Notice that they take away the ten commandments out of their buildings, but they won't take away the word God off of their money.

Mammon is clearly a god that many people serve and live for. The dollar bill also has the eye of horus on top of the pyramid. Horus is an egyption god.

"Novus Ordo Seclorum" means (New Order of the Ages), or (New Order for the World). On top of the eye is written "Annuit Cœptis" means: (He has favored our undertakings).

The pyramid has steps that go up to the top, and the eye is illuminated. It is clearly the sun god horus. The name Horus means: (He who is above). In Egypt the eye above the pyramid is a symbol that means: The God/King who reigns over all Egypt.

YHWH is EL-Shadday, HalleluYah.

Brother Yohanan

Then on the very same basis we ought to eliminate "elohim" from our vocabulary.

Long before there was Moses and the psalms of David the Cannanites worshiped carved images of bulls and human figures as El. This El had serveral sons, one of them being Yahweh. Other idols they worshiped were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Roi - which are now the names/titles of YHWH in the Tanak. These were discovered in the remains of Ugarit and Ebla. El can be traced back to Nippur where he was worshiped as the son of An and Aruru. He was apparently banished at one point by the other gods for being a rapist. In the Tanak El and Elohim are still used for the Name and title of idols. Need I continue? If we are going to talk about original use, or any use defilement by idolatry, then how can you use El and Elohim as a title for YHWH when they clearly were the Names of idols? Where is the honour? Where is the consistency?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Then on the very same basis we ought to eliminate "elohim" from our vocabulary. If we are going to talk about original use, or any use defilement by idolatry, then how can you use El and Elohim as a title for YHWH when they clearly were the Names of idols? Where is the honour? Where is the consistency?

---

................. May I concur !

" In all things I have said to you , be careful and do them , and make no mention of the name of hinder gods , neither let it be heard from your mouth " Exodus 23:13

" Therefore be very strong to carefully obey and do all that is written in the Book of the Law given through Mosheh , without turning aside to right or to the left. By not mingling with these nations that are left with you : by not pronouncing the names of their gods , nor causing anyone to administer a vow in their names. You must not serve them , and you must not bow down to them. " Yahshua 23:6-7 ( Yahshua ben Nun )

" For all people walk each in the name of his god , but we will walk in the Name of Yahweh our Father forever and ever." Micahyah 4:5

Shama - Mishmereth - Abodah
Lavi Chagyah

Objection #9: “Yahwists are Inconsistent with their own premises and principles!”

A. “If you reject the title ‘God’ because it’s been used to replace the Father’s name, then you’ve gotta replace ‘Elohim,’ too!”

One of the authors of The Truth About Inspired Titles in the Light of the Sacred Names spoke out regarding what he feels is an “apparent inconsistency” on the part of those who reject “God” as a title for Yahweh due to its heathen origin. He wrote the following:

“It is true that those who speak English are guilty of the charge of covering the precious name of the Creator by substituting ‘God’ (among OTHER English words and phrases) for the name of Yahueh. However, aren’t the Hebrew speaking Jews of today just as guilty of covering the name of Yahueh with the word Elohim? In every occasion (about 400 times) that the Hebrew scrolls have the expression ‘Adonay Yahueh,’ the Jews use the expression ‘Adonay ELOHIM’! Therefore, Elohim is equally an injurious word that has been used (and continues to be used) to cover the name of Yahueh, even by English speaking Jews in America!! It is INCONSISTENT to reject ‘god’ on this ground while accepting Elohim.”¹²⁵

The point the author of the above quote attempted to convey, in a nutshell, is that if one is going to argue against using “God” because it has been used to replace the name of Yahweh, then one must also argue against employing the Hebrew title Elohim (not to mention “Adonai”), as it has also been used for this same purpose. While we do not support using any word or name to replace the name of Yahweh, such usage does not necessarily render the “replacement word” as being “taboo.” Rather, we base our opposition to the title “God” on other grounds, as already mentioned in this study: 1) Heathen origin -- first employed as a name for Jacob’s seventh son by Leah upon the birth of Gad, pronounced “gawd.” Many scholars, as already referenced, support believing that Leah borrowed this name from one of the deities worshipped in her native Haran, where she was herself raised in a heathen environment. In fact, Scripture offers no evidence that this word began as a wholesome, “clean” word. 2) Even if the word Gad began as a such a wholesome, innocent term, no one can deny that at best it eventually became the name of a heathen idol whose worship was condemned by Yahweh. Of course, the same could be said about Baal, Elohim and Molech; but God, unlike these titles, was never employed by the writers of Scripture as a title for Yahweh. To subsequently proceed to apply this heathen idol’s name as a title used in reference to our awesome Heavenly Father, who is deserving of only the highest form of worship, the highest, utmost praise and honor, knowing from where this word most likely originated ... where it has been ... is, in our humble opinion, nothing short of blatant disregard for the wondrous majesty and feelings of Yahweh. We would thus share with the author of the above comment that our disregard for the name/title “God” goes well beyond that fact that it has been used to replace the name Yahweh! We’re concerned about where “God” has been! We know that “Elohim” and “Adonai” have pure origins (unless we can’t trust Scripture). Can we say the same for “God”?

I will post Part B from our study in my next posting.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

¹²⁵From a group e-mail sent on March 10, 2001.

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

You stated: “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.”

For your recollection, in several posts, including the one in this thread dated December 4th, 2004, you posted the following message by which YOU established the rule of original use.

“By the way, I am not interested in originally pure words such as baal, molech, elohim or adonai, that were later corrupted by unregenerate men.”

If this is so then why are you interested in names like Gadelglas which James Forlong states was originally the name Cush? Cush was originally a pure word/name that was later corrupted by men. According to your own rules, you shouldn’t have the least bit of concern or interest about this term. To say that Gadelglas actually traces back to Gad is to contradict James Forlong who says it traces back to Cush. Where is the consistency?

You find that Theos is acceptable even though it is known to be the name of the Cretian god and is etymologically connected to gheu which you imagine is connected back to Gad the idol. Where is the consistency?

You stated: “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.”

You already established another rule on December 20th, 2004 in the thread “What should we call ourselves?” that pagan origins have no negative bearing. You aren’t the least bit concerned that “Christian” has purely pagan origins, as you feel fine to be labeled as such. And again in your last post you revert back to pagan origins as the basis of rejecting a term. So why is “gheu” having a pagan origin of any concern to you now? Where is the consistency??

We are being asked to forget about the noun ‘god’, to remove it from our vocabulary and our minds altogether. This is necessary if we are to believe it is really only to be understood as a proper noun. But the fact is ‘god’ is a common noun. Larry you even use it as a common noun in your footnotes to your post in this thread on December 4th, 2004 where you state: “‘Gad,’ the Babylonian god of fortune” If Gad is the origin of god, it doesn’t seem you are totally convinced since you refer to Gad as a “god”. Where is the consistency?

You also have another inconsistency. You stated: “God, unlike these titles, was never employed by the writers of Scripture as a title for Yahweh “ God is rejected as a translation of elohim simply because it is not a Hebrew word, yet you feel free to use “Almighty” which is also not a Hebrew word. Where is the consistency?

There isn’t any authority that says God can be traced back to Gad. There isn’t any authority that states Gad the idol is the source of Gad the Israelite. What we are being asked to do is to trust an inconsistent imagination and flip-flop rules, and to ignore all the authorities, and frankly that just isn’t good enough in light of the known facts and common sense.

Objection #9: “Yahwists are Inconsistent with their own premises and principles!” (Continued)

B. “If you’re gonna reject ‘God’ because it was the name of a false deity, then you’re gonna have to reject “El,” and “Adonai,” too! They were also the names given to idols!”

At first we were amazed that this type of logic was being promoted by the authors of The Truth About Inspired Titles in the Light of the Sacred Names, but we were even more surprised to learn that people actually consider their reasoning to be valid. Even more amazing is the fact that during the course of our two debates (one in October 2000 and the other in March - April 2001), the authors repeatedly brought up this point, ignoring our answer each time. Despite the fact that June and I issued a clear response to this claim, they continued to bring it up as if we had not in fact given an answer! The following example of this was sent by the opposition during the October 2000 debate:

“While I certainly understand your zeal, the problem is that your interpretation is based on the exclusive fact that ‘god’ was the name of a false deity. You continue to ignore that as a Hebrew word, this characteristic holds true for baal, el, adonay, etc. (which you have already admitted to be so). INTENTION, brother Acheson, is fundamental in complying with this (and many other) Mosaic Laws.”¹²⁶

In response to the above comment, I wrote:

“I must protest your remarking that I am ‘ignoring’ the fact that ‘baal,’ ‘el,’ and ‘adonay’ are Hebrew words that were corrupted and applied as names of false deities. Anyone who has read our critique knows your statement is not true. In fact, we made the following point VERY CLEAR: Just because apostate man corrupted the Hebrew titles Yahweh gave to Himself by converting them to names for false deities DOES NOT mean we can take a word that was corrupt from the ‘get-go’ and apply it to YAHWEH. At least we cannot do such a thing and simultaneously honor Him. I do not believe you recognize the difference between corrupting a clean word and wrongly appropriating an already-unclean word.
“Just to make sure I am clearly understood, we do not believe the fact that apostate man corrupted the PURE title ‘Adonai’ means we can take an IMPURE title (or name) and appropriate such a title to Yahweh. This is why we believe it would be an affront to refer to Yahweh as our ‘Zeus’ or our ‘God.’”¹²⁷

I thought that sending the above response would serve to clear up this apparent misunderstanding. Nevertheless, when the debate resumed in March 2001, our critic, to our surprise, brought up the same reasoning once more. Restating the same rhetoric with different phraseology, here is what he wrote:

“Like the word ‘Gawd,’ the Hebrew word El (not to forget Baal, Adon, Melek, and many more) has been documented by scholars to have been the name of a false Canaanite deity. As such, it should equally be considered a sin to invoke Yahueh by the word El or any of its Hebrew derivatives, including Elohim. Yet, the average Classical Sacred Namer has no problem with the INCONSISTENCY of using Elohim despite the history of idolatry associated with the word. The fact is that every one of these words - regardless of any documented pagan connections and associations - are employed by inspiration in reference to Yahueh throughout the Hebrew scrolls. However, it is logically INCONSISTENT to select some to be classified as morally forbidden while others are morally accepted and even defended.”¹²⁸

As he had previously impressed upon us in October 2000, so he reiterated this same logic again in March 2001! As we have already summarized, the individual quote above is conveying to us that if we decide to reject God because of the obvious heathen connection, then we must likewise reject other titles, such as Elohim and Adonai, as scholars attest that these titles are also connected with the names of heathen idols! Continuing with the above individual’s March 2001 e-mail, he summed up his perception of the dilemma faced by those of our persuasion:

“Most modern scholarly works charge that Israel BORROWED much from the Babylonian and Canaanite culture, religion, and language. The very scholars that are likely to maintain that ‘Gawd’ is a foreign word that was borrowed by Israel ALSO maintain the same for EL, Baal, Adon, Shaddai, Shabbat, well ... by now you get the picture! How can one argue against the word ‘God’ by showing references that claim it was a borrowed word while ignoring that the SAME references claim that El was also borrowed? In fact, we are even told by scholars that the ‘plurality of majesty’ characteristic of the word Elohim was borrowed from the Akkadian language! Yet, Elohim continues to be used by most Classical Sacred Namers. Isn’t this being INCONSISTENT with a supposed moral principle?”¹²⁹

Again, the inconsistency we are charged with, as outlined above, involves accepting the validity of the information provided by scholarly references when it comes to proving the heathen origin of God, but rejecting the information disseminated by these same references when it comes to examining the origin of words such as Elohim and Adonai. In other words, if we are going to reject God based on the information gleaned from these references, then we need to reject titles such as Elohim and Adonai on those same grounds! Notice what this gentleman's partner and co-author of the treatise “The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles” wrote on this same subject:

“Even in the famous Unger’s Bible Dictionary, under ‘El,’ he states it was borrowed by the Israelites. It has become almost ridiculous now to go around quoting sources because when you check out many of those sources that for instance speak against gad, we find those same authors EQUALLY SPEAK AGAINST ELOHIM, EL, ADON, SHADDAI AND OTHER WORDS.”¹³⁰ (emphasis his)

This same individual added:

“Frankly, if I had to give up on the usage of ‘god,’ I could not in good conscience use Elohim, adon, or a plethora of words that top scholars equally say was a name of a pagan deity before being adopted and borrowed by Israelites.”¹³¹

Is it true, as held by the above author, that such trustworthy references as Unger’s Bible Dictionary actually teach that titles such as Elohim were borrowed by the Israelites from the Canaanites, who employed them as names for their deities? Well, yes and no. On the one hand, Unger’s depicts “El” as having been associated with heathen worship:

“In Canaanite paganism as reflected in the Phoenician historian Philo of Byblos, A.D. 100, and particularly in the epic religious literature unearthed at Ras Shamra, ancient Ugarit in N. Syria, 1929-37, El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon. According to Philo, El had three wives, who were also his sisters.”¹³²

In a separate item from this same reference (item “Gods, False”), we read the following:

“Baal was the son of El, the father of the gods and the head of the Canaanite pantheon.”¹³³

One might, without comprehensive study, conclude that Unger’s Bible Dictionary depicts El as pre-dating the title Elohim as applied to Yahweh. However, in a concluding remark under the listing “EL,” this reference issues the following disclaimer:

“The Heb. name of God, El, has, of course, no connection with paganism, but is a simple generic term.”¹³⁴

Despite this little “disclaimer” of sorts from Unger’s, the reader nevertheless comes away questioning exactly “where” Elohim comes from! In fact, other references flat-out state that this title of Yahweh was originally the name of a heathen idol. You may recall from part one that we offered the following quotation from The International Bible Commentary: “Elohim is clearly derived from El, the name given to the king of the gods by the Canaanites, with Elôah, surviving in poetry, as the connecting link.”¹²

How, then, do we respond to those who maintain that if it is wrong to refer to Yahweh as “our God,” then to be consistent we must also reject Elohim and Adonai, based upon their similar “pagan connections”?

The answer is very simple, and was in fact given in part one of this study, but perhaps putting it in different terms will make it more clearly understood by all. If the titles Elohim and Adonai in fact originated with heathen worship, then we can no longer trust Scripture, for when we examine the earliest Hebrew texts available, Elohim and Adonai are there in plain view and are used in reference to Yahweh. Indeed, if these titles did not originate with Yahweh, then what became of the titles that did originate with Him? We are thus left to conclude that if we can trust Scripture, those titles were originally Yahweh’s titles and no one else’s! Not so with God. Although the earliest Hebrew texts contain references to Yahweh with titles such as Elohim and Adonai, such is not the case with God. Elohim and Adonai must have been employed in reference to Yahweh, especially when you take into consideration the fact that originally, in the beginning, there was no such thing as false idol worship, only the pure worship of Yahweh Elohim. In other words, there is no evidence of any titles employed in reference to Yahweh that predate Scripture. If Elohim and Adonai were originally ascribed to idols, then what became of the pure titles originally ascribed to Yahweh? This is a question begging for an answer, but as of this writing those of the opposing view have yet to supply the response, much less address it.

If even the very titles found in the earliest Hebrew manuscripts were borrowed from heathens, then indeed we are left to wonder what other customs the Hebrews borrowed as well! Maybe, as some claim, the Sabbath itself was borrowed. Maybe the entire law was borrowed from the heathens! One man jokingly suggested, when he learned of this line of reasoning, that perhaps we should believe that heathen worship actually predates the worship of Yahweh!

Due to the fact that the authors of “The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles” have demonstrated a lack of understanding of our position, June and I decided to insert a chart to illustrate the basic differences between titles such as Elohim, Adonai, Melek and Baal and the title God:

YAHWEH-INSPIRED TITLE, later converted to a HEATHEN DEITY’S NAME	B	HEATHEN DEITY’S NAME, later converted to a TITLE OF YAHWEH
Elohim: Became known as El, "Father of the Gods."	B	God: Represents an identical transliteration of the name of a Canaanite idol whose worship was condemned by Yahweh.
Adonai: Became known as Adonis, a fertility and vegetation god worshipped by the Phoenician and Syrian culture from 200 BCE to 400 CE.135	B	Dios: Represents the actual letter-for-letter spelling and transliteration of the Greek idol commonly rendered Zeus.
Melek: Became known as chief deity worshipped by Ammonites.	B	B
Baal: Replaced El as chief Canaanite deity.	B	B

Note: There is no Scriptural record of anyone (heathen or otherwise) EVER referring to Yahweh with a title that was borrowed from the name of a heathen idol!

Hopefully the chart above serves to properly illustrate the distinction that exists between God and titles such as Elohim. God is a man-inspired title that was already corrupted by the time it was first applied to Yahweh. Elohim, Adonai, and Baal are Yahweh-inspired titles that were later corrupted by apostate man, who incorporated them as names for idols. Comparing the title God to Elohim, therefore, is like comparing apples to oranges.

Although it can be demonstrated that from earliest times Yahweh was referred to with such titles as Elohim and Adonai, He was never referred to as a God until recent history! Furthermore, as we have already pointed out in Objection #4, even post-Messianic Jews regarded God as the name of a demon. This is how those people regarded this word, not to mention the fact that Yahweh Himself condemned an idol by this name! What more do we need? Not only was God not originally a title for Yahweh (as were Elohim and Adonai), but it most definitely makes for a less than honorable translation of the Hebrew word Elohim.

With the above information in mind, we can easily discern that there is no inconsistency in referring to Yahweh as “our Elohim” while simultaneously rejecting the title “God.” The one title originated with Yahweh. The other did not. This represents a major and crucial difference between the two titles, not to mention our oft-repeated point that Yahweh Himself condemned the worship of God, terming those who worship that idol as forsaking Him (Isaiah 65:11). If those who worship “God” forsake Yahweh, then what can be said with regard to those who call Yahweh their “God”?

I am pleased to have been given this opportunity to take a stand for the honor of Almighty YHWH. In my next posting, I will respond to Mountain Jew's charges in his latest contribution to this thread.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry Acheson

¹²From The International Bible Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, 1986, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan Publishers, page 57.
¹²⁶From a group e-mail sent by one of the authors of "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" on October 31, 2000. In an effort to maintain a focus on the issue and not the names of those in the opposing camp, I am not listing any names in this posting. I apologize for any confusion that may result from omitting their names.
¹²⁷From a group e-mail sent by me (Larry Acheson) on November 1, 2000.
¹²⁸From a group e-mail (subject line “Re: Teutonic vs. Semitic origin for ‘god,’”) sent on March 10, 2001 by the other author of the treatise "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles." Peculiarly, although the e-mail was sent by the one author, it was the other author of the treatise who actually composed the commentary. I was not on that e-mail distribution list, but it was forwarded to June and me the following day.
¹²⁹Ibid.
¹³⁰From a group e-mail sent on March 20, 2001 by one of the authors of the treatise "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles."
¹³¹Ibid.
¹³²From The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, by Merrill F. Unger, 1988, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, item “EL,” p. 341.
¹³³Ibid, item “Gods, False,” p. 485.
¹³⁴Ibid, item “EL,” p. 341.
¹³⁵From Encyclopedia of Gods, by Michael Jordan, Facts on File, Inc., New York, NY, 1993, item “Adonis,” p. 3.

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
... from the study that June and I authored ...

---

Greetings, Larry, and please know you would do much better by excluding any mention of yourself (and/or anyone else). It might not be your conscious intent to place focus on personalities, but the presence of that is nevertheless a distraction.

Here are some more examples of that:

quote:

---

... we were amazed that [a certain] type of logic was being promoted by the authors of ...
... we were even more surprised to learn that people actually consider their reasoning to be valid.

---

At the right time and place, there is certainly nothing wrong with sharing one’s own perceptions of things ... but in this particular case, such editorial comment does not address the actual issue at hand.

quote:

---

Even more amazing is the fact that during the course of our two debates ... the authors repeatedly brought up [the above “certain type of logic”] point, ignoring our answer each time. Despite the fact that June and I issued a clear response to this claim, they continued to bring it up as if we had not in fact given an answer!

---

Even if that is a factual report of what actually took place, it does not prove anything in relation to the actual matter at hand.

Personally, I have these two simple questions for you and Mountain Jew, respectively:

1) What harm is done when YHWH is called “G-d”?

2) What good is done when YHWH is called “G-d”?

Note: With the word “None” excepted, please offer one-sentence answers, please.

I am going to alter the question a little bit for clarity to:

What harm is done by translating elohim as god?

No one ever commited suicide, started a war, or lost their faith, or became an idolator, knowingly infected someone with AIDS, or lost their salvation, etc. because elohim was translated into the English term god.

What good is done by translating elohim as god?

By translating elohim as god millions of English speaking people have been able to understand the message of the scriptures and easily facilitate communication of spiritual matters without unnecessary language barriers.

Which is easier to say and understand for the average person?

1. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son
2. For Elohim so loved the world that he gave his only son

One statement requires no explanation or lecture the other does.

I am going to alter the question that you altered a little bit more for clarity to:

What harm is done by translating elohim as satan?

No one would ever commit suicide, start a war, or lose their faith, or become an idolator, knowingly infect someone with AIDS, or loe their salvation, etc. because elohim was translated into the English term satan.

What good is done by translating elohim as satan?

By translating elohim as satan millions of English speaking people could still understand the message of the scriptures and easily facilitate communication of spiritual matters without unnecessary language barriers. Never mind that YHWH condemned an idol by that name ... we're more interested in numbers, you know ... things that appeal to cultural whims.

Which is easier to say and understand for the average person?

1. For Satan so loved the world that he gave his only son
2. For Elohim so loved the world that he gave his only son

Certainly, if One would choose to culturally redefine "Satan" as an honorable term meaning "Almighty," it would be no worse than referring to Him as "God," which was originally the name of a heathen idol! Why, it wouldn't be any worse than transforming the heathen Saturnalia into the veneration of the birth of the Son of the Almighty! One statement would thus require no explanation or lecture the other might.

I don't like being facetious, but sometimes I have to (as I was with the above comments) in order to get my point across. I realize that some people simply cannot be reached, so I can only write for those who can. I only write for those who are open to honoring YHWH. Those who are not are certainly free to ignore anything that I write. I can only hope that those who read this are willing to open their hearts and minds to understanding the will of the Almighty in this matter. Certainly, if referring to Him as "Satan" honors Him, then so does "God." "I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils" (I Cor. 10:20).

With all the above in mind, I hope you don't mind my reposting an excerpt from some questions that I posed to you way back on page one of this thread. For some reason or another, you have been avoiding them. Maybe if I keep reminding you, you will eventually answer them? Here it is again:

While I recognize the possibility that the word “GOD” has its origin in the Hebrew language, its origin as a name is clearly from unregenerate heathens. To then take that name, redefine it as “a perfectly acceptable translation of Elohim” is simply a slap in the Almighty’s face. This is what is known as the cultural redefinition of words. If we can borrow the name of any heathen idol from some language, then culturally “redefine” it as a “clean” word in our language, then apply it as a title for Yahweh, this opens the door for us to pretty much assign Him any title that suits our fancy.

In fact, as one man who supports your view wrote, “There is no such thing as an unclean word.”¹ Indeed, there really isn’t, according to this view. So long as the individual “redefines” it as a “clean word,” it suddenly becomes worthy of being applied to Yahweh. In fact, with this reasoning, we can even refer to Yahweh as “our Zeus.” I believe you would have no problem with referring to Yahweh as your “Zeus,” based upon your comment that the torah endorses the application of "heathen" epithets to YHWH. Obviously, then, you have no problem with assigning either “Zeus” or “Apollo” as acceptable titles for YHWH, based upon the method of reasoning you expressed in your posting.

But let’s go one level higher, okay? Is it also okay to refer to Yahweh as your “Satan”? Certainly, since you believe the torah endorses the application of “heathen” epithets to YHWH, and since many of us realize that “the face behind the mask,” so to speak, is actually none other than “Satan,” and especially since “Satan” is only a title anyway, then it must be perfectly acceptable to Yahweh for you to refer to Him as your “Satan,” right?

Am I following your reasoning properly? If I am misapplying anything that you wrote, please correct me and clarify your wording. I do not want to misunderstand anything that you have written, but certainly if you believe the torah endorses the application of heathen epithets to YHWH, and since "Satan” is one such epithet, it follows that you believe the torah endorses our referring to YHWH as “Satan.”

Since the title “Satan” means “adversary,” I personally cannot recommend that anyone who wants to be on Yahweh’s side refer to Him with such a title. But of course, since a part of borrowing names/titles from other languages is culturally redefining them to suit our desires, someone might conceivably choose to redefine "Satan" as “Almighty” and thus justify using that title in reference to Yahweh.

After all, this is precisely what has been done with the name/title “GOD.”

I believe this is where we are headed when we endorse referring to Yahweh with heathen “epithets.”

As for me and my house, we do not go there.

This issue really boils down to choices. There are several other titles that we can use in reference to Yahweh that are not stained with the corruption of heathen idol worship. Why not prefer them?? Is He not worthy of our UTMOST praise and honor? Why should we want to apply a title to our Creator that comes from the name of a man, let alone one that comes from the name of an idol whose worship He condemns??

Does this bring Him honor?

As June and I exclaimed back in 2001, so we exclaim in 2004: LET’S GO FOR THE BEST, FOLKS!!! ("God" does not qualify).

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

You wrote:

quote:

---

You stated: “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.”

For your recollection, in several posts, including the one in this thread dated December 4th, 2004, you posted the following message by which YOU established the rule of original use.

“By the way, I am not interested in originally pure words such as baal, molech, elohim or adonai, that were later corrupted by unregenerate men.”

---

I reply: Well, at least you answered my question! Again, nothing had been written by anyone, including myself, mentioning any such thing as a "Rule of Original Use." I needed to know who you were referring to. While I suspected that it might be me that you were misrepresenting, I had to be sure. You truly did misrepresent me, by the way, as I will show later in this posting. I am hopeful that by reducing the amount of unfair generalizations, we can reach some sort of mutual agreement.

For the record, I simply maintain that, if it can be demonstrated that any word, name or title was originally the name of a heathen idol, then it is a dishonor to YHWH to refer to Him with such a word, whether it be as a substitute name or as a title.

You apparently do question whether or not the words baal, molech/melek, elohim and adonai are "originally pure." Am I correct or am I misrepresenting you? I gather as much from your previous posting, in which you wrote, "Long before there was Moses and the psalms of David the Cannanites worshiped carved images of bulls and human figures as El."

Question: Since "elohim" was used by heathens long before Mosheh came on the scene, what was the "original title" used in reference to YHWH? And how do you know that Elohim was originally used by heathens? Is it not possible that, instead, it was borrowed by unregenerate heathens who strayed from the true path laid out by their forefathers?

You wrote:

quote:

---

If this is so then why are you interested in names like Gadelglas which James Forlong states was originally the name Cush? Cush was originally a pure word/name that was later corrupted by men.

---

I reply: As I mentioned in a previous posting (page 5 of this thread), you simply misrepresent J.G.R. Forlong. I discern that your interest has shifted from discrediting him to misrepresenting him. Please reread what he wrote, plus reread my response to your posting in which you claim that he " ... admits the spelling and pronunciation of Gadelglas is wrong."

As I mentioned in my response, I went to great lengths to post Forlong's claims about his attention to detail with regard to the phonetic spelling of the names of the idols he mentions in his work. As evidence of his attention to detail, I quoted his reference to the Tetragrammaton, which he renders Yahuê. Pretty good for a 19th century scholar, especially in view of how common the form Jehovah is and was. Would Forlong go to such trouble to get the Tetragram correct, then slough off on Gad-El-Glas?

Did Forlong "admit" that his spelling and pronunciation of Gadelglas was wrong? No, he made no such claim. You, however, in misrepresenting him, wrote that he made such an admission. There is a term for this type of reporting. It is called "irresponsible journalism." I really wish you would not put words in peoples' mouths.

And now, about your claim that Forlong states that Gadelglas was originally the name Cush: This is simply another misrepresentation on your part. Why you do this, I can only imagine. Please allow me to set the record straight:

Here, once again, is the quote from Forlong's book:

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 us usually translated, "the Green Snake God."

(1) Forlong doesn't ever remark that Gad-El-glas was originally the name Cush, as you claim. He never makes any remark even remotely similar to what you're trying to make him say! I can tell that you would have liked for Forlong to have said, "Gad-El-glas was originally the name Cush," but that is simply not what he wrote.
(2) Forlong does identify Cush in the excerpt that I provided, but he certainly does not identify "Cush" as an original name for "Gad-El-glas." Instead, the Cushites' idol, whose name was Cathak, is presented by Forlong as the Keltic equivalent to Gad-El-glas, much like "Jupiter" is the Roman equivalent of "Zeus." Does this mean the name "Jupiter" descended from "Zeus"? Of course not!

Since Gad-El-glas is identified with the Kuthite idol Cathak, does this mean the name Gad-El-glas descended from Cathak? I hope those who are reading this know better than to think such a thing.

Summarizing here, Forlong in no way identifies Gad-El-glas as originally being the name "Cush," contrary to your claim. Instead, he made a comparison between the Kuthites' idol (Cathak) and the Keltic Gad-El-glas.

Continuing with what you wrote:

quote:

---

According to your own rules, you shouldn’t have the least bit of concern or interest about this term. To say that Gadelglas actually traces back to Gad is to contradict James Forlong who says it traces back to Cush. Where is the consistency?

---

I reply: You are simply mistaken, to put it nicely. First of all, as I have already shown, you build your case on a misrepresentation of Forlong's words. Forlong does not say that Gad-El-Glas traces back to Cush!!

So, with this in mind, please allow me to try one more time to help you see the connection:

(1) Is the Keltic idol Baal-tin-glas in any way connected to the Canaanite Baal?
(2) Is the Keltic term El in any way connected to the Canaanite Elohim?

Please understand that Baal, as a term originally applied to YHWH, but later corrupted by unregenerate mankind, cannot be made "impure" as a result of its ties, whether it be to Canaanite idol worship or Keltic worship in ancient Ireland. Nevertheless, my question still stands: Is the Keltic idol Baal-tin-glas in any way connected to the Canaanite Baal? Or is this "just a coincidence"?

The same goes for "El."

Please also understand that if the term "Gad" had ever been applied to YHWH as an honorable title by the believers of Old, I would then understand how it, like the term Baal, was eventually corrupted, and this corruption would not have negated the term's original purity as an honorable title. However, such is simply not the case. Gad is never applied to YHWH by any believers at any time ... until modern history.

I have already posed the question about the link between Baal-tin-glas and the Hebrew Baal. I believe the connection should be too obvious for even you to deny, although I admittedly wouldn't be surprised if you tried to do so. The connection of Gad-El-glas to the Hebrew Gad should be just as obvious. The only difference is, Baal was originally an honorable title that was later corrupted. Gad is never shown as being an honorable title. Instead, its earliest use stems from idol worship, the name of the idol of fortune, later applied to one of Jacob's sons ... and still later this idol's worship was specifically singled out and condemned by YHWH.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You find that Theos is acceptable even though it is known to be the name of the Cretian god and is etymologically connected to gheu which you imagine is connected back to Gad the idol. Where is the consistency?

---

I reply: Who says that "Theos" is known to be the name of a Cretian idol?? Documentation would have really, really been nice here! You see, I have tried and tried to establish a connection between the title Theos and a heathen idol who originally had such a name ... but I couldn't find it. If you have evidence of your "known" claim, please, by all means, share your resource (as well as the complete quotation, of course).

In the meantime, I trust that you read my posting dated 12-05-2004 at 03:38 p.m.? In that posting I shared my story pertaining to my quest for an idol named "Theos." That would have been an excellent opportunity for you to have jumped in and shared your data, including your source material, of course.

You wrote:

quote:

---

You stated: “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.”

You already established another rule on December 20th, 2004 in the thread “What should we call ourselves?” that pagan origins have no negative bearing. You aren’t the least bit concerned that “Christian” has purely pagan origins, as you feel fine to be labeled as such. And again in your last post you revert back to pagan origins as the basis of rejecting a term. So why is “gheu” having a pagan origin of any concern to you now? Where is the consistency??

---

I reply: This is where you totally misrepresented me. First of all, please produce a quote from me where I state that "I feel fine to be labeled a 'Christian'." As you stated, the quote you were attempting to reference is the one I made on Dec. 20th in the "What should we call ourselves" thread. Here is what I wrote: "As much as I personally do not like either the title 'Christ' or 'Christian,' I do not see that there is anything wrong or dishonorable in calling oneself a 'Christian.'"

I later concluded, "Thus, although I personally prefer to use such terms as 'Messianic believer' instead of 'Christian,' mainly because the latter term is now commonly used to identify Messianic believers who believe the Messiah came to do away with Torah, I nevertheless fully support those who choose to identify themselves in this way. It is certainly Scriptural."

As you can plainly see, I never wrote anything close to "I feel fine to be labeled a 'Christian.'" Nevertheless, as I also wrote, if someone chooses to identify themselves in this way, it is not dishonorable to YHWH. Why not? Because, as I pointed out in the posting that you were referencing, there is nothing tying the term "Christos" to the name of a heathen idol. And even if some culture did apply "Christos" or "Chrestos" to the name of an idol, this wouldn't take away from the fact that it was originally an adjective, as your posting plainly revealed.

For those who are having a difficult time following the difference between "Christ" and "God," please allow me to try this:

God = Originally name of a heathen idol.
Christos = An adjective that was applied to both men and idols, just like "pater" (father) was applied to both men and idols. If one should not refer to Yeshua as "Christos" based upon its original use, then that person likewise has no business referring to YHWH as His "Father"!

Do you not see the difference here?

You wrote:

quote:

---

We are being asked to forget about the noun ‘god’, to remove it from our vocabulary and our minds altogether. This is necessary if we are to believe it is really only to be understood as a proper noun. But the fact is ‘god’ is a common noun. Larry you even use it as a common noun in your footnotes to your post in this thread on December 4th, 2004 where you state: “‘Gad,’ the Babylonian god of fortune” If Gad is the origin of god, it doesn’t seem you are totally convinced since you refer to Gad as a “god”. Where is the consistency?

---

I reply: Really, MJ, I believe you are "reaching" in trying to get me to contradict myself. If I ever use the term "god," it is certainly not in reference to YHWH!! That should tell you something, but for some reason you don't seem to understand this.

Furthermore, the quote you referenced from my footnote of December 4th was from a quote, as I was quoting from a reference! Surely you don't expect me to alter quotes from references I cite, do you???

For the record, here is the footnote that you chose to criticize:

¹According to G. F. Taylor, in his book The Second Coming of Jesus, The Falcon Publishing Company, Falcon, N.C., 1916, p. 161, God is another name for Baal: “The city Baal Gad (Josh. 11: 17) derived its name from ‘Baal’; and from ‘Gad,’ the Babylonian god of fortune, Bel, standing for the planet Jupiter. The Arabs called it ‘the greater good fortune;’ and ‘Meni,’ the planet Venus, stood for ‘the lesser good fortune.’ ‘But ye are they that forsake the word, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that god, and that furnish the drink offering unto that Meni.’—Isa. 65: 11. (Margin.) In this verse the idea of the male and the female antichrist is mentioned. Gad is only another name for Baal, the male god; while Meni stands for Venus, the female goddess.”

So to answer your question ("Where is the consistency?"), I answer that I am indeed being consistent. Referring to YHWH as "God" dishonors Him. For those who don't mind referring to Him with the name of an idol whose worship He condemns, "God" is "perfectly acceptable." That is "consistency."

You wrote:

quote:

---

You also have another inconsistency. You stated: “God, unlike these titles, was never employed by the writers of Scripture as a title for Yahweh “ God is rejected as a translation of elohim simply because it is not a Hebrew word, yet you feel free to use “Almighty” which is also not a Hebrew word. Where is the consistency?

---

I reply: Another misrepresentation. I realize your prime directive here is trying to find "inconsistencies" in my beliefs, but I wish you wouldn't be so "cheesy" about it.

Let's try this again, okay?

God = Originally name of a heathen idol.
Almighty = An English translation that cannot be traced to the name of a heathen idol.

Do you see why I reject "God" as an appropriate translation of Elohim? Do you see why I recognize "Almighty" as an appropriate translation of Elohim? I am trying to put this in as simple terms as possible for you to possibly be able to somehow understand. Either you are simply having a difficult time grasping this concept, or else you are deliberately reaching for any semblance of an "inconsistency" in an attempt to disprove my position. Which is it?

You wrote:

quote:

---

There isn’t any authority that says God can be traced back to Gad. There isn’t any authority that states Gad the idol is the source of Gad the Israelite. What we are being asked to do is to trust an inconsistent imagination and flip-flop rules, and to ignore all the authorities, and frankly that just isn’t good enough in light of the known facts and common sense.

---

I reply: Number one, I have already demonstrated your futile attempt to portray my standards as "flip-flop rules." That was simply wrong of you, whether it was intentional or not.

Regarding any authority saying that "God" can be traced to "Gad": The fact of the matter is, both terms are pronounced at least nearly identically, if not the same. Certainly any Hebrew scholar would agree that any difference would be negligible at best. In any case, they are spelled the same in Hebrew. I do not expect any of the authorities to come out and say, "God is connected to the 'Gad' whose worship was condemned in Is. 65:11." Nevertheless, they come very close to making this very admission. It is admitted that the worship of Gad was prevalent in Haran, as well as in Canaan.

Those who attempt to trace "God" admit that they really don't know where it came from! One etymologist called it "a tangle of guesses"! And yet you're going to assume that it's nice and innocent ... not a hint of a connection, in spite of the Indo-European connections to other Hebrew forms of worship, such as Baal.

I perceive that you think rather highly of your own etymological prowess, so if you would, please tell me how you would trace the Ancient Irish idol Baal-tin-glas. Any possibility that it could have a connection to the Hebrew Baal?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Can you please explain why YHWH would have for eternity the name of a heathen idol inscribed upon the gates of the New Jerusalem? Is He ignorant or just really liberal? Or just maybe the authorities are correct; that Gad the Israelite originates from a different word, pure and untainted by the idolatry of unregenerate men.

---

I reply: Can you explain why YHWH would set apart a man whose name was Apollos to be one of His messengers? Just because a man is named after a heathen idol does not mean it is honorable to apply that name as a title in reference to YHWH. Of course, I realize that you must believe that it is indeed honorable to refer to YHWH as your "Apollos," so really, nothing of what I have written can apply to the reasoning you have already shared; namely, that Torah endorses the application of heathen epithets to YHWH. You and I simply adhere to different standards, for I utterly disagree with your premise.

Actually, I have already explained my postion regarding "Gad and the name on one of the 12 Gates of the New Jerusalem" several times in this thread, not to mention the study whose link I offered to you. As a matter of fact, I directly responded to your question in that posting I submitted wherein you criticized my footnote (you know, the one I posted on December 4th?). Why don't you just reread my answer in that posting? You don't have to agree with it, you know! You are certainly most free to refer to YHWH as your "God." Of course, I maintain that you dishonor Him in so doing, but I don't perceive that anything I say is of any consequence to you anyway, so I would say for you to go ahead and do what you believe is best.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

Acknowledging your modification of my question in relation to the matter of translation, I cautiously accept at least this part of your answer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Which is easier to say and understand for the average person?

1. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son
2. For Elohim so loved the world that he gave his only son

One statement requires no explanation or lecture the other does.

---

Possibly so ... but as intended, my question was specifically this:

2) What good is done when YHWH is called “G-d”?

... and I asked that question because I am already well aware of the harm that can be done when the word "God" is used while sharing our reconciliatory experience with at least certain others. And in such cases, and even with the required explanation considered, even a word such as "elohim" would be far preferable. To wit:

To millions of people in today's A.A. (and likely most other so-called "self-help fellowships"), the word "God" means nothing whatsoever more than one or another "higher power" of whatever kind (including group of drunks) and/or of one's own personal choosing/imagination.

With that kind of problem in mind, I will yet continue to refrain from calling YHWH "God" until anyone might show me what good might be done by my doing so.

Blessings to you, my friend.

Don't forget.

Some Random Thoughts ...

Author’s name withheld

     YAHWEH applies such titles as El, Shaddai, Elohim, Tsoor, Shalom, Rapha, etc., to Himself because they DESCRIBE Him.... Where does YAHWEH describe Himself as "God," or apply GOD as His name or His title? YAHWEH never applied GOD as His name or any of His titles. GOD was an "acceptable" Hebrew word, though, with a known meaning: to cut, divide, invade and overcome. How does this describe YAHWEH? This seems to be more the character of the angel of light, a.k.a. Satan, a.k.a. Zeus (Dios), Jupiter, Mithras, Tammuz, Ra, etc., ... the one of many names ... and especially the name GOD, the one who INVADED heaven, DIVIDING the angelic hosts ....

     Where does YAHWEH give permission for anyone to apply the name GOD to Him, either as a name or a title? Where does Scripture say that it's okay to apply the original names of pagan idols to YAHWEH (as long as it doesn't cover or hide his name)?? If the Hebrew word pronounced "gawd" isn't being used, then what is?

     My opinion is ... You can take the name out of the evil ... but you can't take the evil out of the name! A rose by any other name ... OR Satan ... remains what it is, regardless of what you think or say it is! Or can we worship the angel of light because the Father also uses the term? And if Satan uses the name GOD, how do you really know which one is being addressed ... by attaching the Creator's name to the demon, or attaching the demon to the Creator's name?

     If USAGE is your criteria, then GOD stands as primarily a proper name, and the name of a pagan mighty one specifically condemned by YAHWEH ... also, the name of the mighty one of this world, Christianity being the world's largest religion, and apparently the one responsible for the end time deception prior to Messiah's return (Rev 12:9)! And the world refuses to honor YAHWEH'S Name!

     Perhaps NOT honoring His Name includes POLLUTING IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE!

     THE OPPOSITION SAYS: "The only logical answer I can see is that the INTENTION of inspiration in applying the word 'baal' to Yahu`eh was not idolatrous. In the same token, when I state that it is acceptable and honorable to apply the word 'God' as an English title to Yahu`eh, I mean it because from the above scenario involving 'baal' the INTENTION of the individual (within the context of acceptable linguistic usage) is the basis Yahu`eh uses in order to accept or reject that invocation."

     I REPLY: So, ... Is this reasoning as follows?: ... If YAHWEH allowed the Hebrew term "baal" to be applied to Himself, then He must also allow the Hebrew NAME "God" to be used?

     -Is there an intentional shift from a generic common noun to a proper noun? If this is so, then wouldn't worshipping Baal as a deity [just as GOD is worshipped as a deity] be fine as long as it is intentionally done to honor YAHWEH??

     -But more importantly, where does YAHWEH apply GOD as a title or propose it as a title for any future reference?

     Whose INTENTION is important? According to the opposition, it is "the INTENTION of the individual (within the context of acceptable linguistic usage)." What is the intention of THIS?:

Deut. 12:3 -- And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their elohim, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

If I were a worshipper of YAHWEH and I came into a country that was worshipping GOD, let me see, what should I do? Should I accept the "user defined" terms and "linguistic definitions" of their mighty one and apply it to YAHWEH because their intentions are good and my children will have to get along with theirs, ... or should I carry out the directive of Deut 12:3?

     YAHWEH doesn't really "mean" get rid of the names, does He? I mean, HE uses the terms also, except He doesn't call Himself a GOD, but linguistically everyone else says it's okay, so maybe YAHWEH doesn't really want me to get rid of that name, does He?

     But we can't really do that because the linguistic principle is, according to our opponents, “ ... if a word used is linguistically generic rather than a ‘name,’ then it is okay to retain as long as your intentions are good and you are not trying to cover YAHWEH'S name ... or the principle is that it is the INTENTION of the individual (within the context of acceptable linguistic usage) ... rather than the actual word of YAHWEH ....”

     So this probably doesn't apply either:

"Thou shalt not bow down to their elohim, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images." [Exodus 23:24]

"They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their elohim, it will surely be a snare unto thee." [Exo 23:33]

"And thou shalt consume all the people which YAHWEH your Mighty One shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their mighty ones; for that will be a snare unto thee." [Deut. 7:16, cf. 7:3-4]

"Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their mighty ones, saying, How did these nations serve their mighty ones? even so will I do likewise." [Deut. 12:30]

Aw, that REALLY doesn't mean what it says, does it? They call their idol GOD, but that's okay, because they really mean YAHWEH; besides, we have exactly the same term which means to invade and overcome ... so let's use GOD as a generic term in place of "elohim" because that seems to be how everybody uses it linguistically, except that it isn't exactly generic because they use "the LORD" more as a title, so GOD is really more of a name, but it doesn't make any difference to YAHWEH because it is user defined (and He knows my heart), and that's what He says in His word because even though He condemns the worship of GOD He really doesn't mean THIS GOD, and the meaning to attack and invade, divide, cut apart doesn't really have any bearing on our honoring Him with this wonderful title!

"And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of YAHWEH, and are gone forth out of his land." [Ezek 36:20, cf 21-27]

Well, since it's against the law to destroy others' property, it looks like we will have to accept their linguistic usage because their intention isn't evil.

     I personally believe that YAHWEH and GOD are two separate entities. The answers to the above questions are then obvious! My guess is that those who cannot make a distinction between the two, thus seeing YAHWEH and GOD as the same being, would be open to the inclusion of the name YAHWEH GOD.

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of (the) Sovereign, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of (the) Sovereign's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke The Sovereign to jealousy? are we stronger than He? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." [1 Corinthians 10:20-23]

So even IF the Hebrew "GOD" were technically okay (...earth is YAHWEH'S and the fullness thereof), which it isn't, ... there would still be a strong connection between their former idolatrous worship and new truth (therefore they have a conscience toward it), which is not expedient, and as such, ought to be completely avoided if for no other reason than for conscience sake!

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Shalom leejosepho,

Don't forget.

The term god as a translation of elohim is not outside the context of the scriptures which clearly identify the god. There is no inherent identity with the term elohim - if you also were to isolate it from the context of the scriptures. If you did, elohim would be just as ambiguous as God in an AA meeting. It doesn't matter what term you use, even YHWH. If YHWH is isolated from the context of the scriptures then He becomes whatever anyone wants to believe He is about - and therefore is no better than the term God. Any damage done by AA wasn't because of their choice of words to translate elohim, it is what they taught about elohim that did the damage and it is crucial to realise that. The scriptures talk about their elohim and our elohim. If their elohim is simply nothing more than a "higher power" so what? What difference does it make at all? None whatsoever. We still have our elohim whom they still do not know.

---

Shalom, Mountain Jew.

Understood, and agreed: Isolation from context leads to ambiguity ... and even to death.

quote:

---

Any damage done by AA wasn't because of their choice of words to translate elohim, it is what they taught about elohim that did the damage and it is crucial to realise that.

---

Absolutely. One A.A. "old-timer" was shocked when he first heard that some people had begun referring to light bulbs and other things as their "higher powers". Without a doubt, there was no such thought anywhere nearby in the early days of A.A. ... and after reading on through this thread, I might come back to that matter and explain a bit about what went wrong.

quote:

---

The scriptures talk about their elohim and our elohim. If their elohim is simply nothing more than a "higher power" so what? What difference does it make at all? None whatsoever.

---

In my own perception of things, and I do believe you will here actually agree (at least in relation to those who have yet to even hear of the difference), your own statement that "We still have our elohim whom they still do not know" shows why it does makes a great deal of difference if "their elohim" is nothing more than a "higher power". In other words, it is much simpler to talk with them about "The One who created us" than to reclaim and present proper context for any word or name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YermeYah:
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 ...

---

Greetings, YermeYah, and although I am no scholar concerning the "Queen of Heaven", I do know the word "God" on the dollar is definitely not referring to YHWH, that is was never intended to do so, and that the folks who put it there still continue to mockingly laugh at those who believe it does.