quote:

---

Originally posted by leejosepho:
Honest question: What is "the shema", and how does it here relate?

---

Here is an article about the Shema:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=599&letter=S&search=shema

Between "FORUMS" and "Home Page" it says:

I hope you don't mind if I give my version of answers to the questions you have posed to Chuck. I also hope Chuck doesn't mind, and I apologize if my responses seem "out of turn" just because the questions were directed to Chuck and not me.

Your first question:

quote:

---

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

---

My response: Sometimes I believe a question is best answered with a question. In this case, I would answer, "How do you know that it isn't?" They are both pronounced the same ... The Hebraic Gad, El and Baal somehow drifted into Keltic worship ... Gad forms a part of a Russian word meaning "fortune" ... Gott just happens to be a term applied to heathen idols by the Teutonic peoples ... first-century Jews considered it to be the name of a demon ... There are just so many coincidences, why gamble that it "just can't be derived from the Hebrew "Gad"? I personally consider it to be more of a "probability" than a "possibility." As I have stated before, I believe the only way to outright "prove" the connection would be to literally take someone on a journey through time to witness first-hand the evilution/migration of this word.

Your next question:

quote:

---

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

---

My response: June and I dealt with this question in the unabridged version of our study. The word pronounced "dog" in Hebrew means "fish." The word pronounced "moth" in Hebrew is an "adult" or a man. The word pronounced "niece" in Hebrew refers to a fugitive. The word pronounced "shade" in Hebrew refers to a demon. There are many such homonyms. The list goes on and on!

With this understanding in mind, I would like to post an excerpt from our study explaining our position regarding this matter. I have made some slight modifications for this posting:

     Although I believe there are just too many similarities between the Hebrew God and the English God to seriously consider them to be mere “coincidences,” it is nevertheless important that I establish one thing when comparing words that are pronounced the same in two different languages: Just because a certain word is pronounced identically in another language does not necessarily mean one is derived from the other! There are many words in Hebrew that have English homonyms, yet are clearly unrelated [I listed a few examples for you above. Here are two additional ones: The word pronounced "sock" means "crowd" or "multitude" in Hebrew. The word pronounced "shame" means "name" in Hebrew].

     My displaying this sample of English-Hebrew homonyms should not be construed as an attempt on my part to insinuate or otherwise imply that their pronunciation matches serve to indicate a relationship between the Hebrew word and its English homonym. I am not about to suggest that no one should henceforth refer to the daughter of a sibling as a “niece” simply because of its corresponding negative Hebrew homonym meaning “fugitive”!

     Nevertheless, when it comes to our worship of Yahweh and the relationship we should all seek to establish with Him, we should pay close attention to the words we employ as titles. The word God has both positive and negative aspects when we examine its use as a Hebrew word. This is a point recognized not only by myself, but by the opposition as well, as I have mentioned in a previous posting. While I have addressed the negative aspects surrounding the word God, I must simultaneously recognize that it can be used to mean some intrinsically good things as well. For example, the word God in Hebrew can also be used to mean “coriander seed” (word #1407 in Strong’s). Does the fact that this word can be used to mean “coriander seed” offer any justification for employing it as a title for Yahweh? No, it does not. There are many Hebrew words that aren’t necessarily “bad” terms which would nonetheless not qualify as titles for Yahweh. Conversely, there are many Hebrew words that are definitely “pure” and “clean” that would qualify. The question is, “Is it proper to take the name of a heathen idol from one language or culture, incorporate it into another language, then redefine that word as an acceptable title for Yahweh?”

     In another section of our study, I demonstrate that a culture could conceivably borrow a word (such as "moon"), introduce the pronunciation of that word into their own language with its own spelling (mún), and then redefine it as meaning “the sun.” This would be strange, but there is nothing that either morally or linguistically forbids such an act. The real question I am asking, then, is more complex than simply inquiring as to whether or not it is morally wrong to borrow and redefine words from one language to another. The question I repeatedly ask is, “Is it proper to take a Hebrew word that was originally the name of a heathen idol, incorporate it into the Germanic / Indo-European languages, then redefine it as ‘Supreme Deity’?” In other words, is it okay to take something “negative” from another language, then redefine it as “something good” in another language while employing it as a title for the Creator?

     Furthermore, should we presume the “best” about the word God -- that it “just happened” to turn up in the Indo-European languages as a generic term for deity, but is in no way related to the Hebrew word God? How safe and accurate is such a presumption? How secure do you feel about the etymologists’ (non)conclusions pertaining to the origin of the word God? Is it really worth the risk of undermining Yahweh’s intentions as expressed in Isaiah 65:11?

Of course, as I'm sure you know by now, my answer to the above question is simply "no." It is not worth the risk when you put the honor of YHWH above all else. After all the protests issued by the opposition, the simple fact remains that God is the name of an idol whose worship is/was condemned by YHWH. Some folks will actually state, "Yes, I know that YHWH condemns an idol named God, but He is still my God!" If this makes sense to you, then you and I are simply on different wavelengths.

Okay, on to your third question:

quote:

---

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

---

I reply: I have contacted several Hebrew scholars who have agreed that the word spelled "giymel daleth" in Hebrew is pronounced "God." I have also had a confirmation from the staff at Biblical Archaeology Review. It seems that this pronunciation has made it into all the Indo-European languages. Nevertheless, the very fact that both words are spelled the same is really sufficient to arouse my suspicion, regardless of how someone would tell me it "should be pronounced."

Your fourth question:

quote:

---

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.

---

I reply: Okay, Mountain Jew, just as I have maintained there is no evidence that there was ever really an idol named Theos in pre-first century days, so I maintain that I, like you, have never seen any evidence that there was an actual Teutonic idol named Gott or God. Does this mean there wasn't ever an idol by that name worshipped by those people? I would say no. Furthermore, I don't believe it is "sheer coincidence" that this term "just happened" to be reserved for idol worship, especially in view of the other connections I have previously mentioned. Do you?

Your fifth question (actually a comment):

quote:

---

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 reply: I believe you only make this statement about "no demonstrable support" because you are "bound and determined" that researchers like J.G.R. Forlong were "incompetent" in their research. Otherwise you would have responded to my inquiry about Baal worship in Ireland by now, which in turn offers demonstrable support for God worship in Ireland. I believe the connection is there, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

I am glad you admit that etymologists recognize the Semitic roots of God. This is something I had not previously seen from you, and I believe it is a step in the right direction. I seriously doubt that the adversary wants to make the "demonstrable support" easy for anyone, do you?

You comment:

quote:

---

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.

---

I reply: I believe I the same as did consult professional linguists in my research. They admit that no one really knows for sure where God came from. If your "linguists" are trustworthy, open to questions from inquiring minds, plus are willing to put their name on their research, I really would like to visit with them, if for no other reason than to find out why they agree with you that Dr. Wilfred Funk and J.G.R. Forlong are both incompetent. I'm sure the linguists you select will agree with you on that one point.

Again, I apologize if I responded to your questions "out of turn," yet I believe they are questions that we should all be prepared to field.

May YHWH bless,

Larry

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I commend you for your diligence in seeking the truth. I remember when my wife and I switched to Sabbath observance, we were fed up with all the bickering we had witnessed in the "Sundaykeeping churches." We were confident that once we met some Sabbathkeepers, we would no longer have to worry about disunity. Ha ha!! Were we ever mistaken about that one!

I'm sure you have witnessed plenty of discord here in this forum ... and you've most likely seen me in the middle of some of it. I believe all of us grieve inwardly that we aren't any more unified than we currently are. I hope you can see beyond the postings ... that we are all striving for the same goal: pleasing the Father and His Son. I look forward to the day when all this discord will finally be behind us and we are with Messiah in the Kingdom!

In the meantime, I hope you will keep your eyes off of the attitudes that sometimes surface in these discussions and keep them focused on our Redeemer and soon-coming King. I do believe there is a lot of love amongst the brethren in this forum, but sometimes you have to look a little harder than you should to see it. I believe we are all growing in Messiah here, and we all have some growing to do!

You wrote:

quote:

---

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.

---

I reply: According to Joel 2:32, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of YHWH shall be delivered." According to Acts 4:11-12, it is the name of His Son. It is because many believe you must call upon those names with precise pronunciations that some schisms have arisen. Some debate the pronunciation of YHWH. Some debate the pronunciation of His Son's name. Some, like me, pronounce His name "Yeshua." Others prefer "Yahshua." Still others prefer "Yahushua." Those are the more common pronunciations I have seen in this forum. I know there are others. Although I do have reasons for preferring the pronunciations that I use, I try to not be dogmatic in promoting those pronunciations over those used by other folks. I would concur with Leejosepho in his remark that salvation is not exclusively dependent upon any mere spelling and/or pronunciation, but upon YHWH Himself through His Son.

About your pastor: I cannot imagine why he would prefer a watered-down name ("Jesus")over the original ... just doesn't make any sense to me. The pastors I approached with this matter at least recognized Yahushua/Yahshua/Yeshua as being "more correct," but that didn't cause them to want to stop referring to Him as "Jesus." I hope your pastor will be open to investigating this matter.

You also wrote:

quote:

---

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 reply: Chris, I am just glad that you want to obey YHWH in all things, including wearing tassels. Some will tell you that they must be tied a certain way in order to be "authentic." I say, for now, just do the best you can. I believe YHWH will honor your zeal in striving to please Him, even if you don't get them "just right." Keep on trying, and the next thing you know, you'll be teaching others how to do it! Just don't be afraid of "getting your feet wet," so to speak!

As for the rest of what you wrote, I rejoice over your determination to serve YHWH in spite of all the obstacles that have been put before you. The adversary does not want your path to be an easy one! Nevertheless, I have found that when we work through our struggles, we come to appreciate YHWH and His Word far more than we do when things come easy. I sense a deep love for our Heavenly Father and His Son, and I pray you keep the fire burning in your heart forever!

May YHWH bless you!

Yours in Messiah,
Larry

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Also Yeshua confirms the Shema as the greatest commandment in Mark 12:29-30,

----------------------------------
And Yeshua answered him, "The first of all the commands is, 'Hear, O Yisrael, YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is one. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first command."
----------------------------------

I believe you have spoken well. As the scribe responded to Yeshua's answer, "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one Almighty; and there is none other but He! And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices!"

