You wrote:

quote:

---

I'd rather not only feel sorry for the people( and I certainly do not condemn anyone) who do not SEE and recognize this word " god=gawd "( Isa.65:11)in the scriptures as a Babylonian deity, however, I do as the scriptures say to do, and that is "" If you love your brother or neighbor as ourselves, then we will not suffer sin to come upon him.""

---

I reply: I agree with you. I do not make it a point to pull anyone and everyone aside who refers to YHWH as "God" and tell them I believe they dishonor Him, but if an opportunity presents itself, I usually put in my two cents' worth. I especially do this when a comment is made to the effect of how the name/title "God" is "perfectly acceptable." Acceptable to whom, I ask! Certainly not to the Almighty. Why would He condemn the worship of an idol whose name is pronounced "gawd," and then turn around and say, "But it's okay to call Me your 'God'"?

The response I've heard over the years is, "Yes, they're pronounced the same, but they're not connected!" And that makes it okay, I guess.

Elyahc, you also wrote:

quote:

---

Scroll down and Click on the little speaker and listen to the pronounciation of this word GAD=GOD=GAWD=GUWD at this address Dictionary below.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?number=01410

---

First of all, I have corresponded with several Hebrew professors who state that there really isn't an "a" as in "sad" (the short a) sound in Hebrew. While this is not unanimous, it at least attests to the uncertainty that is out there, even among the scholars.

Secondly, I am providing below the link to word #1408 from the same site offered by Elyahc. You will notice that the pronunciation listed for this idol is gad. Before you jump to any conclusions, you might want to click on the little speaker. Let me know what you hear. Here's the link:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?number=01408&version=kjv

Shalom and may YHWH bless.

In the love of YHWH through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I've haven't been feeling to well lately, I'm on vancomiasion antibiotics and have been for almost 6 weeks for catching " staff infection ".

Thank you for correcting it Larry.

Ps. I really liked those 2 booklets you and June wrote that I mentioned to David above, very nice indeed, and very well written.

Do you have a link that people could read BOTH of those two booklets online?

I would like for some to read those 2 booklets, and especially "" The Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. "" on some of the forums.

Thank you again for correcting it,if people will only believe their own eyes and ears tho. huh?

Look up these Hebrew words in ( Strongs Concordance Hebrew Dictionary)of " GAD=1408, and variation of 1409=GAWD, and from number= 1464= GUWD, and akin to 1413, that is used in ( Isa.65:11) of "" THAT TROOP "" see center reference column, the English uses " God from German Gott= Guth and the English " GOD= GAD=Number 1408, and variation of 1409= GAWD from 1464= GUWD and is the same words.
Scroll down and Click on the little speaker and listen to the pronounciation of this word GAD=GOD=GAWD=GUWD at this address Dictionary below.

Scroll down and click on the little speaker and listen to its pronounciation.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?number=01408&version=kjv

Isn't ironic that from this article BELOW that the Swedish and Danish peoples use " GUD " as a title without the letter' w 'which is silent, and that Strongs H.number 1464 uses "" GUwD "", from which all 1408,1409 are all related ?

http://88.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GO/GOD.htm

What in the world happened to you that you caught a staph infection?? This sounds very, very serious. If memory serves me correctly, Vancomycin is only used after other antibiotics didn't work. I will remember you in my prayers. I am very sorry to learn you have suffered so much from this illness. May Yahweh heal you from this quickly.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Yes, you are correct, I quoted the wrong link and Strongs number from memory, thanks for correcting it.

---

I reply: No problem. I should actually thank you for providing the link in the first place, as I had never visited that site before. When I noticed the link you offered was for Strong's #1410, I initially thought, "Uh-oh," because I just knew that when I went to their listing for #1408, the pronunciation would be something like "gad" as in "sad." When I found out that the site offers the same pronunciation under both listings, I knew this was a well-researched web site, at least in that particular instance!

You wrote:

quote:

---

Ps. I really liked those 2 booklets you and June wrote that I mentioned to David above, very nice indeed, and very well written.

Do you have a link that people could read BOTH of those two booklets online?

I would like for some to read those 2 booklets, and especially "" The Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. "" on some of the forums.

Thank you again for correcting it,if people will only believe their own eyes and ears tho. huh?

---

I reply: First of all, thank you very much for the kind remark. June and I only wrote both studies as a result of the criticism we have received from various circles for believing as we do. The "Sticks and Stones" study is primarily geared towards those who do not think it matters to the Almighty whether or not we refer to Him with the name He gave to Himself. I'm thinking most folks who visit this forum would probably not disagree with anything found in that study. It is only available as a "hard copy" booklet at this time.

The other study, however, is a different matter. The springboard for our having written the study entitled "Do We Honor Yahweh by Referring to Him as 'Our God'?" was an article that someone mailed us. The article was originally written in 1997 and is entitled "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles." As with any study we read, we have to be prepared to divide truth from error, and the study about inspired titles is one such example. As I recall, it actually contained some very good points regarding a certain Sacred Name Movement aversion to the Hebrew word "Adonai," which really represents a double standard, since the same criteria used to denounce "Adonai" can also be used against "Elohim," a title commonly used within the Sacred Name Movement.

However, it also contained errors, some of which were later corrected by the authors, such as their claim that the KJV translators mistranslated the word rendered "Beulah" in Isaiah 62:4. They also renamed their study "The Truth About Inspired Titles in the Light of the Sacred Names." However, the greatest error of all came to surface as their primary theme, and that is their contention that "God is a perfectly acceptable English translation of the Hebrew word Elohim." When I first read that remark, my eyes nearly popped out. I had been with what is commonly known as the "Sacred Name Movement" for over ten years when I read their study, and to that point I had never (to my knowledge) met anyone who believed it was okay to refer to Yahweh as their "God." In fact, I remember thinking, "No one's gonna believe this!"

I put the study in a file for future reference and forgot about it for some three years, and never really thought about it again until I noticed a certain friend referring to Yahweh as "his God" or something to that effect. Stunned by this reference, I inquired further and learned that he had been persuaded by the same study that I had dismissed as ridiculous three years earlier. It was then that I learned that a plethora of Sacred Namers had been influenced by the study. This, then, led to a group e-mail discussion between myself and others, including the authors of the study. What resulted was something I simply entitled "A Critique of the Article 'The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles.'" Another gentleman contributed some of his own research, then he posted it at his web site, where it can still be accessed. Some of the links to the various installments are mixed up, but anyone can sort through and read it all. To date, no one has ever shown that anything in our review is incorrect, so unless someone does so, we stand by what we have written. Here is the link to our critique, for anyone who might be interested:

http://www.geocities.com/dabar_olam/Articles/CRITIQUE.html

Shortly after the critique was written, another gentleman asked if I could put together an abbreviated version for his newsletter. The result was the study entitled "Do We Honor Yahweh by Referring to Him as 'Our God'?". It wasn't as "abbreviated" as I had hoped it would be, as I believe it required three separate issues of his newsletter to present everything I wrote. He then posted the study at his web site, and it can by read by accessing this link:

http://www.search-the-scriptures.org/artic-98.htm

The study found at his site addresses the main objections that June and I have encountered. I had to keep it as brief as I could because I know the average person simply will not take the time to read it if it is overly lengthy. As it is, very few are interested, as their minds have already been made up. I firmly maintain that any of the responses June and I have for the seven objections presented in our study, in and of itself, testifies that we dishonor YHWH by referring to Him as "God." However, when each of those responses is combined with the others, I believe the matter is sealed.

The above study is also available as a 47-page booklet, for those who prefer a "hard copy." It is actually the condensed version of a much larger version, which is over 100 pages long. Just last year I was involved in a very unpleasant discussion right here in this forum with a man who didn't seem to feel the need to read anything June and I have written on this topic because he clearly felt he knew all the arguments and that he had all the answers. As it turned out, each of his objections had already been addressed in either our condensed or unabridged version. This is simply typical of what June and I have encountered over the years. People tend to believe they've already done all the research that needs to be done, so anyone who disagrees with them must be a poor researcher. All I can say is, if any of the conclusions I have reached based upon the research I present in these studies is flawed, please show me the errors instead of simply stating, "You haven't proven any connections." I consider such a reaction to be a copout.

By the way, anyone who would like to take the time to read through the thread I mentioned above can do so by accessing this link:

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/002078.html

I would have to say the most outlandish claim made by the opposing camp from last year's discussion is the one on the first page, where he wrote, "The torah endorses the application of 'heathen' epithets to YHWH." I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that!

His reference was apparently to terms such as "Elohim," "Adonai," and even "Baal," all of which are terms used in reference to both YHWH and heathen idols. What I believe many folks do not consider is the fact that, before there was such a thing as "heathen worship," the only form of worship in existence was "pure worship." As such, YHWH was rightly the true Elohim, the true Adonai and the true Baal (husband, master). At that point in history, no one considered using such terms in reference to a false form of worship, because false worship didn't exist ... at least not at that time. As mankind branched out, however, corruption ensued, and those honorable titles were gradually applied to idols. Applying a pure title to something corrupt doesn't mean the title is thereby invalidated.

In the same way, just because it can be proven there was a moon deity named "Yah," this doesn't mean we must now cease using the name "Yah."

In the same way, if some group out there were to start worshipping some new idol, giving it the name "Almighty," and if this group's brand of worship spread all over the world, this wouldn't mean that we would dishonor YHWH by referring to Him as "our Almighty." Yes, I would probably curtail my own personal use of that title because of the corrupted worship that had thus become associated with it, but this wouldn't mean it would dishonor YHWH to use it in reference to Him.

The difference here is, YHWH Himself identifies and singles out a false idol whose worship He condemns. To then choose to apply the name of that idol to YHWH, whether it be as a name or title, is what I regard a spiritual slap in His face. To illustrate what I mean, can you imagine a Jewish Holocaust survivor choosing to refer to his friends as his "hitlers"? How many friends do you think he would have?

The opposing camp usually attempts to portray the English "God" as having a completely separate etymology from the Canaanite idol named "God," even though they cannot produce the etymology to validate their case. In fact, as I mentioned last night, even the top etymologists (by worldly standards) are on record as stating that the etymology of the English word "God" is a "tangle of guesses." Nevertheless, the opposition expects others to believe there cannot be a connection between it and the Canaanite idol. What I see here is, instead of a separate etymology for the English "God," a shared etymology. In other words, there is a direct connection. What we thus have is what is known as a cultural redefinition of an ancient term. A once-dishonorable term is now redefined as "perfectly acceptable." It's much the same as the ancient word "villain," which has been culturally redefined to mean "a bad guy," whereas it originally meant a farm dweller.

I'm not necessarily opposed to culturally redefining terms, but when it comes to redefining a name that belongs to a heathen idol whose worship Yahweh condemns, then dubbing it "a perfectly acceptable translation of Elohim," I draw the line. I'll go with Yahweh's definition, not man's.

You also wrote:

quote:

---

Larry,
Isn't ironic that from this article BELOW that the Swedish and Danish peoples use " GUD " as a title without the letter' w 'which is silent, and that Strongs H.number 1464 uses "" GUwD "", from which all 1408,1409 are all related ?

http://88.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GO/GOD.htm

---

I reply: Excellent observation! I believe the connections are so obvious, but sometimes I think people cannot see what they won't see. I don't know how else to explain it. I'm not trying to say I'm better than anyone else, for I believe all of us are trying to "come out of Babylon," but for some reason we all see and interpret things differently. More and more, I find that I encounter folks who come so very close to agreeing with us on certain topics, but then some other issue comes up that results in a division. It really saddens me. I pray daily for all those who seek Yahweh and His ways to come to unity. That prayer has not yet been answered, but I'm not giving up!

This will be all for now. May Yahweh bless you and heal you, Elyahc.

In the love of Yahweh through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Its a long story about the staff infection concerning 3 back surgeries I had in two months because of ruptured discs in my back and pinched nerves.

However, I will check these out, and thank you for your prayers and kind words, I do agree with you on this, that anytime a "" title "" or "" name "" that is substituted in place of the Father YAHWEH'S Name and keeps it hidden from the common people, that it is falsehood and Idolatry.

Thanks again for the prayers and kind words, for such is rarely said to me on all the religious forums that i've been discussing this truth with others.

Yah bless,

------------------
David ben Yacob

There is no proven connenction to the title God in English as is admitted. This is good enough for me!

the name of God consisting of 12 letters, as well as combinations of 42 letters, and 72 letters or triads, which are considered Divine names. There is a tradition that these names have miraculous powers if used properly.

Whosoever will call upon the name of Yahueh shall be saved, Yoel 2:32!

You wrote:

quote:

---

Note: Larry readily admits he can not prove the etymology he wants to assert while critisizing us who point this out to him.

---

I reply: First of all, I do not recall admitting that I cannot prove the etymology of the English name/title "God." Please produce the quotation where I did such a thing. Here is what I will admit: I cannot go back through time to physically and literally show you or anyone the various stages of how this idol's name was carried from Israel to Russia, Ireland and Germany, yet this is clearly what occurred.

Or will you deny that the words El and Baal, as identified in ancient Gaelic worship, can be traced to ancient Israel? I am curious as to why you have chosen not to address this aspect of my posting.

I believe the evidence heavily supports God worship, not only in Russia, but in ancient Ireland, not to mention Germany. What you are asking me to do is unreasonable, as you expect me to take you on a physical journey through time to prove what you do not wish to accept as possible.

Secondly, David, as for criticizing anyone, all I have done is establish that your testimony is not credible on the basis that you have already testified that you would have no problem referring to Yahueh as your "Zeus" or "Apollo." In other words, from my perspective here, you are saying "the sky's the limit." I'm thinking maybe, under the right circumstances, you might also approve of referring to Yahweh as your "Satan." Do you see why? I have to wonder where exactly it is you would draw the line. What you wrote back in 2001, to me, is the epitome of dishonor to the Almighty, whether you refer to Him as your "Zeus," "Apollo," "Satan," or your "God." I would have been ashamed to have made such a remark. Anyone here who thinks it is okay to refer to Yahweh in this manner will disagree with me, and that is fine. Nevertheless, I believe you know I love you as a friend, and if you are honest with me, you will admit as much. However, as I have already stated, I must put my love for Yahweh above my earthly friendships. As Proverbs 27:6 says, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend."

Next, you wrote:

quote:

---

Also keep in mind that Gawd is used as a name for one of the sons of Yacob and the tribe descendent from him and the Book of Revelation says this Gawd will be in the gates of the New Yahrushaliem. This reference in Genesis is much older than the reference to an idol by the same name in Isaiah. So it boils down to which came first the chicken or the egg! The Scriptures say that GAWD was the name of the tribe in Israel long before it is mentioned as an idol of Babylon! I'll take Yahueh's word for it.

---

I reply: David, the above remark only goes to prove what I have suspected all along, and if you are honest with me, you will admit it: You have never read the study I have written. Otherwise, if you disagree with my commentary on that, you would have, as a friend, addressed the error of my response years ago, for I responded to this very same reasoning back in 2001. All we are doing is rehashing old arguments with each other.

Regarding the name "Gawd" as the name of one of the sons of Yacob: Very briefly, the answer is, yes, this is true. However, when Zilpah gave birth to Jacob's son, Leah gave him the name Gawd. Leah, as any careful student knows, was raised in a very heathen environment. Her father, Laban, was an idol worshipper, and Rachel even stole his idols when Jacob fled from his father-in-law. One might think that by the time Jacob married Leah and Rachel, he "straightened them out." However, we even read as late as Genesis 35:2, well after Jacob had left Laban behind, he told his household to "put away the strange elohim that are among you." In other words, until that point, Jacob himself had tolerated idol worship within his own household! David, is this the same Jacob you trust to have made certain his son was given a "pure" name?? Please answer.

As for the name found on the gate of the New Yerushalem, this has already been addressed as well. How's come, out of all those 12 tribes, you select the name "God" to culturally and linguistically redefine as a legitimate title for Yahueh? Why not select Naphtali or Zebulun? Furthermore, regardless of "which" of those names you might choose, I trust you understand that each of those tribes, regardless of the honor they are given by having their names inscribed upon those gates, rebelled against YHWH. In fact, there isn't a name given to man anywhere that could merit as being worthy to be linguistically redefined as an honorable title for Yahweh. Agreed?

Moreover, we could always address other men whose names will be found in another honorable place besides the gates of the New Yerushalem. How about The Book of Life? I am persuaded that the Apostle named Apollos will be there, as will Hermes. The Book of Life, to me, is at least as honorable a place as the Gates of the New Yerushalem. I don't believe having your name on the Gates of the New Yerushalem is an automatic guarantee that your name will also be found in the Book of Life. That is not to say I don't believe any of those twelve men will be in the resurrection, but I will say that if I had to make a choice, I would choose the Book of Life.

I believe lots of men with heathen names will be found in the Book of Life, but I don't believe that justifies linguistically and culturally redefining any of those names as a title for our Heavenly Father. If you wish to refer to Yahweh as your "Zeus" or your "Hermes," that is your prerogative. As for me and my house, we will choose something that is not traced to the name of an idol whose worship is condemned by Yahweh. This is all about choices, David. There are lots of titles that cannot be traced to the name of a heathen idol, such as "Almighty," "Father," "Sovereign," "Eternal," and "Mighty One." There is only one reason I would choose "God," in view of what I know to be true: compromise and the desire to blend in. I know. I've been there.

I might also add that Elyahc made an excellent point in a posting he submitted the other day: God is the name of a MAN, one of the twelve tribes of Israel; however, it will not be inscribed on one of the twelve gates as a TITLE for the Creator Yahweh. You would do well to remember that point he made, for it is very true.

Finally, you wrote:

quote:

---

There is no proven connenction to the title God in English as is admitted. This is good enough for me!

---

I reply: Yes, David, your pat response over the years has been, "No one can prove a connection." As I have repeatedly told you, this is just a copout, at least based upon the method of proving a connection that you require.

Let's try this: Do you at least admit that maybe there is a connection?

David, you've had my e-mail address for years, and I have previously invited you to demonstrate the errors in what I have written. You have not once taken me up on it. If I have written anything that is falsehood, I want to know about it.

By the way, I do have both the original 1997 copy of the study by Dale George and Silvio Soto, as well as the revision they put out in 2001. If you would like a copy, you know how to contact me.

In the love of Yahweh through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

You confuse me as to why you choose to post here at EliYah's Forums. I know that when you registered, you certainly read and agreed to the forum guidelines before posting here, did you not?

Here is what you submitted this evening:

quote:

---

The Tetragrammaton is called God's "proper name" (Shem HaMeforash). Although God Himself is absolutely unknowable and unnameable, the Tetragrammaton is His highest emanation in creation. It is therefore considered most sacred, and is never pronounced as it is written, even in prayer. We are taught that one who pronounces the Tetragrammaton disrespectfully is worthy of death and has no portion in the World to Come. According to tradition, whenever the Tetragrammaton is written yud-hay-vov-hay, it is read Adonai. However, when it occurs in conjunction with the name adonai, it is read Elohim.

---

I reply: Clearly, you do not believe anyone should speak the Tetragrammaton. I disagree with you, as does Scripture, as evidenced by some 6,823 times His name is not only mentioned, but also recorded as having been spoken. I personally prefer to go by Scriptural example rather than the teachings of men.

What confuses me about your decision to post here is the fact that one of the criteria required for posting in this forum is the agreement to the following:

• By posting to any of these forums, with the exception of "The True Faith" forum, you state that you agree with the following scriptural understandings:

Belief in the Messiah spoken of in the books of Matthew through Revelation and acceptance of Genesis - Revelation as the inspired word of Yahweh.

Belief that "ALL scripture" including the Torah/Law of Yahweh spoken of in Genesis-Malachi is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness" (2Tim 3:16).

Belief that we should return and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations such as Jesus, Adonai, the LORD, HaShem, GOD, etc."

Clearly, by using "God" instead of the Creator's name, you disagree with the forum requirement that you agreed to when you registered. I guess what I'd like to know is, why are you posting here in deference to the required guidelines?

In the love of Yahweh through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged