God's Name as Opposed to his Titles

InChrist · Jan 5, 2018

osgart said:
Yahweh I was told means I Am, Who Am. And what that means, I don't know.

It means that God is Self-existent.

Hockeycowboy · Jan 5, 2018

@Kemosloby,

Deeje posted:

Deeje said:
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.

Now, if you will, please read Psalms 8:1 & Psalms 8:9....
“O LORD our Lord, how great is Thy Name in all the Earth!”.....what name?! Hopefully you can see why having the Name there is necessary, making the passage more understandable.

Here is Psalms 8:1 as found in the Codex Leningrad:
לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ עַֽל־הַגִּתִּ֗ית מִזְמֹ֥ור לְדָוִֽד׃ יְהוָ֤ה אֲדֹנֵ֗ינוּ מָֽה־אַדִּ֣יר מְךָ בְּכָל־הָאָ֑רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּנָ֥ה הֹ֝ודְךָ֗ עַל־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃
As you can see, reading from right to left, the first highlighted word is the Divine Name, translated in most Bibles at “LORD”; the second highlighted word is the word adonenu, possessive form of adone, translated “the Lord”. As you can see, “יְהוָ֤ה” is completely different from “אֲדֹנֵ֗ינוּ”, yet they are translated by the same word! BTW, the same Hebrew word, “אֲדֹנֵ֗ינוּ”, is also translated as “our BAAL”.... certainly, that isn’t appropriate.

Take care.

Hockeycowboy · Jan 5, 2018

InChrist said:
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?

Then what would you do with Joshua, Jonathan, Jehoshaphat, etc.?

InChrist · Jan 5, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
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.

Deeje · Jan 5, 2018

InChrist said:
That's an interesting question. I suppose in Hebrew all those J names would begin with Y.

Most of them...yes....some with an "I".

Jeʹsus [Lat. form of the Gr. I·e·sousʹ] which corresponds to the Heb. Ye·shuʹaʽ or Yehoh·shuʹaʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”.

Jer·e·miʹah....possibly meaning "Jehovah Exalts" is Yirmeyah

Je·hoshʹa·phat....meaning "Jehovah Is Judge" is Yehoshaphat .

Joshʹu·a...shortened form of Jehoshua, meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation” in Hebrew is Yehoshua

Joʹel.....meaning "Jehovah Is God" becomes Yoel.....and so on.

Most of the "J" names in the Hebrew scriptures incorporate the divine name in English.

In other languages as follows....

LIST OF 99 LANGUAGES THAT USE A VERNACULAR FORM OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

CHIHOWA: Choctaw

IÁHVE: Portuguese

IEHOUA: Mer

IEHOVA: Gilbertese; Hawaiian; Hiri Motu; Kerewo; Kiwai; Marquesas; Motu; Panaieti (Misima); Rarotongan; Tahitian; Toaripi

IEHOVAN: Saibai

IEOVA: Kuanua; Wedau

IHOVA: Aneityum

IHVH: French

IOVA: Malekula (Kuliviu); Malekula (Pangkumu); Malekula (Uripiv)

JAHOWA: Batak-Toba

JAHUÈ: Chacobo

JAKWE: (Ki)Sukuma

JAHVE: Hungarian

JEHOBA: Kipsigis; Mentawai

JEHOFA: Tswana

JEHOVA: Croatian; German; Kélé (Gabon); Lele (Manus Island); Nandi; Nauruan; Nukuoro

JEHOVÁ: Spanish

JEHÔVA: Fang; Tsimihety

JEHOVAH: Dutch; Efik; English; Kalenjin; Malagasy; Narrinyeri; Ojibwa

JEOVA: Kusaie (Kosraean)

JIHOVA: Naga (Angami); Naga (Konyak); Naga (Lotha); Naga (Mao); Naga (Ntenyi); Naga (Sangtam); Rotuman

JIOUA: Mortlock

JIOVA: Fijian

JIWHEYẸWHE: Gu (Alada)

SIHOVA: Tongan

UYEHOVA: Zulu

YAHOWA: Thai

YAHVE: Ila

YAVE: Kongo

YAWE: Bobangi; Bolia; Dholuo; Lingala; Mongo (Lolo); (Lo)Ngandu; (Lo)Ntumba; (Ke)Sengele

YEHÓA: Awabakal

YEHOFA: Southern Sotho

YEHOVA: Chokwe; Chuana (Tlapi); (Ki)Kalanga; Logo; Luba; Lugbara; (Chi)Luimbi; (Chi)Lunda (Ndembu); (Chi)Luvale; Santo (Hog Harbor); Tiv; Umbundu; (Isi)Xhosa

YEHOVAH: Bube; Mohawk; Nguna (Efate); Nguna (Tongoa)

YEHOWA: Ga; Laotian; (Ki)Songe; Tshiluba

YEKOVA: Zande

YEOBA: Kuba (Inkongo)

YEOHOWA: Korean

YHWH: Hebrew

YOWO: Lomwe

ZAHOVA: Chin (Haka-Lai)

Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Deeje · Jan 6, 2018

osgart said:
Yahweh I was told means I Am, Who Am. And what that means, I don't know.

God's name never simply meant "I AM".... YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah) is the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ (become); meaning “He Causes to Be" or to "Become”.

In the Complete Jewish Bible it says....

"God said to Moshe, “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be],” and added, “Here is what to say to the people of Isra’el: ‘Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.’” God said further to Moshe, “Say this to the people of Isra’el: ‘Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai], the God of your fathers, the God of Avraham, the God of Yitz’chak and the God of Ya‘akov, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever; this is how I am to be remembered generation after generation." (Exodus 3:14-15)

Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh is the four consonants making up the divine name YHWH. It was never God stating his existence since Israel already knew who YHWH was. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were their forefathers.
This is God stating the purpose that his name represents.....he will BE or BECOME whatever he needs to be to fulfill his promises.

In the Orthodox Jewish Bible, Exodus 3:15 reads.....
"And Elohim said moreover unto Moshe, Thus shalt thou say unto Bnei Yisroel: Hashem, Elohei Avoteichem, Elohei Avraham, Elohei Yitzchak, and Elohei Ya’akov, hath sent me unto you: this is Shemi l’olam, and this is My remembrance unto all generations."

"Hashem" means "the name" (God's name) Shemi l’olam means "my name". To translate it like that makes a mockery of God's name. That reads in English "The Name has sent me to you". How insulting to the one who bears the name that is forbidden to be uttered!

Hockeycowboy · Jan 6, 2018

InChrist said:
That's an interesting question. I suppose in Hebrew all those J names would begin with Y.

That's true (for most). But we speak English, so those Y's are pronounced as J's.

Take care, cousin.

Tumah · Jan 6, 2018

Deeje said:
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"?

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.

I see the same superstitious aversion to vowels in the way Jewish people write G-d. Why omit the vowel?

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-.

What does that accomplish exactly?

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.

Who told you that was appropriate?

It's an natural extension of a different Law as explained above.

Why did the Bible writers use God's name so freely, with no hyphens?

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.

Judges 6:13...."And Gideon said to him, "Please my lord, if the Lord be with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all His wonders which our forefathers told us, saying, 'Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?' But now the Lord has forsaken us, and He has delivered us into the hand of Midian."

If God's ancient servants had no fear of using God's name, then why did the later religious leaders substitute the divine name with a title?[/quote]
And again, you don't know how ancient Jews used G-d's Name in mundane speech. All you have are the instances where Jews do use G-d's Name, that is, in writing holy texts.

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.

There is no Biblical precedent for this. Nowhere does scripture say that God's name is too sacred to be uttered.

I've provided two verses (technically three since one is repeated).

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.

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.

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?

There is no command here to mention G-d's Name. This verse is simply stating a fact: this is G-d's Name.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you tell me what the English name Abraham means?

Tumah · Jan 6, 2018

Deeje said:
In the Complete Jewish Bible it says

Deeje said:
In the Orthodox Jewish Bible

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.

InChrist · Jan 6, 2018

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, 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 My memorial to all generations.’ Exodus 3:14-15

It seems to me that in this passage God, besides revealing His Self-Existent nature by the name "I AM" God also specifically identified Himself and His name to include that He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob and this is His name and identity forever, a memorial to all generations.

InChrist · Jan 6, 2018

Hockeycowboy said:
That's true (for most). But we speak English, so those Y's are pronounced as J's.

Take care, cousin.

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.

"It is interesting to understand how the word Jehovah was derived, as the history of the word shows why the word is incorrect. In an unfortunate stroke of the pen the Watchtower Society chose to adopt the rendition of YHWH that has least resemblance to the original name and incorporates the very reason the exact pronunciation is unknown.

Ancient Hebrew did not contain vowels and so the pronunciation of words was handed down. In order to preserve the pronunciation of the Hebrew language, the Masoretes created a system for introducing vowels into the Hebrew language during the ninth century A.D. However, when it came to YHWH, rather than putting the correct vowel signs, they put vowel signs for Adonai (Lord) or Elohim (God), in order to remind the reader to use the word Lord or God instead of the name of God. Adonai (Lord) was predominantly used, however, in passages where Adonai and YHWH appeared together, Elohim was used instead, to avoid repetition of the word Lord.

As proposed by the 19th-century Hebrew scholar Gesenius, it is generally accepted that mixing the vowels for Lord and God with the consonants YHWH that led to the manufacture of the hybrid word Jehovah. Hence, it was the effort to avoid pronouncing God's name that led to the manufacture of the hybrid word Jehovah."
God's Name - Should YHWH be translated Jehovah or Yahweh

Deeje · Jan 7, 2018

Tumah said:
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.

The "correct version" is יְהֹוָ֞ה 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 יְהֹוָ֞ה....."this is my name". (Exodus 3:15) How long is "forever"?

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.

Tumah said:
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-.

Huh? It's actually a lot clearer when you just write "God".

Tumah said:
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.

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 יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהֹוָ֥ה | אֶחָֽד:" (Deuteronomy 6:4) That is not the way it reads in Hebrew, is it?

It should read "Yahweh/Jehovah (יְהֹוָ֥ה) is our God; Yahweh/Jehovah (יְהֹוָ֥ה) is one".

So it's a 'custom', not something God actually commanded anyone to do?
Weren't there enough laws in the Torah? :shrug:

Why add to the hundreds of laws you already had?

Tumah said:
It's an natural extension of a different Law as explained above.

You said it was a 'custom'....which is not a law. If it was a law, it would be in the scriptures....no?

Tumah said:
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.

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 יְהֹוָ֣ה עִמָּכֶ֑ם וַיֹּ֥אמְרוּ ל֖וֹ יְבָֽרֶכְךָ֥ יְהֹוָֽה:

You can see that God's name was freely used even in greeting.

Tumah said:
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.

Older fragments of the Greek Septuagint also contains the tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters written into the Greek text.

Tumah said:
I've provided two verses (technically three since one is repeated).

You did? Were they valid though?

Tumah said:
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.

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.

Tumah said:
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?

"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 יהוה ימלט כי בהר־ציון ובירושלם תהיה פליטה כאשר אמר יהוה ובשרידים אשר יהוה 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."

Tumah said:
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.

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 יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה רְאֵ֛ה נְתַתִּ֥יךָ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לְפַרְעֹ֑ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֥ן אָחִ֖יךָ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה נְבִיאֶֽךָ:"

In English it reads "I will make you God to Pharaoh"

Tumah said:
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.

The link I used is: The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary - English translation with Rashi's commentary

Tumah · Jan 7, 2018

Deeje said:
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"?

If that is the correct version, then why aren't you using it?

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.

Ok, I didn't understand that before. So why haven't you moved to do so?

Huh? It's actually a lot clearer when you just write "God".

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.

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".....

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.

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 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.

So it's a 'custom', not something God actually commanded anyone to do?

In English, it's a custom. In Hebrew, it's required as above.

Weren't there enough laws in the Torah?

What does that mean? Every additional Law is an additional opportunity to fulfill the Will of my G-d. There is no enough.

Why add to the hundreds of laws you already had?

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.

You said it was a 'custom'....which is not a law. If it was a law, it would be in the scriptures....no?

I think that's usually how it works, unless we're talking about Rabbinical Laws.

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.

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.

Older fragments of the Greek Septuagint also contains the tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters written into the Greek text.

Yes, I recently read that.

You did? Were they valid though?

Well, you have yet to disprove their validity. So I don't see why not.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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"

There are not many.

And the obvious answer is that when a person is calling to G-d, he knows who he's intending to call. Likewise G-d, who knows a person's heart, knows that the person intends Him and not some idol. There is no problem here.

The link I used is: The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary - English translation with Rashi's commentary

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.

Deeje · Jan 7, 2018

Tumah said:
If that is the correct version, then why aren't you using it?

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.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus knew the right pronunciation of the divine name, having come down from heaven. But that is another story....

Tumah said:
Ok, I didn't understand that before. So why haven't you moved to do so?

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?

Tumah said:
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.

Why would you need to shorten a three letter word? Do you do the same with the title "Lord"?

Tumah said:
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.

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.
גוְנִתַּצְתֶּ֣ם אֶת־מִזְבְּחֹתָ֗ם וְשִׁבַּרְתֶּם֙ אֶת־מַצֵּ֣בֹתָ֔ם וַֽאֲשֵֽׁרֵיהֶם֙ תִּשְׂרְפ֣וּן בָּאֵ֔שׁ וּפְסִילֵ֥י אֱלֹֽהֵיהֶ֖ם תְּגַדֵּע֑וּן וְאִבַּדְתֶּ֣ם אֶת־שְׁמָ֔ם מִן־הַמָּק֖וֹם הַהֽוּא:
4You shall not do so to the Lord, your God.
דלֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן לַֽיהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶֽם:"

Wrong scripture? I see no names of God in these verses.

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.

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.

Tumah said:
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.

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.

Tumah said:
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.

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?

Tumah said:
In English, it's a custom. In Hebrew, it's required as 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?

Deeje · Jan 7, 2018

Tumah said:
What does that mean? Every additional Law is an additional opportunity to fulfill the Will of my G-d. There is no enough.

Do you think that is the kind of relationship God wants with his earthly family? Do you think he just wants blind adherence to a written code 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, 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. They concentrated so much on the small stuff that "weightier" matters of the law slipped right by them.

Tumah said:
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.

It might be "nice" but how do you keep from taking things too far? God's law never required taking things beyond what was written?

Tumah said:
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.

How can God have a "more lenient Name?" :shrug:

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, 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.

Tumah said:
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.

But the two were closely related as I see it, because the swearing of an oath was done in God's name.

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.

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?

Is it the number of transgressions that matters? Isn't it that any offense should be avoided in the first place?

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.

It seems that people spoke about God, using his name in everyday situations because there was no such prohibition in ancient times.
Why would using God's name respectfully in conversation be offensive to him?

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.
טזאָ֧ז נִדְבְּר֛וּ יִרְאֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֑הוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁ֚ב יְהֹוָה֙ וַיִּשְׁמָ֔ע וַ֠יִּכָּתֵב סֵ֣פֶר זִכָּר֚וֹן לְפָנָיו֙ לְיִרְאֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וּלְחֹֽשְׁבֵ֖י שְׁמֽוֹ:

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.
יזוְהָ֣יוּ לִ֗י אָמַר֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת לַיּ֕וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י עֹשֶׂ֣ה סְגֻלָּ֑ה וְחָֽמַלְתִּ֣י עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁר֙ יַחְמֹ֣ל אִ֔ישׁ עַל־בְּנ֖וֹ הָֽעֹבֵד אֹתֽוֹ:

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.
יחוְשַׁבְתֶּם֙ וּרְאִיתֶ֔ם בֵּ֥ין צַדִּ֖יק לְרָשָׁ֑ע בֵּין עֹבֵ֣ד אֱלֹהִ֔ים לַֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר לֹ֥א עֲבָדֽוֹ: (Malachi 3:16-18)

How can you value a name you never utter? How does a son serve a father? Out of fear or out of love? Can you love someone you see hovering over your shoulder, wielding a big stick?

Tumah said:
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 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.

Tumah said:
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.

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?

djhwoodwerks · Jan 8, 2018

Deeje said:
There still seems to be a lot of controversy and misunderstanding over the use of the divine name

There's no controversy, except with witnesses. There's not one command in the Bible telling people to speak the name.

Tumah said:
There is no command here to mention G-d's Name. This verse is simply stating a fact: this is G-d's Name.

Deeje said:
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."

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:

columbus · Jan 8, 2018

The concept of "God's Name" strikes me as primitive and henotheistic.
We humans have and want, even need, names. Because there's lots of us and we're very similar.
That's not the case with the one and only true God. Such a Being would have no use for a name, it would even be a little limiting. But for people who believe in many gods, a name would be very important to distinguish which one you're talking about or worshipping.
So god having a name, as opposed to various titles, seems rather henotheistically pagan to me.
Tom

Tumah · Jan 8, 2018

Deeje said:
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.

Can you cite the verse that requires anyone to know what G-d's Name means?

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?

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.

Why would you need to shorten a three letter word? Do you do the same with the title "Lord"?

It's not about shortening it, it's about changing the spelling. And yes, if we're referring 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.

Nope, that's the right one. "And you shall destroy their names....and you shall not do so to G-d"
We understand that as a prohibition not to destroy [or cause to be destroyed] G-d's Name, excepting the case of the Trial of Bitter Waters.

Also, unless you think it's necessary, I'd appreciate if you stopped posting the Hebrew text. It may come as a surprise, but I know how to read English, and it's quite annoying to have to edit out the Tetragrammaton each time.

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.

You combine too many issues together.
Per the verse above, the Names of G-d can't be caused to be erased. It doesn't matter what it's written on.
The commandments and prohibitions are things that we may or may not do, not about nature. I am not required to prevent a hurricane from forming because it may harm human life. Similarly, I'm not required to prevent ink from naturally fading. What I am required to do, is not cause Name to get ruined by my own hands.
We believe there is a distinction between the Torah and pretty much everything else. Everything else as you say, it's the content that's important. When it comes to the Torah though, we believe the words (in Hebrew) themselves are sacred as well.

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.

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.

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?

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.
Our realtionship with G-d is two-fold, based on love and awe, as children and servants. What is not required by one aspect, may be required by the other.
If you want to get into the theology of the matter, we're not really substituting but combining. But that's not necessary for the discussion here and it may broach on topics I don't have the liberty to discuss.

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?

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.

Deeje said:
Do you think that is the kind of relationship God wants with his earthly family?

I know it is exactly what He wants with us, because that's exactly what He commanded of us.

Do you think he just wants blind adherence to a written code

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.

accompanied by a constant dread of failure to comply?

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.

The laws God wanted us to obey are all written in specific terms, and they are all beneficial to follow,

You mean us. I don't recall you mentioning you're Jewish. But yes.

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.

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.

Look, the authors of the NT had an agenda to seize authority from the Pharisees. That's obvious and to be honest, probably the smartest way to start a new religion without having to build from the ground up. The way they did this, is by ascribing authority to the Rabbinic entity, but at the same time claiming that every individual Rabbi missed the point, didn't do what they commanded and made the Law too hard to follow. This left a void for early Christian writers to fill. Except that the NT authors didn't actually prove any of those complaints are actually valid. On whose authority did the NT authors determine which Laws are more or less "weightier"? On whose sagacity even? But with the new authority invested in them by the power of their stories about Jesus, they were able to grant themselves authority and a leg with which to contest the Rabbis. Then, in order to attract customers, they called the Rabbis strict and abolished all but a handful of the commandments altogether. But at the end of the day, their complaints are baseless and just a way to bring the sheep.

Tumah · Jan 8, 2018

It might be "nice" but how do you keep from taking things too far?

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.

God's law never required taking things beyond what was written?

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.

How can God have a "more lenient Name?"

It means that the Law regarding its handling are more lenient.

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,

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.

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.

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 two were closely related as I see it, because the swearing of an oath was done in God's name.

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.

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?

Your phraseolgy here is terrible. "Allow the perpertrator"? "Economic to leave the name out"?
The Rabbis are entrusted with safeguarding the spiritual well-being of the nation. Every sin that the people make that they could have prevented, is on their shoulders. It's their job to make sure we don't sin as best as they can. That's what they do. From what I understand, that's what your Watchtower does as well. In the case of an oath, by not using G-d's Name, they've minimized the number of transgressions that the nation makes. Minimizing the number of prohibitions the nations transgresses is always a positive thing, just like maximizing the number of commandments the nation fulfills is a positive thing.

Is it the number of transgressions that matters? Isn't it that any offense should be avoided in the first place?

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.

It seems that people spoke about God, using his name in everyday situations because there was no such prohibition in ancient times.

There was always a prohibition to not use G-d's Name in vain. All you know about is what it says in the Jewish Scriptures, which - as I said before is an instance of when it's permitted to write G-d's Name.

Why would using God's name respectfully in conversation be offensive to him?

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.

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?

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.

How does a son serve a father? Out of fear or out of love?

Both. Have you not seen Lev. 19:3?

Can you love someone you see hovering over your shoulder, wielding a big stick?

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.

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.

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.

Also, I strongly suspect that you're viewing Judaism with strong prejudice. I didn't say a word about lessening penalties, only about minimizing transgression of G-d's Laws. I also haven't given any examples of loopholes. Frankly I can only think of one loophole that Judaism uses and that was to prevent transgression of a different commandment. I don't think you really know what Judaism is about. From your comments here, I am led to believe that you get your information through some source that is not really in touch with the reality of what goes on in Judaism.

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?

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.

Deeje · Jan 8, 2018

djhwoodwerks said:
There's no controversy, except with witnesses. There's not one command in the Bible telling people to speak the name.

John 17:25-26...."O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (ESV)

Matthew 6:9...."Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...."

Footnote: Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence.

No controversy exists at all except when the precious name of God is treated with complete disrespect. Who can hold a name as "holy" or treat it "with reverence" if it is never uttered? Jesus respected the name of his Father and continued to teach his disciples to reverence it as well. By the time Jesus began his ministry, it had been about 300 years since the Jews stopped using it in speech, whilst retaining it in the written word. That makes Jesus' words even more meaningful. I believe it makes his words more meaningful today as well.

djhwoodwerks said:
Where is the "command" to say the name in that verse?

I cannot find a "command" to use God's name for the simple reason it was not necessary to do so. He was addressed by his name almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures....freely and with due reverence. His name was used in greeting to invoke a blessing. (Ruth 2:4).....why would anyone who cherishes the name of God be forced to use it? IMO, if you have to be forced or coerced or even persuaded to use the name of a beloved friend, then you are not a friend at all. (James 2:20-23)

djhwoodwerks said:
That verse was prophecy about Jesus, it doesn't mean calling on "Jehovah".

Calling on Jehovah's name means that we recognize him as "the only true God" just as Jesus did. (John 17:3; Revelation 3:12)
We cannot have everlasting life unless we know God (and are known by him) as our Father. We also need to know Jesus and the role he willingly played in our salvation. To confuse those roles is to miss the point of the whole exercise. They are separate beings and Jesus identified Jehovah as "the only true God" without including himself. Without the name of God in the very scriptures that he inspired, men failed to identify the true God and made a god out of his creation. (Revelation 3:14) That is breaking the first of the 10 Commandments. (Exodus 20:3)

djhwoodwerks said:
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:

Taking verses out of context again?...read the next verse....
"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:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:2-3 ESV)

The name of the "Lord" Jesus was very important to those early Christians, who were associated with their teacher and Rabbi. But like the true Christians of today, they are separated into two groups..."those called to be saints together with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:"

Not all are called to be 'saints' but together as 'one flock, under one shepherd', all will call upon the name of Jehovah and his Christ, recognizing the specific role of each one, as Paul says in Philippians 2:9-11....

"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (ESV)

We bend our knee in honor of the Christ and his part in our salvation, but all glory for this process must go to "God the Father".

God's Name as Opposed to his Titles

Free4ever

Witness for Jehovah

Witness for Jehovah

Free4ever

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Witness for Jehovah

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Free4ever

Free4ever

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Well-Known Member

yawn <ignore> yawn

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student