In spite of the intense level of this discussion and the disagreements that have been presented here, I have never intended for anyone to think that I regard them as having any less love for YHWH than I do because of the stand I take. As I see it, we disagree on what honors or dishonors Him. From my perspective, referring to YHWH as "our God" dishonors Him. The opposition disagrees. We all have differing perspectives on what honors or dishonors YHWH. For example, I have no problem with driving my car to a Sabbath worship service. Someone else would tell me that I dishonor YHWH in so doing, but hopefully they would not question my love for Him and His Son. I'm not trying to open up a new "can of worms" by mentioning driving to a worship service on the Sabbath, I'm just trying to give an example illustrating how we all have different levels of understanding the will of YHWH. While I strongly hold to my position about the name/title "God," I do have great respect and high regard for those who disagree with me. I hope this helps to clarify the way I feel regarding those who disagree with me on this issue.

Okay, moving on ...

There are a few things that I believe we should take note of from The Oxford English Dictionary excerpt that I displayed yesterday:

(1) The author who contributed the information listed therein admits that "god" was "originally heathen." He wrote: "The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus." For the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to take a word that even etymologists admit is "originally heathen" and apply such a word as a title in reference to our Creator. As I have often mentioned, I would consider that to be a slap in His face.

(2) It mentions the Gothic (gheu) as having Aryan roots. We read the following:

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.).

This information may be of interest to Chuck, as he understands that the scattering of the tribes of Israel resulted in a migration of culture and language as the Israelites made their way from the Caucasus Mountains to the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations. Interestingly, the information regarding the Aryan migration is full of theories. No one seems to know for sure, but it seems that none of the authorities wants to touch the "scattered Israelites" with a ten-foot pole. It is as though no such migration ever occurred, but I believe we all know better.

What is interesting about the "Aryan roots" (above) is the fact that many linguists tie "Aryan" with the Aryan "invasion" of c. 1800 - 1500 BCE. The alleged warriors who spread their language and culture to India originated in the Caucasus mountains. The following information is taken from wikipedia.org:

The best-known form of the theory was developed by European historians in the late nineteenth century. As expressed, for example, by Charles Morris in his 1888 book "The Aryan Race", this theory holds that a Caucasian race of nomadic warriors known as the Aryans, originating in the Caucasus mountains in Central Asia, invaded Northern India and Iran, somewhere between 1800 and 1500 BC.

My comment: Since we know the Israelites were scattered throughout the nations, not just to India, I believe it is reasonable to believe their language and culture also made its way, in various forms, from the Caucasus mountains to Russia and other European countries, including Ireland and Germany. In fact, since the Caucasus mountains is in Russia, I don't think the Aryan language and culture had far to travel!

The above quote, by the way, can be found at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion

In the above article, the word "theory"/"theories" appears over 30 times, effectively underscoring top linguists' uncertainties over the migration of languages and cultures. Indeed, as Dr. Wilfred Funk noted with regard to the history of the word God, so it is with the migration of languages and cultures: "a tangle of guesses." It becomes a matter of "which" etymologist's theory you choose to accept, and that is where I believe this current discussion is headed.

J.G.R. Forlong, in his two-volume work Rivers of Life, traces idol worship from India to such places as Ireland, where he identifies Baal worship and the worship of an idol named Gad-El-glas (pronounced "gahd-el-gloss"). There is certainly good reason to believe the ancient Canaanite religion made its way to Ireland, including an idol named God. Although it appears that Forlong never made the connection between the Irish idol Gad-El-glas and the Canaanite idol Gad, he did issue a remark about the word "God" in another book that is worth repeating: “It is remarkable that philologists are unable to decide the origin of this familiar Teutonic word.” This comment can be found in Vol. II, p. 155 of his work A Cyclopædia of Religions. Sometimes we ask questions, not realizing that the answer is "right under our noses." I believe Forlong would have agreed with the Baal connection ... and subsequently the Gad connection. I believe he had the information, but he just didn't make the connection. However, since I am not an etymologist, you can take the information I offer for whatever it's worth. If I were an etymologist making the above observation, I'm sure it would draw some charges of "incompetency." Ultimately we are all left to reach our own conclusions based upon the evidence we examine.

(3)There is a question regarding what is meant by the term "ulterior etymology." If The Oxford English Dictionary says the "ulterior etymology" of the word "God" is in dispute, does this mean its ultimate origin is "anyone's guess"? Yes, it does.

Please note the following explanation of a few etymological terms, as found at a lexicology website:

Many English etymologies end with statements such as 'the root is not found outside Germanic', 'ulterior etymology unknown', or 'of obscure origin'.

Three sources for new or better English etymologies will be discussed and exemplified in this paper. The first two rest on the insight that language contact of English and its ancestral languages did not begin in historical times, e.g. with Latin influence on the Germanic languages, but in prehistoric times, in part affecting many or all Indo-European languages, in part restricted to the West Indo-European languages, to the Germanic or West Germanic languages, or even to Anglo-Frisian or English; viz., that the giving languages were, first, Vasconic languages, i.e. prehistoric languages related to Basque, and, second, Semitidic languages, i.e. prehistoric languages related to Semitic (Vennemann 1995, 1997, 1998a-d). The third source is provided by linguistically refined investigations of possible intra-Germanic or intra-Indo-European affinities themselves (Vennemann forthc.).

The above information can be reviewed at the following URL:
http://webs.uvigo.es/h04/jperez/icehl/lexico.htm

Since the etymologists really do not know where the name/title God came from ... and since they will at least admit that it originated with heathen idol worship ... and since it is pronounced identically to the name of the idol whose worship YHWH condemns ... why and how do you believe the use of this term as a title honors YHWH?

(4) Not only does the author of The Oxford English Dictionary's item "God" admit that it originated in heathen worship ... not only does he admit that its origin is in dispute ... not only does he admit that it has a "pre-Teutonic type," but he is also uncertain of the definition of the root word in question! Notice what he wrote:

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'.

Hopefully we can all see and understand that beneath the authoritative presentation of this word's etymology in The Oxford English Dictionary lies a lot of uncertainty and dispute. They don't really know for sure "where" the word originated, but they at least agree it is rooted in heathen worship. If you feel comfortable applying such a word to the Almighty, then all I can say is you and I have quite different "comfort zones." Even if I had no knowledge of a Canaanite idol named Gad, I would not feel comfortable referring to YHWH with this title, simply based upon how it is presented in The Oxford English Dictionary.

As I have said before, it's a "gheuy mess"!

Yours in Messiah,

Larry

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
... I have never intended for anyone to think that I regard them as having any less love for YHWH than I do because of the stand I take.

---

Greetings, Larry, and what does "the stand" anyone might take have to do with his or her love for YHWH? Or to ask that differently, where does Scripture mention the taking of a "stand" as being part of our obedience to Him?

quote:

---

As I see it, we disagree on what honors or dishonors Him.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

From my perspective, referring to YHWH as "our God" dishonors Him. The opposition disagrees.

---

Opposition? You should abandon that kind of thinking about our fellows, Larry. But either way ...

I am not sure whether your above that statement is accurate, but it certainly does not represent what Mountain Jew has clearly said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Follower Sar Shalom,

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.

---

Shalom.

I will now attempt to answer your questions. Because I believe that you and I are on different wavelengths, I really do not expect you to understand me, nor do I ever expect to understand you. I am not saying this to criticize, I am merely pointing out that you and I so frequently misunderstand each other that I really no longer expect you to understand my intentions, nor I yours. Part of the problem is, from my perspective, you seem to overanalyze my words, the resulting effect being that I don't believe you really "click" on what I am trying to convey. It seems that every time you analzyze something I write, you just don't get what I am trying to say. I am certain that you believe you are doing a fine job of analyzing my words, so I simply prefer to leave you to "analyze away" without having to engage you in a trifling discussion over verbiage. Maybe one of these days you'll actually understand me.

You quoted me as follows:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Acheson:
... I have never intended for anyone to think that I regard them as having any less love for YHWH than I do because of the stand I take.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings, Larry, and what does "the stand" anyone might take have to do with his or her love for YHWH? Or to ask that differently, where does Scripture mention the taking of a "stand" as being part of our obedience to Him?

---

My reply: I realize you have told me in a previous posting that you did not believe you took something I wrote out of context, so I'm not really sure it will benefit anyone for me to try explaining that you might have had an easier time understanding my intentions if you would have taken everything I wrote in its proper context instead of using the ellipsis effect as frequently as you do. With this in mind, I will display all of my words in hopes of helping you to better understand what I was attempting to convey. Granted, I was hoping a brief summary would suffice instead of writing a dissertation, but if writing a more detailed explanation will help you to better understand where I am coming from, I will do so. Here is what I had written:

In spite of the intense level of this discussion and the disagreements that have been presented here, I have never intended for anyone to think that I regard them as having any less love for YHWH than I do because of the stand I take.

What I was trying to say, Lee, is that this has become a rather intense (and at times tactless) discussion. I am not interested in pointing fingers at anyone, I'm just expressing my feelings about the progression of this discussion, which contributed to my expressed wish that I had never joined it in the first place. But here's what happens: When I tell some folks that I believe it dishonors YHWH to refer to Him as "our God," they sometimes get upset with me, and they sometimes interpret my words as my saying that I believe I love YHWH more than they do. With this in mind, I want to make certain that those of the opposite persuasion here know and understand that I am not trying to present the view that they love YHWH any less than I do.

Regarding where Scripture tells us to "take a stand as a part of our obedience to Him," I guess I don't recall any Scripture directing us to specifically "take a stand," yet I know that this is what early believers did. The Apostle Shaul, for example, "reasoned" with his fellow Jews out of the Scriptures on the weekly Sabbath. The word "reasoned" means "to discuss (in argument or exhortation)." In order to argue or defend a position, one must do what is called in English vernacular "taking a stand." One could offer up many verses wherein we are called to speak out for truth, but that would be "off topic" here. Rather than debate this, I hope you can just understand that my words were intended as a gesture of at least some reconciliation. I know it is unlikely an agreement will be reached, but I do like for people to know that I do not have to agree with them on every issue to respect and love them as brothers. If my intent failed to make an impression on you, I can only hope it left a positive impression on others.

You quoted me as follows:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From my perspective, referring to YHWH as "our God" dishonors Him. The opposition disagrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opposition? You should abandon that kind of thinking about our fellows, Larry. But either way ...

---

I reply: I'm sorry you do not like my verbiage, yet I believe it is very accurate. One side believes that it dishonors YHWH to refer to Him as "our God." Those of the opposite view, hence "the opposition," believe otherwise. If it will appease you, I will now rephrase my comment so as to read, "Those of the opposite view disagree."

You wrote:

quote:

---

I am not sure whether your above that statement is accurate, but it certainly does not represent what Mountain Jew has clearly said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Follower Sar Shalom,
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

I reply: Mountain Jew has said lots of things "very clearly." He and I are "very clearly" opposed to each other on this issue. I really do not see how quoting the above commentary from him is supposed to show that we are not opposed to each other. In the interest of trying to keep our focus on the issue itself instead of the proper verbiage to use when expressing that we are opposed to each other's views, I would prefer to simply leave it at that.

With this in mind, I will now take a moment to respond to the above comment written by Mountain Jew. As I have expressed, if I am to be considered a representative of the Sacred Name Movement, I disagree that those of my persuasion have brought on any "interference and stumbling." We support calling upon our Creator by the name He gave to Himself, which I do not believe is anything causing "interference and stumbling." If people feel guilty for not calling upon that name, then maybe their feelings of guilt would go away if they would start? As for "judgment," I have dealt with that one on at least two separate occasions now, and I don't believe I need to cover it any more.

Of course, MJ believes those of my persuasion "deliberately and artificially load an inert word [God, perhaps?] like a mine to go off when someone steps on it." I believe he is totally misconstruing my intent. If I believe certain ones dishonor YHWH by referring to Him as "our God," does this mean I believe they are "stepping on a mine" when they use that title? No, it does not. It simply means I believe they dishonor Him. MJ seems rather adept at blowing things way out of proportion in an attempt to vilify the "opposition." All I'm saying is, as I have maintained all along, YHWH is worthy of our UTMOST REVERENCE, PRAISE and WORSHIP. In light of such awesome majesty and the respect due Him, I do not understand why anyone would want to assign a title to Him that we KNOW is the name of a heathen idol (a negative aspect), ... much less the name of a heathen idol singled out and condemned by YHWH Himself! This is why I opt for more honorable titles, such as ‘Almighty,’ ‘Sovereign’ and ‘Mighty One.’ I encourage those of the opposing view to do the same and dump "God" for the simple reason that it has NEGATIVE ASPECTS. Why assign a title with such negative implications to YHWH? This just doesn’t make any sense. LET’S GO FOR THE BEST, FOLKS!! If the title "God" is the best you can come up with, I don't believe you're trying very hard.

As you can see, I feel very strongly about my "position" that referring to YHWH as "our God" dishonors Him. I believe it is possible, though sometimes difficult, to believe this strongly while maintaining healthy and respectful relationships with fellow believers of a different persuasion. I know it is possible because I worship with many different personalities. Some who disagree are nevertheless gracious enough to switch to titles such as "Almighty" when conversing with me ... not that I would demand such a thing from them or think anything less of them as an individual when they do not ... but I do know they are trying to accommodate me, which, even if not required, is nice.

May YHWH bless,

Larry

[This message has been edited by Acheson (edited 01-03-2005).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
Hi, Yo'el:

I believe you have spoken well. As the scribe responded to Yeshua's answer, "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one Almighty; and there is none other but He! And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices!"

---

Hi, Larry,

In the above spirit of love, I have a suggestion. Perhaps it would be right for you to "offer" an appology to MJ for that whole Jew thing.

That is an excellent suggestion! Thank you for displaying such a kind spirit and for being a peacemaker.

To Mountain Jew:

I apologize for questioning whether or not you really are of Jewish descent, and I also apologize if this offended you. Please forgive me, and I will not bring it up again.

May YHWH bless,

Oh that all I will do YHWH is:

Psa 35:28 And my tongue shall speak of Thy righteousness and of Thy praise all the day long.

Thanks for sharing sister LuvYah! You continue to be such a blessing to the body! We are all a part of YHWH's body, and we would not punch ourselves, or cut off our own finger, and need to grasp that so deep in our heart that we would never harm YHWH's body.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
... I will now rephrase my comment so as to read, "Those of the opposite view disagree."

...

Mountain Jew ... and I are "very clearly" opposed to each other ...

---

Oops! And at least as I happen to see things, the qualifier "on this issue" does not justify being opposed to a fellow believer ... which, by the way, I also believe MJ is not [an opposer among the brethren/sistren].
(Note to all: That clarification was added after someone had privately asked for same, thank you. leejosepho@hotmail.com)

Nevertheless, and if I might presume to say so, I do believe you are making some progress, Larry!

Also, I would explain to you that some of the comments I post are offered as "insights" related to continued "inventory" of one's own character ... as done on the assumption that we each and all have a conscious desire and willingness both to sharpen, and to be sharpened.

Shalom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
1. How do you know that God is derived from the Hebrew Gad?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Also from the Oxford English Dictionary (also posted by Larry): "god (god). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.)"

Perhaps i'm mistaken, but i thought the abbr. "Teut." meant Teutonic.

quote:

---

5. ... I do not believe that Gad provides the source for god because there is no demonstrable support for it.

---

quote:

---

You seem to have misunderstood something fundamental. I have never proposed that God be used as a substitute for YHWH. I don’t believe in substituting YHWH especially in text. What we are debating here is whether god is an acceptable translation of elohim. I hope you understand.

---

There has been a lot posted over the weekend so at the risk of getting off topic again I will answer some of your questions and try to catch up.
The first reference of the term “satan” in the scripture is to a sheliach acting on behalf of YHWH. Therefore the original use of the term in the Torah refers to YHWH as the first literal satan or satanic cause in B’Midbar (Numbers) 22:22 and again YHWH is referred to as “satan” in 1 Dibre Hayyayim (Chronicles) 21:1 (comp. to 2 Shemuel 24:1). It is only the last few times in the Tanak that “satan” could even be interpreted as a proper noun of a wicked being. Satan is never used as an epithet and it makes no sense to replace elohim with satan for any reason. The term satan is neither one of righteousness or wickedness, it all depends on the context and perspective in which it is being used. I don’t refer to YHWH as my satan, because YHWH is not my adversary. However YHWH may be someone else’s adversary just as he was for a time David’s satan. There is no dishonour in referring to YHWH as a satan in the proper context but I can understand why those unfamiliar with Hebrew might think so.

However the fact that the first satan is YHWH does not prove or disprove that the Torah endorses the application of heathen epithets to YHWH.

Now if one puts their trust in the Torah and believes it, then one must believe that the son of Israel called GD (pr. god) was not named after a Babelonian deity (pr. gad) but named for the very reason YHWH says he was named, because Leah said “prosperity comes”. It is obvious that she did not name her son after an idol because the very first use of GD in the scriptures refers to Leah’s son and not to an idol. She never made any reference to Gad. If you can read the Hebrew text you will see that in B’reshith (Genesis) 30:11 both times GD appears as qametz showing no connection to the idol GD which is patach. This is how we know the idol is pronounced GAD and not GOD. When you deliberately swap these vowels you are doing an underhanded trick. Now if you reject the Masoretic nikud which is represents the most ancient pronunciation then you must be relying upon the Sephardi-Arabic nikud which does not represent biblical Hebrew.

You need to learn how the pronunciation of the English “God” came about. We don’t have to go back very far to learn that God is the centumized form of the labiovelar aspiration. But most originally it contained no velar at all! The earliest forms of God do not appear anything like Gad. So without your gimel your etymological theory seems rather unlikely. We’d have to believe the velar was dropped, forgotten, and then by coincidence was spontaneously reintroduced. The God pronunciation is such a recent and natural development that it strains all credibility that it could have ever been exactly like the original form – which no source agrees with.

I have no problem with saying YHWH is my prosperity for He is certainly that. Just because sometime later, by coincidence, men decided to worship prosperity is no bad reflection on YHWH. In fact I think it is a dishonour to not proclaim that YHWH is your prosperity. We also know YHWH approves of this name on the New Yerushalem. One thing you can not explain is why YHWH would inscribe the name of an idol GD on the gate of His New Yerushalem and dishonour himself. I can explain it: because it is not considered the name of an idol. You ask why I don’t refer to YHWH as my Zebulon, and the answer is because we are talking about the translation of elohim. Now zebulon does not translate elohim, and because it is a Hebrew term it can not translate another Hebrew term. But because you believe that we can create epithets from Hebrew and apply them to YHWH then you shouldn’t have any problem if I create YHWH my gawd.

I know you believe that there are “too many similarities” between God and Gad, but if we add them up, there are even less similar than the Hebrew and English “dog”.

It is obvious that you do make some reference to the hermeneutic rule of ‘first use’ which is common in bible translation theory. The real problem that I see is that you do not apply it consistently. You claim to apply this to some words like elohim and baal and yet not to others. If you applied this rule to satan and gad then we wouldn’t be having this debate and you could have avoided your regrets about participating.

While it is true that the SNM doesn’t directly condemn anyone for anything, they make it their business to tell us that we are under the condemnation of the Law. But what if we are not under such condemnation, would that not make them false accusers? Are not false accusers under the condemnation of the Law? Satan does not judge or condemn anyone either, but stands before YHWH accusing us all. The Law says not to bear false witness, if there is even a 1% possibility that you are bearing false witness, then why take the chance?

You also talk about substituting YHWH’s Name as if that has had anything to do with this subject. Tell me, have I ever suggested that we substitute YHWH’s Name? Do you understand the focus of the issue at hand? I will state it again that elohim is not a substitute for YHWH’s Name, and neither is any translation of elohim. It is impossible to substitute YHWH’s name with God.

My purpose in this thread is to champion the truth and if some of the pillars of the SNM suffers collateral damage, so be it – it’s nothing personal. I have not set out to destroy the SNM, but to challenge it’s teachings for the sake of truth and freedom. I however think that as the truth is revealed, the movement may fade away or give way to religious convictions. Now since you well know what the other tenets (pillars) of the SNM are there is no need for me to repeat them.

Nowhere in the Hebrew bible does the English word “God” appear, so YHWH could not have condemned God through the prophet Yeshayahu. To be the English word God, it would have to be spelled the same (Gimel-waw-dalet) and have the same meaning and usage just to start with. If YHWH condemned a name in Hebrew that sounded like ‘GOD’ then he condemned the son of Israel, did He really do that? Of course not.

Now you have offered an etymology of your own creation. To be fair, what credentials do you have to be creating etymologies, especially when they conflict with all other known professional ones? I agree god is connected to gott but that is as far as I go with you. There is no connection between gott and Gadelglas. This is where you rely upon your imagination. There is obviously no connection between gad the troop and gad the reptile, the two concepts couldn’t be more disparate. You also pay no heed to the context of the language in which the words appear. You seem to think one is speaking all the same word.

Your treatment of interlanguage homophones seems inconsistent. While you do acknowledge the existence of homophones or coincidences, it is unclear whether you think all the English homophones are derived directly from Hebrew. It is also unclear if you believe God is directly or indirectly derived from Hebrew.
But God and Gad are not even homophones, because the idol is not pronounced as “god”. I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt that you simply are replying upon what some have told you. I am not saying your sources are wrong, but this goes back to asking the RIGHT question. Only asking how gimel-dalet is pronounced is not enough to secure an accurate answer. You would first have to distinguish which of the two words spelled gimel-dalet you are referring to. Then you must ask for it using the Ashkenazi or ancient Hebrew nikud system rather than the Sephardic. Once you have specified these two variables then you can start to consider the responses. The only correct pronunciation for the idol is “gad” which sounds like the American “bad”. The correct pronunciation for the son of Israel is “god”. Someone said that we shouldn’t be so picky over vowel pronunciations, however it is very important to pronounce them correctly or one miscommunicate and confound the listener. It’s amazing to think that some might base a whole doctrine or even a movement on the mispronunciation of a single vowel. But since there really is no phonetic match, and no usage match, there really is no connection at all.

I have to wonder why stop at those few words, there are hundreds of other disparate words that all contain the letters GAD- or even GOD- certainly they must all be related right? How is it you decide whether they are or not? Not all words are related, quite often words are invented spontaneously as man invents them. For example I just invented the word kolugee, it refers to something that is stuck between your teeth. If it sounds or appears like some other word, that is just coincidence.

I appreciate very much that you admit there was never any Teutonic idol named God. Hopefully this truth catches on. But let’s not pretend that you found a god named “God” yet. You can deny it all you want, but you were plainly told God is not the pronunciation of Gadelglas (or Gad anyways) by a native Irish speaker and you were told by Forlong that his origin of Gadelglas is Cush. And let’s not forget how I have accepted those sources 100% as competent in the origin of Gadelglas. I just don’t accept your misrepresentation of what they stated. Let’s not forget how redundant Gad-el would be if Gad means God and El means God, then his name is “God-God-Green” but you know there is no such word as El in Gaelic.
Now the Indo-Europeans had “gott” before the existence of Israel, let alone before the dispersion of Israel. However the Phoenicians were travelling between the British Isles and the Syrian coast since the most ancient times. It would hard to believe they did not exchange a few words between languages like Baal. The question isn’t whether Semitic words could appear in Irish or English the question is which ones did. However Cush preceded the Phoenicians and his descendants maintained his name. They also independently carried the term God apart from Gaedheal. If the Phoenicians brought Gad with them it would have been Baal-Gad, and there is no record of Gad in the Irish language. You should ask the Irish how they got the term God into their language because they certainly did not provide it to the English.

You say that whenever I disagree with a scholar I state that he is incompetent – can you even site a single example outside of sacred name scholars? But by trying to impose your theory about the migration of the Israelites you are in fact implying that James Forlong is incompetent in his thesis since he does not consider the migration of Israelites in his origin of Gadelglas. Now when the sources themselves say that after attempting an etymology that they can not ascertain or develop any kind of theory or that they are confused (especially when the majority are not) it is the same as admitting that they are incompetent when it comes to that term. So they themselves are admitting their incompetency. So I drop them into the incompetent category, and it isn’t necessarily a generalization about their abilities. If they simply disagreed, they go in the disagreement category. They can’t go into BOTH categories as you said, it’s one or the other. And please don’t twist what I said, I said disagreed with each other not with me. I trust you know the difference. It’s kind of hard to disagree with someone who is incompetent, since they have nothing to agree or disagree with!

Realise that I do not have to provide, or even have any credentials. The reason is because I am not presenting any of my own information or ideas. I have been relying on the credentials of those who are experts in their field and relaying their information. This is a little different than what you have been doing in presenting a mix of your ideas and those of others, yet you have not provided any of your credentials. Truth isn’t actually dependent on credentials – thank God. Just because someone has certain credentials doesn’t automate that their theories have total credence. From experts or not, a theory needs to have inherent credence, it just turns out that most of the good theories come from those with credentials. I wouldn’t want anyone to believe anything I say simply because someone gave me credentials, but rather because the message I speak is inherently true. Now if anyone checks up on anything I have stated I believe that they will see that I do at least have integrity even though you can’t seem to afford me any credibility. And even if our readers do not have any credentials I won’t question their ability to discern the truth because of that.

No offence but if Dr. Wilfred Funk can’t figure out the origin of God what on earth makes you think that you can? If I go by your little snippet quotes I have no choice but to believe that he is incompetent as portrayed – but you know, if I were to look up the quote in context, I wonder if that will really reflect what he really said. When I have done this before I have found that little quotes have been misleading. So when I get a hold of his book I’ll just have to take a look for myself. It is hard to believe someone with such fantastical credentials could be so confused. Perhaps he was only speaking in the ulterior sense just like the Oxford English Dictionary. Then one of those “tangled guesses” would include the God from Gad theory. By all means make your best guess but at least acknowledge it as such. I’ll get back to you on this later, however I will go out on a limb and assume that he actually offers the same extensive posterior etymology that the other competents do and that I am in total agreement with him and that he offers your position absolutely no support. That is how much credit I am willing to offer him right now.

You want to know on what grounds I dismiss the Celtic worship of Baaltinglas having been inherited from the Israelites. Easy, there is no record of the Israelites having worshiped such an idol. The worship of baalim did never originate with the Israelites, it existed long before they did.

Regarding the difference between posterior and ulterior etymologies. The ulterior means the ultimate root of a word. This is the holy grail of etymology, to locate the original word – if it is possible. Because this is difficult to do it is often disputed. However the second generation of a word, and it’s consequential 3rd , 4th, 5th generations etc. make up what we call the posterior etymology. The two conjectures referred to by the Oxford English Dictionary are two possible origins. If you add to that GD, that would make three conjectures of the same nature. However GD has no relation to the usage or meaning and thus can not be connected to the etymology. One conjecture is that God originates from the concept of “pouring” and the other to “invocation”. This source favours “invocation” as do most.

Since you have kindly posted more of the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary anyone can see for themselves that it says god could not have come from a foreign language in its current form. You’d like very much for it to say exactly the opposite but like I said before it is totally contrary to what you have been saying all along. This seems to be a pattern with you. You build up the credibility of a source, pretend it agrees with you even though you disregard it then accuse others of doing the very thing you are doing. Is the problem that you don’t comprehend it or are you just bluffing?

If you prefer to call grammatic terms “fluff” that’s fine with me. Although you do not seem to comprehend the technical explanation of your methods, you are still a natural at it. The premise of grammatic magic just doesn’t work for me, sorry. When I was little I watched ‘Sesame Street’ and the character known as the ‘Spellbinder’ (voiced by Zero Mostel) who went around waving a magic wand over words and deviously swapping their vowels and creating all kinds of chaos as a result. You remind me of him. There was another character, the hero ‘Letterman’ (voiced by Gene Wilder) who went around restoring the words and thus order to the world.

You stated: "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."

So here you are basically willing to toss out all the rules you supposedly used to filter out the word god and resort to the fact that a mere homophone of an idol’s name is all the reason you need to prohibit it. Well that is one thing, IF GD really was a homophone of GOD but in fact it is not – so even by those minimal standards, GOD can never be condemned. I have already covered why the two terms are not even homophones. So if that is all it comes down to then perhaps we are done.

Would I translate elohim as Zeus or Apollo, no I don’t think so. Those have not achieved the same level of genericism as god which is necessary to translate elohim accurately. You see I have a rule that says when translating a word you should select something equally as ambiguous.

You must appreciate that YHWH Himself shares His titles el and elohim with idols, even idols of the same name. He doesn’t care. If He doesn’t want idols to be called elohim then He would not call them that Himself.

Once again you made the flip-flop from “originally a heathen idol name” back to “not an idol’s name but original heathen use”. It seems when you can’t prove the first you resort to the second. When that doesn’t prove out you always resort the third, that is back to homophones. And when that doesn’t pan out you circle around again to “originally a heathen idol name”. These are all different standards. It would be good to pick one and stick to it instead of running in circles.

It is too late to go back on the “not an idol’s name but original heathen use” because you have already let us know at least twice that you have no definite problem with descriptive terms of heathen origin.

So after all that, can you take a little time and study the pronunciation of both GD words and then let me know if you agree with the pronunciations I provided or not? Perhaps we can settle that much before rehashing or introducing more ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
Shalom Larry,

So after all that, can you take a little time and study the pronunciation of both GD words and then let me know if you agree with the pronunciations I provided or not? Perhaps we can settle that much before rehashing or introducing more ideas.

---

Rather than arguing about pronunciations and dubious etymologies, why don't we just use "Mighty One" as a translation for “Elohim” or many prefer to retain the original “Elohim” or "El", when it refers to YHWH, rather than "God". "Mighty One", “Powerful One” or "Almighty" seems to be a better translation for the original meaning behind "Elohim" or "El" anyway. Although the ambiguous term “Elohim” is a primarily a plural form, it is actually singular when referring to YHWH, and can be construed as plural in majesty or plural in completeness for a singular entity. Even the term “Mighty One”, although it is singular, can still denote plural majesty when we are referring to YHWH, because he is The *Supreme* Mighty One over all and awesome in power and strength and always will be. Note that the original roots of "Elohim"/"Eloah"/"El"/"YL"/"WL" all trace back to the meaning of "strength" or "power"…for example, "it is from the *power* of my hand"...

Although I don’t condemn others for the use of “God” since their understanding is different than mine, for an English description I prefer to use “Mighty One” which I believe more closely represents the original meaning behind “Elohim”. Since “Elohim” is not the proper name of the Creator, although it has been substituted in its place, I prefer to use the closest English equivalent in meaning, and of which I don’t believe “god” is the closest English equivalent in meaning. The use of "GOD"/“God”/"god" also causes confusion. For example, someone may say, “who do you worship?” Since the majority of christendom along with other religions believe that "God" is the chief proper name of the Creator, the reply is usually “God”. As M.J. mentions, "God" is not really supposed to be a proper name to use in place of the sacred name, but actually just a title. Well, which “god” are you speaking of? For example, are they “god-worshipers” or “God-worshippers”? Is this a “god-forsaken place” or “God-forsaken place”. You have "god-fearing" or "God-fearing", "godly" or "Godly", "godliness" or "Godliness". Since our adversary is the "God of this world", it may also apply to replace his name in the above quotes (depending on whose "god" you are speaking about). You can’t tell just by listening in these instances if the person is talking about if the place is forsaken from “gods”/”idols”/”demons” or forsaken from the Creator whom they prefer to call “God” (which I of course realize is usually the intention that when saying "God", the person normally intends to designate the same being as YHWH). Yah’shua who was our perfect example, most often used the term "Father"/"Daddy"/"Dad"/"Abba"/"Ab" or “Heavenly Father” and additionally said that we are to pray in the same manner as the example he gave. Our Heavenly Father is very merciful and long-suffering although I can believe that He probably “cringes” when his name is verbally slaughtered, substituted or otherwise spoken of irreverently. However, I believe that when an "atheist"/(non-believer of the spirit world) starts believing in the concept of a Creator, whom he refers to as "God", he or she has made progress in at least acknowledging the existence of a "higher power".