Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
I agree, though I believe God is beyond anyone's definition. Probably you agree with that?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's in a name?
- Thread starter pearl
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
This is in complete contrast with the 'Advaita' Hindu concept of Brahman, which is un-involved and not a being, not a personal God. We say "Sarvam khalvidam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman - no exceptions), "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman), "Tat twam asi" (That is what you are). Brahman is the substrate which constitutes all things in the universe.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Deeje. Good evening. I'd like to quote something from Joseph Bryant Rotherham in the Emphasized Bible (The Standard Publishing Company), Introduction pp. 23-25. It explains very well why Jehovah is not the Name of the Almighty.
"'The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus as against grammatical and historical propriety' Next as to formation. 'Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name owing to an old misconception of two passages, Ex. 20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord [Heb. Adonai] and pronounce it Jehovah, is about a hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D.' From this we may gather that the Jewish scribes are not responsible for the 'hybrid' combination. They intentionally wrote alien vowels - not for the combination with the sacred consonants, but for the purpose of cautioning the Jewish reader to enunciate a totally different word, viz., some other familiar name of the Most High"
Jehovah is not the Name of the Most High. It is Yahweh. I can take you back to the Hebrew letters to prove it. Respectfully, I find it hard to believe that Jehovah Witnesses still exist, even after your Jehovah Witnesses have admitted that Yahweh is the correct form. The following is a quote from the New World Bible Translation Committee of the Jehovah Witnesses "While inclining to view the pronunciation Yahweh as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of the people's familiarity with it since the 14th century."
Eitherway, I could never be a Jehovah Witness because it cannot be the truth. When EliYah made the contest against Baal in 1 Kings 18 he said: "And call ye on the name of your elohim, and I will call on the name of Yahweh; and the Elohim that answereth by fire, let him be Elohim. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken." Yahweh answers people depending on the name they use for Him. Of course, when we didn't know any better, Yahweh might be gracious enough to answer our prayers. But when we know the truth, we have to yield ourselves to it and Yahweh will answer the prayers of those who call upon His Name in sincerity and truth.
We are well aware of the criticism MI. For us its not the pronunciation that matters because it has been lost to time. We do not try to force the Hebrew pronunciation on Jehovah's name but accept it as the English translation...like Jesus is the English pronunciation of his name. Why is there no squabbling about that? We are English speakers after all.
To use Yahweh, (which we have no problem with BTW) is trying to be Hebrew speakers when we are not, so rather than mispronounce God's Hebrew name, we feel more comfortable using the accepted English translation.It is done so respectfully and reverently.
It is already in many Bible translations so because we do not find it offensive in any way (no more than saying Jesus' name in English) Look at all the "J" names in the Bible....you would have to rewrite the scriptures to accommodate something that needs no alteration in our view. Its a language problem not a religious one.
Do you honestly believe that Yahweh cares how you pronounce his name in whatever language you speak? He understands his name in all language.....people of other nations pronounce his name quite differently....do you not think he makes allowance for that.....after all it isn't our fault that God's name was lost to the world. I am sure that he will restore his name as it should be spoken in all languages, in the new world to come.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Deeje. Good evening. But Jehovah isn't an English translation or transliteration of the Name. Further, we don't use the name Jesus. Jesus was not the name of the Messiah. It was Yahshua which means Yahweh is salvation which dovetails with Acts 4:12. The Messiah had the same name as the Israelite General of the Hebrew Scriptures most commonly known as Joshua but should be pronounced Yahshua.
As I mentioned previously, names should be transliterated, regardless what language the original name comes from then, the same sounds are brought across and that is the case with the name Yahweh. You can't say Jehovah is how you say the Name of Yahweh in English. Yahweh is how you say the name in English. You see the English letters Y-A-H-W-E-H. It can be spoken in English. If Jehovah Witnesses were true Bible students, and I know they used to be, they would conform to this truth. I can't imagine going around knocking on doors and telling people that you have to use the name Jehovah when there is absolutely no way that Jehovah is or was the Name of the Most High.
As I said MI....we have no issue with the translation or the transliteration of the tetragrammaton. Either way is fine for us because its God's name in our own language......we are not Hebrew speakers. I hope you know that God created all languages and the Jews for invalid reasons stopped uttering God's name.
A brief look at the Tanakh reveals how different the Hebrew names in the Bible are to their English equivalents.
Jesus' name is "I·e·sousʹ " in Greek, so is that wrong? IMO people are free to express God's name or the name of Jesus in whatever language they speak......if their prayers are heard in that language, then so is whatever they call God and Jesus in their language.....as long as it is used reverently, God knows his name in all languages. Why wouldn't he?
Who said? No one really knows how to pronounce God's name...Yahweh is only a guess according to Jewish sources.
We have no issue with God's name and neither do those who worship him in our brotherhood. If you have issues then they are yours, not ours. To us, what is more important is the action not the speech. Talk is cheap and anyone can claim to be a follower of Christ, but its in their conduct in the world that shows up the difference between us and Christendom.....quite frankly, I have never heard of "Assemblies of Yahweh" so I did a bit of research and found that many of your beliefs closely follow our own....just with a few differences.
I see that you hang on to Judaism, which Jesus rejected because he told the Pharisees that they "teach the commands of men as doctrines." The festivals were for the Jews, and unless you were born Jewish you could not be a legitimate son in that nation. You could be viewed as a proselyte, able to live and worship as Jews did, but you were never a genuine Jew. Converts did not have the same status in Israel. They could not be priests for example. No Gentile convert could have ever claimed to be the Messiah.
When Gentiles were accepted into the Christian congregation, issues arose because the Jews wanted the Gentiles to abide by Jewish law as proselytes were required to do, but the older men and the apostles did not support that notion. When the circumcision issue arose, the final decision of that body was enacted on the whole body of Christ's disciples....Jewish and non-Jewish....
They said..."For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
The necessary things for all Christians were very simple.....none of the Jewish law was forced on them....no festivals, no new moon or sabbath either.....just these "necessary things". The Jews would have already practiced these laws all their lives, but the Gentiles may have been used to practicing things that God forbade....yet God was not going to burden them with the Law that he gave only to Israel.
Colossians 2:16 Paul wrote...."Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath."
None of these things were binding on Gentiles, but the Jews could still observe them if they wished.
The one thing I did not see mentioned about your beliefs, was the importance of the preaching work that Jesus assigned to his disciples....(Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14)....or should I say the method used to do so?
When you said..."I can't imagine going around knocking on doors and telling people that you have to use the name Jehovah when there is absolutely no way that Jehovah is or was the Name of the Most High"....did you omit to say that your brotherhood do not 'knock on doors" to preach about the Kingdom, as Jesus said we must take the message out to the people? (Matthew 10:11-14; Acts 20:20) As I have never seen or heard of you......how do you preach? The apostolic method is still the best one in our experience....but covid has interfered with that for now, so we are using other methods to preach....and using other methods of meeting together.
I must say this site is a real education....
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Jesus is the name of all three in the trinity?
natasha levchenko
Member
The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs . . . when a person puts his ‘name’ upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection.”—Compare Genesis 27:36; 1 Samuel 25:25; Psalm 20:1; Proverbs 22:1
Jesus stated: “I have come in the name of my Father” (John 5:43); he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified” (Matt. 6:9); his works, he said, were done “in the name of my Father” (John 10:25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father’s name manifest to his disciples and asked, “Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name.”
Jesus stated: “I have come in the name of my Father” (John 5:43); he taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified” (Matt. 6:9); his works, he said, were done “in the name of my Father” (John 10:25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father’s name manifest to his disciples and asked, “Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name.”
Teritos
Active Member
Matthew 28:19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Acts of the Apostles 2:38
Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So bottom line is, God the father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all are named "Jesus Christ"??
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
God has many impressive and powerful names, names that express His person and character.
Jehovah isn't usually alone in the scriptures, but is bundled with other names.
There are many fine names including "echad" that indicate his plurality. My hope is that JWs and fellow Jews alike will avoid modalism heresy.
Thank you.
exchemist
Veteran Member
So you think the planet we have named "Mars" has thereby come under our influence and protection?
Do you actually think about what you write?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Why would you assume that repetition = “mindless?” Sometimes repetition is mindless, but many times it is not. Many times repetition is quite intentional. Isn’t your assumption a little hypocritical?
No. The NRSV and the OJB both read as the NRS. Perhaps YOUR translation is problematic?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
In the oldest written Hebraic texts, there are no vowels. That’s because reading was secondary to speaking. A device called a “pointing system” was added much later to suggest vowel pronunciation within words. But YHVH was the original spelling. The ancients knew from oral transmission how to pronounce the name.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think you mean “agency.” But it doesn’t work the way you describe it. Agency was very common in ancient times and remains so today. God did not put the name “Jehovah” on your church. Your founders did that. That’s not being under God’s agency — that’s being under the agency of Watchtower, masquerading as “God’s Agency.”
Agency works because the one in authority grants an agent to use his name, hence his authority. It doesn’t work just because someone decides to use another’s name. That dynamic is known as “misrepresentation.” Jesus, being God Incarnate, gave his apostles agency, and they, in turn, passed that agency to their successors, who now carry God’s agency. Watchtower claim that agency was lost, and Watchtower have tried to usurp God’s agency through a film-flam scheme to claim to be the only ones bold enough to use “God’s name” (which does not follow the Judaic pointing system, but rather the glomming together of the Tetragrammaton and an anglicanized translation of “Adonai.”) That’s not How it Works.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
False. Jesus did not reject Judaism.
No one except those of the Levite house could be priests.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Deeje. Good evening. What I find with Jehovah Witnesses is they can be very insincere sometimes. The comment you made “No one really knows how to pronounce God's name...Yahweh is only a guess according to Jewish sources” is really offensive to me. Yahweh is not a guess. It can be proven out of the Hebrew Bible that this was the Name of the Almighty. Just because Jehovah is known to be grammatical impossibility, doesn’t mean you should then claim that the Name cannot be known. It is known. It can be known. It is Yahweh. The book of Daniel tells us that in the last days, knowledge will be increased. Knowledge of the Bible has been increased, but seemingly, Jehovah Witnesses still want to cling on to false doctrine.
There is no way that Jehovah could have been the Name of the Most High, yet instead of conforming to truth, Jehovah Witnesses have clung to error. Why? Scholarship over the years has proven conclusively that the form Jehovah is an error, a hybrid form, totally unsatisfactory for use in this time of increased knowledge.
Every time the Sacred Name appears in the Biblical texts such as Isaiah 42:8, you replace the Name with the erroneous Jehovah thus corrupting the whole Bible. Take the above scripture for example…reading Jehovah in to the text turns the Word in to a lie: “8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.” Personally, I wouldn’t want to be guilty of turning the Word of Yahweh in to a lie by putting something in there which doesn’t appear in the original text. That’s frightening to me because in both the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Revelation we are warned that those who add to the Word will receive a curse. In the N.T, it says plagues will be added to them. And in the book of Revelation, we are warned that some of those plagues will be severe.
You say you’re an avid Bible student. That’s great. Then as one Bible student to another you’ll see that in the Semitic culture, they have always understood the importance of a person’s name, that in some way the one who spoke it was allowed to have a special avenue of communication with the individual addressed. The Semitic peoples of the Middle East were especially cognizant of the fact that names are important. A name gave some indication of a particular attribute of the one who carried it. It was his special mark of his identity. As a consequence, care was exercised in Semitic cultures to transliterate names from one language to another with great accuracy.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc., ad infintum; all these names faithfully follow a transliterated or attempted transliterated configuration from the Hebrew into the English language in the Old Testament King James Version. Even the name of the evil spirit, Satan, was faithfully transliterated. How about that! But the Name of the author of the Bible, Yahweh, was deleted. In these last days we must correct the error and restore the Name of Almighty Yahweh to the text of the Bible.
Yahweh is not a guess. It can be proven out of the Hebrew Bible that this was His Name. The only reason you are saying that is because you know Jehovah is a hybrid transliteration. That’s proven.
You say “God knows his name in all languages. Why wouldn't he?” Yes he does. It is Yahweh. That’s His Name in all languages and so pronounced. Malachi 4, the very last chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures and the message for Yahweh’s people tells us to remember the Law of Moses, which my faith does and tells us that EliYah will make a reappearance. EliYah means My El (Mighty One) is Yah (Yahweh). Jehovah Witnesses don’t have the EliYah message, therefore they cannot be the truth. They are myriad of scriptures in the New Testament that focus on the Name too. The 144,000 righteous remnant of people in the last days will have the Name of Yahweh and Yahshua written on their foreheads, we read in Revelation 14:1. Yahweh’s people are going to be thinking about His Name. And that name is not Jehovah.
If you feel that Yahweh’s Name is a mute point, being a Jehovah Witness, then perhaps you should be called Nameless Witnesses and don’t use a name at all. The Name is important to anyone that reads the Bible this is made abundantly clear. But I feel that you know in your heart that Jehovah was not the Name and to defend your faith, you have taken a stance against the correct ‘Yahweh’. You can go to the Hebrew and see the name Yahweh there right in front of your eyes. You cannot deny it.
I’ll happily deal with your statements about my faith’s doctrine in a separate post.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi and good evening again. Yes, they are some similarities between Jehovah Witnesses and the Assemblies of Yahweh, but they are some doctrinal points which we clash on also. Firstly, you say "I see that you hang on to Judaism". Well simply that's not true. The Assemblies of Yahweh approaches the Bible in a way that harmonizes it from Genesis to Revelation. We do not hang on to Judaism, and we do not hang on to Chr-stianity. We let the Bible teach us from the Word what we must do, and we absolutely hate false doctrine. We stay far from it as possible, which is why we could never use the name Jehovah knowing where it comes from and how it came to be.
You say "When Gentiles were accepted into the Christian congregation, issues arose because the Jews wanted the Gentiles to abide by Jewish law as proselytes were required to do, but the older men and the apostles did not support that notion." I agree that some Jewish people wanted the Gentiles converts to observe the sacrificial law and also circumcision, and it was this law that Paul contested against in his writings. Many times Paul's writings are used to indicate the Law of Yahweh has been done away with, but he wasn't teaching that the Law of Yahweh was done away with, but rather the ritual law of circumcision and animal sacrifice. Peter says of Paul "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
In the Sacred Scriptures, the Law of Yahweh is recognised as light. The Law is seen as a good thing. Romans 7:12 says "So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." The Law isn't unholy, unrighteous and bad, which would be the converse.
You mention Acts 15:29 which says: "29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." These things weren't for the True Worshippers to observe only as you have made out, but this Jerusalem Council raised issues that the congregation were facing at the time. If you have ever had a team meeting at (say) work, problems are raised in that team meeting and solutions are come up for those problems. That doesn't mean to say that at other times other problems won't arise, and it's not to say that they are the only problems that need to be dealt with in that company. They didn't have to say to keep the Laws of Yahweh - that was already known and taught by the preachers in the Messianic assemblies. Take for example the Law to love thy neighbour as yourself. That wasn't mentioned at the Jerusalem Council, although we know this law is to be kept from what the Messiah taught and myriad places in the N.T reaffirm.
You next quote from Colossians 2:16 to say that we don't have to keep the holy days etc. It says in the American Standard Version: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day:" What this is saying is that we shouldn't allow man to judge us negatively for keeping these Laws. Only Yahshua the Messiah is our judge and He was a Torah observant Jew. He kept the holy days, he kept the dietary laws, he would have observed the new moons. And he was our example, wasn't he? But you claim somehow that he is your example, without doing the things that he did which is rather ridiculous when you think about it. The Feast Days are wonderful experiences that Yahweh has given His people to teach them lessons, every year. And I know from having observed the Feast Days from my youth on and up, that without them, I would not be as zealous and on fire for Yahweh as I am today.
We don't knock door to door, no. A quick reading of Acts 20:20 might give the impression that the apostle Paul went from house to house to preach the gospel of the Kingdom to the unconverted. The context, however, beginning with verse 17, reveals the true meaning. The apostle Paul "sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the assembly," and said to them "I . . . taught you publicly and from house to house" (Acts 20:17-20). Paul taught the leaders of the assembly in their own homes. He was not going from house to house attempting to witness to or persuade whomever opened the door. We use tools to get the Word out. We do tract distribution, personal witness, have radio and tv slots etc, but going door to door, no. 2 John 10-11 is a problem for believers of those who have a different faith to yours as it tells us not to let any that bring a different tidings in to our homes.
Additionally, I just want to make a point. The Law of Yahweh is not a bad thing. It is extremely good and without the Law of Yahweh, the Word of Yahweh would just be a collection of stories with absolutely no direction. In order for us receive the Holy Spirit, we have to obey Yahweh according to Acts 5:32. Therefore there's no way that a group can have the Holy Spirit if they do not obey Yahweh's commandments. The Holy Spirit is after all there to help us to keep the commandments of Yahweh and attain to a level of perfection worthy of Yahweh's Son.
I'm sorry MI, but I think you are running away with a misunderstanding here...it is NOT the name that is in dispute at all...it is the pronunciation....whom even Jews admit is a guess. There are several possibilities as they will tell you. Yahweh can be said different ways depending on the vowels that are missing. The spoken word may not be as it appears in the English alphabet. The vowels may be spoken differently to how they appear in English. YHWH is all we have. No one knows if it was pronounced Yahweh or not.....some feel it may have been....others are not so sure. Write some English words without vowels and see what you end up with....vngr....or scl...or bckch...or fcs....what do you think....is it so easy?
Being a translation, like "Jesus" do people find it offense in using the Anglicized form of his name whilst claiming that he is God? Jehovah is no more offensive to God than Jesus is. Non Hebrew speaking people are not forced to use Hebrew names that are basically foreign in their language.
Oh dear....here you go again...this is an emotional response, not one that addresses the difference in translation between one language and another. Those who pray to "the Lord" are also substituting a title for the divine name in every passage of scripture, not to mention "Hasham" which I find completely ridiculous. You would call the Most High God "the name"? Seriously?
This is why we prefer "Jehovah" (the accepted English translation of Yahweh) to a nameless god who is just known as "Sir" or "Master" (the base meaning of the title "Lord"). Names have meaning and God's name is no different...it is the name he gave himself and one that he commanded to be used by his people in all their generations.....they failed to do this without a valid excuse.
Abraham...Avraham....Isaac...Yitzchak....Jacob...Ya’akov....Israel...Yisroel....David...Dovid...Solomon...Sh’lomo...Isaiah....Yeshayah....Jeremiah...Yirmeya....Ezekiel... Yechezkel....Daniel....Daniel....
Now how many of those names would an English speaking person recognize? Only a couple. Why did we need translations...? Because most of us could probably not pronounce any of those Hebrew names because they are foreign to our tongue.
The name of satan is not his name...it is the description of his character. "Satan" means "manslayer" and "devil" means "slanderer".....no one knows the name of the devil....only what he does to earn those titles. God has never allowed his personal name to be revealed.
The name of God was deleted from human lips by Jews. Their scripture still contains the tetragrammaton to this day...but they are still forbidden to say it or to even write GOD without eliminating the vowel..what kind of nonsense is that? Does God hate vowels for some reason?
The KJV actually managed to preserve the name "Jehovah" in 4 places but eliminated it altogether in later translations. Though you do not agree with our English pronunciation, we have restored God's name to all the places where it was taken out....and we have included it in passages of the Greek scriptures where quotations from the Hebrew scriptures originally contained it. We make no apology for that.
I know......but you haven't been listening....Don't you think if God wanted his name to be known in exactly the right pronunciation that he would make it known like he did in the days of ancient Israel.....God's people defended their homeland, going into battle in the name of YHWH.
When David came to fight Goliath, he said....
"You come to me with sword, spear and javelin, and I come to you with the Name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel which you have taunted. מהוַיֹּ֚אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֔י אַתָּה֙ בָּ֣א אֵלַ֔י בְּחֶ֖רֶב וּבַחֲנִ֣ית וּבְכִיד֑וֹן וְאָנֹכִ֣י בָֽא־אֵלֶ֗יךָ בְּשֵׁם֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֛י מַעַרְכ֥וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר חֵרַֽפְתָּ:"
David knew well how to say God's name out loud and he did not hesitate to use it. He came to Goliath in the name of his God....יְהֹוָ֣ה
I have never denied it MI....not once...but this is about pronunciation, not the existence of the divine name which is clearly in the Hebrew text. We choose to pronounce it in the accepted English form, which to us is better than not using any name at all. We know who Jehovah is and so does he. He knows when we address him by that name, that we are speaking to him, and about him.