no need to argue this any further.

Regarding your claim that a native Irish speaker has told me "God" is not the pronunciation of Gad-El-glas: This is a half-truth on your part. The pronunciation he offered was gahd. I'm sorry that doesn't quite fit your precise phonetic demands, but it's good enough for me.

Counter-Charge of Misrepresenting Forlong

You wrote:

quote:

---

And let’s not forget how I have accepted those sources 100% as competent in the origin of Gadelglas. I just don’t accept your misrepresentation of what they stated.

---

I reply: A common ploy i have noticed from those who misrepresent the words of others is to issue counter-charges of misrepresentation. I will once again supply the quote from Forlong to illustrate that, in fact, it is you who has misrepresented Forlong:

It is not alone to the Danaans proper, thinks Keane, O'Brien and others, that we owe the best old architectural works of Ireland, but to the three Kuthik peoples, Fomerians, Nemedians, and Danaans, who entered the island about the twentieth century B.C., and succombed to Kelts under Olam Fodla, of say 700 B.C. He was the Irish Solomon who established the Olympian games or Tal-tine, around the symbolic Laic Feal, or Lingam of the sacred "Green mound of Tara." These Danaans are shown to be phalik worshippers, who eventually pandered to the vanity of their Keltik conquerors, by ascribing to them a history and lineage which was really that of the Kuthite race. The Kelts hence said that they had, as a great ancestor, the decidedly Kuthite-like demi-god, Kath-ak or Kat-hak, a double-headed serpent, of whom we still hear a great deal in various country legends. He especially frequented the holy isle of Skatery near the mouth of the Shannon; and Christian Kelts, improving on the tales of their pagan ancestors, declare that here he was met and destroyed by their Saint Shanaun. The Leac Feal, or Pala-dium of Tara, which had descended to the Kelts through the Danaans, was declared to be a direct gift from the solo fire-god Bel to Olam Fodla's race of Iberian pagan Kelts, by the hand of Cath-ak, who thus became the Moses of the race, with a history like that Moabitish Jew, much mixed up with serpents. But Cathak's honours descended upon Gad-El-glas, when Christianity permeated Ireland; so Moses is said to have received the Leac Feal from Jacob, who used it as his "pillow" at Bethel, and to have given it to Gadelglas after he was converted by looking on the Arabian serpent pole, which with a "serpent of brass," then became and long remained the national standard of these good Christians. There was no desire to shake off the serpent stories. Gad-El-glas like Cathak, was an ophiolater of the Krishnaik, or dark-colored type, or the Mercurial Green of the West; for the name is usually translated, "the Green Snake God."

From the above, please observe the following:

1. The "Kuthic" (Cushite) people entered Ireland in the 20th century BCE.
2. The Kelts (Celtic people) conquered Ireland around 700 BCE. The people they conquered (the Daanites) ascribed to the Kelts a history and lineage that mirrored their own.
3. As a result, the Kelts produced a legend about a "demi-god" ancestor, who was "decidedly Kuthite-like," by the name of Kathak (or Cathak).
4. Christian Kelts, improving on this legend, taught that Kathak was killed by St. Shanaun.
5. Once Christianity permeated Ireland, Gad-El-glas was introduced, along with legends of Jacob and Moses.
6. Gad-El-glas is compared to Cathak, and it is possible that Cathak's legends were ascribed to Gad-El-glas, but this does not mean they are the same, or that the name Gad-El-glas has a Cushite origin. This is simply mistaken reasoning, and a misrepresentation of the given facts.
7. The point is, the name Gad-El-glas was introduced by early Christians who obviously brought with them their own legends of the idol Gad. Forlong in no way ever stated that the origin of Gad-El-glas is Cush.

Remember, also, that first-century Judaism regarded Gad as the name of a demon; it is not surprising, then, that this name would become associated with a serpent, even by Christians. Thus, the introduction of Gad-El-glas to Irish worship is not the product of "imagination." This is simply what J.G.R. Forlong reported, and i believe he can be regarded as a trustworthy source of information. The fact that names such as Bel and Baal also appear in ancient Irish worship, not to mention the title El, illustrates the common denominator of these names.

Confusing the Issue With the Translation "God-God-Green"

You wrote:

quote:

---

Let’s not forget how redundant Gad-el would be if Gad means God and El means God, then his name is “God-God-Green” but you know there is no such word as El in Gaelic.

---

I reply: First of all, Forlong recorded that, indeed, there is such a word as El that appears in ancient Ireland, so for you to try and tell me that "I know there is no such word" is yet another misrepresentation, combined with an attempt to put words in my mouth.

Secondly, you are the one who claims that "Elohim" should be properly translated as "God," NOT ME. I only reported how Forlong translated the word "El" so as to not misquote him. I am well aware that most of society, both during Forlong's day and ours, believes that El can be properly translated as "God." By now, i trust you know that i disagree with this belief. Your reference to "God-God-Green" (above) is simply an attempt to confuse the issue.

Since a more proper translation of "El" is "Mighty One" or, in the case of idols, "deity," Gad-El-glas is, in my estimation, better translated (literally): "Snake-Deity-Green." Or, as we would say it, "Green Snake Deity." Since names aren't really supposed to be translated, though, an even more proper rendering would be "GOD-DEITY-GREEN" (literal rendering) or as we would say it, "GOD, the GREEN DEITY." Of course, since you believe the title Elohim should be translated as "God," i can see why you would prefer to translate it as "God-God-Green." I believe this translation only appears ridiculous because of your own choice of how to translate the title Elohim.

Theory of How Semitic Words Could Appear in Irish Language

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now the Indo-Europeans had “gott” before the existence of Israel, let alone before the dispersion of Israel. However the Phoenicians were travelling between the British Isles and the Syrian coast since the most ancient times. It would hard to believe they did not exchange a few words between languages like Baal. The question isn’t whether Semitic words could appear in Irish or English the question is which ones did. However Cush preceded the Phoenicians and his descendants maintained his name. They also independently carried the term God apart from Gaedheal. If the Phoenicians brought Gad with them it would have been Baal-Gad, and there is no record of Gad in the irish language. You should ask the Irish how they got the term God into their language because they certainly did not provide it to the English.

---

I reply: Who's accusing who of "conjecture"? It appears to me that this is what much of the above consists of. I find it very bizarre that you should think to remark that it would hard to believe they did not exchange a few words between languages like Baal ... yet the word "Gad" could not have been included? What i have presented comes from documented research from recognized scholars, yet it is regarded as "conjecture." I have no idea how you came up with the above, but apparently, despite the lack of documentation, we are supposed to "just accept" it?

Again, Christianity introduced Gad-El-glas to Ireland, but i'm not so much concerned with how it got there as i am the fact that it was indeed brought there somehow, along with other Hebrew/Canaanite names, such as Bel and Baal. This, whether you wish to accept it or not, is evidence of a connection, with Hebrew being the common denominator.

Citing "Incompetent Scholars"

You wrote:

quote:

---

You say that whenever i disagree with a scholar i state that he is incompetent – can you even site a single example outside of sacred name scholars?

---

I reply: Incompetent scholar #1: J.G.R. Forlong, author of Rivers of Life and A Cyclopædia of Religions. He was not a "sacred name scholar." On Dec. 10th you referred to him as "messed up":

quote:

---

Besides, you already know Forlong was seriously messed up.

---

Incompetent scholar #2: Dr. Wilfred Funk, author of Word Origins and Their Romantic Stories. On Dec. 30th, I listed him as an etymologist who verifies the fact that the etymologists really don't know where the English word "God" comes from. The following day you wrote the following about the etymologists whose writings I produced illustrating their uncertainty about the origin of the word "God":

quote:

---

Sure you can select a couple of incompetent sources and list them as if there was a general consensus, some of them from a time before etymology was a developed science.

---

I believe it is safe to say this was an attempt on your part to discredit the etymologists whom I had quoted. This also goes for Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, editors of The New Dictionary of Theology.

You wrote:

quote:

---

But by trying to impose your theory about the migration of the Israelites you are in fact implying that James Forlong is incompetent in his thesis since he does not consider the migration of israelites in his origin of Gadelglas.

---

I reply: You are here attempting to shift the focus away from the fact that Gad worship made its way to Ireland to how it got there. I could propose all sorts of theories as to how that happened ... but that isn't going to change the fact that it did indeed take place right there in ancient Ireland. For the record, i am in no way implying that J.G.R. Forlong was incompetent in his research. He simply states that an idol named Gad-El-glas was worshipped in ancient Ireland and I believe him to be a credible source of information. He doesn't mention "how" it got there, aside from the fact that Christianity apparently played a role in giving the idol its name.

Assessing Incompetent Scholarship

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now when the sources themselves say that after attempting an etymology that they can not ascertain or develop any kind of theory or that they are confused (especially when the majority are not) it is the same as admitting that they are incompetent when it comes to that term. So they themselves are admitting their incompetency. So I drop them into the incompetent category, and it isn’t necessarily a generalization about their abilities. If they simply disagreed, they go in the disagreement category. They can’t go into BOTH categories as you said, it’s one or the other. And please don’t twist what I said, I said disagreed with each other not with me. I trust you know the difference. it’s kind of hard to disagree with someone who is incompetent, since they have nothing to agree or disagree with!

---

I reply: For you to request that I not "twist" what you said seems to imply that at some point in time I have indeed "twisted your words." Is that what you are implying here? If so, could you please list the occasions where i have done such a thing?

You say that if a source says they cannot ascertain the etymology of a word, it is the same as admitting incompetency. I disagree. First of all, when they admit uncertainty, they are being honest. Secondly, it seems bizarre to think that Etymologist "A," who is extremely competent, uncovers the complete etymology of "God," but Etymologist "B" fails to get the message. It would appear that Etymologist "A" was stingy with his information.

Finally, even the etymological resource that you seem to respect, The Oxford English Dictionary, admits that the ulterior etymology is disputed. In other words, they don't really have a clue as to where this word can ultimately be traced. Sure, it made its way into the Teutonic languages, but it has a "pre-Teutonic type" that is not identified. Since they are unable to trace this word to its actual root origin, i guess, by your rule, they are incompetent.

The Need for Credentials

You wrote:

quote:

---

Realise that i do not have to provide, or even have any credentials. The reason is because i am not presenting any of my own information or ideas. i have been relying on the credentials of those who are experts in their field and relaying their information. This is a little different than what you have been doing in presenting a mix of your ideas and those of others, yet you have not provided any of your credentials.

---

I reply: Of course you don't have to provide your credentials. But if you are going to take it upon yourself to summarily discredit and malign scholars who disagree with your views, to the point of calling them "messed up," then i think you should be prepared to provide everyone with what it is that makes your expertise superior to theirs.

If I were to elevate myself above a well-respected scholar at the expense of his reputation, i would certainly feel obligated to explain why i am qualified to do so.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Truth isn’t actually dependent on credentials – thank God.

---

Truth certainly is not dependent on credentials. I believe you and i would respectfully disagree with lots of scholars on several points of doctrine, even though we otherwise maintain a high regard for their scholarship. We can do this because although we respect overall scholarship, this doesn't mean we must agree with them on everything. However, if we use our disagreements to malign their reputation and credibility, this is where i believe we had better be prepared to produce our own credentials proving our own qualifications.

Regarding your use of "God": Might this be a part of your effort to apply some collateral damage to "Pillar #1"?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Just because someone has certain credentials doesn’t automate that their theories have total credence. From experts or not, a theory needs to have inherent credence, it just turns out that most of the good theories come from those with credentials. I wouldn’t want anyone to believe anything I say simply because someone gave me credentials, but rather because the message I speak is inherently true. Now if anyone checks up on anything I have stated I believe that they will see that I do at least have integrity even though you can’t seem to afford me any credibility. And even if our readers do not have any credentials i won’t question their ability to discern the truth because of that.

---

I reply: I agree with the above commentary (overall). Again, it is only when someone attempts to discredit a renowned scholar that i believe he or she should be prepared to present how he or she is qualified to do so. I also believe that when those without credentials issue statements that are considered controversial or "unorthodox," they should do their best to supply documentation from credible sources.

Wilfred Funk: "Incompetent as Portrayed?"

You wrote:

quote:

---

No offence but if Dr. Wilfred Funk can’t figure out the origin of God what on earth makes you think that you can? If I go by your little snippet quotes I have no choice but to believe that he is incompetent as portrayed – but you know, if I were to look up the quote in context, I wonder if that will really reflect what he really said. When I have done this before I have found that little quotes have been misleading. So when I get a hold of his book I’ll just have to take a look for myself. It is hard to believe someone with such fantastical credentials could be so confused. Perhaps he was only speaking in the ulterior sense just like the Oxford English Dictionary. Then one of those “tangled guesses” would include the God from Gad theory. By all means make your best guess but at least acknowledge it as such. I’ll get back to you on this later, however I will go out on a limb and assume that he actually offers the same extensive posterior etymology that the other competents do and that I am in total agreement with him and that he offers your position absolutely no support. That is how much credit I am willing to offer him right now.

---

I reply: If you like, I can offer you the entire quote from his book, which is available at most good libraries. I can guarantee you that the rest of his quote had nothing to do with the etymological aspect of the word "God," but if you wish, I can transcribe it for you.

You don't seem interested in the "ultimate origin" of the word "God," which I gather from your primary focus being on the posterior etymology. I'm not so concerned with the intermediate "stops" this word made along the way to its present stage. I want to know where it originated. I believe the ultimate etymology can be traced to the heathen idol Gad. I have given my reasons in this posting and others, so i will not dwell on that now. The only way i could prove this to you, though, would be to take you on a literal journey through time to witness how this word was passed along from one generation to the next. In the meantime, the information i have gleaned from ancient Keltic worship, Teutonic worship and the Russian language is sufficient to make what i believe is a strong connection.

On Dismissing Keltic Baal Worship as Having Originated From Israelites

You wrote:

quote:

---

You want to know on what grounds I dismiss the Celtic worship of Baaltinglas having been inherited from the Israelites. Easy, there is no record of the Israelites having worshiped such an idol. The worship of baalim did never originate with the Israelites, it existed long before they did.

---

I reply: I have to consider the above to be a non-answer. Regardless of where Baal worship originated, it was eventually adopted by the Israelites long before their dispersion. Not only had they adopted Baal worship, but they had also adopted Gad worship, which they carried with them throughout their dispersion, and doubtless the traditions continued even after the conquest of Christianity, which is a reasonable explanation of how these terms ended up in Ireland. If my explanation is a ridiculous notion, i would like to know on what grounds.

On the Logic of Translating "Elohim" into a Word Meaning "To Pour" or "To Invoke"

You wrote:

quote:

---

Regarding the difference between posterior and ulterior etymologies. The ulterior means the ultimate root of a word. This is the holy grail of etymology, to locate the original word – if it is possible. Because this is difficult to do it is often disputed. However the second generation of a word, and it’s consequential 3rd , 4th, 5th generations etc. make up what we call the posterior etymology. The two conjectures referred to by the Oxford English Dictionary are two possible origins. if you add to that GD, that would make three conjectures of the same nature. However GD has no relation to the usage or meaning and thus can not be connected to the etymology. One conjecture is that God originates from the concept of “pouring” and the other to “invocation”. This source favours “invocation” as do most.

---

I reply: As i've already explained, i am obviously more interested in the ulterior etymology than you are. I do not question that the English "God" is traced to a Teutonic level, but that is certainly not where it originated. While i am not about to label the author of the entry in The Oxford English Dictionary incompetent, i will neverthess state that i do not agree with his claim that "God" comes from gheu or hu.

Regarding your comment that God emanates from the concept of "pouring," "invocation," etc., i consider this in itself to be a justifiable reason for not translating the Hebrew Elohim as "God." The original meaning of even the term that etymologists come up with does not carry the proper intent and meaning of Elohim. It is only by culturally redefining "God" that our society has deemed it an acceptable translation.

It appears to me that the concept of "to invoke" would be more akin to a translation of either the Hebrew qara (#7121) or athar (#6279), but definitely not Elohim.

Misrepresenting The Oxford English Dictionary

You wrote:

quote:

---

Since you have kindly posted more of the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary anyone can see for themselves that it says god could not have come from a foreign language in its current form. You’d like very much for it to say exactly the opposite but like i said before it is totally contrary to what you have been saying all along. This seems to be a pattern with you. You build up the credibility of a source, pretend it agrees with you even though you disregard it then accuse others of doing the very thing you are doing. is the problem that you don’t comprehend it or are you just bluffing?

---

I reply: I do not know why i should have to do this, but just to make certain i vindicate myself on this one, i will post the exact quote from The Oxford English Dictionary:

The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gudo^m implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m.

With this in mind, i here present a comparison between what the dictionary says and what you say it says:

Mountain Jew: "... anyone can see for themselves that it says god could not have come from a foreign language in its current form."

Oxford: "Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue ...."

I maintain there is a big difference between claiming "could not have come from a foreign language" and "the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue." The one doesn't so much as even recognize the possibility. The other does. Furthermore, as Oxford goes on to say, God has a "pre-Teutonic type." Of course, this is obvious, since Oxford admits that the "ulterior etymology" [i.e., its original root word] is disputed. In other words, they don't really know the ultimate origin of the word "God."

Insulting the Research Methods of Others

You wrote:

quote:

---

If you prefer to call grammatic terms “fluff” that’s fine with me. Although you do not seem to comprehend the technical explanation of your methods, you are still a natural at it. The premise of grammatic magic just doesn’t work for me, sorry. When I was little I watched ‘Sesame Street’ and the character known as the ‘Spellbinder’ (voiced by Zero Mostel) who went around waving a magic wand over words and deviously swapping their vowels and creating all kinds of chaos as a result. You remind me of him. There was another character, the hero ‘Letterman’ (voiced by Gene Wilder) who went around restoring the words and thus order to the world.

---

I reply: I am inclined to regard the above as an attempt to insult the research that i have done. If i had arbitrarily made decisions with regard to pronunciations without consulting any experts, i might understand the above insult as a warning to stop what i'm doing and go to the experts first before spouting off such "whimsical notions." However, since i have been consulting experts all along, i am left to dismiss the insult as a defensive tactic designed to elevate one's own research methods over the methods of another. Rather than insulting each other's research methods, i would suggest disproving the evidence offered as a result of the research.

Treating an "EVEN IF" Clause as a Concession

You quoted me:

quote:

---

You stated: "So even if we should eventually find out that "God" cannot be traced to a Hebraic root, the sheer fact that it is pronounced identically to the name of an idol condemned by YHWH is sufficient grounds for me to not want to use it."

So here you are basically willing to toss out all the rules you supposedly used to filter out the word god and resort to the fact that a mere homophone of an idol’s name is all the reason you need to prohibit it. Well that is one thing, IF GD really was a homophone of GOD but in fact it is not – so even by those minimal standards, GOD can never be condemned. I have already covered why the two terms are not even homophones. So if that is all it comes down to then perhaps we are done.

---

I reply: I believe my mistake in the above was not highlighting the words "EVEN IF." I should have realized that some folks consider the words "even if" as a concession of sorts. I wasn't conceding anything at all. I am 99.9% certain that the English "God" ultimately comes to us from the Canaanite idol of fortune. The only reason i don't put down 100% is because i don't have access to a time travel device to take anyone back through history to personally witness the evolutionary journey of this name.

So all i was saying in the above quote was, "EVEN IF my conclusion about the ultimate etymology of the English word "God" should somehow be proven as erroneous, i would still have a problem referring to YHWH with a title whose pronunciation matches the name of that idol." This was not a concession. You say you've covered why the two terms aren't homophones, but i have covered the fact that i have received information from Hebrew professors who would disagree with you. Thus, at the very least, i recognize the possibility (and likelihood) that there is a pronunciation match between the English "God" and the Canaanite "Gad."

Do We Have Torah's Blessing to Refer to YHWH as "Our Zeus"?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Would I translate elohim as Zeus or Apollo, no I don’t think so. Those have not achieved the same level of genericism as god which is necessary to translate elohim accurately. You see I have a rule that says when translating a word you should select something equally as ambiguous.

---

I reply: Your rule makes absolutely no sense to me. Rather than choosing something "ambiguous," i would think you would want something rich in meaning ... a title that gives YHWH the full honor which He is due.

Nevertheless, by the very rule you originally offered in this thread, it is certainly acceptable to refer to YHWH as your "Zeus" or "Apollo." Certainly, if i were to choose to refer to YHWH as "my Zeus," this would be applying a heathen epithet to YHWH, which you maintain is sanctioned by Torah. So never mind your "stated preference," your "stated rule" specifies that referring to YHWH as "our Zeus" has the blessing of Torah. Right or wrong?

Appreciating that YHWH Shares His Titles???

You wrote:

quote:

---

You must appreciate that YHWH Himself shares His titles el and elohim with idols, even idols of the same name. He doesn’t care. If He doesn’t want idols to be called elohim then He would not call them that Himself.

---

I reply: I have tried establishing the point that just because a "clean" title is corrupted by heathen worship, this doesn't mean we have to search for replacements every time this happens. Apparently you simply do not understand my point about that. The heathens also corrupted the very name of YHWH, as there was an ancient moon idol named "YAH." Does this mean we should no longer call upon the name YAH? Certainly not. In the same way, El and Elohim clearly originated with YHWH. There is agreement among many scholars that God was originally the name of a heathen idol. But even if it weren't, we can't change the fact that YHWH condemns the worship of an idol that has this same name.

I find the verbiage you used in the above to be very repulsive. It appears that you do indeed appreciate that YHWH shares His titles with idols. How could anyone in his or her right mind "appreciate" such a thing? And to think that YHWH "shares" His titles ... as though He recognizes their right to co-exist??? Is this how you really feel about this???

It's Difficult to Respond to "Flip-Flop" Charges Without Citing Quotations ...

You wrote:

quote:

---

Once again you made the flip-flop from “originally a heathen idol name” back to “not an idol’s name but original heathen use”. it seems when you can’t prove the first you resort to the second. When that doesn’t prove out you always resort the third, that is back to homophones. And when that doesn’t pan out you circle around again to “originally a heathen idol name”. These are all different standards. it would be good to pick one and stick to it instead of running in circles.

---

I reply: Only by taking my words out of context, plus taking advantage of my "even if" clauses, are you able to come up with such "apparent contradictions" on my part. But by your approach of conveniently concealing my exact quotes, i have nothing to defend myself against except empty words! I am left to regard your "flip-flop" tactic as an approach designed to highlight "apparent inconsistencies."

This is the very same approach used by the authors of the treatise "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" four years ago, and now it is surfacing again. If you would kindly list the inconsistencies, accompanied by my incriminating quotes (preferably in context), i will be happy to defend myself.

You wrote:

quote:

---

It is too late to go back on the “not an idol’s name but original heathen use” because you have already let us know at least twice that you have no definite problem with descriptive terms of heathen origin.

---

I reply: Please produce the quote wherein i stated that God is "not an idol's name." I must have missed it. Or could it be that you are either misrepresenting me again or taking something i wrote out of context?

Certainly, though, simply based upon the very etymology offered by The Oxford English Dictionary, where they admit a heathen origin, i would never want to refer to our Heavenly Father in this manner. It's so easy to choose something else, yet some folks make even the easiest of things a complicated matter.

You wrote:

quote:

---

So after all that, can you take a little time and study the pronunciation of both GD words and then let me know if you agree with the pronunciations I provided or not? Perhaps we can settle that much before rehashing or introducing more ideas.

---

I reply: I believe it should be obvious by now that i am persuaded that there is most likely a pronunciation match between the English God and the Hebrew GD. I have an admission from the staff at Biblical Archaelology Review that the name of Zilpah's son is pronounced "gawd." They didn't respond to my inquiry pertaining to the name of the idol of fortune, but based upon the vowel pointing, i would expect them to say it's pronounced "gad" as in "sad." This would not be surprising. However, i do have the testimony of Hebrew professors that there really isn't an "a" as in "sad" sound in Hebrew, even with the different vowel pointings. And as one professor told me, if you ask two Hebrew scholars a pronunciation question, you're likely to get two different answers. Furthermore, we're looking at a time frame of at least 600 CE before any vowel pointings were inserted into the Hebrew text. We know what was done to the Tetragrammaton. Can we be certain the pronunciation of the Canaanite idol of fortune's name was accurately preserved? With all this to consider, i am persuaded that there is a very good possibility of a pronunciation match between the English "God" and the Hebrew "Gad." Regardless, there is no question that the two are spelled the same when transliterating the English God into Hebrew. Applying such a name to YHWH as a title is no way to honor our loving Heavenly Father.

I am sorry to have to post such a lengthy response, but you gave me a lot to respond to. If i have omitted responding to any questions or comments, please let me know.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-06-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged