As I have previously mentioned, I regret becoming involved in this discussion in the first place. Any issue pertaining to the honor of YHWH is an emotional one for me, and I've had this particular discussion before, to a degree, so I knew going in that this one could be as emotionally charged as the previous one was.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Let me make it clear. It may be disappointing to you but I have no interest in continuing this course of discussion with you. I do not agree with you on anything pertaining to this topic and I doubt that will change anytime soon. There are also just too many personal zing-dingers being exchanged.

---

I reply: I think you may now see why I attempted to pull out of this discussion over a week ago, and if you knew and understood the main reason for why I wanted to leave, I really don't believe you would have made some of the comments you did.

Although you and I are indeed very far apart on this topic, I hope that one of us does change soon, for one of us is right and the other is wrong. It cannot be both ways. This is not one of those "gray" issues for me, so if I am mistaken, I pray that YHWH's spirit convict me of the same soon and show me the error of my ways. If that occurs, you will be among the first to find out!

You wrote:

quote:

---

I don't mind discussing this topic with others in a friendly manner who may be persuaded in my direction but if you've blocked your mind then the discussion is already closed.

---

I reply: It is precisely these types of comments that make it extremely difficult to carry on a constructive dialogue on this or any issue. Like you, I enjoy discussing this and any topic with others in a friendly manner. Please notice, at the very least, that I did not bring this matter up (and neither did you, of course). Hopefully, then, you at least know I did not enter into this discussion to "pick a fight." I know how volatile this topic can be, and it can and has been the cause of severed relationships. I really do not like to see that sort of thing happen, yet I do not regret taking a stand for the honor of YHWH.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I certainly do have a great interest in the origin of the word "God" and I have my own personal theory about the ulterior etymology which happen to show it as innocent of the SNM's charges. If you want to hear that theory you'll have to wait, but I don't expect anyone to hold their breath lol.

---

I reply: It sounds as though you are saying a "personal theory" can prove a matter. I trust you know I will need more than that ... but yes, I obviously share your great interest in the origin of the word "God," so if you're willing to share your findings, I'm willing to review them.

You wrote:

quote:

---

But I will tell you one thing, it has nothing to do with countering any claims of the SNM or you and your wife, I have totally unrelated purposes for discovering the true origin of "God" - again having absolutely nothing related to any point brought up in this discussion.

---

I reply: Just in case I haven't made this clear enough, I have had only one purpose in researching this topic: To honor YHWH. Those who personally know me know this to be true.

In view of your having "totally unrelated purposes for discovering the true origin of 'God,'" you have certainly aroused my curiosity as to your motivations in this matter. What, exactly, are those “unrelated purposes” of yours, anyway?? Of course, I do understand that sometimes, while researching a particular topic, I accidentally stumble across something that is even more stimulating than what I had originally set out to investigate … and the discovery is completely unrelated to the original topic. It is amazing how I have, on such occasions, had a “change of heart” regarding which topic I chose to pursue. Is this what you are referring to?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Anyways I have better things to be doing right now. See you later.

---

I reply: Best wishes in your research. If I don't happen to be visiting this forum when you present your findings, I invite you to e-mail them to me (seekutruth@aol.com).

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

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

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

---

I read your post from the link above, and it seemed OK. I'm not exactly sure what you wanted me to glean from it.

Concerning my response, i'm not sure what you're getting at, unless perhaps my 3rd comment was a little blunt. Of course it was written to you, who i assume are a little more thick-skinned than the teen-ager that you mentioned. If i were responding directly to him, i would probably have watered it down a bit, and been a little more explanatory and less blunt.

If that was your point, it was well-taken. However, as you can guess, my opinion of the term "HaShem" is somewhat less than complimentary. How does one express this opinion in a "nice" way?

YHWH bless,

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
Concerning my response, i'm not sure what you're getting at, unless perhaps my 3rd comment was a little blunt. Of course it was written to you, who i assume are a little more thick-skinned than the teen-ager that you mentioned. If i were responding directly to him, i would probably have watered it down a bit, and been a little more explanatory and less blunt.

If that was your point, it was well-taken ...

---

Yes, that was my point, Chuck, and I thank you for your considered response.

Without meaning to do something at your expense, my thought was to share with everyone that a little temper can at times be absolutely necessary when sharing with (or even merely about something said by) a "newcomer", as such ... and on the flip-side of that: Since I am the one who had posted something from a personal letter to me, I am the one who would be primarily responsibile if any harm had actually been done here.

Shalom.

A Case for the "Ulterior Etymology" of GOD Being Traced to Hebrew

Shalom to all:

I have just come across a dictionary that I believe adds weight to the conviction that the English name/title "God" is ultimately traced to the Hebrew root word GD. The name of this dictionary is The Word: The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English, published by SPI Books, New York. It was compiled by Isaac E. Mozeson and originally published in 1989.

For those concerned about Mozeson's qualifications, he has taught English at New York City colleges such as Yeshiva University and New York University, where he did his doctoral studies. He has authored books on language, Biblical & modern Jewish history, and is on the staff at Kirkus Reviews. After a near-death incident in the Galilee in 1997, he is now semi-retired, researching "Edenic" (proto-Semitic) language roots.

As you can tell by the title, Isaac Mozeson believes: "More English words can be clearly linked to Biblical Hebrew than to Latin, Greek or French" (from p. 1 of his book). Although I do not intend to bore anyone by overquoting him, I thought I would at least offer a paragraph from the "Fore-Word" to his dictionary (pp. 1-2):

In search of an honorable ancestor for the Aryan race, the linguists developed a theoretical, prototype language that could even claim Sanskrit as a child. And so, for the past several decades, Western historical linguists have been the proud Dr. Frankenstein creators of a proto "Indo-European" language that curiously favors the Germanic element. Who would research Hebrew as the root language when even the Ph.D.'s in Semitics hung Hebrew out on a limb called West Semitic? Nobody uncovered a clay tablet of Proto-Semitic, but surely, the argument went, Hebrew evolved from older, more cumbersome languages. The de-evolution of words, and the ongoing corruption of humankind, was simply not considered.

I might also add the following quote from page 2:

Noah Webster's etymologies (discredited for 200 years now) were full of English words traced to "Shemitic" sources. Most significant of all, if a vote in the Continental Congress had gone the other way, America, and much of today's world, would now be speaking Hebrew.

In his book, Mozeson identifies over 20,000 English words that can be traced to Hebraic roots -- an origin that conventional etymologists (most of whom consider the Bible to be a myth) completely ignore. For example, take the English word "tour." According to the online version of The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth edition, 2000, this word hails from a Latin word meaning “lathe”:

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, a turn, from Old French (influenced by tourner, to turn about), from Latin tornus, lathe. See turn.

The following is a post by Joshua Luna (Acert93)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acert93:
For those who deny that "gawd" in the Tenakh is not equivalent to the modern English word "god", thus the NUMEROUS commands of not saying other 'elohiym names is inviolate, stop for one second to hear this:
_________________________________________________________________
The Encyclopedia Britannia, eleventh edition (Vol. 12: P.169), says, "God”. The common Teutonic word for a personal object of worship. The word "God" (German "Gott" from "Guth," which was related to Taurus, the Bull) on the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity, was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being, the Creator of the Universe. "God" is a word common to all Teutonic languages. In Gothic it is Guth; Dutch has the same form as English; Danish and Swedish have Gud, German Gott. According to the New English Dictionary, the original may be found in two Aryan roots, both of the form gheu, one of which means "to invoke," the other "to pour," the last is used of sacrificial offerings. The word would thus mean the object either of religious invocation or of religious worship by sacrifice. It has also been suggested that the word might mean a "molten image," from the sense of "pour."
_________________________________________________________________

Hmmm... very interesting, no? An example form a German bible demonstrates my point ALL TO VIVIDLY:

ELO Genesis 1:1 Im Anfang schuf Gott die Himmel und die Erde.
ASV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
BHS Bere'shiyt 1:1 Bere'shiyt bara' 'elohiym 'et hashshamayim we'et ha'arets:

So, where do we get from a literal rendering (In-begining • created • 'elohiym • the-heavens • and • the-land) with 'elohiym to gott? well, as stated in the source above, it was just common practice (as still is) to take the lands common 'eloh[iym] and apply that name [or names] to the sacred literature of Yahûeh! I mean, the Grk. does it, the Altin does it, the German does it. It is no surpise that the English follows the German and places god (English form of gott).

So, if anyone would dare to state, "Well, there is no association with the biblical gd [pronounced as modern English's 'god'] with what we put in our bibles, so it is ok to say" then they have the tough task of explaing a way out of the fact that the 'modern word' also comes from pagan roots.

Either way, it is a lose-lose.

Facts are facts: god is a bad word, from any source [being biblically or secularly] and in NO way should be applied to Yhwh.

Shalowm b'Yahûeh - Joshua Luna

Ps- Most high (`eleyown : `LYWN) is not the root for 'elohiym ('LHYM). They are unrelated.

While some argue that 'el is the root of 'elohiym, it seems 'eloah would be the best canidate. Why? 'el has its own plurals ('eliy : my-mightone/mightones ; 'eliym : mightones) and thusly would seem unnaceptible. On the other hand, 'eloah/'elowah is a prime canidate (with the forms 'elohay, 'elohey, then 'elohiym, and so on...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mesobaite:
What baffles me is the level some will go to defend this name/title God. Why? Would they do the same for Yahweh?

---

Hey, Meso!

Yes, and that has been done right here in this discussion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
... it is impossible to substitute 'YHWH' with God ... impossible to be proper in doing so. What the KJV translators did was improper and cannot be considered proper.

---

I certainly do have a great interest in the origin of the word "God" and I have my own personal theory about the ulterior etymology which happen to show it as innocent of the SNM's charges...
... nothing to do with countering any claims of the SNM ...
I have totally unrelated purposes for discovering the true origin of "God" - again having absolutely nothing related to any point brought up in this discussion.

---

Shabbat Shalom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mesobaite:
What baffles me is the level some will go to defend this name/title God. Why? Would they do the same for Yahweh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leejosepho:
Hey, Meso!

Yes, and that has been done right here in this discussion:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
... it is impossible to substitute 'YHWH' with God ... impossible to be proper in doing so. What the KJV translators did was improper and cannot be considered proper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I reply: Are you sure about that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew on 01-04-2005 12:56 AM
Truth isn’t actually dependent on credentials – thank God.

---

I believe it is quite possible to substitute YHWH with "God." Whenever "God" is used as a name, more specifically as the name of the Creator, I regard it as "name substitution." The question, then, isn't whether or not we can substitute 'YHWH' with "God," the question is whether or not we should. As much as I believe it dishonors YHWH to refer to Him as "our God," I believe it dishonors Him even more to substitute His name with "God."

I sense that some of the problem contributing to this intense discussion may involve encounters that some folks have had with SNM individuals who apparently condemn those who refer to YHWH as "God." If so, I am very disappointed in those SNM people. I have some very good friends who refer to YHWH as "God." Even though I know their position and they know mine, I do not regard them as condemned, nor do I refer to them as "heretics" or whatever unseemly designations some may have for those with whom they strongly disagree. As I see it, we are all doing the best we can to please the Father, but regrettably we all have different understandings as to how to go about fulfilling that mission. Until we come to that perfect understanding and unity, I think we should do our best to at least not make ourselves "judge and jury" over those who do not see things as we do.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mesobaite:
What baffles me is the level some will go to defend this name/title God. Why? Would they do the same for Yahweh?

---

So yes, I am quite sure of my answer ... for it is no problem for me to quote someone without first demanding perfection from anyone.

Overall, then, please try to remember, Larry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EliYah:
... just continue discussing the issue, not each other.. thanks

---

Busted!

You wrote:

quote:

---

So yes, I am quite sure of my answer ... for it is no problem for me to quote someone without first demanding perfection from anyone.

Overall, then, please try to remember, Larry:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by EliYah:
... just continue discussing the issue, not each other.. thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Busted!

Let there be peace.

---

I reply: First of all, as my son has already once pointed out to you in another thread, there is a link at the bottom of each post labeled "Report this post to a moderator" that he suggested you click if you seriously believe the forum protocols are being violated. You also have easy access to my e-mail address if you would like to discuss this in a more private manner. However, if you would rather air these types of differences in the open, that is fine, although rather than nitpick at what you believe to be violations, I would prefer that you simply report me to the moderator, as I prefer to discuss protocol violations with him.

Secondly, I do not believe what I posted was a violation. To sum up this affair, Mesobaite wanted to know if those who go to such great lengths to defend "God" would do the same for YHWH. I wasn't going to respond to that question because I believe it was more rhetorical than anything else. Maybe some people out there who refer to YHWH as their "God" actually would go to equally great lengths to defend the name of YHWH. I know some do not, though.

You, however, responded to Mesobaite's question with what appeared to be a "proof quote" attesting to what you apparently believe is evidence that a certain individual was indeed going to great lengths to defend the name YHWH ... including his remark that it is "impossible to substitute YHWH with God."

All I did was demonstrate that this same individual is on record in this thread as giving thanks to "God," which I (and others I know) regard as a substitution of the Tetragrammaton, as the word "God" was used as a name, not as a title in his comment.

By illustrating that this individual had contradicted himself with his "Thank God" reference, I was not directing my response as anything disparaging against the person of the individual whom I had quoted. Rather, it was simply directed as a disagreement with the conclusion that you have apparently reached.

I am acquainted with lots of people who refer to YHWH as their "God," and in fact most of the folks I know who are of this persuasion are nice people. However, if they express the view that it is "impossible to substitute YHWH with 'God,'" and then they later say, "Thank God," I have no choice but to believe they have contradicted themselves. My thinking this of them would in no way be an indictment or attack on their character, nor was I attempting to do so with my previous posting. I do not expect perfection from anyone, yet at the same time, I don't believe you can quote someone who contradicts himself and expect it to be believed.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-08-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
All I did was demonstrate that [a certain] individual is on record in this thread as ...

---

Correct me if I am wrong, Larry, but I believe that is the very kind of thing EliYah has asked us not to do: talk about each other. And of course, I am sure you also have a "report this post" button of your own, do you not?!

Give it a rest, my fellow ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leejosepho:
Correct me if I am wrong, Larry, but I believe that is the very kind of thing EliYah has asked us not to do: talk about each other. And of course, I am sure you also have a "report this post" button of your own, do you not?!

Give it a rest, my fellow ...

---

As for the "report this post" button, I'm not the one complaining. You know what to do.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry