Why is God's Name NOT in the Bible?

[posthuman]

KJV only...because it is the best ...yet...... version.

For the new age religion types...any will do .....if published since the 1960's!!...and if it tickles the ear and tells what one wants to hear. (whoa..where did I get that from?)

Folks living in glass houses should not throw rocks.

Young's Literal ((YLT)) was completed in 1898 and uses the Germanic transliteration 'Jehovah' in place of LORD as the KJV puts it.
Jerome's Vulgate is far older than 1600 & **usually** puts 'Dominus' for the Tetragrammaton, tho he used 'Adonai' at least once instead.


just FYI; no other reason
the whole world does not speak Elizabethan English.

 

[Oblio]

I recently heard a guy say that if you don't speak English, you need to learn how. Then you can read the KJV and get truly saved.
I'd ask Him about it, but I don't know His name! Though He knows my name.
Yeshua calls me Ron, Ruach calls me friend, Abba calls me son.
He's my beginning and my end...He's my best friend! I'm so glad He loves me like He does!

 

[peldom10]

i'm immediately suspicious when someone calls everything they don't like "leftist"

​

I see you recognize what is leftist.

 

[peldom10]

Young's Literal ((YLT)) was completed in 1898 and uses the Germanic transliteration 'Jehovah' in place of LORD as the KJV puts it.
Jerome's Vulgate is far older than 1600 & **usually** puts 'Dominus' for the Tetragrammaton, tho he used 'Adonai' at least once instead.


just FYI; no other reason
the whole world does not speak Elizabethan English.

No concern because there is only three things we need to know from the KJV Bible;
1 Repentance
2. Baptism
3) Righteous living

10 new editions since the 1960's many with ulterior motive of changing God's word.

 

[posthuman]

I didn't realize that a discussion topic like God's Name would get under so many people's skin.

welcome to the BDF lol

i love you; thank you for the topic

 

[posthuman]

No concern because there is only three things we need to know from the KJV Bible;
1 Repentance
2. Baptism
3) Righteous living

10 new editions since the 1960's many with ulterior motive of changing God's word.

the topic of this thread is the Tetragrammaton & whether we ought to know & use it; more importantly, why God has made it indistinct.

in that context, i have shown that it is not true that 'only since the 1960's' has any translation of the Bible used anything other than LORD, as the kjv does.
thus it is demonstrated that the lack of knowledge and use of the true spelling & pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is definitely not a result of failing to honor & cling to the kjv.

this is not a carnal politics thread.
this is not a kjv-only thread.
this is a thread about the name of God.

 

[JeffA]

Can I ask how your opening comment in this thread supports your now stated ambition? And to be clear in my asking - I read your comment on another thread here:

@#98

That previous comment (your sixth comment on this forum) broadly supports your concern for deception - as I have quoted - yet this thread is predicated to interrogating believers. And that precept is also upheld in your sixth comment (as cited) yet it also forms the opening comment of this thread in the last paragraph.

You have implied in other comments that your OP question is academic - and then you have given that a phonological (linguistic derivation of the spoken word) meaning. You used a phonetic sense of the Tetragrammaton - which you say can only be understood as a spoken name. And you even have your own dial as to what that spoken name would look like as a transliterated Hebrew spoken expression.

Further, it would seem that you are here to hear from the Lord.

I have to say that if you want to hear from the Lord then this way of asking is not likely to produce such an outcome. By which I mean that the Lord does not settle one's personal need for a sense of direction by asking us to examine the church. The ability of Satan to deceive is not uncovered until we ourselves are first uncovered before God.

Thanks for your interest.
I don't really see any inconsistency in any of my posts.
I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I freely admit that I lean toward the pronunciation of Yahuah over Yahweh.
That certainly doesn't mean that I am right, it is only what my position is.
Do I think there is some sort of purposeful action in the removal of God's name? Yes.
Still doesn't mean I'm stuck a flag in it. I would love to be convinced otherwise.
I thought that is why we are here.
I don't remember telling anyone they are wrong. Unless it was about me.

 

[posthuman]

Saw that movie too....i think its called the gods are angry.?? Not sure

it's 'the gods must be crazy' part I



actually not such a bad movie. main theme is the culture shock between Western and 'primitive' African peoples.

 

[JeffA]

the topic of this thread is the Tetragrammaton & whether we ought to know & use it; more importantly, why God has made it indistinct.

in that context, i have shown that it is not true that 'only since the 1960's' has any translation of the Bible used anything other than LORD, as the kjv does.
thus it is demonstrated that the lack of knowledge and use of the true spelling & pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is definitely not a result of failing to honor & cling to the kjv.

this is not a carnal politics thread.
this is not a kjv-only thread.
this is a thread about the name of God.

Thank you. This must not be your first rodeo.

 

[posthuman]

"The Gods Must Be Crazy".

It was filmed in South Africa and Namibia, and starred a member of the San people, who are colloquially known as "Bushmen".

doh.. i gotta at some point learn to refrain from posting before i have read the whole thread

 

[JeffA]

This is exactly the dangerous path you are on = academia over the Spirit
Splitting a hair versus seeing the whole picture of God's Name woven throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

"the letter of the Law kills but the Spirit brings Life"

All those "irrelevant passages" went right over your academia........pray about it.

I'm sorry for getting agitated earlier.
I should not have.
May God Bless you

 

[posthuman]

Thank you. This must not be your first rodeo.

far from it jejeje

& you are welcome

 

[DavidTree]

I'm sorry for getting agitated earlier.
I should not have.
May God Bless you

Brother, i mean no harm and please forgive me for coming across as 'attacking' which is not my intent.

 

[Dino246]

doh.. i gotta at some point learn to refrain from posting before i have read the whole thread

Nah... disjointed comments are way more fun.

 

[Amanuensis]

I didn't realize that a discussion topic like God's Name would get under so many people's skin.

Discussing it is not annoying.

It is only when someone tries to teach a pronunciation to others as a matter of religious exactness that God wants us to follow that gets under my skin.

They have gotten way out of their lane when they do that.

1) They need to be expert in ancient Hebrew and should be able to read and write it before they teach it.
2) If all the experts say that it can't be known how to pronounce it, and adding vowels is a best guess, then it is not possible that God would require that we know how to pronounce it.

Therefore it is so very, very wrong for anyone to teach others that God is wanting them to call him by that exact pronunciation and the fear of God should constrain them from teaching such fallacy. That gets under my skin.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

i'm immediately suspicious when someone calls everything they don't like "leftist"

​

Good indication of a “Rightist “🤠

 

[JeffA]

No they didn't. The Prophets wrote the Hebrew letters as in the image below. Not YHWH. So let's get this right.

That is a transliteration. Technically it is a tetragrammaton consisting of the sequence of consonants Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh, which were written in Hebrew and were
View attachment 238480
So what they wrote were those letters.

As to why Hebrew scholars have not chosen to use the name you have suggested is because it would be inaccurate. It would be interpretive. And if you want to understand why you are going to need to take a few years of ancient Hebrew, or read from those who are expert in both ancient Hebrew and also in the manuscripts in extant.

The most accurate word you could come up for an English translation would be YHWH. And then after this what you have done is to create your own version of the word with vowels added (or one you have found from another writer who presents their case for it, which has added vowels to sound out their theory of how the word should be pronounced.)

This is the same idea behind all other attempts to pronounce it.

No one knows how it was pronounced. Adding vowels and guessing is just adding vowels and guessing and no one can prove that theirs is the ancient one. They just have strong opinions and when they think their version is the right one but all other Hebrew scholars are wrong, and they can't even read and write ancient Hebrew, it should be shocking that anyone would take them seriously.

That is just ignorant cult like behavior.

There was the rule of the Jews during the second temple period to not say the name because of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain. This resulted in notations for the public reader to read in place of YHWH on scrolls. Elohim.

It is understood that his name was given as YHWH to Moses as the I AM which is an interpretation of the name such that YHWH means the God who is All in All, or The Only One True I AM. So I AM is indeed what YHWH may have meant. It gets deep and as many times as I have read about it in commentaries I still can't articulate it without pulling them out and re reading them again.

I have a problem with anyone who insists on a particular pronunciation of YHWH including Yahweh. It just cannot be known and therefore it is really wrong to insist on a pronunciation and declare everyone else as wrong.

Seriously. If all the experts of ancient Hebrew, translations, textual manuscripts, ancient Jewish rabbinical writings conclude that the Hebrew letters Yod, Heh, Waw, and Heh pronunciation is unknown why would someone try and insist that it be pronounced their opinionated way?

To be clear: Only God is righteous. I only have opinion and did express how I arrived at that opinion.
I didn't see the need to be technical. I thought YHWH was self-explanatory.
I hold no grudge against any pronunciation. That's not the point of the post so I'm sorry if it came off that way.
The point of the post is God has many titles and descriptors but only one name. God, many times, expresses that.
I don't think scripture was written to mean anything other than what it says. I don't see a legitimate argument against God wanting his name known. I understand that there was a time thousands of years ago when pronouncing His name was forbidden.
That time has past for many years and how many Bible revisions?
If you don't think it should be changed, that's fine.

Let me pose a question:
If you were perfectly literate in ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Latin, would you prefer the original texts as your guide?

 

[JeffA]

Discussing it is not annoying.

It is only when someone tries to teach a pronunciation to others as a matter of religious exactness that God wants us to follow that gets under my skin.

They have gotten way out of their lane when they do that.

1) They need to be expert in ancient Hebrew and should be able to read and write it before they teach it.
2) If all the experts say that it can't be known how to pronounce it, and adding vowels is a best guess, then it is not possible that God would require that we know how to pronounce it.

Therefore it is so very, very wrong for anyone to teach others that God is wanting them to call him by that exact pronunciation and the fear of God should constrain them from teaching such fallacy. That gets under my skin.

Posting my position on a topic is not teaching.
Post #237 explains a little better.

 

[Rhomphaeam]

Thanks for your interest.
I don't really see any inconsistency in any of my posts.
I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I freely admit that I lean toward the pronunciation of Yahuah over Yahweh.
That certainly doesn't mean that I am right, it is only what my position is.
Do I think there is some sort of purposeful action in the removal of God's name? Yes.
Still doesn't mean I'm stuck a flag in it. I would love to be convinced otherwise.
I thought that is why we are here.
I don't remember telling anyone they are wrong. Unless it was about me.

I don't know that I was intending to make your position to be wrong (your sense of it as you have expressed here). I was chiefly seeking to draw another meaning.

Perhaps if I said this:

Seeing as you expressed in your sixth post on this forum, as cited by myself, (you spoke of dark forces working in the world) a precept that is grounded in a world meaning - And seeing as you have expressed that the name of God has been removed from the bible - then my intention was to allude to that meaning - and yet I expressed a form of words that gave rise to a reasonable presumption of inconsistency.

Having cited your own words I would have thought that it may be reasonable to connect you with a meaning arsing out of them - rather than to try and correct your claims.

As a musician with your son leading worship of the saints - (a meaning that is grounded in a heavenly meaning) then sensing your own direction when you sing songs that you have also written may give you a means to differentiate between worship songs and songs that bear witness and may be called pleadings. I listened to both of the songs you posted in another thread and it was whilst listening in reflection of this thread that it occurred to me that you were personally struggling in your walk - in the sense that whilst I cannot know how your gift is effectual for others to bring them to a true worship of God in the assembly - I ought to reasonably presume that your gift in leading worship would be effectual and pleasing to God - whereas your bearing witness or your pleadings are malformed by a weakness in your projection. You lack vocative conviction in your own songs.

Worship songs need only one direction - towards God - whereas pleadings are towards men - even when they are intentionally meant to bear witness. This is in a simile of Miriam who is cited as the first prophetess in Scripture and her gift was singing. You are a singer and lead worship yet I believe that you are being moved to preaching the word and not singing or pleading to bear witness of God.

So I would separate things this way:

Your leading the worship in song forms part of the prophetic gift - but not a spoken gift in a woman who can also lead the worship as Miriam did - yet as a man you can also speak. Miriam got that wrong and suffered a curse for a week as a consequence. Her brother Arron had authority to speak - even if he was mistaken in trying to direct Moses - so he was not cursed. Numbers chapter twelve.

Perhaps your disquiet which you cited as, "praying and meditating about where [your] life was heading" lies in that transition from leading in worship (not necessarily given up) but rather in being proved in your speech. In that sense I spoke "The ability of Satan to deceive is not uncovered until we ourselves are first uncovered before God." And that was predicated by my saying, "By which I mean that the Lord does not settle one's personal need for a sense of direction by asking us to examine the church."

The only possibility that your gift of leading worship (which forms part of the prophetic ministry) is going to transport into speech (you do emphasis the phonetic meaning of words - a prophetic necessity) - is when you yourself are uncovered before God. Leading worship may well be a necessary conscience to prove effectual - but speech is a necessary ability to be always rejected and despised in the prophetic ministry - yet to always speak for God - just as your own songs are intended - yet they are malformed because they project your concern for yourself. God Bless.

 

[posthuman]

Nah... disjointed comments are way more fun.

in the vernacular,

"aight then" ​