Part III: J.G.R. Forlong Defends His Zeal for Phonetic Pronunciations of Names

Mountain Jew persists in attempting to build a case supporting his premise that there never really was an Irish idol named Gad-El-glas, that in reality this is a matter of someone, namely the late J.G.R. Forlong, confusing the name of an Irish "hero" with a serpentine idol. On December 8th, Mountain Jew issued several negative comments in an obvious attempt to discredit Forlong's research. I responded to those comments in Part One, and in Part Two I allowed Forlong to express, in his own words, that his sole motivation was the quest for truth. Here in Part Three I want to present an uninterrupted commentary by Forlong, explaining his emphasis on providing phonetic spellings that come as close to the ancient, original pronunciations as possible. It is my hope that by sharing this, you will see that Forlong was not "messed up," as emphatically claimed by the anonymous man identifying himself only as "Mountain Jew," but was careful and diligent in his research, worthy of the scholarly acclaim accorded to him by the academic community.

My opponent presents Forlong as an overrated, underqualified author who haphazardly fumbled with pronunciations and spellings of names. Is this an accurate representation? Let's allow Forlong to explain his goal with regard to the phonetic spellings of names. He dedicates a lengthy portion of his preface towards explaining his purpose in offering the closest approximation possible for the phonetic reproduction of proper names. The following begins on page xxxvi:

quote:

---

A word now as to Orthography. When the first proofs of parts of this work were struck off in India several years ago, the spelling of foreign words was in a transition stage, and the opoular English system was adopted. Varuna was Varoona, because the u and a are used differently in English, and here deviation seemed unnecessary as the reader could thus correctly pronounce such words as Vishnu and Rudra. Diacritical marks and diphthongs were avoided, but as the work progressed and began to deal with such a great variety of tongues, it became necessary to adopt some such system as that now authoritatively laid down by the Government of India; and these changes were radical in regard to all words not too firmly fixed in the popular mind, voice and eye, and where the pronunciation was sufficiently correct.

Of course it is impossible to accommodate thirty-eight distinct English sounds to our twenty-six letters; how much more so, some fifty sounds, if one would rightly pronounce all the words dealt with in such a polyglotal work as this. At the same time, spelling reformers were everywhere making their voices heard, and Oxford may be said to have theoretically sided with them in 1876, when Professor Max Müller wrote his celebrated article in the April Fortnightly, declaring against the supposed sacredness or etymological use of our present hap-hazard system. The Philological Society of London and many abroad have definitely committed themselves to lines of improvement, and more action would have followed but for the too radical changes which the more earnest spelling reformers advocated. Moderate men desired that we should advance only a little quicker and more regularly than in the past, for it appears that the progress has been such that the 1st Chapter of Genesis, as written one hundred years ago, has one hundred and twenty mistakes according to the present orthography. It seemed sufficient that sound and simplicity should lead to a general shortening of words, as by avoidance of double letters and all or most unsounded ones; also that when moderately correct sound could be assured, the spelling should revert to the most ancient language in which the word or root appeared. Thus, that in Europe we should pass over the Latin c, s, &c., where they had substituted these for the Greek k, z, &c., and refuse a soft ch for k or x, and a ck where k was sufficient. At the same time it was felt imperative above all things that no changes should be made in a work of this sufficiently difficult kind which would draw off the reader's attention from the subject in hand, or even distract his eye or ear; whilst as one ever a warm advocate of spelling reform, the author felt bound to aid, however slightly, in what he hopes will yet be one of the greatest revolutions of the next generation—a gradual but general reformation of all the orthographies of Europe. He has no desire, however, to bury his own books and all the literature of the past which a too radical change in the forms of letters would infallibly do, were the rising generation to be exclusively or generally instructed in a system of fonetiks, or were our words even altered to the orthography of a Chaucer.

We can best aid substantial reform by quickening natural laws, as in encouraging fonetik growth and decay where these simplify orthography, and by writing all infrequent words according to the accepted principles of the moderate reformers. Of course our Brahman friend is horrified when he hears or reads of Maina a month, for his Mahīna, and would even prefer another h or n, but India now practically refuses to recognize the three syllables and calls their use pedantry.

In this work a very slight endeavour has latterly been made to move in the direction of the London Philogical Code of "General Principles," but with too little effect owing largely to the persistency of friendly readers and our printers, who have not only often ruthlessly swept out the improved spellings, but seemed to rebel against the different modes in which we on principle often spell the same names of gods and heros; the object being to accustom the enquirer into old faiths to recognize the same person under diverse orthographies. On this principle also, so that the unsophisticated be not confused, a Vaishnava is here usually called a Vishnu-ite, and Saivaism, Sivaism and the followers of Solar Shams, Sh-m or Shem, Shemites, and not Semites.

A volume might be written on the use and abuse of aspirates, which it is agreed are "one thing in Sanskrit, another in Greek, a third in Latin, and a fourth in Teutonic." The h is a necessary or fashionable addition in some districts, but is scorned in others. We tread gently upon Herbs, Hostlers, and Honorables, and in searching after roots do well to look indifferently on t and th, p and ph, k and kh, g and gh, d and dh, j and dj, &c., &c. These sounds and many others, require special and cautious handling, for what one locality favors, another denounces, and the literate and illiterate are here usually at war. If we would find out roots, words and mythological matters, we must probe most deeply on the side of age and custom, and call present meanings and etymology in question. The learned, be they Rabis or grammarians, intentionally or otherwise harden and alter old forms to suit euphony or their own laws and ideas, and lose sight of or take little account of the old fashioned rustic notions, fears and symbolisms which the words anciently embodied. They scorn the indifference of the illiterate as to quantity and long and short vowels, and lay the greatest possible stress upon these, even when working in dead languages, the original sound of which they confess to have more or less lost. Throughout Asia, as in England and Scotland, we find people only separated from each other by a stream or mountain range, who would call the English where and dare, whār and dār, just as the Turk makes the Persian and Arabik Adit into Adeet, a into ou, and freely doubles consonants. So Dravids do not respect the Sanskrit a, and freely alter the severe rules of its northern grammarians to their own ideas of euphony and propriety.

There is nothing to be gained by continuing, like Irish Kelts, to write adh and pronounce it oo, or as Scotch Kelts do av or agh, and why should we follow them in writing ao when they say they mean ai or ee? We are tired of such "a blessing" as beannughadh, although told to roll all the last syllables into oo, and have no time to manufacture syllabaries or rolls of letters for every drawl which shepherds and country folk all over the world address to one another. Let us rather educate them than deform spelling, and prevent them rolling their words about by giving them and all old races a correct and sufficient character and orthography for properly pronounced words. Among the immense educational benefits which missionaries have conferred upon the world, perhaps the most conspicuous and lasting have been their efforts in this direction. They have often bestowed on rude old tribes not only a character but a literature which has improved and educated them, and all the more because they have only given them sufficient symbols for proper pronunciations, teaching them, as English schoolmasters do our own youths, not to call "coming," "Koomen," "own," "a-w-n," or sing out their words as the uneducated do on the hill sides.

For some years back, scholars have very properly spelt Greek names as Greeks spelt them, but we have not yet gone far enough, as in rejecting the Latin y—our i, e, ai or wai, where the Greek put his u or upsilon, which no doubt at times came near to the y of Latin days. The u is, however, too much connected with important mythological matters, and is too much like a consonant in ancient tongues to be so set aside. Thus we almost lose sight of the ancient Phenician Fire-god of Western Asia—Pur, Pru or Phru, in his ever sacred Puratheia or Pry-taneum, that Agastan or holy hearth of every Eastern race. Even a Presbuter or Presbuteros is clearer than a Presbyter, and Skuths and Kushites than Scyths, Cuthites or Cythites.

With Easterns, the real vowels were originally mere breathings, which they did not trouble themselves much about. When these therefore appear in diacritical, Masoretik or other pointings, as in Hebrew, Arabik, Persian, &c., it has been thought best to avoid them, for, as Sir William Drummond wrote, "they are impertinent impositions," by which scribes and pedants of comparatively modern times have tried to force upon us their own local or favourite pronunciations. Nothing has done more to prevent the public seeing the old ideas, particularly when instead of these mere markings, Western Aryans slipped in bona fide letters when transcribing the words into Aryan languages.

---

I regret having to devote so much space towards allowing J.G.R. Forlong the opportunity to defend his phonetic spellings of words and names, yet it was necessary to dispel the claims of those who apparently mock his rendering of names such as Gad-El-glas. None of us can slip back into time to discern precisely how this name was anciently pronounced, but I believe Forlong has shown us that he came as close as anyone else, if not closer.

Please notice that not only did Forlong pull out the name Gad from Gaedil, but he also extrapolated a word pronounced El. Mountain Jew protests (in so many words), "But no! 'El' cannot be the Irish word for 'deity'! The Irish word for 'deity' is dia!"

Can he assure us that anciently, before dia found its way into the Irish language, El was absolutely not a word meaning "deity," or as he puts it, "god"? Can he assure us that "Gad" never made an appearance in the Irish language—and that it could not have ever meant "snake"??

And can Mountain Jew explain how the name/title Baal found its way into the Irish language? Just how many coincidences would he have to dismiss before he begins to second-guess his previous conclusions?

Finally, if nothing else I have presented thus far has penetrated the armor of your firmly held convictions, please remember that there is an adversary out there who really does not want you to call upon our Creator by the name He gave to Himself. If you are already calling upon the Creator by His name YHWH ... do you think that adversary would at least like it a little if you referred to the Almighty with a title that is originally the name of an idol whose worship was condemned by YHWH?

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

Please, can we stop the character attacks and discuss this in a spiritually mature manner? Otherwise I'll have to delete and/or move this discussion.

Thank you,

EliYah

P.S. Please don't reply with posts about who is guilty of the above--just continue discussing the issue, not each other.. thanks

Part IV: Irish Idols are Smiling: Any Hint of a Hebrew Connection?

The opposing camp persists in attempting to build a case supporting the premise that there never really was an Irish idol named Gad-El-glas, that in reality this is a matter of someone, namely the late J.G.R. Forlong, confusing the name of an Irish "hero" with a serpentine idol. In Part One, I responded to the opposition's attempt to discredit Forlong. In Part Two, I allowed Forlong to express, in his own words, that his sole motivation was the quest for truth. In Part Three, I presented an uninterrupted commentary by Forlong in which he explained, again, in his own words, his emphasis on providing phonetic spellings that come as close to the ancient, original pronunciations as possible.

And now, in Part Four, I am posting an excerpt from J.G.R. Forlong's commentary regarding ancient worship customs in Ireland. I will not bore the reader with the entire commentary, but what I am about to display here is more than sufficient to illustrate that Forlong knew what he was writing about. We are about to read of how Forlong, in his drive to present the most accurate phonetic spelling of this idol's name, renders it Gad-El-glas. Furthermore, he presents forms such as Gadelus and Gaedil as being the result of "the disease of the language."

We will also read of how Forlong testifies that the form El represents "the High God," an indication that he understands the connection between this Irish form and the Hebrew title Elohim. Indeed, if "El" does not trace back to Hebrew roots, where did it come from?

Finally, we will read of yet another Irish deity: Baal. As in the case of El, we ask anyone to show us the roots of this Irish idol. Not that I'm trying to manipulate your thinking process before you read Forlong's commentary, but I believe we can see plain evidence of a Hebrew connection to the ancient Irish language.

Before I begin with Forlong's commentary, I need to gently correct an error as presented by Mountain Jew in a posting he submitted on December 8, 2004. He wrote:

quote:

---

Forlong’s statement concerning Gad-el-glas might have been dubious in his own mind and somewhat facetious and thus should not be taken too seriously. He certainly doesn’t give much attention to it. The reference occurs in a chapter of “Rivers of Life” that only deals with the subject of sun worship, not serpent worship. Now just before he mentions Gad-el-glas he admits he is making a play on the word “green.”

---

My response: Mountain Jew is apparently aware of Forlong's commentary as it appears in Volume 1 of his book Rivers of Life. Indeed, the name of that particular chapter is "Sun Worship." However, the excerpt I'm about to display is from Volume 2, not Volume 1. In Volume 2, the chapters are considerably longer than they are in Vol. 1, and the chapter in which the ensuing commentary is taken, chapter VIII, is 306 pages long! With such a lengthy chapter, we can expect frequent subtitles, and the section I'm about to display is entitled "Prehistorik Remains and Characters. Serpent and Sun." Thus, contrary to Mountain Jew's claim above, what I'm about to quote is from a section dealing with both the "sun" and "serpents."

Here, then is an excerpt from pages 424-426 of Forlong's Rivers of Life, Vol. 2:

quote:

---

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"

The learned Boece, who wrote a Latin History of Scotland about 1520, gravely informs us that "Gathelus was a Greek, and the son of the Athenian Kekrops of the time of the Exodus," which shows how much he knew about Greeks, and how much we can rely on ancient Latin historians. Perhaps we may make something of the name by admitting, what Müller calls "the disease of the language," and that the us or os is an affix, and the g and d, facile mutes. In this way, we find Gadelus or Gathelus = Ad-El, At-El or Ar-El, all well-known names for "the High God, Ar," Ath or Ad, which our Glossary and p. 211 ante makes very clear. The Scotch historian, Fordun, spells the patriarch's name "Gaythelus," which reduced as above becomes Auth-El, and some think the foundation for "Gaedil," the pet name of Erin, and for its language, "Gaelic;" but all this can be better treated in our Glossary. [Larry's note: I am unable to locate Forlong's "Glossary." According to the Table of Contents, a Glossary was "In Preparation," but that was over 120 years ago!]

The Keltik worship was more decidedly solar than that of the Danaan phalocists. Their Lingams, like the Mudros of Greko-Phenicians, were called after Sol, Krom or Kroum-leachs, and Kroum is no doubt Graine or Groin, from whence comes the Gaelik Grainan, Sun. They spoke of Baal or Belus as green in color, just as others spoke of the primeval Mercury and Keltik Teutates, being "the Green Budh." He was an ancestral Gad-El-glas, or Baal-tin-glas, or "Fire of the green Baal," all originally Lingam god-ideas. So Coleman assures us that even Minerva or Wisdom was originally phalik, as we know were all "high gods" or "upright gods." It takes time and education for a people to spiritualise their early phalik deities. A race of Irish Kelts were even called Gadelians, and we may believe they were the chief ophiolaters of this Lingam and serpentless but serpent-loving island.

---

Major-General J.G.R. Forlong was a Scottish philologist whose scholarship had not been in question until recently. As a result of the information offered by Forlong, which forms a portion of Forlong's vast research stretching over a 40 year period of searching and documenting, he has been relegated to such designations as "messed up." Thus far, however, no concurring statements affirming Forlong's "sloppy research" from the academic community have been forthcoming. Forlong, who hailed from Scotland, was certainly well aware of the various legends springing from neighboring lands, and his reputation and expertise as a philologist and engineer certainly opened many doors allowing him to expand his research. It would be highly unlikely that Forlong made a mistake in his research of the Irish idol named Gad-El-glas.

As Forlong indicates in his exposé, the terms Gadelus and Gaedil succeeded "Gad-El-glas," not the reverse.

I have previously mentioned the connection between Gad-El-glas (the "Green Snake God") and the Russian word pronounced "God," which means "serpent" in that language. I have mentioned the Russian word for fortune-teller [gadalka], a word that has "gad" as its prefix. I have mentioned how it is more than "mere coincidence" that the Canaanite idol Gad is the "idol of fortune."

I haven't spent much time covering the Germanic idol Gott, however. As we hopefully know by now, all these languages do indeed share Indo-European roots, including the Germanic languages. Is it possible that God has "slithered" its way into each of these languages?

Certainly Forlong was not above making errors, as our opponents will certainly point out. I'm sure I could do some digging and find some. Nevertheless, I have produced Forlong's own testimony that his sole motivation in his research was the quest for truth. I have shown his particular interest as being in the pronunciation of ancient names, and I have shown that the name he found in his research for the "Green Snake God" was Gad-El-glas. Could this "GAD" be connected to the Canaanite idol of fortune (Gad)? Surely not! Could "El" possibly be connected to the Hebrew El? Surely not! Could the Irish idol Baal be connected to the Baal worshipped by those who had forgotten YHWH's name (Jer. 23:27, I Kings 18)? Surely not!

If all the above are "mere coincidences," as the opposing camp believes, they are certainly bizarre ones. Certainly, if I had an affinity for the name/title "God," I would do all I could to dismiss them. I might even start by attempting to discredit the resources where this information can be obtained.

As I have so often shared, this issue boils down to HONOR and the choices we make when it comes to showing reverence to the One Who created us. Many have gained the understanding that we do not honor YHWH by referring to Him with any names or titles that can be traced to heathen worship. With regard to titles, there are several to choose from that are not rooted in idol worship, such as Almighty, Mighty One, Father, Supreme, or we can even transliterate Elohim. I do not understand why we would willfully choose to refer to our Creator with a title that matches the name of an idol whose worship YHWH specifically condemns.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

He admits the spelling and pronunciation of Gadelglas is wrong.
He admits the interpretation he provides of Gad-el-glas is uniquely his own.
He admits that Gadelglas was originally a “patriarch” not a god or idol.
He admits that the letters “g” and “d” are supposed to be “mute”.
He admits the Kelts syncretized their serpent god with Gadelglas.

Right or wrong, if we take Forlong at face value and actually accept what he says, then we’d recognize that he firmly refutes the spelling and pronunciation of “Gad-el-glas” in preference of Ath-El (Ath the mighty) dropping the “g” and “d” and “as” ending altogether. He believes that Ath is from Kathak, who is none other than Cuth¹ a name which in its original form is known to be Cush - son of Ham, the son of Noah. Cush is not really a twoheaded serpent nor does his name mean “serpent” nor is it the origin of the word “god” nor does it sound like “god”. According to Forlong, it never really was pronounced “gad”. If Forlong doesn’t connect “god” and “Ath”, as having the same etymological root or sound there must be a good reason – such as there is no connection. The same goes for God and Gad. There is obviously no connection between Cush and the idol Gad mentioned in the Tanak. It is also obvious that Forlong wasn’t attempting to translate “Gad” but rather was explaining the syncretization of the name Ath with the serpent god of the Kelts.

A lot of the assumptions simply disappear and we can thank James Forlong for that. He explains how it was impossible for the “serpent god” to have originated with Gadelglas (Kathak / Cush) but rather that the conquering Kelts introduced their own (unnamed) twoheaded serpent god and syncretized it with the Cushite patriarch. Therefore it is impossible that that “Cush” or any of it’s corrupted forms such as “Gad” could ever really mean “serpent”. So the premise that the name “Gad” originates from an idol evaporates since Forlong states that is not original but merely a phonetic corruption of “Ath” or “Cush”. If “g” and “d” are mute, that leaves “Gad” and “God” in the dust. Even using the false etymological premise there is still no case. So if we just take him at his word, there is no further need to pursue this path of investigation, it is over.

I believe you have misrepresented the words of J.G.R. Forlong. I challenge you to present the quotation I offered from his book to any of the Irish professors that you have selected in order to see if they agree with what you gleaned from his writing.

You wrote:

quote:

---

He [Forlong] admits the spelling and pronunciation of Gadelglas is wrong.

---

I reply: Where did he ever admit to such a thing?? You didn’t produce any such admission via quotation. This is because he never made any such admission. Furthermore, if you would read of how dedicated he was to presenting his readers with the correct “phonetik” pronunciations of names (see Part III above), I believe you would understand that he wouldn’t arbitrarily offer the term “Gad-El-glas” to his reading audience without having first concluded that this is how that ancient idol’s name is/was pronounced.

If, as you claim, he admitted that “Gadelglas” is wrong, then he would have routinely employed the form he believed was most phonetically correct, and it would not have been Gad-El-glas. However, the form he routinely used in reference to that idol was indeed Gad-El-glas because that is the form he believed most closely reflects the phonetic pronunciation of that idol’s name. This is why I went to such great lengths to demonstrate that this author, in offering his readers the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, did not produce the hybrid Jehovah. No, instead he produced Yahuź. This was way back in 1883, well before scholars were generally presenting this information to the general public. Even James Strong, in his concordance, did not offer his readers this pronunciation. Forlong did.

Are we to thus presume that Forlong would offer his readers the correct form of the Tetragrammaton, yet withhold from them the correct form when offering the phonetic form of Gad-El-glas? I would hope that those who have followed this exchange know better than to believe such a thing.

In fact, as Forlong explained, it is through “disease of the language” that the other forms of this name came into being, such as “Gadelus,” “Gathelus,” and “Gaythelus.” It appears that you are attempting to transform Forlong’s explanation of how the above forms descended [deteriorated] from Gad-El-glas into an admission that they [the "diseased" names] are “more correct”??

You wrote:

quote:

---

He admits the interpretation he provides of Gad-el-glas is uniquely his own.

---

I reply: Again, where did Forlong admit such a thing? You offered no direct quotation, just an interpretation that I believe is way off.

You wrote:

quote:

---

He admits that Gadelglas was originally a “patriarch” not a god or idol.

---

I reply: So? Does Forlong’s providing details of the Irish legend behind this idol annul any connection to the Canaanite idol? Of course not. Legends are just that: legends. The serpent connection is still there, right? It follows that those who worshipped Gad-el-Glas would concoct their own stories behind how he achieved “deity” status, much as other heathens did with their idols. An example of this is the Greek deity Aeolos, a human who was later elevated to “deity” status (cf., http://www.stormpages.com/littleowlluna/base2/greekgodsa.html ) or the Egyptian deity Imhotep, a former scribe who was later elevated to “deity” status (cf., http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofnaturalhistory/hallofanthropolo gy/egypt/egyptian-god.com/ ). Thus, any legends about Gad-El-glas originally being a patriarch do not in any way diminish the connections I have shown.

I am very curious if those who deny any possibility of a connection between Gad-El-Glas and the Canaanite idol Gad would care to likewise deny the connection between the Irish idol “Baal-tin-glas” and the Canaanite “Baal.” Is this more “circumstantial evidence”?

You wrote:

quote:

---

He admits that the letters “g” and “d” are supposed to be “mute”.

---

I reply: This is another misrepresentation of what Forlong wrote. It was through the use of “facile mutes” that “Gadelus” was reduced to Auth-El, not the reverse. Remember, Forlong wrote, “The Scotch historian, Fordun, spells the patriarch's name "Gaythelus," which reduced as above becomes Auth-El, ….”

You wrote:

quote:

---

He admits the Kelts syncretized their serpent god with Gadelglas.

---

I reply: So what if there was a “syncretization”? What does this prove? The Greek deity Zeus is syncretized with the Roman Jupiter. So what?? Is this supposed to prove that the Romans didn’t worship an idol named “Jupiter”?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Right or wrong, if we take Forlong at face value and actually accept what he says, then we’d recognize that he firmly refutes the spelling and pronunciation of “Gad-el-glas” in preference of Ath-El (Ath the mighty) dropping the “g” and “d” and “as” ending altogether.

---

I reply: Again, since you have misrepresented J.G.R. Forlong’s remarks, your premise is incorrect, which in turn leads to an incorrect conclusion. Everything else you wrote in your explanation is simply a result of your having misunderstood Forlong, which leads to your having misrepresented what he wrote.

You concluded:

quote:

---

So if we just take him at his word, there is no further need to pursue this path of investigation, it is over.

---

I reply: I agree. If we take him at his word, without misrepresenting what he wrote, an idol whose name is pronounced Gad-El-glas was worshipped in Ireland, identified with serpent worship. In fact, his name was usually translated “Green deity snake.” The fact that three names of Canaanite idols are mentioned as also being names of Irish idols should erase any doubts or charges of only using “circumstantial evidence.” However, I am certain that those who cling to “God” will deny even the possibility of a connection.

The next step is for those who believe they honor YHWH by referring to Him as “God” to deny the Russian connection to the Canaanite idol of fortune. They will dismiss the fact that the Russian word pronounced “God” means “reptile” in that language, not to mention the fact that the Russian word “gadalka” means “fortune-teller.”

Some will refer to all of the above as “circumstantial evidence.” I believe the evidence is overwhelming to the point that it jumps out at us. It is that obvious.

But let’s say that I am indeed as mistaken in making these connections as the opposition says I am. Even if I should happen to be mistaken (which no one has thus far succeeded in demonstrating), I am still waiting for the opposition to answer the questions I posed early in this discussion. And I am still waiting for anyone to show me an honorable origin for the English name/title “God.” This is why I continue to maintain that this issue boils down to HONOR and the choices we make when it comes to showing reverence to the One Who created us. Many have gained the understanding that we do not honor YHWH by referring to Him with any names or titles that can be traced to heathen worship. With regard to titles, there are several to choose from that are not rooted in idol worship, such as Almighty, Mighty One, Father, Supreme, or we can even transliterate Elohim. I do not understand why we would willfully choose to refer to our Creator with a title that matches the name of an idol whose worship YHWH specifically condemns.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

I have been reading some of the posts that have been put forward for this discussion and please forgive me if I can't see the point of what has been discussed. As far as I am concerned the title "G_D" is really given to anything of this world, from models, celebreties, footballers, to modern "deities" from Japan, India and China etc, and does the translation of "Allah" mean "G_D". Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Yahweh command us to use HIs name because it signifies His Majesty, His Power and Glory etc, and to use a title like "G_D" would not that demote Him down to the same level as the fore-mentioned. I get quiet uncomfortable in church when they say things like, Oh "G_D" all honour and glory goes to your name, we magnify your precious and holy name, we lift your name on high but most of them don't even know what His name is never mind use it. Yes His name should be lifted up and glorified so His name Yahweh/Yahushua should be used whenever we can so His name is lifted up and glorified so All men may know just who He is and what He has doe for us and what He expects of us.

I'm sorry if I've just jumped in especially when I've only just joined this group of online beleivers my name is Chris and although I have been browsing this site for some months now I have only just had the courage to join.

Could anyone answer this question when people use our Fathers name some people call Him Yah, Yahweh or Yahveh. Does this make a difference in which name is used or is it just like some people call Yahushua Yeshua or Yah'shua or Yoshua does this make a difference as well.

Welcome to the forum! I am glad you joined the discussion. I would like to respond to a few of your comments.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I have been reading some of the posts that have been put forward for this discussion and please forgive me if I can't see the point of what has been discussed.

---

I reply: The point I've been trying to make is this: There is a name that in Hebrew is pronounced "gawd" ... which is pronounced nearly the same as "God," if not identically. This name was originally the name of the heathen idol of "fortune" that was worshipped in Haran, the home town where Laban's daughters, Leah and Rachel, were raised. Later, as we know, Leah gave this same name to Zilpah's son. We also know that YHWH condemns the worship of this idol (Is. 65:11).

Our society says that we can honorably take this same word, redefine it as the English equivalent to "Elohim," and apply it to our Heavenly Father.

Of course, when we point out the pronunciation match between the English "God" and the Hebrew "gawd," many folks protest, claiming that there is no "connection" between the English "God" and the Hebrew word of the same (basic) pronunciation. I believe I have shown positive evidence linking the "English" God to the Hebrew "God." The only way I can think of to make the connection any clearer would be to literally take someone on a "time travel" journey so they could see the "evilution" of this name/title.

That, in a nutshell, is what I believe I have shown in this thread. I continue to maintain that we dishonor our Creator by referring to Him with a title that matches the name of an idol whose worship He condemns. I believe all of us really do want to honor the Father, so hopefully this explains why I have contributed my postings. I believe this is all about honor. I am not out to condemn anyone ... I'm only out to encourage others to do their best to honor YHWH, both in word and in deed.

You wrote:

quote:

---

As far as I am concerned the title "G_D" is really given to anything of this world, from models, celebreties, footballers, to modern "deities" from Japan, India and China etc, and does the translation of "Allah" mean "G_D".

---

I reply: Well, while I do appreciate your point, I nevertheless believe there is a serious aspect about "God" that we need to consider: Its origin. If I were to reject titles because of their connections to celebrities, I might reject the title "Supreme" because of that 60's rock group called "The Supremes." At least "Supreme" cannot be traced to the name of a heathen idol.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Yahweh command us to use HIs name because it signifies His Majesty, His Power and Glory etc, and to use a title like "G_D" would not that demote Him down to the same level as the fore-mentioned.

---

I reply: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. The name YHWH represents the Great I AM, the Creator of heaven and earth and all of creation. His name is worthy of the utmost praise, honor, majesty and glory!! 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 liken it to a spiritual slap in His face.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I get quiet uncomfortable in church when they say things like, Oh "G_D" all honour and glory goes to your name, we magnify your precious and holy name, we lift your name on high but most of them don't even know what His name is never mind use it. Yes His name should be lifted up and glorified so His name Yahweh/Yahushua should be used whenever we can so His name is lifted up and glorified so All men may know just who He is and what He has doe for us and what He expects of us.

---

I reply: HalleluYah! I believe you are referring to treating His name with the utmost respect, and I am with you!!

You wrote:

quote:

---

Could anyone answer this question when people use our Fathers name some people call Him Yah, Yahweh or Yahveh. Does this make a difference in which name is used or is it just like some people call Yahushua Yeshua or Yah'shua or Yoshua does this make a difference as well.

---

I reply: I trust that the folks I interact with, both here in this forum and in the various assemblies I have visited, do their best to refer to the Almighty and His Son with Their original and true names. With the differences in dialect, as well as differences in understanding various pronunciation rules, as well as some other factors, we don't always agree on the pronunciation of Their names. I believe we should always do our best to study and show ourselves approved, but I don't believe we should elevate the pronunciations we use over those used by others who are also sincerely seeking. Until we come to that perfect unity, there will be differences. As I have told a few folks, "I may not know precisely how His name is pronounced, but I know precisely how it isn't pronounced, and it isn't pronounced 'God'!"

May YHWH bless,

Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
I have been reading some of the posts that have been put forward for this discussion and please forgive me if I can't see the point of what has been discussed.

---

Ultimately, and as you seem to already be aware, this kind of discussion is about helping others to understand the matter of right honor and worship ... and even though of dubious value, that often includes certain things posted here.

quote:

---

When people use our Fathers name, some people call Him Yah, Yahweh or Yahveh.

Does this make a difference in which name is used or is it just like some people call Yahushua Yeshua or Yah'shua or Yoshua does this make a difference as well.

---

Personally, I have found that such things only make a difference when people so insist, and I try not to be such a person.

Blessings to you ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
It is sad that some people can't apply their own standards in a consistent manner. If the rule of "original use" was evenly applied it would free up all these words. But no, some words get the judgement of "original use" and others get the rule of "recent use" and yet others "anytime use". Even worse, some get accused of representing original use when in fact they are recent. Judge for yourself.

---

I reply: Would the rule of "original use" also free up the word "Satan"? Or "Zeus"? Where do we draw the line ... or is there even a line to be drawn?

Sincerely,
Larry

You have made such a powerful point.

Will the accusing ever stop?
Who's always right?
Who's the good teacher?

We are all wrong in so many ways, and have so much to overcome and learn.
The problem I see is when the spirit of YHWH is working and/or speaking through his children, the world rejects them, slanders them, puts them down, challenges them with earthly wits, etc..

We will know them by their fruits. Just spend a bit of time to look around in the field and see what's growing, what's being planted, and who's feeding who what.

I'm not suggesting that we should break out the bug spray, or the weed killer.
The good seeds need good light brother, and the good seeds will grow and give out more seeds. The good trees know the good light and are well nourished, while the bad trees will eventually die in the darkness.

Either make the tree good, or make the tree bad. We better be careful what we say and do "feed" unto others.

Mat 15:10 And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man. 12 Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.

I suppose the spirit of our speech and actions comes from the spirit that dwells in us.

It's a jungle out there. Watch out for the wolves and snakes.

Shalom in YHWH,

It’s All About Honor!

Whether you strive to honor the Creator by setting aside the day He commanded for rest and worship or whether you decide to honor Him with the words that come out of your mouth, you know that your ultimate goal is to please Him. June and I had been members of what is commonly referred to as the “Sacred Name Movement” for ten years when we learned of certain people who teach that it is “perfectly acceptable” to refer to Yahweh as “our God.” Having personally researched the etymology of “God,” we were at a loss as to how anyone truly desirous of honoring Yahweh could even imagine referring to Him with a title matching the name of an idol that Yahweh Himself condemned. How does referring to Yahweh as “our God” honor Him?

Curious as to what these peoples’ motives were, I began questioning both motives and logic. I asked, “Does referring to Yahweh with a title that is pronounced exactly the same way as the heathen idol of fortune – does that honor Him?” What ensued was an “internet debate” between myself and the co-author of a popular treatise entitled “The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles.” For those who want to see the clinching proof that referring to Yahweh as “God” dishonors him without having to read this study, all we really need to do is reveal that the co-author of the treatise admitted that Gad (pronounced gawd in Hebrew) has negative connotations in a group e-mail sent on March 21, 2001. He wrote, “Is Gad the name of a false deity? YES. Is it a Hebrew word with negative connotations? YES! Is it a word with a pagan application recognized in the Scriptures? YES and YES, again!”

In response to his “negative admission,” I wrote, “*GOD* is used in a NEGATIVE sense in Scripture, and you admit it. Despite whatever positive connotations that you attempt to confer on this name/title, no one can deny the NEGATIVE: The name of the idol condemned by Yahweh as being worshipped by ‘those who FORSAKE Yahweh’ (Is. 65:11). June and I have maintained all along that 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 is the name of a heathen idol (a negative aspect), ... much less the name of a heathen idol singled out and condemned by Yahweh Himself??!!” Why refer to Yahweh with a term containing any negative properties? Doesn’t that make it unclean?

Yes, why in the world would anyone choose to refer to our Heavenly Father with a title that is pronounced the same as the name of the Canaanite deity of fortune – an idol whose worship was singled out and condemned by Yahweh? Well, people do choose to refer to Yahweh as “God,” and for those who, upon reading this short commentary are not persuaded to do otherwise, we suggest reading this study in its entirety. This, however, is only a condensed version of a study that June and I wrote in 2001, so for those who are still not persuaded after reading the condensed version, may we suggest reading our full-length study (104 pages)?

It’s all about honor!

Note: The condensed version of our study is available online. You may e-mail me at seekutruth@aol.com to request our full-length version, available free of charge while supplies last.

Also, four years ago, June and I wrote a critique of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles,” in which the authors claim that “God” is a “perfectly acceptable” title to use in reference to the Creator. Our critique can be accessed at this URL: http://www.geocities.com/dabar_olam/Articles/CRITIQUE.html

May YHWH bless,

Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
It is sad that some people can't apply their own standards in a consistent manner. If the rule of "original use" was evenly applied it would free up all these words. But no, some words get the judgement of "original use" and others get the rule of "recent use" and yet others "anytime use". Even worse, some get accused of representing original use when in fact they are recent. Judge for yourself.

---

When I was meditating upon the topic of this thread, "What does "G_D" mean?", the money used in the United States came to mind. Upon it is found, "In God We Trust". The term "God" here, seems to be more of a name than a title. I believe that it is refering to the "Queen of Heaven", spoken of in Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-19, 25. After reading those scriptures, you might ask why I believe that the "God" on American money would be speaking about the Queen of Heaven?

The first thing that must be done is to identify the Queen of Heaven; who is she?...

In the commentary of the Ryrie Study Bible, it says for Jeremiah 7:18: the queen of heaven. The Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ishtar.

In the commentary of the NIV Study Bible for Jeremiah 7:18: Queen of Heaven. A Babylonian title for Ishtar, an important goddess in the Babylonian pantheon.

In Unger’s Bible Dictionary it says under the heading Queen of Heaven (Heb. Meleketh hashshamayim, Jer 7:18; 44:17-19, 25) Astarte, an ancient Semitic deity, identical with Babylonian Ishtar (Venus)

You still might ask, what does "Ishtar worship" have to do with the United States trusting in "God"?

According to research, "The Statue of Liberty" represents the idol Ishtar. A study on this subject can be found at Who is the Whore of Revelation 17?

Another idea about the word "god", is that since the Jews use it, then it must be ok. Well, I believe the reason that Jews use the term "god" is not because it can be traced back to some kosher origin; they seem to use it because they are accepting a translation of the language used by the heathen nation in which they reside.

I feel that it is very important that we strive to not offend our Heavenly Father. YHWH says in His Word:

Deuteronomy 11:16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other elohim, and worship them

It has been pointed out how the English language is very corrupt, and that a huge number of its words come from the names of idols. I agree; and since it would seem impossible to completely delete these words from our vocabulary, I believe that the least we can do, until we fluently learn scriptural Hebrew, would be to not apply any of these abominations to our Heavenly Father.

Love in Yahushua,
YermeYah

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leejosepho:
Understood, MJ, and thank you for your continued efforts to bring clarity.

---

My observation: I am inclined to believe that MJ did very little, if anything, to bring clarity to this issue with his posting above. In my search for "clarity," all I found were generalizations without examples and charges without substance.

He wrote:

quote:

---

It is sad that some people can't apply their own standards in a consistent manner.

---

My comment: Who are "some people"? This is the same trademark use of generalizations that I have protested from MJ since the first page of this thread, and since it is apparently ongoing, it appears that we can expect more of the same in the future. We are about to see that "their own standards" apparently consists of following a rule of "original use," but as we will also see, he chooses to issue charges of inconsistency in how "some people" apply this rule without offering examples of the apparent "abuse."

MJ wrote:

quote:

---

If the rule of "original use" was evenly applied it would free up all these words.

---

My comment: This is certainly a vague remark. It is definitely not "clear." Free up what "words"? The only one I'm aware of that has been in question is "God." If there are others he seeks to "free up," such as "Satan," I believe it would behoove him to list them.

In addition, so as to free up the misunderstandings that have plagued this and related discussions, I believe it would be proper for MJ to go ahead and define the "Rule of Original Use," especially since the verbiage he presented is the first time "rule of original use" has been mentioned in this thread. I have, over time, found that even the most obvious of definitions can have different perceptions by different people.

MJ wrote:

quote:

---

But no, some words get the judgement of "original use" and others get the rule of "recent use" and yet others "anytime use".

---

My comment: This is perhaps the most vague remark of the brief commentary submitted by MJ. While I appreciate his attempt at brevity, much is lost when no explanatory notes are offered ... no examples provided ... no illustrations given. The reader is left to guess which words receive which "rules."

MJ wrote:

quote:

---

Even worse, some get accused of representing original use when in fact they are recent.

---

My comment: More ambiguity. What are "some"? Again, no examples ... leaving the reader to guess and assume. The only "some" that I'm aware of as being in question here is the name/title "God." If there are others, I believe it would be proper to list them here.

As for the etymology of the word "God," even those etymologists who claim a "recent" origin tracing back to the Gothic "gheu" admit that this "origin" is rooted in paganism. With such a dubious origin (a gheuy mess, IMO), I maintain that it is obvious the word "God" is a word that has survived the transition from its Canaanite origin to its present Indo-European home. I don't need to explain this any further, as I have already done so in previous postings.

What will suffice for now is my reiteration of the alleged "coincidence" that the Hebrew terms "El" and "Baal" somehow surfaced in the ancient Irish language and culture. I doubt that any would be so presumptuous as to deny the connection of those two words to the Hebrew language and culture. However, the fact that the name "GOD" has also appeared in the ancient Irish language has some folks, including MJ, scrambling to find any possible alternate explanations they can find -- anything to deny any possibility of a connection.

MJ wrote:

quote:

---

Judge for yourself.

---

My comment: Yes, we need to make judgments in this matter, but let's do so based upon a proper assimilation of all facts. I cannot take anyone on a literal journey through time to show how this word or that word survived the transition from one language to another. We are left to examine the record of history, both as given in Scripture and other sources. The fact is, God is/was a heathen idol whose worship is condemned by YHWH. This idol 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.

YeremYah wrote:

quote:

---

It has been pointed out how the English language is very corrupt, and that a huge number of its words come from the names of idols. I agree; and since it would seem impossible to completely delete these words from our vocabulary, I believe that the least we can do, until we fluently learn scriptural Hebrew, would be to not apply any of these abominations to our Heavenly Father.

---

I reply: I agree with you, YeremYah, and I would like to thank you for your expressed desire to honor YHWH, both with the name we call upon and the titles we use in reference to Him. As one gentleman put it, if there is even a 1% possibility that referring to YHWH as "God" dishonors Him, then why gamble on it?

Yours in Messiah,
Larry