InChrist
Free4ever
It means that God is Self-existent.Yahweh I was told means I Am, Who Am. And what that means, I don't know.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It means that God is Self-existent.Yahweh I was told means I Am, Who Am. And what that means, I don't know.
If it is a Jewish Bible it has the name.....if it is a "Christian" Bible, it has the name represented by "The LORD" in capital letters.
Then what would you do with Joshua, Jonathan, Jehoshaphat, etc.?You may find the linked article interesting:
"The vast majority of Jewish and Christian biblical scholars and linguists do not believe “Jehovah” to be the proper pronunciation of YHWH. There was no true J sound in ancient Hebrew. Even the Hebrew letter vav, which is transliterated as the W in YHWH is said to have originally had a pronunciation closer to W than the V of Jehovah. Jehovah is essentially a Germanic pronunciation of the Latinized transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH. It is the letters of the tetragrammaton, Latinized into JHVH, with vowels inserted. “Yahweh” or “Yehowah” is far more likely to be the correct pronunciation."
Is Jehovah the true name of God?
That's an interesting question. I suppose in Hebrew all those J names would begin with Y.Then what would you do with Joshua, Jonathan, Jehoshaphat, etc.?
That's an interesting question. I suppose in Hebrew all those J names would begin with Y.
Yahweh I was told means I Am, Who Am. And what that means, I don't know.
That's true (for most). But we speak English, so those Y's are pronounced as J's.That's an interesting question. I suppose in Hebrew all those J names would begin with Y.
The point that I was trying to make is that you were arguing that we should correct all the names in the Bible if we are also going to correct how G-d's Name is spelled. I am saying that you don't stress the importance of any other names. If you are going to stress the importance of this one, than it makes sense to ensure that you're stressing the correct version of it.Which is the very point for those who believe that Jesus is God (which I don't)
If you are going to balk over saying the Father's name in English, why not balk over the name of his son if you think they are one and the same "God"?
Because it happens to be in the middle of the word. It's a lot more clear when I write G-d, then when I write -od or Go-.I see the same superstitious aversion to vowels in the way Jewish people write G-d. Why omit the vowel?
Technically, not much. It's a custom that arose because in Hebrew we will do something like that to the Names that may not be erased. So the custom just transferred over to English when we write in English as well. Its not necessary, really.What does that accomplish exactly?
It's an natural extension of a different Law as explained above.Who told you that was appropriate?
Because they were writing holy texts. We do it too, when writing holy texts, such as prayer books or printing the Tanach. We just avoid it in mundane use, such as this conversation.Why did the Bible writers use God's name so freely, with no hyphens?
There is no Biblical precedent for this. Nowhere does scripture say that God's name is too sacred to be uttered.
What you've done here is made up your own interpretation of a verse to suit your desire. I say that the meaning of the verse is not to utter G-d's Name in any mundane circumstance. I don't know how you're getting to guilt and sinning with impunity. This is simply about saying G-d's Name. The typical application of this verse was in the oath that a person would take in G-d's Name in certain situations of the court. But the verse doesn't limit it's application. Simply never say G-d's Name for nothing. I'm not an expert in determining what constitutes a valid application, so it's best to avoid transgressing.If it is against God's law to 'take his name in vain', what do you think that means? If what you do (your actions) brings reproach on God's name and reputation, (as people know that you claim to be one of his people) then omitting the name does not relieve you of the guilt. This is a classic example of 'straining at the gnat but swallowing down the camel'.
Simply removing the name does not mean that you can sin with impunity. This is observing the 'letter of the law' without discerning the reason for it, or the spirit behind it. God's law does not have 'loopholes'. God's worship is not about performance, but about willing obedience to all of his commands from the heart.
There is no command here to mention G-d's Name. This verse is simply stating a fact: this is G-d's Name.It isn't a problem for us. It is only a problem for those who have invalid reasons for avoiding the name that God gave to himself as his memorial for all generations to come.
"And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
Haven't Jews broken that command? No generation of Jews hold to that directive....do they? So why is that the case...can you tell me?
If a lost child is going to call out "Daddy", probably all the fathers are going to turn to the child. But the father who knows that the child is calling for himself, is the one who will respond.Well, in a room full of men who are all fathers, and a lost child enters and calls out "Daddy!".....who alone is going to go to that child and embrace him? Titles do not always address the right individual. How many in the military are addressed by the title "Sir"? How many judges answer to "Your Honor"? If, as the Bible says, there are other gods and lords, (albeit false ones) then the title "God" or "Lord" does not address YHWH exclusively.....does it? It is his name that makes him unique.
Can you tell me what the English name Abraham means?The books of child names convey their meaning and some people choose a name based on its meaning...others just like the name regardless of its meaning. I don't think that there are very many exclusively "English" names anyway.
According to Wiki...."English is a West Germanic language that originated from Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain in the mid 5th to 7th centuries AD by Germanic invaders and settlers from what is now northwest Germany, west Denmark and the Netherlands, displacing the Celtic languages that previously predominated."
Our English Calendar has the names of days and months dedicated to Norse gods mainly. When Pope Gregory changed the calendar in 1582, he did not get rid of the pagan gods for some reason......how very Christian of him....
The Jewish calendar is the best one.
In the Complete Jewish Bible it says
In the Orthodox Jewish Bible
That's true. I have a son called Jonathan. Yet, I think it is quite different when it comes to the name of God and changing YHWH to Jehovah, which is an inaccurate hybrid, and then to make the claim as the Watchtower does that this is the one and only true personal name of God.That's true (for most). But we speak English, so those Y's are pronounced as J's.
Take care, cousin.
The point that I was trying to make is that you were arguing that we should correct all the names in the Bible if we are also going to correct how G-d's Name is spelled. I am saying that you don't stress the importance of any other names. If you are going to stress the importance of this one, than it makes sense to ensure that you're stressing the correct version of it.
Because it happens to be in the middle of the word. It's a lot more clear when I write G-d, then when I write -od or Go-.
Technically, not much. It's a custom that arose because in Hebrew we will do something like that to the Names that may not be erased. So the custom just transferred over to English when we write in English as well. Its not necessary, really.
It's an natural extension of a different Law as explained above.
Because they were writing holy texts. We do it too, when writing holy texts, such as prayer books or printing the Tanach. We just avoid it in mundane use, such as this conversation.
You can find a similar idea of treating the Tetragrammaton differently, in the Qumran scrolls. The Isaiah scroll (only one I've looked at), is written entirely in square script, except the Tetragrammaton which is written in Paleo-Hebrew.
I've provided two verses (technically three since one is repeated).
The typical application of this verse was in the oath that a person would take in G-d's Name in certain situations of the court. But the verse doesn't limit it's application. Simply never say G-d's Name for nothing. I'm not an expert in determining what constitutes a valid application, so it's best to avoid transgressing.
There is no command here to mention G-d's Name. This verse is simply stating a fact: this is G-d's Name.
And of course that's only if there are actual other "fathers". There is no other entity bearing any of the other Names or titles of G-d. So there is no problem using them.
Slightly off topic, but I think it's important to note that both of those Bibles are actually Christian Bibles despite the names. They were written by Messianics and the Messianic way is to couch Christianity in Jewish terms or phrases.
If that is the correct version, then why aren't you using it?The "correct version" is ---- This is the only name God has ever revealed to man.....all the titles attributed to him are mostly those given to him by men. Time and again God says of ----....."this is my name". (Exodus 3:15) How long is "forever"?
Ok, I didn't understand that before. So why haven't you moved to do so?Actually, what I said is, if we changed the divine name to a more Hebrew sounding transliteration, we would have to do the same to all the Bible characters whose names incorporates the divine one.
You're question was why I was leaving out a vowel. I'm just expressing that I don't specifically leave out a vowel, it's just the easiest letter to leave out without making the word not understandable.Huh? It's actually a lot clearer when you just write "God".
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The problem is that there is a prohibition to erase the seven Hebrew Names of G-d as they are written in Hebrew per Deut. 12:3-4. So what we do instead, is we write placeholders, remove or change letters of these seven Names, when writing texts that may find themselves in the garbage or otherwise not sufficiently cared for in a manner consistent with preventing transgression of the commandment. From there, when writing in English, some people also carried the concept over, by changing the 'o' for a '-' in G-d, or when transliterating any of the Names of G-d on texts that will not be properly cared for.Erased from where? "God" is not a name, even in English. People worship many gods. Even when Israel fell to worshipping Baal....the title Baal means "Lord" or "Master".....
For Muslims "Allah" simply means "God".
For Christendom, Jesus is "God" but the Father is a nameless "Lord".....
All the Abrahamic religions have lost sight of who the true God is.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
דשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל ---- אֱלֹקינוּ ----| אֶחָֽד:" (Deuteronomy 6:4) That is not the way it reads in Hebrew, is it?
It should read "Yahweh/Jehovah () is our God; Yahweh/Jehovah () is one".
In English, it's a custom. In Hebrew, it's required as above.So it's a 'custom', not something God actually commanded anyone to do?
What does that mean? Every additional Law is an additional opportunity to fulfill the Will of my G-d. There is no enough.Weren't there enough laws in the Torah?
Hundreds? Funny.Why add to the hundreds of laws you already had?
I think that's usually how it works, unless we're talking about Rabbinical Laws.You said it was a 'custom'....which is not a law. If it was a law, it would be in the scriptures....no?
Actually, according to Jewish tradition, Boaz was the one who enacted the requirement of greeting someone with the Name of G-d. We still do that today, when we use the word Sh-lom, which is believed to be one of the more lenient Names of G-d.Many of the things written in the Bible are about ordinary things.
In Ruth 2:4 it says.... "Just then Boʹaz arrived from Bethʹle·hem and said to the harvesters: “Jehovah be with you.” And they replied: “Jehovah bless you.”
Or as it says in the Jewish Bible....
"And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to the reapers, "May the Lord be with you!" And they said to him, "The Lord bless you."
---- דוְהִנֵּה־בֹ֗עַז בָּ֚א מִבֵּ֣ית לֶ֔חֶם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר לַקּֽוֹצְרִ֖ים ---- עִמָּכֶ֑ם וַיֹּ֥אמְרוּ ל֖וֹ יְבָֽרֶכְךָ֥
You can see that God's name was freely used even in greeting.
Yes, I recently read that.Older fragments of the Greek Septuagint also contains the tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters written into the Greek text.
Well, you have yet to disprove their validity. So I don't see why not.You did? Were they valid though?
This is terrible. There are two problems here.Yes, frivolous oaths were being taken in God's name and treated as of no account, but rather than pull their socks up, and actually living up to the law, these ones dropped the use of God's name so the law wouldn't apply......you think that makes swearing a false oath more acceptable? The letter of the law might have been observed but is that why it was given. Men look for loopholes to sin....it doesn't work.
What about Joel 2:32?
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the Shem of Adonoi shall be saved; for in Mt Tziyon and in Yerushalayim shall be deliverance, as Hashem hath said, and in the seridim (remnant, survivors) whom Hashem shall call.
"והיה כל אשר־יקרא בשם ---- ימלט כי בהר־ציון ובירושלם תהיה פליטה כאשר אמר ---- ובשרידים אשר ---- קרא
Or in plain English...."And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said.
The survivors whom Jehovah calls."
In the Hebrew, the divine name appears 3 times in this verse. Seems pretty important to me. "Everyone who calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved."
There are not many.There is no other real entity who rightfully bears the title the way the true God does, but there are many who are called "gods"
What did God say to Moses when sending him before Pharaoh to request Israel's release?
Exodus 7:1
"The Lord said to Moses, "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker.
אוַיֹּ֤אמֶר ---- אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹקים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ:"
In English it reads "I will make you God to Pharaoh"
I was actually referring to a response you made to someone else in which you quoted two other Bibles both bearing the name "Jewish" and neither of them actually Jewish. Also in this response of yours you quoted some Messianic Bible's version of Joel 2:32. I can tell it's Messianic, because they attempt to mimic (badly) how they think a religious Jewish person (we tend to replace English nouns with Hebrew, Yiddish or Aramaic, but they take it over the top) would say those verses in English. That's a typical Messianic tactic. So even though I don't know which Messianic translation you've gotten that from, I'm sure it's from one of them.
If that is the correct version, then why aren't you using it?
Ok, I didn't understand that before. So why haven't you moved to do so?
Why would you need to shorten a three letter word? Do you do the same with the title "Lord"?You're question was why I was leaving out a vowel. I'm just expressing that I don't specifically leave out a vowel, it's just the easiest letter to leave out without making the word not understandable.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The problem is that there is a prohibition to erase the seven Hebrew Names of G-d as they are written in Hebrew per Deut. 12:3-4.
So what we do instead, is we write placeholders, remove or change letters of these seven Names, when writing texts that may find themselves in the garbage or otherwise not sufficiently cared for in a manner consistent with preventing transgression of the commandment. From there, when writing in English, some people also carried the concept over, by changing the 'o' for a '-' in G-d, or when transliterating any of the Names of G-d on texts that will not be properly cared for.
In would be neither of those, since neither of those are the correct transliteration of the Tetragrammaton. All you've done is taken the consonants and applied one of the sets of vowel points that the Masoretes used for the Tetragrammaton.
What we actually do though, since we do not pronounce the Tetragrammaton, is we say Ad-nai. Actually that kind of relates to the pronunciation that you use. The vowel point set (e o a) comes from the Name Ad-nai (the first vowel "e" is commonly used to indicate a shva which doesn't have a strong sound, the "a" from Ad_nai is actually a vowel called a chataf patach which indicates that a shva is the vowel, but because that vowel would be unpronounceable on this letter, another vowel is added to it), to indicate which name to replace the Tetragrammaton with. In a few places, we use the vowel set of the Name El-him to indicate to say that Name instead.
In English, it's a custom. In Hebrew, it's required as above.
What does that mean? Every additional Law is an additional opportunity to fulfill the Will of my G-d. There is no enough.
Hundreds? Funny.
It is a custom, not a Law. It's not an addition to the Laws, it's just a way of doing something. In this case, there's the added benefit of expressing respect for G-d even beyond what is strictly necessary, so it's a nice thing.
Actually, according to Jewish tradition, Boaz was the one who enacted the requirement of greeting someone with the Name of G-d. We still do that today, when we use the word Sh-lom, which is believed to be one of the more lenient Names of G-d.
This is terrible. There are two problems here.
One is that the prohibition to not use G-d's Name in vain isn't a prohibition to swear falsely. That's a different prohibition.
Someone who swears falsely and within that oath has used G-d's Name has transgressed two separate prohibitions. Not using G-d's Name doesn't allow one to swear falsely, it simply means that should one do so, there will only be one transgression.
The second thing is that the prohibition is to not use G-d's Name in vain. The prohibition itself is extremely general, which means that it has many applications. Such as mundane conversation as this one.
That's just foolish reading. When the Jewish Bible uses the phrase "call in the name" it means to select. See Ex. 31:2 where G-d selects Betzalel and Isaiah 43:1 where G-d selects Israel. Contextually, this verse in Joel is simply saying that anyone who chooses G-d - ie. to follow His Laws (which come out of Mt. Zion/Jerusalem) - will be saved. Simply saying G-d's Name isn't a reasonable reason to be saved.
I was actually referring to a response you made to someone else in which you quoted two other Bibles both bearing the name "Jewish" and neither of them actually Jewish. Also in this response of yours you quoted some Messianic Bible's version of Joel 2:32. I can tell it's Messianic, because they attempt to mimic (badly) how they think a religious Jewish person (we tend to replace English nouns with Hebrew, Yiddish or Aramaic, but they take it over the top) would say those verses in English. That's a typical Messianic tactic. So even though I don't know which Messianic translation you've gotten that from, I'm sure it's from one of them.
There still seems to be a lot of controversy and misunderstanding over the use of the divine name
There is no command here to mention G-d's Name. This verse is simply stating a fact: this is G-d's Name.
What about Joel 2:32?
Or in plain English...."And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said.
The survivors whom Jehovah calls."
In the Hebrew, the divine name appears 3 times in this verse. Seems pretty important to me. "Everyone who calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved."
Can you cite the verse that requires anyone to know what G-d's Name means?Well, we use it to the extent that it is possible....because a Jewish 'tradition' some 300 years BCE removed the pronunciation of the divine name from human lips and now no one knows exactly how to say it. This is why we opt for a translation, rather than a transliteration. It doesn't really matter to the Creator of language 'how' you say his name, but more importantly, that you know what it means. We believe that a translation preserves its meaning.
And I am arguing back that this is foolish. If you are already going to rely on the fact that G-d knows all languages, then there is no reason to also not rely on the fact that G-d reads all hearts and can divine whether you are referring to Him or not.As I said, it isn't how you pronounce a name that is important.....names differ as to language but the translation keeps the original meaning of the name.
Peter > Pierre....Joseph > Guiseppe....Simon > Shimon....The name is the same....the language just makes it sound different in various languages. God knows his name in all languages, doesn't he?
It's not about shortening it, it's about changing the spelling. And yes, if we're referring to G-d.Why would you need to shorten a three letter word? Do you do the same with the title "Lord"?
Nope, that's the right one. "And you shall destroy their names....and you shall not do so to G-d"Deuteronomy 12:3-4....
"And you shall tear down their altars, smash their monuments, burn their asherim with fire, cut down the graven images of their gods, and destroy their name from that place.
4You shall not do so to the Lord, your God.
Wrong scripture? I see no names of God in these verses.
You combine too many issues together.This is I guess, what I find hard to understand. It is not the 'paper and ink' that is sacred. The name of God is certainly to be treated with reverence, but what about all those scrolls that have God's name written in them that have been destroyed or perished over time? It gets a bit ridiculous to assume that words on a piece of paper can be viewed this way. It isn't the actual writing that is sacred but what is conveyed in the writing that is important. That can be inscribed on a person's memory and kept in a human heart where no man can touch it. But even then, humans die. I don't think God ever meant for us to trifle over such things....they end up as ritual or superstition, which hinders us from concentrating on the really important things IMO. It can become obsessive and meaningless.
And that brings us back to that argument about assigning random human-made constructs for G-d's Name and then ascribing special status to them.As above, a translation is more important to us than a transliteration, especially when deep meaning is attached to a name.
I always cringe when I hear my fellow Aussies try to pronounce a foreign name with an Australian accent....its not pleasant. Better to say the name in your native tongue than slaughter it in theirs.
Today I learned that JW's don't refer to their parents by "mother", "father", "mom" or "dad", but by their actual names. I did not know that.I understand the titles Adonai and Elohim, but I do not find them satisfying substitutes for God's name. For example, what child can draw close to a Father that they address as "Sir"? How close a friendship can you have with someone you don't call by name?
Isn't the first step in a close relationship revealing your name? Doesn't God want us to see him as a loving Father? Hasn't he revealed his name to us as a gesture of friendship?
No, hyphenating in English is the custom. There's no requirement to do so. It just became the custom to do so among many Jews. Changing the spelling in Hebrew is the Law - or more technically, a method to prevent transgression of the Law described above.But its not a law....its a 'custom' that became a requirement? Isn't that then just a man-made tradition? How do you know that God authorized or even approved of such things?
I know it is exactly what He wants with us, because that's exactly what He commanded of us.Do you think that is the kind of relationship God wants with his earthly family?
On the one hand, yes, absolutely, we are required to fulfill every single command, only because G-d has commanded us to do so. And, we are in no way capable of discerning the ultimate wisdom and importance behind even the smallest of commands. So blind adherence is absolutely an essential element especially in the context of expressing the supremeness of G-d. On the other hand, G-d has given us intellects with which to plumb the depths of His Law to the best of our ability to reason out some small fractions of that wisdom and importance. And to date, that equates to volumes and volumes of written Jewish works.Do you think he just wants blind adherence to a written code
Yes, the beginning of wisdom is fear of G-d. However, as a Christian, you have mastered the art of cherry picking and only describe half the story. Even as we are meant to tremble in compliance, we are also meant to love G-d with all our heart. These are two sides of the coin of Judaism where one brings the other back and forth as one ascends the path of G-d.accompanied by a constant dread of failure to comply?
The laws God wanted us to obey are all written in specific terms, and they are all beneficial to follow,
As usual, this NT drivel was written with someone lacking any real intimate knowledge of Judaism. The Sages of the Talmud dissected every word and letter of the Torah, while the NT can't even get it's quotes right. There is no commandment G-d has given us, that doesn't have pages and pages written about it.but the man-made ones are just nit-picking as Jesus described when addressing the Pharisees of his day. "Straining at gnats but gulping down camels" is how he described what they did. The concentrated so much on the small stuff that "weightier" matters of the law slipped right by them.
I would say that the system checks itself. Many times, its impossible to be too stringent on one Law because it risks transgression of another Law. For instance, if I spend all day counting every seed of grain I have to make sure I give exactly 10% to the Levite, I'm risking not fulfilling all the other commandments I have to fulfill over the course of the day.It might be "nice" but how do you keep from taking things too far?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but if you mean that the text itself is meant to be the sole guiding force for the individual, than I think that is obviously false. If it were that simple, Moses could have simply handed over the text to the Jews and said "just read it". Instead he spent all day teaching them something to the extent that Jethro had to advise him to break it up into administration levels. And later on in Deut. 17:11 we are commanded - not just to follow what the text says, but to follow exactly what the religious leaders teach us. Clearly they must know something beyond what is simply written in the text.God's law never required taking things beyond what was written?
It means that the Law regarding its handling are more lenient.How can God have a "more lenient Name?"
See Judges 6:24. The verse can be read in two ways depending on whether the second pronoun "and he called him" is going back on the altar or on G-d.I have never seen "Sha·lohmʹ" used as a name for God. I have seen it used as a greeting; as a wish for God's peace,
I'm not sure what you mean by superstition, but yes, Boaz's enactment was that we greet each other with a blessing in G-d's Name. So we say "Shalom Aleikhem", which fulfills both: it's a blessing meaning "peace on you" and the first word also doubles as G-d's Name. He used the Tetragrammaton and we use a different one, since today, we don't pronounce any of the seven Names in mundane speech.but the one recorded in Ruth used the Tetragrammaton. There was nothing to indicate that God's name carried any superstition with it. It invoked a blessing.
That doesn't make them related, it just means it's possible to transgress two prohibitions in one shot. You can do that with a lot of things. If I cook meat and milk together on the Sabbath, I'm also transgressing two prohibitions at once. Swearing an oath in G-d's Name is one of the ways that one might use G-d's Name. But it can be used in myriad mundane ways.But the two were closely related as I see it, because the swearing of an oath was done in God's name.
Your phraseolgy here is terrible. "Allow the perpertrator"? "Economic to leave the name out"?So removing God's name just allowed the perpetrator to carry out one sinful act instead of two....is that what you are saying? It was just more 'economic' to leave the name out of all conversation, just in case?
Of course any offense should be avoided. The problem is that people are not always careful or simply don't care. Even one transgression is terrible. But you know what's even worse? Two.Is it the number of transgressions that matters? Isn't it that any offense should be avoided in the first place?
It seems that people spoke about God, using his name in everyday situations because there was no such prohibition in ancient times.
I don't think I can explain it to you, because you as a JW only refer to your parents by name and not by what used to be the more respectful method of "mother" and "father". We've retained that sensitivity and see the obviousness in applying it to G-d as well.Why would using God's name respectfully in conversation be offensive to him?
People do this all the time. There are safes. There are safe deposit boxes. The more precious something is, the more we tend to keep it out of sight. G-d's Name is the most precious and to utter such a holy Name requires a degree of sanctity and worthiness that I can only dream about. So I keep it in my safe deposit box.The prophet Malachi was instructed to say to his errant nation.....
16 Then the God-fearing men spoke to one another, and the Lord hearkened and heard it. And a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared the Lord and for those who valued His name highly.
17 And they shall be Mine, says the Lord of Hosts, for that day when I make a treasure. And I will have compassion on them as a man has compassion on his son who serves him.
18 And you shall return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves God and him who has not served Him.
(Malachi 3:16-18)
How can you value a name you never utter?
Both. Have you not seen Lev. 19:3?How does a son serve a father? Out of fear or out of love?
Technically yes, but I suspect the question is a result of your supposing that Judaism is all about fearing G-d, when in reality that's simply the particular aspect of Judaism you've engaged in here.Can you love someone you see hovering over your shoulder, wielding a big stick?
I'm not sure at all how this relates to calling in G-d's Name. As I explained, that is just a way of declaring allegiance to G-d. I don't understand what aspect of that you're responding to here.I wasn't implying that was the case. Going back to the illustration of the child and the room full of men who are all fathers; when the child calls "Daddy" no other 'father' in the room will legitimately claim that child as his own. Its the relationship that determines the response. The child knows his father as intimately as the father knows his child. This I believe is the relationship God wants us to have with him. Not a stiff fear-motivated dread of breaking hundreds of laws, but a close personal and loving relationship with someone you call "Dad", not "Sir". If you love God, obedience to his laws is not at all difficult. Looking for loopholes to lessen the penalties is not really why the law was given.
We just use a slightly different chapter and verse system. What's the end of chapter 2 for you, is the beginning of the following chapter for us. There's a few times where that happens.You are correct, and the only reason that I used the other source was because the the verses in Joel that I wanted to quote were missing altogether for some reason.
Yoel - Joel - Chapter 2 The verses finish at v27 whereas in other translations they finish at v32. Can you clear up the mystery?
There's no controversy, except with witnesses. There's not one command in the Bible telling people to speak the name.
Where is the "command" to say the name in that verse?
That verse was prophecy about Jesus, it doesn't mean calling on "Jehovah".
1 Corinthians 1:2 (ESV Strong's) 2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: