I am sorry that you are taking the criticism entirely personally. I certainly never implied any insult by stating I didn't know if they were your personal presumptions or not. I really don't know for the most part what is or isn't. I said that because I was hoping it really wasn't all your own personal presumptions so that your feelings would not be hurt. But by the amount of hurt you are expressing it makes me think more of it was your personal opinions. You are a sensitive person, and make sacrifices, and I appreciate that greatly.

You said this wasn't based on your personal presumptions so I don't know how you can claim it is personal at the same time. However, some of the conjecture I think is your own and is not based on any visible documentation - and that is fine. For example. What documentation told you to pronounce Gaedal Glas as God-el-glas? You *presumed* that if the "a" in glas sounds like the "o" in God, then also the a/ae combination in Gaedel must sound like the "o" in God. But the authorities document that it must be pronounced in long vowel form "ay" especially with the "d/dh" following it.

The point is Larry, this isn't really about you personally, but about the approach of the whole sacred name movement in general. It is whether the information we provide can withstand being tested. If it falls, then I think any normal person is going to feel a little demoted for having not been as thorough as they should have been, I know I would and I do when that happens. I also sympathize with you and the hours you spent and the reputation you put on the line in front of the masses. But Larry, one thing you will learn about me is that I am honest, firm and sincere. So let's keep the emotions in check.

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. If I limited myself to your sources then I might come away with your conclusion. That is why I am letting you and anyone else freely verify what I presented, because it will in the end lend more credibility and it will force you to do some more research for yourself. It's one thing if you are stuck after having tried but I don't believe I should always be doing other's homework. I'd rather give you some signposts - at this point.

Although you quote a few sources, you largely left your statements undocumented or unsourced. I am sorry to say but it seems you have a double standard since you state "IF YOU CHECK OUT" and "IF YOU INVESTIGATE" and "AS I UNDERSTAND IT". Why Larry is it okay for you to say what you want, and then expect others to have to document it to see if it is true - but not okay for me to do the same? Are you just witholding the documentation like myself, or do you really have it?

Here is a list of some undocumented statements from your post.

Gad in Irish should be pronounced "God" - undocumented and false
Glas in Irish means "green" - undocuemented but true
Gad in Irish means "snake" - undocumented and false
El in Irish means "almighty" - undocumented and false
There is a connection between the Irish Gad/God and Gott - undocumented
The Irish Gad/God is the same word as the Russian Gad/God - undocumented and false
The English word God is associated to snake worship - undocumented and false
There is an "indelible link" between reptile and fortune - undocumented

You said the statements weren't lacking any documentation, but obviously they are, and so I think you can understand why I said what I did. I know that you don't believe the burden of proof is necessarily upon your shoulders as you stated, and it does kind of show in the presentation. You also clearly stated that you think the burden is upon your ideological opponent's shoulders. Ok.

Here is some documentation for my previous post on Gaedhal Glas.

To look up the real meaning of the Irish words GAD, GOD, SNAKE, etc.
http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/
http://www.clanmacrae.org/documents/gaelic.htm

How to pronounce Gaelic, Gaedhal, etc.
http://www.musesrealm.net/celtic/language.html#sg
http://www.lincolnu.edu/~focal/docs/irishsp.htm

The legend of Gaedhil Glas.
From the ancient Irish text of Lebor Gabala Erren

Now you say you don't insult or condemn anyone for using "God" to refer to YHWH however you had said that in your opinion it is dishonouring to YHWH. Did you ever consider that to accuse someone of dishonouring YHWH could be offensive? Not that I am saying on my own behalf, but possibly others would take that negatively.

I aimed my remarks at your research Larry, not at you personally. But how can one separate himself from his research into which he poured all his best intentions? I called the information "presumptions" and I didn't assume they were even yours. You have to admit, some things are presumptuous, and some of those are your presumptions. If that offends you and hurts you, I am deeply sorry, I never intended it to demean you as a person. I think you have great intentions, and I think you personally have a great deal of integrity, but I am tackling the methodology, not you. Your methodoloy and philosophy was learned from other sacred namers, maybe Koster or Hawkins or whoever. You need to try and see the benefit of having your work critically reviewed. Yes, reviews are critical, and no one likes criticism. So we all have to toughen our skins a little and try to see where one can do better. I'll tell you my worst work is usually done in haste. So I am not always so quick to reply. Often I watch for months without posting.

I meant it when I said, I want to make you a better researcher. How are you going to improve your methods if they aren't examined? I can separate the person from their method, because a person can change their methods without changing who they are. Your standards are good enough in your eyes, and in the eyes of many. However, they are not up to the level that makes them immune to criticism. If you want to play with the "big boys" (and I think you do and should) then you have to train harder. You don't want to make excuses for yourself with statements like, "If you don't see it, it's because you don't want to." That is a sign of weakness, not personally, but academically. You are strong personally I see it in your tenacity, creativeness, and steadfastness. I don't expect it to be easy to sway your mind, it shouldn't be, because you have personal integrity.

I will now address your latest commentary. I will at least compliment you on improving from “insulting” to merely being “condescending.” It is an improvement.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I am sorry that you are taking the criticism entirely personally. I certainly never implied any insult by stating I didn't know if they were your personal presumptions or not. I really don't know for the most part what is or isn't. I said that because I was hoping it really wasn't all your own personal presumptions so that your feelings would not be hurt. But by the amount of hurt you are expressing it makes me think more of it was your personal opinions. You are a sensitive person, and make sacrifices, and I appreciate that greatly.

---

I reply: Your previous response was more than just an expression of undocumented disagreement with what I had presented. It was a verbal assault on the individual who conducted the research. Yes, I am the victim of the attack this time … but as you know by now, I will stand up for anyone who is treated in this fashion.

If my research is taken from flawed resources, then you can point that out, then issue the corrections along with the correct resources.

Your previous response consisted of some very, very unkind comments, such as, “I don't know if they were your personl presumptions, or based on someone else's, but they are typical of the quality of research in the sacred name movement.” I believe you know in your heart that this was more than just an attack on me personally, but it was an attack on others who identify with the Sacred Name Movement as well.

I remember a few years back attending a Unity Conference where someone wrote a paper in which he wrote the following:

quote:

---

"...But that's typical of the Jews. They never accept what Yahweh says. They always try to make it say something else ... I have a problem with just about everything the Jews do. Today's Jews are Talmud Jews and not Torah Jews. They are steeped in traditions, not truth.

---

Those remarks made quite a stir and upset quite a few people. Indeed, I was upset over the wording of that commentary myself, and I’m not even a Jew. Whenever something derogatory is aimed at a person or a group, and then the words, “That is typical of them” are applied, the flames of adversity are fanned. I believe you should know and understand this OF ALL PEOPLE … that is, if you are really Jewish.

Are you, out of curiosity?

You can try watering it down now, but your commentary changed nothing. You didn’t even apologize for making any unkind remarks because you obviously don’t believe you made any. I believe I have demonstrated otherwise.

The man who wrote the paper for the Unity Conference also explained that he didn’t mean any insults toward the Jews by what he wrote. And like you, he did not actually apologize for his remark (that I ever heard), even though others agreed his remarks were decidedly anti-semitic.

Again, although your words were directed at me personally, they were also directed at anyone who identifies with the Sacred Name Movement. If they should happen to come up with any mistakes in their research, MJ can be counted on to say, “That’s typical of those within the Sacred Name Movement.” I am curious if anyone else besides me sees what you have done here.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You said this wasn't based on your personal presumptions so I don't know how you can claim it is personal at the same time. However, some of the conjecture I think is your own and is not based on any visible documentation - and that is fine. For example. What documentation told you to pronounce Gaedal Glas as God-el-glas? You *presumed* that if the "a" in glas sounds like the "o" in God, then also the a/ae combination in Gaedel must sound like the "o" in God. But the authorities document that it must be pronounced in long vowel form "ay" especially with the "d/dh" following it.

---

I reply: First of all, it is a given that no matter how hard one tries, he cannot and will not provide documentation for everything he writes. Things get left out. However, when asked, that individual should be prepared to offer it.

As for the pronunciation “Gad-el-glas,” the Irish pronunciation guides I have looked at bear out that, indeed, the “a” is most commonly pronounced as “ah” in Irish. I am reproducing a chart that I found at a site I just now looked up, and it agrees with this pronunciation.

SIMPLE VOWELS (in Irish)

The above chart is found at the following link: http://www.standingstones.com/gaelpron.html#Vow

I sent an e-mail to the above link requesting specific information on how to pronounce the name of that idol, and I will do my best to let everyone know how they respond, presuming they respond in a timely manner. I also sent out a few other e-mails to other pronunciation sites, just in case the “Standing Stones” web site folks do not respond.

As for the “shallow research” charge that you seem to be attempting to direct my way, I believe the person you’re really out to discredit is Major-General J.G.R. Forlong, who authored the book from which I quoted. Undoubtedly, you question his scholarship, so I will copy and paste the following information to illustrate why I am persuaded that he is a very reliable source of information:

http://www.ganesha-publishing.com/cyclopae.htm

quote:

---

General Forlong (1824-1904) spent twenty-five years compiling this pioneering and invaluable work, the first comprehensive and scholarly dictionary of Comparative Religion in the English language. He had previously published two acclaimed and related books, and this, his crowning glory on the subject, enlarges upon previous information, making it an indispensable reference tool.

Far more than just a bookworm or compiler, Forlong was an active explorer who had visited the places of which he wrote, and his multi-lingual skills allowed him to speak to numerous religious gurus and peasants in their own tongue, gaining first-hand interpretations of their own religious symbols. Compounded with his vast learning in religions, archaeology, and philology, which encompassed the earliest and latest writings, Forlong was uniquely placed to compile and critically evaluate the material for this authoritative work.

Forlong was not only well informed on the religions of India, having lived and worked there for longest, but he studied all Eastern rites, symbols, customs, and languages. Besides India, he travelled and researched widely in Palestine, Greece, Italy, Spain, Burma, and the west of Ireland. His lively curiosity led him to absorb not only the philosophies of Ancient Greece, but also those of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism.

---

Okay, I believe I have established J.G.R. Forlong as a credible, trustworthy scholar. According to Forlong, the idol worshipped in ancient Ireland went by the name “Gad-el-Glas.” He mentions this same idol in volume 2 of his work. I don’t believe he made a mistake in identifying this idol. Notice what he writes on page 425:

quote:

---

Gad-El-glas like Cathak, was an ophiolater of the Krishnaik, or dark-coloured type, or the Mercurial Green of the West; for the name is usually translated, “the Green Snake God".

---

The above was written back in 1883. Okay, MJ, I believe I have successfully established Forlong’s scholarship credibility. He says “Gad-El-glas” means “green snake god.” Would you be so kind as to tell me which of the words in “Gad-El-glas” is translated “snake”?

And you know what? Even if the word “Gad” isn’t pronounced precisely as our English “God,” I am still confident of the connection to the Russian word “Gad” (definitely pronounced “God”), which means “serpent, snake” in Russian. I will document this information later. It’s been available to you all along in the presentation that I offered to anyone who requested it. You haven’t requested it; otherwise you would already have the documentation you complain about not having!!

You wrote:

quote:

---

The point is Larry, this isn't really about you personally, but about the approach of the whole sacred name movement in general. It is whether the information we provide can withstand being tested. If it falls, then I think any normal person is going to feel a little demoted for having not been as thorough as they should have been, I know I would and I do when that happens. I also sympathize with you and the hours you spent and the reputation you put on the line in front of the masses. But Larry, one thing you will learn about me is that I am honest, firm and sincere. So let's keep the emotions in check.

---

I reply: MJ, this is another condescending generalization on your part … unkind and unfair. Your remarking that “any normal person is going to feel a little demoted for not having been as thorough as they should have been” is simply another condescending remark designed to enhance your self-esteem or something. It serves no useful purpose in this dialogue. It was totally unnecessary and out of order. All you really need to do is point out the errors. Those types of remarks are really unnecessary and inappropriate, even if you would have been justified in making them. You make inflammatory remarks, then suggest that the other party "keep their emotions in check"??

I have great respect for your scholarship ability, and I don’t believe I have made any attempts to call your scholarship into question. I question your logic in a very big way, but that doesn’t mean I need to try and “demote” you!!

You wrote:

quote:

---

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. If I limited myself to your sources then I might come away with your conclusion. That is why I am letting you and anyone else freely verify what I presented, because it will in the end lend more credibility and it will force you to do some more research for yourself. It's one thing if you are stuck after having tried but I don't believe I should always be doing other's homework. I'd rather give you some signposts - at this point.

---

I reply: I disagree with any commentary stating that there is not a need to offer documentation, especially when new, previously unknown or controversial information is hanging in the balance. Rather than “forcing me to do more research,” I believe you need to demonstrate that the research I have done is in error. You have not done this. I may have to make a concession on the precise pronunciation of the Irish “GAD,” pending what I find out from the inquiries I have made, but that will have no impact on the connection made between it and the Russian word, which in turn ties in with the Hebrew. Also, for you to excuse yourself from offering documentation because “I don’t believe I should always be doing other’s homework” seems very lame to me. We should always be ready and willing to back up the information we offer. That is what is known as “responsible journalism.” Out of curiosity, have you ever been involved in journalism?? Just curious.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Although you quote a few sources, you largely left your statements undocumented or unsourced. I am sorry to say but it seems you have a double standard since you state "IF YOU CHECK OUT" and "IF YOU INVESTIGATE" and "AS I UNDERSTAND IT". Why Larry is it okay for you to say what you want, and then expect others to have to document it to see if it is true - but not okay for me to do the same? Are you just witholding the documentation like myself, or do you really have it?

---

I reply: I apologize for any undocumented statements I made. That is not my intention, and I will attempt to correct any gaps you believe I have left. Indeed, I am guilty of not documenting all of my statements, so I will correct that oversight.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Here is a list of some undocumented statements from your post.

Gad in Irish should be pronounced "God" - undocumented and false

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

Glas in Irish means "green" - undocuemented but true

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

Gad in Irish means "snake" - undocumented and false

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

El in Irish means "almighty" - undocumented and false

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

There is a connection between the Irish Gad/God and Gott – undocumented

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

The Irish Gad/God is the same word as the Russian Gad/God - undocumented and false

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

The English word God is associated to snake worship - undocumented and false

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

There is an "indelible link" between reptile and fortune – undocumented

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

You said the statements weren't lacking any documentation, but obviously they are, and so I think you can understand why I said what I did. I know that you don't believe the burden of proof is necessarily upon your shoulders as you stated, and it does kind of show in the presentation. You also clearly stated that you think the burden is upon your ideological opponent's shoulders. Ok.

---

My response: I will make up for the missing documentation … but I believe I have given sufficient explanations in each instance that you cite.

I continue to maintain that anyone who doesn’t see the connection between the Hebrew idol of fortune and the Russian word for “fortune teller,” plus knowing that the word “GOD” in Russian means “reptile,” … and then there certainly was an Irish idol named “Gad-El-glas” whose name is translated “Green Snake God”! The only way I would not see any possible connection would be if I didn’t want to see it. You and I both know that there are simply truths out there that some people either don’t want to see or else refuse to see. I believe such is the case with the connection I have demonstrated. The burden is definitely on you to prove there isn’t one. So far you have not succeeded in your effort to persuade me.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Here is some documentation for my previous post on Gaedhal Glas.

To look up the real meaning of the Irish words GAD, GOD, SNAKE, etc.
http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/
http://www.clanmacrae.org/documents/gaelic.htm

How to pronounce Gaelic, Gaedhal, etc.
http://www.musesrealm.net/celtic/language.html#sg
]http://www.lincolnu.edu/~focal/docs/irishsp.htm

---

My response: Okay, I reviewed the links you offered, and they actually offer support for the case I am presenting!!! Especially the link for http://www.clanmacrae.org/documents/gaelic-g.htm It lists the following definition for “Gad”: [gad] nm. g.v. goid; pl. goid, withe, switch, twisted twig.”

It is from the concept of the “twisted twig” that the understanding of “snake” was conceived. I remember reading about this somewhere … I will see if I can locate it. In the meantime, I offer you additional evidence regarding “Gad-el-glas” that shows the “twisting” effect he had. The following information comes from the following link: http://www.reptilianagenda.com/hist/h120502a.html

quote:

---

The Irish early Christians long continued the custom entwining [Larry’s note: i.e., twisting] their old serpent god around the cross. One has said, "The ancient Irish crosses are alive with serpents. Their green god-snake was Gad-el-glas. The word Tirda-glas meant the tower of the green god. The old Milesia standard, of a snake twisted round a rod, may seem to indicate a Phallic connection with the Sabh.

---

Have you ever mistaken a snake for a “stick” or vice-versa? I sure have! It follows that there is a correlation between the Irish word for “stick” or “twisted twig” and the word “snake.”

The other links you offered show that the vowel “a” is usually pronounced as “ah.” For example, this is from the final link you provided:

quote:

---

á as in tá pronounced "taw"
(This is the same "a" as in the BBC pronunciation of "law" or "walk". )

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

The legend of Gaedhil Glas.
From the ancient Irish text of Lebor Gabala Erren

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now you say you don't insult or condemn anyone for using "God" to refer to YHWH however you had said that in your opinion it is dishonouring to YHWH. Did you ever consider that to accuse someone of dishonouring YHWH could be offensive? Not that I am saying on my own behalf, but possibly others would take that negatively.

---

I would tell you the same thing if I heard you refer to YHWH as your ‘Satan.’ By the way, I am still awaiting your reply to my questions on that one …. just in case you’ve forgotten. I really need to know how you respond to those questions.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I aimed my remarks at your research Larry, not at you personally. But how can one separate himself from his research into which he poured all his best intentions? I called the information "presumptions" and I didn't assume they were even yours. You have to admit, some things are presumptuous, and some of those are your presumptions. If that offends you and hurts you, I am deeply sorry, I never intended it to demean you as a person. I think you have great intentions, and I think you personally have a great deal of integrity, but I am tackling the methodology, not you.

---

You are certainly free to question and criticize the results of my research … I understand and respect that. But to blast someone’s research abilities as you did … then go even further and broadly apply it to the entire SN Movement … just not very nice. Let’s just address the errors and my motives. Fair enough?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Your methodoloy and philosophy was learned from other sacred namers, maybe Koster or Hawkins or whoever. You need to try and see the benefit of having your work critically reviewed. Yes, reviews are critical, and no one likes criticism. So we all have to toughen our skins a little and try to see where one can do better. I'll tell you my worst work is usually done in haste. So I am not always so quick to reply. Often I watch for months without posting.

---

As far as having anything I write critiqued, those who know me know that I ask them for their comments and suggestions for improvement. I am not above correction, MJ. But the way you administer correction, from my perspective at least, is in a condescending way. Has anyone ever told you this before?

You wrote:

quote:

---

I meant it when I said, I want to make you a better researcher. How are you going to improve your methods if they aren't examined? I can separate the person from their method, because a person can change their methods without changing who they are. Your standards are good enough in your eyes, and in the eyes of many. However, they are not up to the level that makes them immune to criticism. If you want to play with the "big boys" (and I think you do and should) then you have to train harder. You don't want to make excuses for yourself with statements like, "If you don't see it, it's because you don't want to." That is a sign of weakness, not personally, but academically. You are strong personally I see it in your tenacity, creativeness, and steadfastness. I don't expect it to be easy to sway your mind, it shouldn't be, because you have personal integrity.

---

I reply: MJ, there is always room for improvement. I intend to be open to correction. Thus far you have not succeeded in persuading me that the connection I have shown is not a bonafide one. The burden of proof really is upon you to do so. And I really, honestly do not believe you want to see it, whether you like that as an “academic” remark or not.

There are some people who don’t want to see that there is a Creator. Is that statement also “a sign of academic weakness” by your standards?

By the way, are you one of the “big boys"?

I apologize for the length of this posting, but I will defend myself (and others) when necessary. I would do the same for you if someone spoke to you in this manner, and I believe that in your heart you know I am sincere in making that statement. I will also defend the results of the research I have done, as well as my sources (unless you can succeed in discrediting them). At this point it appears that you need to discredit J.G.R. Forlong’s research, not mine. I’m just reporting his findings.

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

The following is another excerpt from the presentation I gave at this year’s Unity Conference. It contains the documentation missing from my previous commentary pertaining to the Russian connection with the Hebrew “gawd." Your constructive criticism and feedback is welcome!

A Disturbing Connection?

I have already shared the historical and Scriptural fact that “God” is the name of an idol worshipped in ancient Babylon, as well as in Canaan and Haran. This, to June and me, is very disturbing – disturbing enough to cause us to search for another appellative to use in reference to our Creator. We recently found yet another negative “God” connection which I hope you don’t mind my sharing. We recently learned that the Russian language contains a word pronounced “God.” The only thing is, when you say the word “God” in Russian, you are referring to a reptile, for that is what the word “God” means in the Russian language. It’s little wonder that some folks regard the English-speaking culture as being “satanic”! If I heard that some group over in Timbuctoo worshipped a deity named “Serpent,” they would already have a strike against them in my book just because of the name they use in reference to the Creator.

I recommend checking out page 23 of the Transliterated Dictionary of the Russian Language, online edition, by Eugene Garfield, editor. It can be found online at: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/rd/rusg.pdf You will notice that the word spelled “gad” means “reptile” in the Russian language. If you consult a pronunciation guide, such as one located at www.masterrussian.com you will notice that the word spelled “gad” is pronounced “gawd.” Curiously, on that same page (page 23), there are a total of five words that are either pronounced “God” in Russian or have a form of “God” as a prefix. Notice that each of these words has a very negative connotation:

gad (n.m.) reptile gadalka (n.f.) fortune-tellerF gadit(v. impf.) foul gadkii (adj.) nasty gadyuka (n.f.) adder

[Larry’s comment: How did “Gad,” the idol of fortune, come to form a prefix of the Russian word for “fortune-teller”? Another “coincidence”?]

Some folks, upon reviewing these words, are bound to comment something to the effect, “But those words aren’t pronounced with the ‘gawd’ sound! They would be pronounced with the short ‘a’ sound, as in ‘sad’!” Again, for those willing to check out a Russian pronunciation guide, such as the one found at www.masterrussian.com it will be obvious that these words are all pronounced with the “gawd” sound.

As we have demonstrated, this word, in Russian, can mean either “snake” or “reptile.” Not being an expert on how the Slavic languages developed, June and I cannot answer as to how a word pronounced “gawd” happened to become incorporated into the Russian language, nor can I explain how such a word came to mean “reptile.”

As I mentioned previously, the fact that God is a name identified with serpent worship should, in our opinion, alarm any serious student of the Word. The connection of an ancient idol of “fortune” to a similar Russian word meaning “fortune-teller” (gadalka) and the transliteration of the very name God meaning “reptile” in itself reveals an indelible link that we find difficult to deny. However, when combined with the above information unveiling yet another idol named God who is known as the “Green-god-Snake,” the association only seems deniable by those unwilling to see it. Is God connected to the worship of the True Mighty One … or is God connected to serpent worship? Based upon all available historical evidence, God is most certainly not associated with the worship of our Heavenly Father Yahweh. As for the destiny of any idols identified with serpent worship, we can only remind you of the information offered in Revelation 12:9:

⁹And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

June and I take our worship very seriously. We didn’t come this far only to compromise our worship or give half an ounce of our worship to someone (or something) other than Yahweh. Nor are we interested in gambling as to whether or not Yahweh approves of the title “God.” There are several other choices to choose from that are positively free from the stain of heathen serpent worship. We prefer to err on the side of safety, and we urge all fellow truth seekers to do the same. Yahweh is worthy of our UTMOST REVERENCE, PRAISE and WORSHIP. In light of such awesome majesty and the respect due Him, why would we want to assign a title to Yahweh that we KNOW matches the name of a heathen idol (a negative aspect), ... much less the name of a heathen idol singled out and condemned by Yahweh Himself??!! This is why we opt for more honorable titles, such as “Almighty,” “Sovereign” and “Mighty One.” We encourage you to do the same and dump “God” for the simple reason that it has NEGATIVE ASPECTS. Why assign a title with negative implications to Yahweh? Doesn’t that make it unclean? This just doesn’t make any sense. LET’S GO FOR THE BEST, FOLKS!

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I've not even completely studied the entire subject out, but with what I have read of Larry's book, "Do We Honor Yahweh by Referring to Him as Our God?", I'm convinced that until I do fully study it out there's no need for me to risk dishonoring Yahweh. Even if, let's say, there's only a 1% chance that we could be dishonoring Yahweh by referring to Him with this title, why take the 1% chance? We're talking about our Creator and sustainer of life here! It's not too hard to just say "Yahweh the Almighty" is it?

Shalom,

You said:

If we’re going to trace the origin of this name, let’s start with Scripture, okay? Where does it first appear? Who gave Jacob’s son this name? Was she reared in a heathen environment? Can it be proven that an idol named “GOD” was worshipped in the area where she was raised? Is it possible that this is where this name originated?

Doing a word study:
In Strongs Concordance under Hebrew numbers 1408-1409, it says:

01408 Gad {gad}
a variation of 01409; TWOT - 313e; n pr m
AV - non translated variant 1; 1
Gad = "god of fortune"
1) a Babylonian deity

Notice how #1408 is a variant of #1409...

01409 gad {gawd}
from 01464 (in the sense of distributing); TWOT - 313d; n m
AV - troop 2; 2
1) fortune, good fortune

The word “Gad” in Isaiah 65:11 has both #1408 and #1409 assigned to it:

Isaiah 65:11 But ye are they that forsake YHWH that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop (Gad) <01409> (08677) <01408>, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.

BDB/Thayers explanation of 8677 (inserted between numbers 1408 and 1409 in preceding verse):

08677 Synonym Strong's Numbers:
Sometimes, a word or phrase has individual Strong's numbers assigned
to it and it has an additional Strong's number for the entire phrase.
Only by context can you distinguish proper names in Hebrew from individual words. Hence translators do arrive at different renderings for the same Hebrew.

Continuing on with Strong's definition:
01410 Gad {gawd}
from 01464; n pr m
AV - Gad 70; 70
Gad = "troop"
1) seventh son of Jacob by Zilpah, Leah's handmaid, and full brother
of Asher.
2) the tribe descended from Gad

Notice how the variant for the deity of fortune (#1409) is used when Leah, the daughter of an idol worshipper (Gen. 31:30),
named her handmaiden's son Gad (pronounced gawd)

Gene 30:11 (KJS) And Leah said, A troop [1409] cometh: and she called his name Gad [1410].

It seems to me that the three words spelled gimmel-dalet (g-d), Strong’s numbers 1408-1410, are all related.

Love in Yahushua,
Richard

Shalom Brother Richard,

I think when I study these words it seems your right they are all related it looks to me.

This is something I am studying very hard, this isn't what they do at all here where we go, so I will probly bring it up with them for deeper discussion.

Love in Yahushua's precious name,

YHWH and Yahshua are not Romans.

The word God from Theos is borrowed and handed down from ancient paganized gentiles and their stupid idols, or so-called good and evil living and dead mighty ones.

In many scriptures, the l, El, Elohim, Eloha, Theos, etc. titles translated using the word God from Theos, are not always reffering to YHWH, and not always accurate translations either. The singular title "God" used in bibles can be very misleading to many readers just like the word Lord is.

The singular word God is said to mean "mighty - mighty one".

The name YHWH is our heavenly Father". He is not a mighty one, He is "Thee only Almighty"

Berishith 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El-Shadday ; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Shemoth 6:3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as El-Shadday ; but by my name YHWH I was not known to them. (At that particular time anyway!)

2 Cor 6:17 Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, 18 And will be to you a Father , And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith YHWH Almighty.

The word "Almighty" from (3841 pantokrator) clearly shows 1) he who holds sway over all things, 2) the ruler of all.

I can't imagen that Yahshua ever once actually spoke the word Theos or God, even though English bibles interpret it that way. When Yahshua spoke in Aramic, I'm sure he was in no way connecting or making his Father equal with any of the "Mighty ones". He even said "My Father is greater than I". Yahshua often called YHWH his "Father", and he said that we should call him our Father too!

We should always do more research (Seek the deep spiritual things of YHWH), and pay closer attention to all words found in the scriptures and their meanings such as; "El, Elohim, *Eloha, & God". We don't want to be mislead or confused about anything that YHWH wants us to know and keep.

Many things that have been placed into the various bibles over the years are not correct and/or are misleading, thus causing many to be uncertain of what is/isn't inspired, and what all might have been added or twisted by the roman catholic church.

Within ISA 52:6, YHWH says: Therefore my people shall know my name

How can so many people possibly know our Father's name when they replaced his name over 6000+ times with a handed down title "Lord" and with the modern fabricated name Jehovah?

I often wonder why they translated from Theos the word God to even be used in the OT?, and how many times did they overwrite/replace the words "Eli, El, Elahh, Elowahh, El-Shadday & Eloha" with Theos/God when they decided to overwrite and insert it along with the title Lord?

That's why when reading in English that I preffer to study from The Scriptures

Of course it isn't perfect and there are more options for those who are seeking better insights to study the Word and it's meanings.

John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

The languages & wisdom of this world is foolishness. The bread of heaven was sent from above that we may eat and know the truth. Even if we only eat the crumbs that have fallen from the masters table, we are still hungry for more truth because we Love YHWH, and we want to live with him and Yahshua forever.

May YHWH help us all that do seek with all our heart, soul and mind to Love and live for him.

Brother Yohanan

I want you to know that I really appreciate your posting and your desire to remove all semblance of heathen connections from Yahweh’s great and majestic name.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I often wonder why they translated from Theos the word God to even be used in the OT?, and how many times did they overwrite/replace the words "Eli, El, Elahh, Elowahh, El-Shadday & Eloha" with Theos/God when they decided to overwrite and insert it along with the title Lord?

---

One thing I don’t want to do is make this discussion any “hotter” than it already is, but at this point in the discussion, I’m afraid I have to agree with MJ that some of the information that C. J. Koster offered in his book The Final Reformation (later renamed Come Out of Her, My People) just doesn’t “hold water.” I am referring to the evidence he offers pertaining to the title Theos having originally been the name of a heathen idol.

Please believe me … I very strongly desired and in fact needed his information to be correct so as to assist me with a study I wrote back in 1997. I wanted to use his book as a reference for the study I was writing. However, I know you can’t used biased witnesses when offering your readers supportive documentation validating your position. I was reminded of an old friend who wrote a study about why we shouldn’t observe Christmas. One of his references was a booklet authored by Herbert W. Armstrong. I started laughing when I noticed it, and when I pointed it out to him, he began laughing, too!! He said, “Yeah, that’s why I don’t hand that out to anyone any more!! That was the first booklet I ever wrote, and it was before I learned you can’t use ‘biased references.”

Back to C. J. Koster’s book: I went to the local libraries in search of any historical evidence that there was an idol named Theos. I was going to lump Theos in with idols like Nisroch, Chemosh and Dagon. Everyone knew those were the names of heathen idols and what a disgrace and dishonor it would be to apply them to our awesome Heavenly Father, so I was going to lump Theos in with the rest of them … as soon as I found the evidence of it being the name of a heathen idol, that is.

I searched and I searched to no avail. It appeared that the only reference documenting Theos as the name of a heathen idol was the one cited by Koster in his book. He cited a man named B. C. Dietrich’s book entitled The Origin of Greek Religion. I decided that I had to get ahold of that book so I could actually read and quote the text in the study I was writing.

To make a long story short, Koster misrepresented that reference. It is not up to me to decide whether he did it intentionally or unintentionally. June and I address this error in “Objection #6” of our study. Here, again, is a link to the condensed version, as found on Frank Brown’s Search the Scriptures web site for those who want to read that portion of the study. It is entitled, “Objection #6: If the Greeks referred to Yahweh as their Theos, then why can’t we refer to Him as our God?”:
http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/artic-98.htm

Please believe me … I really would like to find evidence that Theos is/was the name of a heathen idol before it was applied to YHWH in the NT. However, in the absence of the evidence that there was ever an idol by that name in the Greek pantheon, I am compelled to reject that information. From what I can see, it simply is not true.

I personally do not like the title Theos, but unlike God, it is not and never has been the name of a heathen idol. I simply cannot allow my personal aversions to dictate what is truth. I say this with all respect to you, for I know you are doing your utmost to honor Yahweh with His matchless holy name, as well as pure titles to use in reference to Him. I commend you for this.

May Yahweh bless,

Larry

quote:

---

TRADITION TWELVE (“Alcoholics Anonymous”, Appendix I)
Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

TRADITION TWELVE - The Long [original] Form (Appendix I)
And finally, we of Alcoholics Anonymous believe that the principle of anonymity has an immense spiritual significance. It reminds us that we are to place principles before personalities; that we are actually to practice a genuine humility. This to the end that our great blessings may never spoil us; that we shall forever live in thankful contemplation of Him who presides over us all.

---

“In the spiritual realm, anonymity amounts to the total renunciation of personal prestige as an instrument of general policy” (Bill W.).

... but when one’s own self has a vested interest, humility often goes out the window at the expense of intellectual honesty (CabDriver).

Personally, I believe there is much difference between how Neuburger speaks the word “G-d” in the Judiasm-Zionism article Abiyah has posted and the way I used to use it.

I'm like you trying to learn and live the proper ways that are pleasing to YHWH. None of us know what all the truth is.

I try to be more careful with the things I speak and do, yet I'm so far from being perfect in this old flesh.

Possibly a large percentage of words & names in the world languages are somehow connected with paganisim, and/or corrupted. May YHWH forgive us for we don't always know what we are doing, saying and eating of. He knows each of our hearts and our intentions, but let's never forget that he also get's jealous. I do fear YHWH, and I do Love him the most.

I feel that we should use extra caution when referring to YHWH. He is thee Almighty. I do not feel that the titles Lord and God are suitable for Almighty YHWH.

When we hear somebody say Lord or God, we might just ask them who they are talking about. That might be a good opportunity for us to tell them about our Father YHWH, and lead them to the true Messiah named Yahshua.

Yahshua said: John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

YHWH's people will know his name (Isa 52:6), so this really is salvational issue for so many that heaven't learned of his name yet.

Other than that "HalleluYah!"

One thing I hope we all do in our walk with the Father is keep our hearts and eyes focused on those things which bring Him and His Son honor. That is how I personally try to approach this issue ... focused on the honor of YHWH. I personally cannot put that focus on anyone's salvation because, for one thing, that's the number one thing that folks in the SN Movement are "accused of": Teaching that unless people use the name they will not be saved. It's brought on a lot of negative publicity. I have had lots of people act surprised when they found out that I call upon the name Yahweh ... but their actual surprise was in learning that I don't judge them as headed for the Lake of Fire for not using it. And that brings me to point #2: It will only be by Yahweh's mercy that any of us makes it to His glorious Kingdom ... so how can I look down my nose at someone for not doing what I'm doing when I know I need His mercy as much as [maybe more than] they do? I have not been, nor do I plan to be anyone's judge ... at least insofar as their salvation goes. That is simply not my job. All I can do is let them know what I believe He wants us to do ... and when we do His will, we honor Him.

It is for this reason that I personally put the focus, not on salvation, but on ... you guessed it ... HONOR. I believe that if our focus remains on the honor, which includes personal growth and daily allowing Yahweh's Spirit to influence our hearts ... with a resulting positive reflection in our lives ... then we are on the right track. Of course, the above is much easier said than done, and includes lots of growth in all areas of our life, including not only how we love our fellow man, but how we love and honor our Creator ... including the desire to honor His name.

I believe we can focus on these things without putting the emphasis on salvation. I believe it is better to seek ways to honor YHWH than to dwell on what each of "must do to be saved." I'm not saying we should stop worrying about "salvation," what I'm saying is, if our focus truly remains on seeking ways to honor the Father, salvation will follow.

I realize we all have our differing ideas on how to approach these matters ... and I really don't want to even pretend to be an authority on how to approach Yahweh's name with others, I just know what seems to go over better from my own personal experiences. No one has ever argued with me that it is okay to dishonor Yahweh ... at least not yet! I just thought I would share why, when I explain my conviction about the name/title "God," I don't approach it from a "salvation" perspective, but from an "honor" perspective.

May all praise and honor go to Yahweh! HalleluYah!

May Yahweh bless,

Larry

You need to cut that condescending junk. It doesn't say much about Larry, but it certainly speaks worlds of you. You say that Larry should want to play with one of the "big boys"? So that would mean that Larry isn't, but somehow insinuates that you are? Perhaps you should tell everyone your name so know whether or not we recognize you as a "big boy", or perhaps this is just another Napoleon complex developed through the use of a computer and the cloak of a screen name. We are equal in Messiah; that "big boy" junk needs to go with the rest of Babylon so leave it out of this discussion permanently. If you won't say something to someone’s face, just leave it out. Remember that as the body of Messiah, every time we demean a brother, we are demeaning our Messiah, because He abides in us. We are not given a choice on HOW we are to present truth, but we are told to present it with love. If this is beyond you, then you are simply wasting everyone’s time.

Since my screen name is less than revealing, my name is Rusty Acheson. That is my name; perhaps you can tell everyone your name?

Please simply give more consideration to the comments you make to Larry and anyone in this forum. You seem to hold the Sacred Name movement in a rather low esteem. I honestly don’t care about your prejudices, so don’t take up any more space in the forum reminding everyone of how you feel that your research methods are obviously superior to anyone else’s within the Sacred Name movement. I got it already, give it a rest and get back to the discussion at hand. You could have cut few good paragraphs out of your postings if you had just left it at the topic of “God” and not strayed into a condescending tone. You would have been able to go without your half-hearted “apology” and I wouldn’t have had to write all of this. Just focus on the Kingdom and don’t bother making personal comments. You don’t know what anyone did in regards to research, so don’t even try to act like you “know”. Unless your name is Larry Acheson, you don’t have a clue how much time Larry has put into this topic, so stop making assumptions.

In case anyone is wondering, Rusty is my son. Rusty is a very upright and conscientious person who has been known to stand up for those whom he feels has been wronged, and I believe that explains his response above. I want everyone to know "up front" that I had nothing to do with Rusty's decision to post the above. As his dad, I am glad he cared enough to speak out, though!

In considering what Rusty wrote, I seem to recall someone making a wise comment about how anonymity carries with it a huge load of responsibility. I'm not really all that interested in knowing who the anonymous people are who post in this forum. Everyone has their reasons for concealing their identities ... some good, some not so good. It's not up to me to judge anyone's motives for making anonymous postings, but when we elevate ourselves above others, when we make broad use of "trigger words" designed to bring others down ... something is out of kelter.

I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not even going to try to evaluate what is behind this manner of approach. We all have emotions ... I hope ... and we all have personal conclusions about our beliefs. It follows that we would all like for everyone to agree with our conclusions. I have yet to encounter an individual who became upset because someone agreed with him on a certain issue. It's always the reverse.

Sometimes I do become emotionally "worked up" when someone simply cannot see or agree with my position, especially when I detect an agenda behind that person's reasoning. I'm not trying to justify myself here, I'm just exposing one of my weaknesses. I'm certainly far from perfect, and I am certain I have incensed my fair share of individuals in this forum and elsewhere. I hope those folks will forgive me for any rude comments I have made "in the heat of the moment." I am sorry to those whom I have offended. Of course, there have been other times when I have had to "get tough" with others. Sometimes we really do need to "tell it like it is." One of these days I hope to master the art of telling it like it is without perpetrating a verbal assault on someone.

Okay, now back to the topic at hand. I am left to somehow delicately balance the fact that I have great respect and admiration for lots of folks who refer to the Almighty as "God" with my firm conviction that we do indeed dishonor YHWH by referring to Him as "God."

May Yahweh bless,

Larry

Satan wants as many as possible to puff up some smoke into the forum so it will become dark and inhabitable for him. He is the master of deception, and he knows exactly what our weak points are.

Bless them that curse you or your loved ones, and make sure that whatever you do, that you ALWAYS do it to give YHWH all the glory he deserves.

We should always prove that we are truely YHWH's children, and be as lamps shinning through Satans darkness.

Some people here are not always very bright, but when the children of YHWH gather together in agreement in Yahshua's name, then Satan gets binded and banned.

Don't ever step out of the light into the darkness. Learn to recognize when Satan is on the rampage, and drive him out with the Power "Love" of YHWH.

Love one another as Yahshua loved us, no matter what. It's all about abiding in the Love of the truth.

Praise YHWH and lead others to Yahshua.