do you know God by name

[China Cat Sunflower]

It seems to me that God's "name" is really more a description of his mode and realm of action, or his office if you will. YHVH is such a description, but it applies strictly to the terrestrial, elemental sphere. A four-way name for a four way elemental sphere. What God's "real" name is, that is the description of his mode and realm of action in a universal, cosmic sense we can't speculate. Consider this:

Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Revelation 3:12 (NIV)

A new name for a new realm of existence for man.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Depending on the sphere of action God has a lot of names. E=MC2 is one of God's names. Arguing over pronunciation implies that one can summon and control God if the correct intonation is employed- as if God will not "hear" one unless a certain formulation is employed to gain his attention. That seems rather silly and presumptuous to me.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Depending on the sphere of action God has a lot of names. E=MC2 is one of God's names. Arguing over pronunciation implies that one can summon and control God if the correct intonation is employed- as if God will not "hear" one unless a certain formulation is employed to gain his attention. That seems rather silly and presumptuous to me.

Chris

Indeed. Trying to control God would be like holding the tail of a 'twister'. It can't be done.

[mee]

Why

They Left It Out

When J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed produced a modern translation of the Bible in 1935, readers found that LORD and GOD had been used in most places as a substitution for God’s name. The reason was explained in a preface: "In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh’ and the phrase ‘the Lord God’ for the phrase ‘the Lord Yahweh.’ In all cases where ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ represents an original ‘Yahweh’ small capitals are employed."
Then, in an unusual reversal of the tradition of the Jews who read YHWH but pronounced it "Lord," the preface says: "Anyone, therefore, who desires to retain the flavor of the original text has but to read ‘Yahweh’ wherever he sees LORD or GOD"!
On reading this, the question immediately comes to mind: If reading "Yahweh" instead of "LORD" retains the "flavor of the original text," why did the translators not use "Yahweh" in their translation? Why did they, in their own word, ‘substitute’ the word "LORD" for God’s name and thus mask the flavor of the original text?
The translators say that they were following orthodox Jewish tradition. Yet is that wise for a Christian? Remember, it was the Pharisees, the preservers of orthodox Jewish tradition, who rejected Jesus and were told by him: "You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6) Such substitution truly weakens the Word of God.
In 1952 the Revised Standard Version of the Hebrew Scriptures was published in English, and this Bible, too, used substitutions for God’s name. This was noteworthy because the original American Standard Version, of which this was a revision, used the name Jehovah all through the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence, the omission of the name was an outstanding departure. Why was it done?
In the preface to the Revised Standard Version, we read: "For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version [that is, omitting the name of God]: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."
Are these sound arguments? Well, as discussed earlier, the name Jesus does not accurately represent the original form of the name of God’s Son used by his followers. Yet this did not persuade the Committee to avoid using that name and to use instead a title such as "Mediator" or "Christ." True, these titles are used, but in addition to the name Jesus, not instead of it.
As to the argument that there are no other gods from whom the true God had to be differentiated, that is simply not true. There are millions of gods worshiped by mankind. The apostle Paul noted: "There are many ‘gods.’" (1 Corinthians 8:5; Philippians 3:19) Of course, there is only one true God, as Paul goes on to say. Hence, one great advantage of using the name of the true God is that it keeps him separate from all the false gods. Besides, if using the name of God is "entirely inappropriate," why does it appear almost 7,000 times in the original Hebrew Scriptures?

The truth is, many translators have not felt that the name, with its modern pronunciation, is out of place in the Bible. They have included it in their versions, and the result has always been a translation that gives more honor to the Bible’s Author and hews more faithfully to the original text. Some widely used versions that include the name are the Valera translation (Spanish, published in 1602), the Almeida version (Portuguese, published in 1681), the original Elberfelder version (German, published in 1871), as well as the American Standard Version (English, published in 1901). Some translations, notably The Jerusalem Bible, also consistently use God’s name but with the spelling Yahweh.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Indeed. Trying to control God would be like holding the tail of a 'twister'. It can't be done.

Anything is possible.

[Penguin]

The names we have are all made by man, the same as names for everything else. It is impossible to give something, that is beyond all comprehensation, always have been and always will be, a name. The names we have now are categorisations given by man over time, terms for recognition in the future that people have taken on board. When other people say "god" ,"almighty", "father" etc what are they really saying? Just names! it's what you feel that matters isn't it? What you feel inside, if somebody called "god" mickey mouse would it really matter?

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Penguin

The names we have are all made by man

Not neccessarily. If there is sound and speach in Heaven, then how do we know that God didn't make some of His own names up? Or maybe some of His friends or angels up there have got special names for Him? If so, then it's not impossible that some of the names ended up down here.


... Neemai

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Anything is possible.

Brother 17th, your words echo the sound of the Absolute Truth.

"God is the Supreme Controller, and yet it is His pleasure to be controlled by the love of his pure devotee."


... Neemai

[17th Angel]

Neemai....

"The only obstacle stopping us, is ourself."

How you like that one

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, mee!

Originally Posted by mee

When J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed produced a modern translation of the Bible in 1935, readers found that LORD and GOD had been used in most places as a substitution for God’s name. The reason was explained in a preface: "In this translation we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted ‘the Lord’ for the name ‘Yahweh’ and the phrase ‘the Lord God’ for the phrase ‘the Lord Yahweh.’ In all cases where ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ represents an original ‘Yahweh’ small capitals are employed."

How many people use the Goodspeed Bible? I don't.

Originally Posted by mee

If reading "Yahweh" instead of "LORD" retains the "flavor of the original text," why did the translators not use "Yahweh" in their translation? Why did they, in their own word, ‘substitute’ the word "LORD" for God’s name and thus mask the flavor of the original text?
The translators say that they were following orthodox Jewish tradition. Yet is that wise for a Christian? Remember, it was the Pharisees, the preservers of orthodox Jewish tradition, who rejected Jesus and were told by him: "You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition." (Matthew 15:6) Such substitution truly weakens the Word of God.

I understand, this is no small portion of my choice to distance myself from *all* deliberately incorrect doctrines.

Originally Posted by mee

In 1952 the Revised Standard Version of the Hebrew Scriptures was published in English, and this Bible, too, used substitutions for God’s name. This was noteworthy because the original American Standard Version, of which this was a revision, used the name Jehovah all through the Hebrew Scriptures.

How many use the Revised Standard Version or the American Standard Version? I don't.

Originally Posted by mee

(1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew;

Simple truth.

Originally Posted by mee

(2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church."

Yashua (Jesus) was a Jew and taught Jewish Law and Tradition current in His day and time. While the question of appropriateness remains open to conjecture, the simple fact remains: the earliest Christians were Jewish, along with everything that entails.

Originally Posted by mee

Are these sound arguments? Well, as discussed earlier, the name Jesus does not accurately represent the original form of the name of God’s Son used by his followers. Yet this did not persuade the Committee to avoid using that name and to use instead a title such as "Mediator" or "Christ." True, these titles are used, but in addition to the name Jesus, not instead of it.

So, the argument as I understand it is that because some use the "j" to denote the son (despite the fact that in my own personal walk I prefer to not use the "j" name, even though for coherence and common understanding and mutual brotherly compassion I may use the "j" name to try to stay on the same page with my audience) while not using the *"J"* Name for the Most High, that they are somehow contradictory, perhaps even hypocritical? Strange, how I view similar in reverse...at one time I was so adamant about proper usage that I was certain any who did not use the Names as written in the original tongue were damned to hell..., funny, how I've grown in my understanding far beyond that, and likely thankfully too. Timothy McVeigh.

Originally Posted by mee

The truth is, many translators have not felt that the name, with its modern pronunciation, is out of place in the Bible.

The modern name *is* out of place in the manuscripts. Perhaps it holds a place in a modern translation, but to suggest that a modern name is correct within a historic context is not factual or truthful.

Originally Posted by mee

Some widely used versions that include the name are the Valera translation (Spanish, published in 1602), the Almeida version (Portuguese, published in 1681),

How is the "j" pronounced in Spanish and other Romance (Latin based) languages (which as far as I understand includes Portuguese)? I have known many Hispanic men named Jesus in my day, and their names are rightly pronounced like "Hay-Suess" in English. So I guess Jehovah in Spanish would be something like, "He-Ho-Vah," except that's not correct either, there is no "h" in Spanish...

Originally Posted by mee

the original Elberfelder version (German, published in 1871),

I already spoke at length concerning Germanic languages and how the "j" is pronounced as an English "y".

Originally Posted by mee

Some translations, notably The Jerusalem Bible, also consistently use God’s name but with the spelling Yahweh.

Again, the blanket of ignorance is a blessing to those who should know better.

Heavenly Father is sufficient. Blessed be His Name, forever.

[Faithfulservant]

Heavenly Father is sufficient. Blessed be His Name, forever

Amen!

[mee]

The important thing is that we use the name and declare it to others. "Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high."—Isaiah 12:4.
Are you a religious person? Then doubtless, like many others, you believe in a Supreme Being. And likely you have great respect for the well-known prayer to that Being, taught by Jesus to his followers and known as the Lord’s Prayer, or the Our Father. The prayer begins like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name."—Matthew 6:9, New International Version.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus put the ‘hallowing,’ or sanctifying, of God’s name first in this prayer? Afterward, he mentioned other things such as the coming of God’s Kingdom, God’s will being done on earth and our sins being forgiven. The fulfillment of these other requests will ultimately mean lasting peace on earth and everlasting life for mankind. Can you think of anything more important than that? Nevertheless, Jesus told us to pray first of all for the sanctification of God’s name.

It was not merely by chance that Jesus taught his followers to put God’s name first in their prayers. That name was clearly of crucial importance to him, since he mentioned it repeatedly in his own prayers. On one occasion when he was praying publicly to God, he was heard to say: "Father, glorify your name!" And God himself answered: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again."—John 12:28, The Jerusalem Bible.

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Neemai....

"The only obstacle stopping us, is ourself."

How you like that one

17th, It's as if God Himself is speaking through you!


(...off to try & stop being the obstacle)

... Neemai

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Neemai

17th, It's as if God Himself is speaking through you!


(...off to try & stop being the obstacle)

... Neemai

*Chuckles* You charmer you!

[Penguin]

Another devasting avatar 17th, ROFL I did prefer the rapidness of the previous one though if I had to choose. Look forward to the next old boy!