quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:
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.

---

Warm greetings to all.

Rhetorically: Can we find resolution and agreement concerning the word “God”?

In this context, we can:

The word “God” does not exclusively identify the One who created us.

Maybe it used to and still should – maybe it never did and could not.

But either way, and again, we surely do know this:

Globally today, the word “God” does not exclusively identify the One who created us.

That fact alone is for me the bottom line on this matter – case closed – for to carry to still others the Scriptural message of reconciliation, transformation and fellowship, we must first be able to exclusively identify the One who is/has/offers salvation for all.

Matters related directly to Alcoholics Anonymous are likely of little concern to most people here, and that is certainly okay with me, yet at least today’s problem with the word “God” – its non-exclusiveness – can be clearly seen in some overall A.A. experience.

From the original “Alcoholics Anonymous”, a book of shared, common experience:

“IN THE PRECEDING chapters you have learned something of alcoholism ... an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer.
“... To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face” (page 44).

“... crushed by a self-imposed crisis we could not postpone or evade, we had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is, or He isn't. What was our choice to be?” (page 53)

“Abandon yourself to God ...
“May God bless you and keep you ...” (page 164).

Then or now, who could read the above without realizing who those folks were talking about?

However, those same fellows wanted to be sure the alcoholic sufferer did not end up dying still hopeless over his or her own “religious issues” or whatever concerning the “‘God’ of sectarian religion” (my own words). To wit:

“I saw that my friend [who had come to try to help me recover from alcoholism] was much more than inwardly reorganized. He was on a different footing. His roots grasped a new soil.
“[Yet] Despite the living example of my friend, there [still] remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a Czar of the Heavens, however loving His sway might be ...
“[Having told him about that,] My friend [next] suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, ‘Why don't you choose your own conception of God?’
“That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight [and was thus able to take a much clearer look] at last.
“It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a Power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning. I saw that growth could start from that point. Upon a foundation of complete willingness [to abandon myself to ‘God’, whoever or whatever He is,] I might build what I saw in my friend. Would I have it? Of course I would!
“Thus was I convinced that God is concerned with us humans when we want Him enough. At long last I saw, I felt, I believed. Scales of pride and prejudice fell from my eyes. A new world came into view” (page 12, emphasis added).

I could easily write pages about the volumes being shared in the above, but here is the bottom line:

After Bill (the author of the above) had just seen the clear evidence of Yah’s very own hand, and when its witness (Ebby, a life-long friend of Bill’s) did not shove any sectarian “God” at him, Bill was later able to share, “Thus [– having heard the witness and no mention of any sectarian ‘God’] – [Thus] was I convinced that God is concerned with us humans when we want Him enough.”

And of course, Abba-Father is actually concerned with us whether or not we in any way want Him!

My point?

To represent the absence of any mention of any sectarian “God”, the folks who first published “Alcoholics Anonymous”, the book, included in it this verbiage:

“Abandon yourself to God as you understand God. Admit your faults to Him ...”

... and as can today be seen throughout the world even by those of us who might know nothing at all about any kind of A.A., our adversary has since (or even long ago) turned “God as you understand God” into “a god of your own understanding”. Therefore, today it is more times than not an actual curse to refer someone to “God” without first very clearly, exclusively and precisely identifying exactly who we mean ... and the word “God” simply cannot do that – today it has no good use.

Blessings, I hope ... and of course, any and all comments, criticisms or questions are welcomed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Shalom Chuck,

You see the real problem is that I can't deal with someone who has double standards. No matter how excellent the evidence is to the contrary you have it covered either way. If an idol was called "God" then it should be prohibited, if it was never the name of an idol, it should be prohibited. So either way, you want to see it prohibited without any apparent logical reason. So why should I bother to continue?

---

You are the one that said that there was never at any time any deity named "God". That's yourstandard. I assume that your statement includes the fact that YHWH was never called "God" in scripture, and based on that, i say that for that reason (as well as my own reason stated above), we have no grounds for calling Him "God" now.

This is not a double standard on my part, just two reasons, one based on my standard, and one based on yours.

quote:

---

If you want to know where I think the name of God came from, then just go to the etymological authorities, because I agree with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckbaldwin:
MJ, it wasn't my double standard, it was my standard compared with your standard ...

---

Why do I believe that it is acceptable to call YHWH "Elohim", but I do not believe that it is acceptable to call him "God"? First of all, if we believe that the Tanakh (the old testament) is the Word of YHWH, then it should be noted that YHWH, in His Word, called himself Elohim:

Exodus 20:2 - I am YHWH thy Elohim, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Psalms 81:10 - I am YHWH thy Elohim, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.

There are many more examples, but that should suffice.

The english translators chose to replace the title "Elohim", which in Hebrew, is the plural form of "most high", with the word "God". That was a big mistake. Why? Well, if for no other reason, the word "god" is ambiguous, and is a word that has a very probable connection with idolatry. It seems that they could have used something less vague like, "almighty", "most high" etc, if they didn't want to use the Hebrew "elohim".

In summary, the reason that I believe that it is acceptable to call YHWH "Elohim" but not to call him "god", is because YHWH called himself "Elohim", but he never called himself "god". I believe that YHWH is offended when he is called "God".

Sincerely,
YermeYah

You pretty much said it. I am hoping to relieve some of the interference and stumbling created by the sacred name movement and inevitable feelings of guilt and judgment. I am not saying don't consider your choice of words carefully, I believe that when translating potentially (theologically) loaded words, to give them second thoughts. But deliberately and artificially loading an inert word like a mine to go off when someone steps on it, is not helping someone in their walk.

Now I know the SNM is not supposed to condemn nor judge anyone for referring to elohim as gods but then again there is this repeated innuendo that someone who speaks "god" is some kind of potential Satanist. We all know Satanism is condemned and judged already, so after reading between the lines I don't think I can interpret it any other way than a besmirching. You see, what is happening is that one by one the pillars of the SNM have been removed, collapsed, or abandoned to decay. There are only a few pillars left. The condemnation of "god" is one of them. If the anti-god pillar is removed then the movement will have weaker support. This worries some people whose purpose in life is motivated by the SNM. In their eyes this isn't just a challenge to an obscure doctrine, it is a challenge to the very legitimacy of their purpose in life.

leejosepho, I appreciate your experience in AA and how it has affected your perspective. However, I honestly think we have two separate issues here. The one I am trying to keep on track in this thread is the translation of elohim. I think what you are getting at is identifying that elohim. These are really two separate things. So how would you translate elohim? Do you think "god" is an inappropriate translation of elohim? The fact that they are both equally ambiguous is a major plus in my view.

Chuck – Of course YHWH isn’t called God in the Hebrew text, God is an English word! The word God isn’t to be found anywhere in the Hebrew text. On the other hand, there is no English word gd. You can look in all the dictionaries you want, you will never find it. Now if you can share with us about this Teutonic deity named “God”, that would be something since none have ever heard of him before or can prove his existence.

Shalom Larry, I didn't think your sabbatical would last very long, lol.

The etymologists offer absolutely ZERO support for the sacred name movement god. I welcome anyone to locate every single etymologist they can find, and then place them into one of three categories.

1. Those who say God stems from Gad
2. Those who are incompetent and confused offering nothing
3. Those who offer a common posterior etymology for God from ancient times

What you will invariably find is that there will be none in the first category, a few in the second, and the vast majority in the third. When I say I agree with the professional etymologists, I am saying that I agree with the vast majority of them, the competent ones. On the other hand, the Gad=Godites have none to agree with them. Sure you can select a couple of incompetent sources and list them as if there was a general consensus, some of them from a time before etymology was a developed science.

Now realise that if the etymologists are so clouded about the origin of “God” how is it that the SNM benefits from their confusion? The truth is that there is no real cloud of confusion, just another smokescreen the SNM throws up to stop people from seeing the truth. Among the competent etymologists there is an astonishing degree of agreement contrary to what you have portrayed. From the Oxford English Dictionary you took 5 words out of the context of an est.11,000 word definition for “god”. Among those other 10,995 words they gave a brilliantly clear etymology that is consistent with virtually all other etymologists. And I totally agree with the Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand anyone who opens and reads it will realise the misleading effect your quote has.

Just to be clear, there isn’t a clear “ulterior etymology” for most words, however there is a clear posterior etymology for “god”. You have presented your own ulterior theory which has no connection to the known posterior etymology of “god”. I also have a theory about the ulterior etymology of “god” and I am not even going to present it here – but unlike yours, it does not defy every known linguist and dismiss all their research. The passage you took your O.E.D. quote from follows by saying “god” could not have come from a foreign language in it’s current form – exactly contrary to what you have been saying all along!

Waving the SNM magic wand over heterophonic heterographs and turning them into homophonic homographs throughout your writings is only to the awe of the less discerning. Rather than magic, I should call it prestidigitation which only requires slight-of-hand vowel swapping and an active imagination to fool the oblivious masses. And like a true magician you don’t explain your tricks. But after seeing the same performance of pulling rabbits out of hats so many times some are seeing through the smoke and mirrors. Magicians get upset when their tricks are exposed, so your emotional response and deleting of posts is understandable. I guess it was all too embarrassing for you to really explain why you are pulling this disappearing act. (Sorry I couldn’t resist either lol)

You wanted to know why I did not take the first opportunity to share with you information concerning Theos that I knew you were searching for. I do not want to share that information with you because I don't want to see it abused as part of an act in your sacred name roadshow. While the information is perfectly credible and shows that at one time Theos was certainly worshiped as a heathen god this is not the whole story. And to have the WHOLE TRUTH, you have to give the WHOLE STORY. By your testimony I don't believe you want to hear the whole story at this point, since your mind is quite made up by the influence of your imagination over academia. To me you have shown that when the experts don't confirm your conclusion you ignore and rewrite what they say until they are forced to conform. I don’t like telling people what to think, I just like giving them things to think about. I trust the readers to be able to come to their own conclusions about what our sources are really saying without reinterpreting it for them. And I am pretty sure they know why I don’t bother responding to most of the erratic junk. Yes Larry I am a Jew, and if you choose to leave this forum forever because of that, then for the life of those here I doubt we’ll ever understand your logic behind that decision.

How is "elohim" any less ambiguous than "god"?
How is "elohim" any less connected to idolatry than "god"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Shalom Yermeyah,

How is "elohim" any less ambiguous than "god"?
How is "elohim" any less connected to idolatry than "god"?

Thanks.

---

Mountain Jew,

I will answer your question by quoting from my last post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by YermeYah:
In summary, the reason that I believe that it is acceptable to call YHWH "Elohim" but not to call him "god", is because YHWH called himself "Elohim", but he never called himself "god".

---

It seems that if the Tanach (old testament) is accurate (and I believe it is), then YHWH did call himself "Elohim" before the heathen religions ever used any form of the word "el". On the other hand, since YHWH never called himself "God", then it seems apparent that "god" was used in idolatry before the translators applied that word to the Heavenly Father. While the translators were doing this (replacing Elohim with God), they were also replacing the name "YHWH" with "The Lord" (another abomination).

Sincerely,
YermeYah

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Chuck – Of course YHWH isn’t called God in the Hebrew text, God is an English word!

---

quote:

---

The word God isn’t to be found anywhere in the Hebrew text.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, there is no English word gd.

---

quote:

---

Now if you can share with us about this Teutonic deity named “God”, that would be something since none have ever heard of him before or can prove his existence.

---

quote:

---

The etymologists offer absolutely ZERO support for the sacred name movement god.

---

quote:

---

I also have a theory about the ulterior etymology of “god” and I am not even going to present it here –

---

quote:

---

... I am a Jew ...

---

Here's one additional thought. Even if "G_d" weren't the name of a pagan deity (which violates Ex.23:13, etc), it still would be wrong to use it as a substitute for the Name of YHWH (which violates the 3rd Commandment). In this usage, English grammar requires that it should always have an article preceding it (i.e. "the God" or "a God"), or an pronoun/adjective ("my God"). The New World Translation uses the rendering "The [true] God", fairly often, but not consistently. Herbert Armstrong taught that the Almighty's Name was "God", and unfortunately, most of his converts are still holding on to that false notion.

At any rate, as indicated by the hilited "even if" above, i am thoroughly satisfied that the Hebrew name "G_d" (as in Isa.65:11) is the etymological ancestor of the Anglo-Saxon words "God", "Gud", and "Gott".

Thank you very much for your encouragement.

You addressed a common misperception that some folks have of June and me: People think we believe we should eliminate every word shown to have a heathen origin from our vocabulary. We believe no such thing. Here is what you wrote:

quote:

---

If we took every word out of our vocabulary that had some connection or a possible etymological connection to a pagan deity, I think we would all have to cease speaking English or using words to communicate. Furthermore, we could spend our whole lives studying only the possible etymologies and word origins, but if that is all we did in our lives, where would we be? If we only concentrate on paganism and its roots, then we lose sight on concentrating on meditating on YHWH and focusing on the "holy" and set-apart life we are supposed to be living. We are to prove all things. If we can't prove it, then we shouldn't adamantly teach it as if the issue is totally cut and dry. However, I totally agree with you that we need to honor Yahweh and Yah’shua to the best of our ability. However, we don’t want to become like the Pharisees, who would exchange love, justice, mercy and truth for the traditions of men and place unbalanced emphasis on the minute details of the law, over the intent and greater objective of the torah to teach us how to love and forgive one another. I believe that balance is the key.

---

I reply: I agree that balance is key, and I also agree that we should be careful to not exchange love, justice, mercy and truth for the traditions of men and place unbalanced emphasis on the minute details of the law, over the intent and greater objective of the torah to teach us how to love and forgive one another. Very nicely spoken!

Regarding your comments about rooting every "pagan word" from our vocabulary, June and I understand and agree that a substantial amount of words common to the English language are indeed rooted in heathen worship, including the names of heathen idols. Rather than cease from communicating in English, we simply “draw the line” at the epithets used in reference to our Heavenly Father and His Son. We devoted some space towards explaining this aspect in the unabridged version of the study we wrote in 2001. I am copying and pasting (see below) that portion of our study (with only a few minor changes) for you to read in hopes that you will better understand our position on this matter.

If We Reject the Heathen “God,” Must We Reject Every “Unclean” Word?

One frequently misunderstood concept that people have expressed with regard to the position held by June and me is the notion that if we are to remove God from our vocabulary, then we must similarly remove all words of heathen origin from our lips. Perhaps this apparent misunderstanding was best expressed by [name deleted] in a group “e-mail debate” we had over the subject of the appropriateness of referring to Yahweh as “our God.” The aforementioned individual co-authored the article that eventually led to a critique issued by June and me in October 2000, which in turn led to our three-part study published in Frank Brown’s Search the Scriptures newsletter from January - May 2001. In the course of our “debate,” I wrote the following:

“My premise is that a non-Hebrew word or even an original Hebrew word that can be traced as having originally been the name of an idol cannot be honorably applied to our Heavenly Father. ‘God’ is such a word.”

Our opponent verbalized his perception that the elimination of God from one’s vocabulary, at least in reference to Yahweh (based upon its heathen origin), must also be accompanied by a plethora of other English words. Here is his response to the above quote, as expressed in his editorial of March 18, 2001:

“One of the best available methods of testing claims is to extend them to their most logical and obvious ramifications. The nature of truth is such that truth will have to lead into more truth. Therefore, by Larry’s own statement, all one has to do is to demonstrate to him that a given word (whether Hebrew or English) can be traced to the name of a false deity and Larry will have to avoid ever applying that word unto Yahweh. From the book written by C.J. Koster [The Final Reformation, renamed Come Out of Her, My People], we can compile the following English words which Koster documents and traces to the name of pagan deities: ‘Bible, Church, Holy, Hallowed, Sacred, Sanctified, Glory, Divine, Deity, Here, and Sacrifice.’ Furthermore, from the ‘Institute For Scripture Research,’ we can add the following words to our list: Abundance, Calendar, Earth, Faith, Grace, Honor, Hymn, King, Man, Music, Renown, Secure, Victory, and Wind.’ By no means is this the end of the list!”

The most glaring misunderstanding of our position as expressed by the individual quoted above lies in the obvious fact that none of the words listed above, with the exception of the word “King,” are normally employed as titles for Yahweh, and we certainly do not refer to Him as “our Deity.” Although we have found no evidence that there was ever an idol named Deity, we nevertheless are aware of the pagan connections, which are sufficient for us to avoid employing this term in reference to Yahweh. As for the word King, we have yet to encounter a shred of evidence that this English word stems from the name of any idol. We challenged the authors of “The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles” to provide evidence of the same [they still haven’t done so], and I reiterated that challenge in my response to the above commentary.

As for words such as Bible, Here, Sacred, etc., even if they can be proven to have originally been the names of heathen idols, then that is fine by us, for we do not use those terms as titles of Yahweh! We do not ever expect to be referring to Yahweh as “our Bible” or “our Church,” or as “our Here.”

The gist of this misunderstanding stems from the perception that “refraining from referring to Yahweh as ‘our God’” also implies that we believe that we must forcibly remove any and all words of heathen origin from our lips. The position held by June and me revolves around the use of titles that can be proven as having originated from the names of heathen idols and subsequently applied as titles to Yahweh. Our stance does not include a suggestion that we all need to remove any and all pagan words from our vocabulary, such as any of the words listed above. This is all about where we “draw the line.” June and I “draw the line” when it comes to “unclean” words applied as titles for Yahweh. Others “draw the line” with regard to words that are considered “culturally unacceptable” when applied as titles for Yahweh.

Words such as morbid, mortuary, mortal, and mortgage are English terms that trace to a heathen idol named Mors, known as “the god of death.” The word vitamin hails from the Egyptian idol named Amon as well as the word vita, which means “life.” Amon, then, was regarded as the giver of life. The word happy comes from the idol named Hap. Other words derived from the names of heathen idols include enthusiasm, ammonia, martial, mute, money, ignite, panic, comment, gossip, insomnia, morphine and orphan. The list is extensive, and as the individual quoted above wrote, “By no means is this the end of the list!” Do we now wipe these words from our vocabulary because of their origins? Well, as for June and me, we’re not even going to try, for we know the impossible task this would create for us! The common example we often hear involving people who earnestly strive to rid their vocabulary of such words involves the term the Holy Spirit. In their well-intentioned drive to remove the word “holy” from their vocabulary due to its questionable history, many resort to referring to it as the “Set-Apart Spirit,” as the word “holy” has been defined as “set apart.” As it turns out, however, the word “Set” matches the pronunciation of the Egyptian idol named Set, known as “the god of storm and turmoil.” This is a classic case of “You can’t win for losing!”

Since it is virtually impossible for us to remove all “unclean” English words from our vocabulary while simultaneously maintaining a communication link with our fellow man, June and I abide by a simple principle, which we suggest that our readers consider as well: If we can’t remove the glut of “unclean” English words from our vocabulary, at the very least we can be mindful of the titles we use in reference to our Heavenly Father. Is this too much to ask? Are we placing too much of a burden on others by simply suggesting that they would honor Yahweh by seeing to it they refer to Him with titles that command the highest respect, honor and adoration? Thus, instead of referring to Yahweh as “our Nisroch,” “our Zeus,” and yes, even as “our God,” we become more selective with regard to the titles we choose to employ in reference to Him. With this in mind, June and I suggest that everyone work diligently towards coming up with suitable alternatives to words emanating from heathen worship that are also used in reference to our Heavenly Father. Remember: Nothing is too good for Yahweh!

Follower, Sar Shalom, I hope this helps to explain my position. May YHWH bless.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

P.S. -- Regarding your commentary about the word "good" ... According to Dictionary of Word Origins by Joseph E. Shipley, Philosophical Library, New York, 1945, p. 168, "God and good are old but unrelated Teut. words."

This same book traces "God" as follows: "God, Goth. guth, may be traced to Aryan ghut, god, from ghuto, to implore."

So as I see it, God is pronounced virtually identically to the Hebrew God, but we're not supposed to think there is any possibility of a connection. God isn't pronounced very close to ghut, yet we're supposed to believe the etymologists' uncertainty (i.e., "may be traced") about such a proposed connection. Again, as Chuck Baldwin has already stated, so I concur: I don't really see the need to prove the obvious, but until I do see it disproved, or a better theory offered, I'll stick with the information I have found, both from Scripture and from history. Perhaps some qualified etymologist is willing to discuss this matter with an “overzealous Sacred Namer.” I would welcome such a discussion.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
leejosepho, I appreciate your experience in AA and how it has affected your perspective. However, I honestly think we have two separate issues here. The one I am trying to keep on track in this thread is the translation of elohim. I think what you are getting at is identifying that elohim. These are really two separate things.

---

Yes, Mountain Jew, that is so, and while I do respect that matter of proper translation, I believe the matter of pointing others toward the correct entity is the more crucial one. Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate these exchanges between us, and I now willingly step aside for the sake this thread being kept on track.

quote:

---

So how would you translate elohim? Do you think "god" is an inappropriate translation of elohim? The fact that they are both equally ambiguous is a major plus in my view.

---

Honestly, I have no ability to translate any word. But for my own reasons you have recognized, I would certainly agree with your observation of ambiguity!

Shabbat Shalom, my fellow.

quote:

---

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

---

I believe all of us have become involved in situations or discussions that, in retrospect, we wish we had stayed away from. Then, once we try backing out of those situations, we find ourselves accused of "chickening out," "admitting defeat" or any number of things ... to the point that things become even worse than they were before. In this case, I was accused of discovering a "flaw in my exegesis," which I guess could be construed as being the same as "admitting defeat." Since the unkind remarks have persisted, and since I definitely do not like leaving others with the wrong impression, I have decided to re-post all of my previously deleted posts in this thread so all will know that I really haven't ever had anything to hide. I would like to apologize to anyone who, as a result of my decision, actually felt that I had discovered any flaws in my exegesis or my premise. I am only here to defend the honor of YHWH.

A few years ago I experienced much the same in the way of "debating" this issue. For me, this is essentially the same discussion, only different people. The reason June and I wrote our original study was to allow others to see our reasons for believing as we do, in hopes that we wouldn't go through the same heated discussion over and over again. We reason that anyone genuinely interested in understanding our reasoning will want to read what we wrote. Those who are not interested will not want to read it ... and that is fine with us. We do not mean to pressure anyone into believing as we do.

Thus, I find myself wondering why I became involved in this discussion in the first place. I currently believe it was a mistake, but only YHWH knows for sure. I really wish I had steered away from it, for it has essentially turned into a verbal slinging match, and I have yet to see one of those end on a peaceful note. Maybe this will be an exception, though. Since I cannot go back in time and decide not to involve myself in this discussion, and since the alternative is to endure false accusations and misrepresentations of my motives, I have somewhat reluctantly decided to rejoin.

I should add that I did have other extenuating circumstances of a personal nature that prompted my decision to try and leave the discussion. It is an ongoing situation, so even my decision to rejoin the discussion today doesn't mean that I will stay for long. Right now, I would like to see a peaceful resolution to this conflict ... one that will have everyone standing up for the honor of YHWH and His Son.

I have decided to respond to some of the comments you made in the posting you submitted yesterday. I am still holding out hope that, maybe by my clearing up some things, we can still make some progress in understanding each other's positions. It is in that hope that I am remaining in the discussion.

On condemning others ...

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now I know the SNM is not supposed to condemn nor judge anyone for referring to elohim as gods but then again there is this repeated innuendo that someone who speaks "god" is some kind of potential Satanist. We all know Satanism is condemned and judged already, so after reading between the lines I don't think I can interpret it any other way than a besmirching.

---

I reply: Mountain Jew, please understand that you are the one who made the rule that "Torah endorses the application of 'heathen' epithets to YHWH." All I did was point out that, in applying your rule, you must believe that it honors YHWH to be referred to as "our Satan." I have repeatedly asked you to respond to my understanding of your rule, just in case I am misapplying it or misunderstanding it, but each time you ignore my request. To the best of my knowledge, no one agrees with your rule. Perhaps you can demonstrate that I am mistaken in this presumption.

I trust we can all agree that "Satan" really is a "heathen epithet," so if Torah endorses applying such terms to the Almighty, then you must, by extension, believe that someone's decision to refer to YHWH as "our Satan" has the blessing of Torah. Indeed, I would agree that anyone sanctioning the use of such a title in reference to YHWH may well be classified as a satanist, so please, by all means, clarify your stand.

Regarding your repeated "counter-claim" that Sacred Namers condemn those who refer to YHWH as "our God," I guess all I really need to do is simply repost the response I gave to that remark back on December 20, 2004 (12:55 PM) in the thread entitled "The Definition of a 'Sacred Namer.'" I maintain that I do not condemn anyone. I will leave your "fate" in the hands of Yeshua. In fact, I wonder why you keep bringing this matter up. No one else does, just you. If I say I condemn no one, that is what I mean, so I don't see the need to come back and say, "Oh yes, you do condemn me." Hopefully, you will cease from returning to this aspect of the discussion. It really adds nothing to it but a feeling of bitterness and frustration ... part of the reason I really do not want to remain in the discussion. Anyway, here is the response I gave to your above comment back on 12/20/2004:

Even though the following came from one of your previous postings in this thread (12/15/2004), I hope you don't mind my responding to it now:

quote:

---

Now some in the sacred name movement say they are not condemning anyone. Well I certainly disagree, and here is why. There is an almost universal belief that some or any use of the term "God" (and lord) is breaking either one or two commandments. The commandment to not take YHWH's Name in vain, and to not honour the name of any idol (often reinterpreted to mean not to pronounce the name of any idol). "Blaspheming" and "idolatry" are not minor charges. Millions of people are being blindsided by this accusation, and others, which are groundless. For the Sacred Namer to say it is YHWH that judges and not themselves is just passing the buck. Now when the astute person learns for themselves the groundless nature of the charges, are they going to give much consideration to whatever else in the sacred name shopping cart? Might be muddying the waters. This is why we are saying that once a sacred namer learns a certain amount of Hebrew and Aramaic they basically drop right out of the sacred name movement and go onto wherever. (If only they would take time to understand their holy Strong's Concordance they would see that it dismantles the whole sacred name premise and false etymology.)

---

I reply: Well, I certainly disagree with your disagreement. I will now reiterate that I do not condemn anyone for not calling upon the name YHWH. Maybe some do, although I am not personally acquainted with any such folks. In fact, if anyone reading this actually believes that not calling upon YHWH means the offender will be cast into the Lake of Fire, I would appreciate hearing from you (seekutruth@aol.com). I personally believe we are all sinners here in need of YHWH's mercy. It is only in response to the grace He has so lovingly extended to me that I commit my life to Him, striving to live by His every Word, just as Yeshua did. I do not claim perfection (and some in this forum are very quick to point out that I'm not), so I definitely need His mercy. I believe all of us need it. Who, then, am I to tell someone that, unless they see things as I do, they will not make it into the Kingdom? I would never tell anyone such a thing and I never have. For someone to then presume to impute my motives as including condemnation is simply unfair and untrue.

Regarding your rationalization about "blaspheming" and "idolatry" as it relates to breaking the third commandment, you should know that I don't even condemn those who break any of the ten commandments. Murder, to me, is a heinous crime, but it is not up to me to decide whether or not those guilty of this act are sentenced to the Lake of Fire. Since it is not up to me to make such judgments, I can only approach these matters from the perspective of honor. I believe each of us should seek to honor YHWH in every aspect of our lives. I believe one way to honor the Father is by respectfully calling upon Him by His name. When we use substitutes, I believe we bring dishonor. That's the way I see it. Many folks disagree with my premise. Do I thus condemn them? No, I do not.

Rather, as Yeshua said in Luke 17:10, "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.'"

So, Mountain Jew, please understand that even if, by the rule you have made, it follows that you endorse one's decision to refer to YHWH as his or her "Satan" [and I'm not saying that you must therefore be classified as a "satanist"], yet I do not condemn you. I trust that you are more concerned with Yeshua's judgment than you are with mine. I believe YHWH is merciful to all, and He knows your heart far better than I do. Nevertheless, I believe that a conscious decision to refer to the Almighty with an "epithet" that originated in heathen worship results in the dishonor of our Heavenly Father. I believe we should seek to honor Him in any way possible, not even gambling on the slightest possibility that we are dishonoring Him.

The "decaying pillars" of the Sacred Name Movement (?)

You wrote:

quote:

---

You see, what is happening is that one by one the pillars of the SNM have been removed, collapsed, or abandoned to decay. There are only a few pillars left.

---

I reply: ... And is that your purpose for being in this forum? To remove the "pillars of the SNM"? Once again, you speak in generalizations. What, exactly, are the "pillars of the SNM"??? And are you going by your "definition" of SNM or whose??? For me personally, the SNM consists of individuals who understand that the name many of us were taught as being the Creator's name [God] is not His name at all. In response to this understanding, we make a conscious decision to only refer to the Creator by the name He gave to Himself. Many folks out there prefer to call Him whatever name or title they choose. A Sacred Name believer simply decides that there is no better name than the one He gave to Himself. As a result, we call upon that name, not because it makes us any better than anyone else, but simply out of our desire to please and honor the Father. That, Mountain Jew, is the only SNM "pillar" that I know of. Please, if there are others, enlighten me ... and show me how they are collapsing and being "abandoned to decay."

You continue:

quote:

---

The condemnation of "god" is one of them [the remaining "pillars"]. If the anti-god pillar is removed then the movement will have weaker support. This worries some people whose purpose in life is motivated by the SNM. In their eyes this isn't just a challenge to an obscure doctrine, it is a challenge to the very legitimacy of their purpose in life.

---

I reply: First of all, I don't have to worry about the "condemnation of God" being a pillar that will ever topple. Since YHWH Himself condemns those who worship God (Isaiah 65:11-16), I believe this means, by extension, that He also condemns God. Since YHWH does not change (Malachi 3:6), I do not look for Him to renege on that condemnation.

Regarding your commentary about the SNM's "purpose in life": It really seems that your purpose is to topple the SNM. Or am I misunderstanding your mission? You seem to believe that my purpose in life centers around the Sacred Name Movement. I doubt if I will succeed in persuading you otherwise, but I would like to offer a quote that June and I have on the inside cover of one of our booklets:

quote:

---

"The purpose of life is the quest for truth." -- Daniel L. Thrapp: The Choice of Truth

---

Would you like to join me?

You wrote:

quote:

---

Shalom Larry, I didn't think your sabbatical would last very long, lol.

---

I reply: Mountain Jew, when you are right about something, I will be sure to try and let you know. And you are correct, my "sabbatical" did not last very long, did it? However, please understand that, based upon how things are progressing, I am really not very interested in remaining a part of this discussion. Maybe that will change?

Criteria for classifying "competent etymologists" ...

You wrote:

quote:

---

The etymologists offer absolutely ZERO support for the sacred name movement god. I welcome anyone to locate every single etymologist they can find, and then place them into one of three categories.

1. Those who say God stems from Gad
2. Those who are incompetent and confused offering nothing
3. Those who offer a common posterior etymology for God from ancient times

---

I reply: Actually, I believe Chuck Baldwin gave a very intelligent response to the above commentary. He asked, "How many of them include the Scriptures as a source of information, along with the knowledge of the migration of the Israelites from the Caucasus Mountains to the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations? I suspect very few, if any." Indeed, I do not recall a single etymologist even so much as mentioning this factor, much less taking it into consideration.

You wrote:

quote:

---

What you will invariably find is that there will be none in the first category, a few in the second, and the vast majority in the third. When I say I agree with the professional etymologists, I am saying that I agree with the vast majority of them, the competent ones. On the other hand, the Gad=Godites have none to agree with them. Sure you can select a couple of incompetent sources and list them as if there was a general consensus, some of them from a time before etymology was a developed science.

---

I reply: I cannot help but notice that whenever you disagree with a scholar, he is immediately labeled "incompetent." Yet, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you yourself are quite unwilling to have your own credentials examined under the same microscope that you use to judge others. This is completely unfair of you.

For example, the etymologist who wrote that the history of "God" is a "tangle of guesses," plus that it may be related to an ancient Lithuanian word that referred to someone who practiced magic, is a "Doctor of Letters." Dr. Wilfred Funk is described as a "noted lexicographer" who authored such books as Word Origins and Their Romantic Stories (the one from which I quoted the other day), Six Weeks to Words of Power, 30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary, and Word Origins: An Exploration and History of Words and Language. Regarding this last book, our readers may be interested in the review that Random House gives for his book. They write:

quote:

---

From a highly respected name in reference literature, an easy-to-access, dependable sourcebook on the origin and development of thousands of words, each word has been thoroughly checked by ranking linguists and the information is presented in a manner as entertaining as fiction, An Outlet bestseller in previous editions. 432 pages.

---

By the way, this information can be read at the following link: http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0517265745

Mountain Jew, you have effectively labeled Dr. Wilfred Funk as "incompetent." I dare say that if he had confidently declared that the word "God" cannot be traced beyond a "Teutonic" origin, you would have lauded him instead of labeling him as incompetent. In the same style that you attempted to discredit J.G.R. Forlong, so you will do to anyone who doesn't agree with your own convictions.

Again, let's see your credentials, as you obviously believe your self-evaluation carries such great merit ... to the extent that you have granted yourself license to exalt or discredit whomsoever thou wilt at thy whim. Let's see what gives you the right to do such a thing by showing us your own credentials. It's one thing to label a man "incompetent." It is entirely another to prove it. Since you offer the reader nothing but your own words, as though you are the "final authority," I cannot help but think that you possess a very lofty self-estimation. Yet you aren't willing to unveil the evidence of the literary expertise that allows you to exalt or malign whomever you choose.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Now realise that if the etymologists are so clouded about the origin of “God” how is it that the SNM benefits from their confusion? The truth is that there is no real cloud of confusion, just another smokescreen the SNM throws up to stop people from seeing the truth. Among the competent etymologists there is an astonishing degree of agreement contrary to what you have portrayed.

---

I reply: Since the "competent etymologists" agree with you that there is "no real cloud of confusion," and since the likes of Dr. Wilfred Funk have established that, indeed, there really is (at the very least) "a tangle of guesses," I believe the above remark constitutes an affirmation that you would label Dr. Funk as "incompetent." However, since you cloud your own comments with so many generalizations, it is difficult to know for certain whether or not you would single out Dr. Funk as "incompetent." In fact, you didn't specifically list any etymologists as "incompetent," so we are left to conclude that those who don't agree with you must receive that designation.

I believe Dr. Wilfred Funk is a competent etymologist, although, as I'm sure Chuck Baldwin would agree, he didn't choose to approach the word "God" from the perspective of the migration of the Israelites from the Caucasus Mountains to the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations. This truly is a very important matter for consideration that all etymologists seem to leave out of their commentaries. Certainly, if we must summarily dismiss the possibility that the Israelites brought "God worship" with them as they migrated throughout Europe, I would like to know on what grounds.

On what grounds would you dismiss the Keltic Baal-tin-glas as having descended from Israelitish Baal worship?

The "Certainty" of the etymologist who contributed to The Oxford English Dictionary

You wrote:

quote:

---

From the Oxford English Dictionary you took 5 words out of the context of an est.11,000 word definition for “god”. Among those other 10,995 words they gave a brilliantly clear etymology that is consistent with virtually all other etymologists. And I totally agree with the Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand anyone who opens and reads it will realise the misleading effect your quote has.

---

I reply: Okay, so you agree with the other 10,995 words so "brilliantly" presented in The Oxford English Dictionary? Here are a few more words that you must agree with, then:

"Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible ...."

I realize you will likely think I'm taking the above words "out of context," just like you thought I took "The ulterior etymology is disputed" out of context, so I will go ahead and quote the entire section (as found on page 639 of the second edition, 1989) in its entirety for you. The only thing missing will be the phonetic symbols that I do not know how to duplicate in html format:

god (god). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goo, guo neut. and masc., pl. goo, guo neut. (later Icel. pl. guoir masc.; Sw., Da. gud, Goth. gup (masc. in sing.; pl. gupa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *gudo^m neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. óss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.

   The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gudo^m implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *gheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. hu), the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr. hu, Gr. ceein, OE. zeótan YETE v.). Hence *ghutó-m has been variously interpreted as 'what is invoked' (cf. Skr. puru-huta 'much-invoked', an epithet of Indra) and as 'what is worshipped by sacrifice' (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense 'sacrificed to' as well as in that of 'offered in sacrifice'). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, 'an object of worship'. Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *gheu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be 'molten image' (= Gr. cuton), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.

   From a desire to utter the name of God more deliberately than the short vowel naturally allows, the pronunciation is often (go:d) [Larry's note: I am unable to duplicate the precise symbols displayed for these pronunciations] or even (go:d), and an affected form (GLD) is not uncommon: see GUD. (For the variations in oaths see IO and I I.) In Sc. the usual pron. is (god), but Gude (gød), i.e. GOOD a, is frequently substituted in such expressions as Gudesake, Gude keep's, etc.]

The remaining information offered in this dictionary is not really related to the etymology of the word "God," but more of its definition, such as "A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see GODDESS) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity. (Chiefly of heathen divinities; when applied to the One Supreme Being, this sense becomes more or less modified: see 6b." I doubt if you are really interested in discussing this portion of The Oxford English Dictionary's remaining 10,995 words, but then again, maybe you are.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Just to be clear, there isn’t a clear “ulterior etymology” for most words, however there is a clear posterior etymology for “god”. You have presented your own ulterior theory which has no connection to the known posterior etymology of “god”. I also have a theory about the ulterior etymology of “god” and I am not even going to present it here – but unlike yours, it does not defy every known linguist and dismiss all their research. The passage you took your O.E.D. quote from follows by saying “god” could not have come from a foreign language in it’s current form – exactly contrary to what you have been saying all along!

---

I reply: Correction, Mountain Jew! You would obviously like very much for this reference to say, "God could not have come from a foreign language in its current form," but that is not what The Oxford English Dictionary says, is it? This is yet one more example of how you misrepresent people and reference works. It only takes a slight twisting of words to completely misrepresent someone's intent. As the reader can plainly see from above, the actual wording as found in this reference is as follows: "Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gudo^m implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m."

Please observe that the contributing etymologist recognizes the possibility of a pre-Teutonic type for "God." Do you agree with this, Mountain Jew? If there really is a "pre-Teutonic type," where do you think it came from? Might it be another language/culture?

I don't know any "tricks" ... I'm only searching for truth

You wrote:

quote:

---

Waving the SNM magic wand over heterophonic heterographs and turning them into homophonic homographs throughout your writings is only to the awe of the less discerning. Rather than magic, I should call it prestidigitation which only requires slight-of-hand vowel swapping and an active imagination to fool the oblivious masses. And like a true magician you don’t explain your tricks. But after seeing the same performance of pulling rabbits out of hats so many times some are seeing through the smoke and mirrors. Magicians get upset when their tricks are exposed, so your emotional response and deleting of posts is understandable. I guess it was all too embarrassing for you to really explain why you are pulling this disappearing act. (Sorry I couldn’t resist either lol)

---

I reply: I believe once the discerning reader is finished sifting through your heterphonic/homophonic fluff, he or she will understand that my premise is still standing firm: We do not honor YHWH by referring to Him with a name or title that can be traced to a heathen origin. I will go a step further: We do not honor YHWH by referring to Him with a name or title whose pronunciation matches the name of an idol whose worship He condemns. So even if we should eventually find out that "God" cannot be traced to a Hebraic root, the sheer fact that it is pronounced identically to the name of an idol condemned by YHWH is sufficient grounds for me to not want to use it.

I even have in my files the testimony from those who agree with your position, and they come right out and declare that they would have no problem referring to YHWH as their "Zeus" or "Apollo." Will you be as bold as those folks and issue the same statement? Your rule most definitely indicates that you share their position, but I am curious if you will ever come right out and admit the ramifications of your rule.

If you can ever successfully impart an example of anyone in Scripture ever referring to YHWH with a title that was originally the name of a heathen idol, then I might be inclined to recognize the validity of your rule. Until such time, I believe your only option is to teach that "elohim" was originally the name of a heathen idol before being used in reference to YHWH. Perhaps, too, heathen worship preceded the worship of YHWH? These are things that you seem to expect us to believe.

As for my "disappearing act," i.e., my having deleted my postings, I do not understand why this became an issue with you ... especially since you had saved it all on your hard drive anyway. On top of that, I had expressed that anyone who wants to examine my previous postings could e-mail me their request. However, as I have already announced in my previous posting, I have now restored that which I had removed. I can't help but wonder if YHWH led me to remove the postings in order to show me who my friends are!

On Withholding Alleged "Truth" ...

You wrote:

quote:

---

You wanted to know why I did not take the first opportunity to share with you information concerning Theos that I knew you were searching for. I do not want to share that information with you because I don't want to see it abused as part of an act in your sacred name roadshow. While the information is perfectly credible and shows that at one time Theos was certainly worshiped as a heathen god this is not the whole story. And to have the WHOLE TRUTH, you have to give the WHOLE STORY. By your testimony I don't believe you want to hear the whole story at this point, since your mind is quite made up by the influence of your imagination over academia.

---

I reply: Your not wishing to share the info about "Theos" reminds me of a discussion I had in the "True Sabbath" forum with an individual who would not share her "historical evidence" proving that ancient Jews observed lunar sabbaths. It turns out she never really had any evidence in the first place. Certainly, if I had reliable information that could establish my case, I wouldn't hesitate to share it with others. That, as I see things, is the love of Messiah and the spirit of cooperation working within us.

Do I want to hear the "WHOLE STORY"? Yes, I do. Why you would think otherwise is beyond me. What have I written that would make you think I don't want to hear "the WHOLE STORY"?? While you're at it, please explain what information I have given that proves that I am acting on the "influence of my imagination over academia."

You wrote:

quote:

---

To me you have shown that when the experts don't confirm your conclusion you ignore and rewrite what they say until they are forced to conform. I don’t like telling people what to think, I just like giving them things to think about. I trust the readers to be able to come to their own conclusions about what our sources are really saying without reinterpreting it for them. And I am pretty sure they know why I don’t bother responding to most of the erratic junk.

---

I reply: First of all, where do you come up with the charge that I ignore what the experts say, and then rewrite their material so as to "force them to conform"? This is more generalization from you, something I really wish you would stop doing. If you believe I "ignore and rewrite" what the experts say, then please cite examples of this.

And now that you have expressed your perception about me, please allow me to rephrase what you wrote (above) so as to reflect my perception about you: To me you have shown that when the experts (such as J.G.R. Forlong & Dr. Wilfred Funk) don't confirm your conclusion you focus your energy on an attempt to discredit them so as to promote your own agenda. Like you, I don't like telling people what to believe, I just enjoy giving them things to think about that will lead them to a better relationship with YHWH and His Son. Like you, I trust the readers will be able to reach their own conclusions without my having to spell everything out for them. Nevertheless, when I present information, I do not believe I should be expected to withhold my opinion on the matter at hand. Finally, I hope everyone knows that I try to respond to every question they may ask of me. If I do not, I will do my best to explain why not without leaving them guessing, thinking I'm ignoring them or that I don't know the answer to their question.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Yes Larry I am a Jew, and if you choose to leave this forum forever because of that, then for the life of those here I doubt we’ll ever understand your logic behind that decision.

---

I reply: First of all, you didn't really answer my question. Over the course of several years, I have asked a few people if they are Jewish, and some of them have answered that they are, but they later admitted that they were only identifying themselves as Jews in accordance with Romans 2:29, and not because they could actually prove Jewish descent. My actual question, which I posed way back on December 5th, was if you are really "Jewish." On December 8th I rephrased the question so as to make sure you knew that I wanted to know if you are really of Jewish descent. Thus, I still don't really have the answer to my question. Secondly, I asked you that question at least three times (the 5th, 8th & 11th), yet you didn't answer until December 31st. Something "ain't right" about delaying so long in answering such an easy question, but I won't press you any further, for I will admit that it was sort of "off topic" (though related to the problem I still have with you misrepresenting people as you have done).

Since I am left to take your word that you are a "Jew," and since you do not understand the logic of my leaving this forum forever because of that, I will explain that I would only have left if that would have been your preference. Since that does not appear to be the case, I will stick around for a while longer, for the sake of "logic."

You wrote:

quote:

---

Having said all that “unkindness” shalom to you and your family, I hope you bring more freedom to the world than bondage, more peace than war, more knowledge than ignorance, more tolerance than fear, and more love than hate. At least that is my hope for myself anyways.

---

I reply: Thank you for that expression of kindness. May it set the tone for improved dialogue on this and other topics.

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-02-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

1. How do you know that God is derived from the Hebrew Gad?

2. Do you also acknowledge that the English word dog is in the Hebrew text and therefore is derived from the Hebrew dog?

3. If God came from gd in Hebrew, how do you decide what the vowel sound should be?

4. Can you list the dictionaries that list God as a Teutonic deity? I have searched dozens of dictionaries, books, and websites that specialize in Teutonic religion and deities, and not a single one of them ever mentioned God. I think it is safe to say that this elusive Teutonic deity is merely an urban legend of the Sacred Name Movement.

5. Etymologists usually work backwards through time and migration to trace the origin of words. I agree with the idea that Gad did migrate into other areas and retained at least one of it’s inflections regarding “fortune and fate”. So to say the they failed to acknowledge Semitic roots is incorrect. I do not believe that Gad provides the source for god because there is no demonstrable support for it.

I am not ready to present my ulterior etymology for God until it has been reviewed by at least two professional linguists. This is something the SNM has not yet done. I also think the road has to be cleared of all this debris and make the playing field level before I do that in a forum like this.

First I would like to thank Larry and Lee for their replies and encouragement for the posting I gave on the 26th. I know it has taken a while to thank you for your replies but I am limited to using my brothers computer to surf the internet, and I am in the process of building my own, in which soon I hope to be able to use this site more often. Especially the Sabbath meetings, I have really enjoyed the last two messages from EliYah, Thankyou EliYah.

I have also been catching up on some of the discussion like this one and the Sacred Namer one. I believe we should use Yahweh's name and Yahushua's name can anyone answer this. Does the Scriptures state that there is only one name by which we can be saved, if so which name is this the one Yahweh prophicied through the prophets or the name used by most of Chritianity, Jesus? I must point out that I was told by my Pastor that I am not allowed to use the name Yahushua/Yeshua because as he stated that that name is only for the Jews to use.

At the moment spiritualy I have been going through a very tough time and I am struggling to find what is Truth. Believe me when I tell you that I did not decide to follow this path because of what I have read on the internet but because of the questions that the Holy Spirit had put into my heart while reading His Scriptures and the only reason I found this site was because I believe Yahweh's Spirit brought me here because I was origionally doing "Sermon" so to speak on Spirituality is Yahweh's Practicality (you would have to know the misconseptions I was addressing as to the reasons for the title)for the mens fellowship I attend. Anyway I found this site and another one through this one that answered alot of my questions and made alot more sense to the Scriptures than what I had been taught (I was brought up an AoG Pentecostal). Believe me there has been times when I could just give up lately because of the backlash I've had from people around me on the issues of the using Yahweh's and Yahushuas name, not celebrating xmas or easter and wanting to keep all His Commandments (the Torah) I know there is alot still for me to learn and I'm desperate for fellowship so I can grow spiritualy and fulfil the prophicies and words of knowlege that have been given to me over the past two years, they were to do with the ministry Yahweh was bringing me into and turning away from the traditions of men and returning to the way of Yahweh. Only Yahweh could have known what was in my heart because I had told no one. Five different people two were Pastors visiting my Church from different parts of South Africa. The reason I'm stating this is because I beleive that Yahweh is about to call His Church out not the ones that cling to the traditions of men and give Him lip service. No a Church who will walk in His ways no matter what the cost and will live and love just the He showed us when He came to earth as His Messiah Yahushua. I want and feel a deep seated need to keep His Feasts but don't know how to wear the tassles but don't know how to make them and the one on this site did not realy help. I have been reading the book of Deuteronomy at the moment and I realy get exited for some reason as I read it perhaps it's because it feels like Yahweh seems to be talking straight into my heart from His heart I don't know if that the right way to put it it just feels that way.

In finishing I would like to ask if there is anywhere o0nline that do basic teaching of the Hebrew language.

Sorry if I rambled on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisDixon:
...
I believe we should use Yahweh's name and Yahushua's name can anyone answer this. Does the Scriptures state that there is only one name by which we can be saved, if so which name is this the one Yahweh prophicied through the prophets or the name used by most of Chritianity, Jesus?

---

Shalom, Chris, and I hope you soon get your own computer running! Online might not always be the best/easist place to learn things, but much can certainly be gained here.

Does Scripture state there is only one name by which we can be saved?

Yes, and to rightly understand that statement, we must first know that the word "name" actually means something like "name-likeness". Therefore: There is only one name-likeness by which any man can be saved, and that name-likeness is Yah's own. In other words, salvation is not exclusively dependent upon any mere spelling and/or pronounciation, but upon YHWH, Himself, as through His very own name-likeness Son, "YahSaves" (with "Saves" there being derived from the Hebrew word "Shua").

quote:

---

If so, which name is this: the one Yahweh prophicied through the prophets or the name used by most of Chritianity, Jesus?

---

With the above considered: The prophets spoke of a name-likeness individual, not merely His name. Understand? Today, then, the individual most commonly known by the name "Jesus", at least as within most of Christianity ... well, does that individual match up with what the prophets actually spoke? In my own experience, he does not.

quote:

---

I must point out that I was told by my Pastor that I am not allowed to use the name Yahushua/Yeshua because as he stated that that name is only for the Jews to use.

---

In fact, however, and whether or not s/he does this wittingly, that pastor is using that ridiculous notion to keep you looking to the above-mentioned "Jesus" rather than to the True Messiah of Scripture.

quote:

---

At the moment spiritualy I have been going through a very tough time and I am struggling to find what is Truth. Believe me when I tell you that I did not decide to follow this path because of what I have read on the internet but because of the questions that the Holy Spirit had put into my heart while reading His Scriptures ...

---

... and keep asking those questions, our fellow!

quote:

---

Believe me there has been times when I could just give up lately because of the backlash I've had from people around me on the issues of the using Yahweh's and Yahushua's name, not celebrating xmas or easter and wanting to keep all His Commandments (the Torah) ...

---

Many of us have shared that very experience ... and now it is your turn to count it all joy as YahSpirit brings you right on through!

Blessings to you ...