-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Why Jews don't say the sacred name of G-d & Maybe nobody should
- Thread starter IshChayil
- Start date
Like you said many times before words have meanings. Just because someone dosen't like the original meaning, dosent recognize its meaning or Its changed by a culture to mean something else dosent change itS origins or true meaning
Last edited:
It is used properly in this context, etymology of a word, as a linguistic term used to show the evolution of a word.
Corruption is not value neutral. Word evolution is. There is no good or evil in etymology, it's just history. Many words evolve, it's normal.
Yes I have. But mostly (I think) in the context of understanding ancient texts passed down to us. In knowing what those words meant to the writer and reader so we can truly understand them. But the original meaning of 'God' doesn't have any bearing on what you and I understand it to mean today when we use it.
What's the point of all this? You want to replace it with a different word? All that does is make it hard to communicate or connect with people.
Yes I have. But mostly (I think) in the context of understanding ancient texts passed down to us. In knowing what those words meant to the writer and reader so we can truly understand them. But the original meaning of 'God' doesn't have any bearing on what you and I understand it to mean today when we use it.
What's the point of all this? You want to replace it with a different word? All that does is make it hard to communicate or connect with people.
The point is to realize the word god isn't holy and shouldn't be treated any different then other word.
As for the word corrupted in etymology your assigning a good vs evil context. Where in etymological terminology it holds the meaning as a deviation from origin. Pick up a book about etymology it'll have a glossary to explain the usage of terminology.
Having recently come to this understanding regarding the dubious origin of the word "God", though a slightly different dubious than what Kevin found, I trained myself to use "El" where I would have used "God". I don't care to use dubious-origin words, but I like rockfox's point about effective communication. With those things in mind, I have been taking a middle-ground approach; I use "El" when I expect the hearer to know what "El" means, and I use "God" when I don't expect the hearer to know what "El" means.
No offense to those who do, but I have often wondered why people use "G-d", when, like "El", the word is used both of the true God and and of false gods.
It is a word for this concept we call god. Some are true, some are false. There are always pretenders.
Hm, I meant that I wondered why people blip out the vowel, "G-d" rather than "God", when the word is a general term. Maybe the same reason they capitalize it? Though it could be argued that the Hebrew plural, "Elohim", is similar to capitalization, and they still also use it to refer to false gods in the plural.
The Jews do this out of an abundance of caution, much like they add extra days to the feasts to make sure they get the timing right. It's harmless if it doesn't become dogma.
C
Cap
Guest
The problem is that it DOES become dogma and they do cause great harm. Not only Jews but Christians can do the same thing.
@Patrick Lauser regarding your point about hyphenating G-d since it can also refer to other gods, well we have a nice convention in English where the little 'g' is used when referring to other gods.
I'm quite happy to follow His example
I know you get that I'm just clarifying for others. So the Apostolic Writings accurately preserve for us proper ways to refer to G-d: "K-riou / L-rd / Ad-nai" and "Th-os, G-d, Qel/Eloqim"
The point is not that it was used more often, the point is that it is never transliterated and only 2 fragments of the 5800+ New Testament fragments found even have the name at all (written with Hebrew letters within the Greek text).
Would you care to find one single Hebrew name in the entire bible which has the full divine name embedded in it? I'll save you the time, there is no such human name in scripture.
The whole point of the shortened form of His name, Qah, (a nickname of sorts) is as a pointer to His fuller name while not profaning His full name. Your point actually helps make the case that the ancients were extremely careful with His name in that we only find this shortened nickname form embedded and NEVER the full name in any human name. Even my Hebrew name has His shortened, nickname embedded.
The 2nd part of what you wrote shows a misunderstanding of what holiness is. It's not "something which is easily accessible and used in a common way"; holiness is precisely the opposite.
Treating Hashem's name in like manner to a human name does not sanctify it; in point of fact it profanes it... by definition. (though perhaps not in certain prayer / praise contexts)
So what's wrong with following the Messiah's example in prayer, "Abba (father)".... I think He knew what He was doing when He taught us how to refer to our Father.
****************
LOL just what "great harm" are you figuring comes from showing respect to G-d by not writing out various titles of His fully?
It's also used to refer to other mighty powers such as the 'Irin (watchers) designated over various areas of the world.... Though it's usually easy to tell if the word is referring to other powers or Hashem as the verb will agree in the singular or plural accordingly.
Not only, there are places in scripture before G-d has revealed His name where biblical characters seem to be calling to Him. In those cases it's likely that the Masorah accurately records the way it was correctly memorized as Ad-nai in some cases and Eloqim in others yet overzealous scribes at some point had "updated" the scrolls to include the Name in those places.
Yes, I don't think anything in this thread challenges this. It's quite amazing that we don't see Yeshua even ever pronouncing the Name or teaching others to do so.
I'm quite happy to follow His example
Not sure if this is what you meant; you seem like a smart guy probably you meant to say "K-riou is a translation of the Qere from Ad-nai, not a translation of the name".
I know you get that I'm just clarifying for others. So the Apostolic Writings accurately preserve for us proper ways to refer to G-d: "K-riou / L-rd / Ad-nai" and "Th-os, G-d, Qel/Eloqim"
Well they were speaking Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic in the gospels so we aren't ever reading direct quotes here with the possible exception of Yeshua's talk with Nikodemus (I can clarify if anyone cares about that).
The point is not that it was used more often, the point is that it is never transliterated and only 2 fragments of the 5800+ New Testament fragments found even have the name at all (written with Hebrew letters within the Greek text).
"K-riou is about as literal as one can get for translating the Qere Ad-nai"... So the Apostolic writings do a bang up job in Greek of maintaining the Jewish tradition of not saying the name aloud....
This is quite an overreach.
Would you care to find one single Hebrew name in the entire bible which has the full divine name embedded in it? I'll save you the time, there is no such human name in scripture.
The whole point of the shortened form of His name, Qah, (a nickname of sorts) is as a pointer to His fuller name while not profaning His full name. Your point actually helps make the case that the ancients were extremely careful with His name in that we only find this shortened nickname form embedded and NEVER the full name in any human name. Even my Hebrew name has His shortened, nickname embedded.
The 2nd part of what you wrote shows a misunderstanding of what holiness is. It's not "something which is easily accessible and used in a common way"; holiness is precisely the opposite.
Treating Hashem's name in like manner to a human name does not sanctify it; in point of fact it profanes it... by definition. (though perhaps not in certain prayer / praise contexts)
So what's wrong with following the Messiah's example in prayer, "Abba (father)".... I think He knew what He was doing when He taught us how to refer to our Father.
****************
LOL just what "great harm" are you figuring comes from showing respect to G-d by not writing out various titles of His fully?
Last edited:
So I'm assuming when you say "El" you don't mean the head of the pantheon at Ugarit, Ba'al's dad
Nor the Kryptonian noble family from which Superman (Kal-El) is descended.So I'm assuming when you say "El" you don't mean the head of the pantheon at Ugarit, Ba'al's dad
AwesomeNor the Kryptonian noble family from which Superman (Kal-El) is descended.
You assume rightly; I'm referring to the Elohei Avraham elohei Yitschak velohei Ya'akov.So I'm assuming when you say "El" you don't mean the head of the pantheon at Ugarit, Ba'al's dad
It is the idea that the Scriptures we have are edited and updated that is inadmissible according to the doctrine of preservation. The idea that whole words were replaced goes far beyond a jot or a tittle being lost.
The Scripture not only says the Name was used before Moses, but that it was used to name a place (YHWH yir-eh). If this was an edit, it would not only be an edit of what was said, but would be giving a wrong place name.
In Exodus 6:3, "יָדַע" is not used as introducing something people were ignorant of (or else the Scripture is contradictory), but of revealing, as the word is used when David says "know my heart": God was not ignorant of David's heart before. Notice that it is after the wonders of creation are complete that God then begins to be referred to as "the LORD God". God was about to reveal his Name in a way he had not revealed it to the fathers:
"Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?" - Deuteronomy 4:33-35
Rather I meant to say that the tradition may have chosen "Lord" to replace the Name for the same reason the writers of the Greek Scriptures chose "Lord" to translate the Name in Greek. I do not believe there was any tradition at the time of Christ not to say the Name, nor can we say that Christ did not say the name in Hebrew when it was translated "Lord" in Greek.
There were things that were to be only the domain of the priests or high priests or the whole tribe of Levi. Also the whole nation of Israel was sanctified as a priest among other nations: there are different levels, and each one is holy. God commanded all the Jews to wear the fringe, all the males to be circumcised and to appear at the Temple three times, and every firstling of man or beast was holy. Many things were holy which people interacted with every day.
The Scriptures are holy, and God commanded that they be written on doors and clothes and spoken of constantly, and: "Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." - Psalm 138:2
Interacting with something more does not make it less holy, only interacting with it outside of the way and manner it should be. Thus there were things commanded for only the priests, and other things commanded for all the people to do.
Note that the Catholics made a tradition that the "common" people should not read or teach or even understand the language of Scripture, and that any who did so were profaning the holy Scriptures and were anathema. But, "To eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man": so breaking a commandment of men taught as doctrine profanes nothing.
As to names, the full Name appears in at least four names, not of people, but of places: YHWH yir-eh, YHWH nissi, YHWH shalom, and YHWH shammah.
Whether treating the Name the same as a human name is wrong depends on what one means by "treating it as a human name". If this simply means using the Name at all, then of course it is not wrong. If instead it means not giving the Name reverence then of course it is wrong; and a person can use the Name with reverence.
As a side note, capitalizing "God" and "Lord", at least in Scripture, is not from Scripture, since the Scripture does not make any difference when it refers to false gods or to the true God, but uses "El" and "Elohim" for both, and uses "Kuriou" in the same way for both God and human lords. While it is innocent to use capitalization, it would be adding to Scripture to say one must use it, as it makes a distinction that the Scripture does not make.
The harm is when a person doing it to show respect begins to think that others show less respect by not doing it.
Anything people make up to show respect can become this, especially when a group of people begins to do it.
Like the Talmudist who said that anyone who: "pronounces the Name the way it is written has no share in the world to come!"; this is condemning the innocent, and is an abomination.
Anything that dishonors one's neighbor ceases to honor and rather dishonors God.
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." - Matthew 25:40
"Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me." - Mark 9:37
Respect for one another is a prerequisite of respecting God:
"Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." - Matthew 5:24
There is nothing wrong with using "God", "Father", and "Lord": these are well affirmed titles that God has given and used, but to say that we should not use his Name is outside of Scripture. Of course I have no ill feelings towards anyone who desires to show more respect to God, and out of the same desire, when inventing ways to honor him, one must be ever more sure not to dishonor him in the ways he places highest in Scripture.
Exodus 6:2,3 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Lots of interesting things going on with this passage.
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Lots of interesting things going on with this passage.
and Elohim spoke to Moshe, and said to him, I am Yud _Hey _Vey _Hey: , I appeared to Avraham, to Yitz'chak, and unto Ya'akov, as El Shadai, but with my name Yud _Hey _Vey _Hey I did not make my self known to them.
This was part of a rebuke on Moses for complaining, comparing him to the Patriarchs who maintained faith without complaint, even though they weren't privileged to see Adonai's oaths being full filled while Moses, who had been told redemption was at hand, was so disillusioned that he could not wait for Elohim to carry His plan to its conclusion.
But yes very interesting in the language used. Adonai speaks of how the Patriarchs knew Him as Elohim the Almighty actually the root word "shadad" (שדד) means to plunder, overpower, or make desolate, and another thing is that the name Shaddai is composed of the Hebrew relative particle she/sha in this case- Shin plus vowel segol followed by dagesh, or, as in this case the noun containing the dagesh is the Hebrew word dai meaning "enough, sufficient, sufficiency. I don't think, I could be wrong, that The Father was saying that the Patriarchs didn't know His name Yud _Hey _Vey _Hey but that wasn't how He made Himself known to them. He was commenting on the type of relationship He had with the man He called freind, the man who as a boy He used to foreshadow why Yeshua had to be the sacrifice of atonement, and the man he wrestled with. The Patriarchs who were sold out to Yah, compared to the lacking relationship/faith from Moses.
Last edited: