God's name (YHWH), the facts

[iris89]

By Gérard Gertoux
President, Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits
September 2003
God's name, which one finds about 7000 times in the Bible under the form YHWH, possesses the unique and remarkable circumstance of not having been vocalized by nearly all translators. With this name being unpronounceable under its written form YHWH, some overconfident (or overzealous?) translators refused to confirm this paradox and preferred to vocalize it with an approximated form. Obviously, in every case, the proposed vocalizations were very rigorously criticized. A review of the past twenty centuries will allow us to appreciate the reasonings which favored or opposed the vocalization of God's name and to understand the origin of the controversy and the paradox of a name which can be written without being able to read it aloud.


BEFORE OUR COMMON ERA
The first translation of the Bible, called the Septuagint, was made by Jews at the beginning of the third century before our era. However, out of superstitious respect, these translators preferred to keep the Tetragram YHWH written in Hebrew within the Greek text. There was, however, one exception: a Jewish translator who preferred to insert it under the vocalized form Iaô (Iaw), which became well known at this time because the historians Varro and Diodorus Siculus quoted it in their books (History I:94:2; Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum). In spite of these precise testimonies, the form of Iaô found limited use and was very often slandered: a paradox of magnitudes. The great prophet Jeremiah explained that the objective of the false prophets was to cause people to forget the Name (Jr 23:27), an attempt nevertheless dedicated to be defeated (Ps 44:20; 21) because God reserves his Name for his servants (Is 52:6) and naturally for those who appreciate it (Mal 3:16). Abraham, who is the father of those who have faith, took pleasure in proclaiming this Name according to Genesis 12:8 and initiated a respectable biblical custom.
Furthermore, according to the prophet Joel, it is even obligatory to proclaim this Name in order to be saved during the great and formidable day of God (Jl 2:32). According to Exodus 23:13, refusal to pronounce a god's name is a refusal to worship the god in question, so refusal to pronounce the True God's name means a refusal to worship him (Jos 23:7). In spite of these exactitudes, the translators of the Septuagint self-justified their choice not to vocalize the Name, even going so far as to modify the verses of Leviticus 24:15, transforming them into : "(Š) a man who will curse God will bring the offence, but in order to have named the name of the Lord, he would have to die absolutely, the entire assembly of Israel should stone him with stones; the alien resident as the native, in order to have named the name of the Lord, he would have to die absolutely."

Paradoxically, as noted by Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the first century, to name God was worse than to curse him (De Vita Mosis II:203-206). The Talmud points out that they had started to remove these names (Yah, Yahu) that had been stamped on jars in order to protect their holiness ('Arakin 6a; Shabbat 61b). Out of respect, the Name was to be avoided in conversation, as proven by these remarks from Jewish books written in the second century BCE: "Do not accustom into the habit of naming the Holy One" and "someone who is continually swearing and uttering the Name will not be exempt from sin" (Si 23:9,10). It was held that the privilege of pronouncing the Name was strictly reserved for use inside the Temple (Si 50:20) and that it should not be communicated to foreigners (Ws 14:21).

FROM FIRST TO FIFTH CENTURY
Flavius Josephus, who understood the priesthood of this time very well, made it clear that at the time the Romans attacked the Temple the Jews called upon the fear-inspiring name of God (The Jewish War V:43 . He wrote he had no right to reveal this name to his reader (Jewish Antiquities II:275); however, he did give information of primary importance on the very pronunciation he wanted to conceal. However, in his work The Jewish War V:235, he stated: "The high priest had his head dressed with a tiara of fine linen embroidered with a purple border, and surrounded by another crown in gold which had in relief the sacred letters; these ones are four vowels." This description is excellent; moreover, it completes the one found in Exodus 28:36-39. However, as we know, there are no vowels in Hebrew but only consonants.

Regrettably, instead of explaining this apparent abnormality, certain commentators (influenced by the form Yahweh) mislead the readers of Josephus by indicating in a note that this reading was IAUE. Now, it is obvious that the "sacred letters" indicated the Tetragram written in paleo-Hebrew, not Greek. Furthermore, in Hebrew these consonants, Y, W, and H, do serve as vowels; they are, in fact, called "mothers of reading" (matres lectionis). The writings of Qumrân show that in the first century Y used as a vowel served only to indicate the sounds I and É, W served only for the sounds Ô and U, and a final H served for the sound A. These equivalences may be verified in thousands of words.

Additionally, the H was used as a vowel only at the end of words, never within them. So, to read the name YHWH as four vowels would be IHUA, that is IEUA, because between two vowels the H is heard as a slight E. Eusebius quoted a writer of great antiquity (before 1200 BCE?) called Sanchuniathon who spoke about the Jews in chapter four of his work entitled Phoenician History. Philo of Byblos translated this work into Greek at the beginning of our era, and Porphyry was familiar with it. Sanchuniathon maintained that he got his information from Ieroubal the priest of IÉÜÔ (Ieuw), that is the Jerubbaal found in Judges 7:1. According to Judges 7:1, Jerubbaal was the name of Judge Gideon who was a priest of Jehovah (Jg 6:26; 8:27), probably written IÉÜÔA (Ieuwa) in Greek.

Irenaeus of Lyons believed that the word IAÔ (Iaw in Greek, [Iah] in Latin) meant "Lord" in primitive Hebrew (Against Heresies II:24:2), and he esteemed that the use of this Hebrew word IAÔ to denote the Name of the unknown Father was intended to impress gullible minds in worship of mysteries (Against Heresies I:21:3). Furthermore, the Greek concept of an anonymous god, mainly supported by Plato, being mixed in with the Hebrew concept of the God with a personal name, engendered absolutely contradictory assertions. So, Clement of Alexandria wrote in his book (Stromateon V:34:5) that the Tetragram was pronounced Iaoue while writing and then later that God was without form and nameless (StromateonV:81:6).

In the same way, Philo a Jewish philosopher of the first century had good biblical knowledge and knew that the Tetragram was the divine name pronounced inside the temple, since he related: "there was a gold plaque shaped in a ring and bearing four engraved characters of a name which had the right to hear and to pronounce in the holy place those ones whose ears and tongue have been purified by wisdom, and nobody else and absolutely nowhere else" (De Vita Mosis II:114-132). However, in the same work, paradoxically, he explains, commenting on Exodus 3:14 from the LXX translation, that God has no name of his own (De Vita Mosis I:75).

The Christian translators (of heathen origin) not understanding Hebrew exchanged the Tetragram with Lord; Marcion in 140 C.E. even modified the expression "Let your Name be sanctified" into "Let your spirit be sanctified." On the other hand, some Christians (of Jewish origin) such as Symmachus kept the Tetragram written in Hebrew inside the Greek text (in 165). Eusebius clarified that Symmachus was an Ebionite, that is a Judeo-Christian, and that he had drafted a comment on Matthew's book (Ecclesiastical History VI:17). However, the Judeo-Christians were completely rejected after 135 of our era by the "Christians" as Jewish heretics.
Since the whole of translations were made according to the Septuagint, many readers ignored the problem of the vocalization of the Name. However, Jerome, who realized the first Latin translation directly from the Hebrew text, noted in his commentary on Psalm 8:2: "The name of the Lord in Hebrew has four letters, Yod He Waw He, which is the proper name of God which some people through ignorance, write P I P I (instead of h w h y) in Greek and which can be pronounced Yaho." Augustine of Hippo wrote around 400 that "Varro was rightly writing that the Jews worship the god Jupiter" (De consensu evangelistarum I:22). His remark proves that he probably confused the name of Jupiter (Ioue) with the Hebrew name of God Iaô, or perhaps Ioua.

FROM SIXTH TO ELEVENTH CENTURY
Some oriental Christians, due to their knowledge of the Hebraic language, prevented a complete disappearance of the name. Thus, Severi of Antioch used the form IÔA (Iwa) in a series of comments in chapter eight of John's gospel (Jn 8:5 , pointing out that it was God's name in Hebrew, a name that one finds also in the front pages of a codex of 6th century (Coislinianus) to assign the Invisible or the Unspeakable. It is interesting to note that Matthew's gospel in Hebrew was found in a work dated from the 6th to the 9th centuries (Nestor's book) and was attributed to the priest Nestorius, in which God's name appears under the Hebraic shape "The Name" (Hashem) instead of the usual "Lord." In commenting on a work of Severi of Antioch, the famous scholar James of Edesse made clear around 675 in a technical comment that the copyists of the Septuagint (of his time) were divided over whether to write the divine name Adonay and keep it within the Greek text in the form P I P I (corresponding in fact to the Hebrew name YHYH as he mentioned) or to translate it as Kurios and write it in the margin of the manuscript.
These quotations are exceptional, however, because even the famous translator Albinus Alcuini specified that although God's name was written Jod He Vau Heth, it was read Lord because this name was ineffable. Things began to change when translators again made translations directly from Hebrew and not from a translation. The first was doubtless the famous Karaite Yefet ben Eli who translated the Bible into Arabic. In copies of this translation (made around 960), one finds at times the Tetragram vocalized Yahwah (or Yahuwah), a normal transcription of the Hebrew shape Yehwah of this time (or Yahowah whom one finds in some codices within Babylonian punctuation) because in Arabic there are only three sounds: â, î, and û. The shape Yahuwah was apparently understood Yah Huwa "Oh He" in Arabic because it seems so in a manuscript dated 10th century.

Some famous imams, such as Abu-l-Qâsim-al-Junayd who died in 910 and now known as Fahr ad-Din Râzî, while knowing that God had 99 beautiful names explained that the supreme name (ism-al-a'zam) of God was Yâ Huwa not Allah. A follower of al-Junayd, the Soufi Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallâj (857-922), asserted: "Here are the words of which sense seemed ambiguous. Know that temples hold by His Yâ-Huwah and that bodies are being moved by His Yâ-Sîn. Now Hû and Sîn are two roads which end into the knowledge of the original point." Yâ-Sîn is a reference to the Sura 36 and Yâ-huwah wrote y'hwh in Arabic and makes reference to the Hebrew Tetragram. Al-Hallâj was rejected as a madman by his teacher al-Junayd and was executed in Bagdad as a heretic.

IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY
The works of two Jewish scholars marked a decisive bend in the vocalization of God's name. In order to contend with influences of philosophy, Gnosticism, mystical, and even astrological beliefs which became increasingly influential [mainly due to the third century work entitled Sepher Yetsirah (Book of Forming) which speculated on the letters of the divine names], Maimonides, a Jewish scholar and famous talmudist, put forward a whole new definition of Judaism. His reasoning centered on the Name of God, the Tetragram, which was explained in his book entitled The Guide of the Perplexed, written in 1190. There he exposed the following powerful reasoning: the God of the philosophers did not require worship only polite acknowledgement of his existence since it would be impossible to establish relations with a nameless God (Elohim).

Then he proved that the Tetragram YHWH is the personal name of God, that is to say the name distinctly read (Shem hamephorash), which is different from all the other names such as Adonay, Shadday, Elohim (which are only divine titles having an etymology) because the Tetragram has no etymology. Maimonides knew well the problem of the pronunciation since Jewish tradition stated that it had been lost. On the other hand, he also knew that some Jews believed in the almost magical influence of the letters or the precise pronunciation of divine names, but he warned his readers against such practices as being pure invention or foolishness. The remarkable aspect of his argumentation lies in the fact that he managed to avoid controversy on such a sensitive subject.

He asserted that in fact it was only true worship which had been lost and not the authentic pronunciation of the Tetragram, since this was still possible according to its letters. To support this basic idea (true worship is more important than correct pronunciation), he quoted Sotah 38a to prove that the name is the essence of God and that is the reason it should not be misused; then he quoted Zechariah 14:9 to prove the oneness of this name and also Sifre Numbers 6:23-27 to show that the priests were obliged to bless by this name only. Then, to prove that pronunciation of the Name did not pose any problem in the past and that it had no magical aspect, he quoted Qiddushin 71a, which said that this name was passed on by certain rabbis to their sons.
Also, according to Yoma 39b, this pronunciation was widely used before the priesthood of Simon the Just, so proving the insignificance of a magical concept; at this time, the Name was used for its spiritual, not supernatural, aspect. Maimonides insisted on the fact that what was necessary to find was the spirituality connected to this Name and not the exact pronunciation. In order to demonstrate this important idea of understanding the sense and not the sound conveyed by this name, he quoted a relevant example. Exodus 6:3 indicates that before Moses the Name was not known. Naturally, this refers to the exact meaning of the Name and not its pronunciation because it would be unreasonable to believe that a correct pronunciation would have suddenly been able to incite the Israelites to action unless the pronunciation had magical power, a supposition disproved by subsequent events.

It is interesting to observe that Judah Halevi, another Jewish scholar, put forward almost the same arguments in his book The Kuzari published some years before in 1140. He wrote that the main difference between the God of Abraham and the God of Aristotle was the Tetragram. He proved also that this name was the personal name of God and that it meant "He will be with you." To show once again that it was the meaning of this name which was important and not the pronunciation, he quoted Exodus 5:2 where Pharaoh asked to know the Name, not the pronunciation which he used, and the authority of this Name. He pointed out that the letters of the Tetragram have the remarkable property of being matres lectionis, that is the vowels associated with other consonants, much as the spirit is associated with the body and makes it live (Kuzari IV:1-16). Judah Halevi specified in his work that the yod (Y) served as vowel I, the waw (W) served as O, and that the he (H) and the aleph (') served as A. According to these rudimentary indications, the name YHWH could be read I-H-O-A "according to its letters" (H is never used as vowel inside words; in that exceptional case, the letter aleph is preferred). A French erudite, Antoine Fabre d'Olivet, explained that the best pronunciation of the divine Name according to its letters was Ihôah, and when he began to translate the Bible (Genesis, chapters I to X), he systematically used the name Ihôah.
The expression pronounced "according to its letters" which Maimonides used is strictly exact, only in Hebrew (vowel letters as pointed out by Judah Halevi). Joachim of Flora gave a Greek transliteration of the Tetragram I-E-U-E in his work entitled Expositio in Apocalypsim that he finished in 1195. He also used the expression "Adonay IEUE tetragramaton nomen" in another book entitled Liber Figurarum. The vocalization of the Tetragram was improved by Pope Innocent III in one of his sermons written around 1200. Indeed, he noticed that the Hebrew letters of the Tetragram Ioth, Eth, Vau (that is Y, H, W) were used as vowels and that the name IESUS had exactly the same vowels I, E, and U as the divine name. He also drew a parallel between the name written IEVE, pronounced Adonai, and the name written IHS but pronounced IESUS. These remarks on the Name concerned only a circle very restricted by medieval intellectuals.

Furthermore, Pope Innocent III (1160-1216) did not make known in the Catholic world that God's name was Ieue and not Lord; the Hebrew scholar Judah Hallevi (1075-1141) did not denounce the Jewish superstition to replace the name Ihôa by the substitute Adonay; the Soufi al-Hallâj (857-922) did not reveal in the Moslem world that Yâhuwa was the proper noun of Allah, etc.

FROM THIRTEEN TO FIFTEENTH CENTURY
From the thirteenth century, knowledge of the Hebrew language would progress considerably, involving notably the role of matres lectionis. For example, the famous scholar Roger Bacon wrote in his Hebraic grammar that in Hebrew there are six vowels "aleph, he, vav, heth, iod, ain" close to the usual Masoretic vowel-points. (The French erudite Fabre d'Olivet also explained in his Hebrew grammar the following equivalence: aleph = â, he = è, heth = é, waw = ô/ u, yod = î, aïn = wo).

Raymond Martini, a Spanish monk, excellent Hebrew scholar, and a very good connoisseur of Talmud, impressed by the arguments of Maimonides, was involved in controversy with the Jews in his book Pugio fidei in 1278 on the fact that God's name could be pronounced; he used the form Yohoua. However, in 1292, his pupil Arnauldus of Villenueva, keen on Cabal, returned to the dumb (speechless) form of IHVH. On the other hand, Porchetus de Salvaticis, an admirer of Raymond Martini, enriched his arguments and used several times the form Yohouah in his book Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos in 1303. However, the convert Abner of Burgos used (between 1330 and 1340) the form Yehabe in his book Mostrador de Justicia. Another convert, Pablo of Burgos preferred the dumb structure YHBH (in 1390).

See Page 2

[iris89]

Page 2: God's Name (YHWH), the facts:



The first scholar who gave exactly and clearly the reasons of his choices of vocalization was cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. In 1428, he dedicated moreover his first sermon on John 1:1 in which he explained, based on rabbi Moyses's works, the various names of God (Adonai, Jah, Sabaoth, Schaddai, etc.) and the meaning of the Tetragram, which he vocalized Iehoua. In this sermon, he began to develop the idea that Jesus was the "speakable" element (the Word) of the "unspeakable (ineffable)" God. He explained in another sermon, written around 1440, that the name of Jesus means "savior," pronounced Ihesua in Hebrew, and this name "Savior" is also the Word of God. He indicated that the unspeakable name is Ihehoua in Hebrew.

In two other sermons, written in 1441, he pursued the connection between the unspeakable Greek Tetragram, spelled Iot, He, Vau, He, and the "speakable" name of Ihesus which he often wrote Ihûs. Then, in a sermon written in 1445, he explained in detail the grammatical reasons permitting a link between these two names. God's name is the Greek Tetragram which is spelled in Hebrew Ioth, He, Vau, He; these four letters serve as vowels, corresponding to I, E, O, A in Greek because in this language there is no specific vowel for the sound OU (the letter U in Greek is pronounced as the French Ü). So, in Greek, the transcription IEOUA would be more exact and would better reflect the OU sound of the Hebrew name I-e-ou-a, becoming in Latin Iehova or Ihehova, because the letter H is inaudible and the vowel U also serves as a consonant (V).

He noted finally that the Hebraic form IESUA of the name "Jesus" is distinguished from the divine name only by a holy letter "s" (shin in Hebrew) which is interpreted as the "elocution" or the Word of God, also the salvation of God. He would continue this parallel between God's name (Ieoua) and the name of Jesus (Iesoua) in yet another sermon. However, towards the end of his life, he wrote several important works (De Possest in 1460, Non Aliud in 1462, etc.), to explain the purely symbolic character of God's name which had all names and so none in particular. Contrary to his books, his sermons were not widely diffused.

In 1474, Marsilio Ficino proposed the name Hiehouahi in his book De Liber Christiana Religione XXX. Johannes Wessel Gansfort, the spiritual father of Luther, preferred, around 1480, to vocalize God's name Iohauah in his work Oratione III:3:11-12. However, once more, the influence of the Christian Cabal engendered a big mess in the vocalization of God's name under the excuse of making improvements!

For example, by 1488, Paulus de Heredia suggested in his Epistle of Secrets vocalizing the Tetragram in Yehauue because its presumed Hebraic meaning was, according to him, "He will make be" or "He will generate" (future piel of the verb to be). John Reuchlin proposed in 1494 in his De Verbo Mirifico to move closer to the Latin Tetragram IHVH towards the name of Jesus which he presumed to be written IHSVH (the link with the Greek name Iesue which he supported supposes Ieue as the vocalization of God's name). John Pico della Mirandola in his Disputianum Adversus Astrologos (in 1496) fustigated the heathens who used the name Jupiter for plagiarizing God's name (Jove father). Friend of Mirandole, Agostino Justiniani clarified in 1516 in his translation of the Psalms that the Tetragram was pronounced as Jova (or Ioua).

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, this situation had become extremely vague. The translator Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples indicated in 1509 in his comments on the Psalm LXXII that the Hebrew Tetragram was pronounced as it was written, that is in Latin I-He-U-He or Ihevhe (while noticing that the Hebrew name of Jesus was Ihesvha and concluding it should have been Ihesvhe). When he published in 1514 Nicholas of Cusa's sermons, he used instead the shape Iehova, according to the original manuscripts. In 1516 in Justiniani's Bible, one could read from the shape Ioua, etc.

In order to clear up the variants of pronunciation of the Tetragram, Pietro Galatino dedicated a good part of his work entitled De Arcanis Catholice Ueritatis (Concerning Secrets of the Universal Truth), published in 1518, to explain the (Hebraic) reasons for this pronunciation. First, he quoted profusely from the book of Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, especially chapters 60-64 of the first part, as a reminder that the Tetragram is the proper name of God and that it can be pronounced according to its letters. However, he demonstrated that the pronunciation Ioua, accepted in his time, was inaccurate, and he gave the reasons why. He explained, for example, that the proper name Iuda, written hdwy (YWDH), was an abbreviation of the name Iehuda written hdwhy (YHWDH).

All Hebrew proper names beginning in YHW- [why] are moreover always vocalized Ieh-. Consequently, if the Tetragram were really pronounced Ioua, it would have been written in Hebrew hWy (YWH), which was never the case. So, because the Tetragram is written hwhy (YHWH), one should hear the letter H inside the Name. He concluded that, because this name is pronounced according to its letters, the best transcription was the form I-eh-ou-a (Iehoua) rather than the form I-ou-a used, for example, by Agostino Justiniani, a friend of Pico della Mirandola, in his polyglot translation of Psalms published in 1516. If Galatino had transcribed the Masoretic form directly, he would have obtained Yehouah and not Iehoua.

In 1526, Luther wrote in a sermon on Jeremiah 23:1-8: "This name Iehouah, Lord, belongs exclusively to the true God." He will write in 1543, with characteristic frankness: "That they [the Jews] now allege the name Iehouah to be unpronounceable, they do not know what they are talking about (...) if it can be written with pen and ink, why should it not be spoken, which is much better than being written with pen and ink? Why do they not also call it unwriteable, unreadable or unthinkable? All things considered, there is something foul."

However, when he published in 1534 his complete translation of the Bible based on the original languages, he did not use God's name that he knew well, but preferred to use the substitute HERR (Lord). Another example of this vacillating attitude is John Calvin. In most of his books and sermons, he regularly encouraged his readers not to use God's name! For example in 1555 in his comment on Deuteronomy 5:11, he condemned the use of God's name. However, a few years before, in 1535, he prefaced Olivetan's Bible which used the name Iehouah, and a few years later in 1563 when he published his comments on the five books of Moses, he systematically used the form Iehoua, including it in the biblical text, and he denounced in his comment on Exodus 6:3 the Jewish superstition which lead to replacing Iehouæ with Adonaï. The excellent Hebrew scholar Sebastian Münster used the name Iehova in his Hebraic grammar (in 1526), a name which he introduced moreover into his Latin translation of the Bible in 1534.

Tyndale was the first to introduce it in several places into his English translation in 1530. Servetus in his Trinitatis Erroribus (in 1531) strongly defended the shape Iehouah against the shape Yehauue, "He will make to be," because the name Iehouah is close to the Hebrew theophoric name Iesua (Jesus). Cardinal Giacoma de vio Cajetan used it constantly in his comments on the Pentateuch in 1531. The translator Pierre Robert Olivétan introduced it in some places of his French translation in 1535, clarifying in the foreword (Apology of the translator) that this vocalization Iehouah expressed the sound of the letter H better than Ioua. François Vatable used it in his translation in 1545. The first who systematically used the name Iehouah was certainly the German scholar Martin Bucer in his Latin translation of Psalms in 1547; then Robert Estienne used it in all the Bible in 1557, as did also the Spanish translator Casiodoro de Reina in 1569.

The shape Iehouah was widely used; however, there were some exceptions. The Italian translator Antonio Brucioli preferred the shape Ieova in 1541; the French translator Sébastien Casteillon preferred the shape Ioua in 1555, clarifying in a comment on Matthew 1:21 that if the Latin name of Jesus was Josue, this theophoric name could be improved into Iosua involving the vocalization Ioua, effectively close to Ioue (Jupiter). He restored the argument by clarifying that if the heathens had used by chance God's name, then with stronger reason, Christians had reason to do so. The translator Benito Arias Montano, afraid of favoring a name of heathen origin, preferred to use systematically the name IA in his translation of Psalms in 1574. The name Iehouah seemed to have won in part and to be necessarily characterized in the Bible; however, a large-scale attack against this vocalization was going to begin towards the end of the sixteenth century.

The first antagonist was Archbishop Gilbert Genebrard, who, in his book written in 1568 to defend the Trinity, dedicated several pages to the name in an effort to refute S. Casteillon, P. Galatin, S. Pagnin, and others. First of all, he rejected Chateillon's Ioua using Saint Augustine's explanation, via Varro, that the Jews had worshiped Ioue (Jupiter!), and, therefore, the use of Ioua was a return to paganism. In the foreword to his commentary on Psalms, he went so far as to state that the name Ioua was barbarian, fictitious, and irreligious. Concerning the writings of Clement of Alexandria ("Iaou"), Jerome ("Iaho") and Theodoret ("Iabe"), he considered these as mere variations of Ioue, and these testimonies appeared unreliable because, at the time they were written, the Jews had not pronounced the Name for several centuries. Lastly, he claimed that P. Galatin (as well as S. Pagnin), who had used the form "Iehoua," had not accounted for the theological meaning "He is" when searching for the right pronunciation.

Indeed, since the translation of the Septuagint, it was known that the definition of the divine Name was essentially "He is." Genebrard tried to confirm this definition due to his knowledge of the Hebrew language. So, since in Exodus 3:14 God calls himself "I am," (in Hebrew Ehie), one should say, when speaking about God, "He is," that is in Hebrew Iihie.

Grammatically, the form Iihie was likely derived from a more archaic form Iehue, suggested in 1550 by Luigi Lippomano. Genebrard then pointed out that Abbot Joachim of Flora used this more exact form ("Ieue") in his book on the Apocalypse. Genebrard's explanation, although unable to convince, impressed many because of its intellectual approach, and, during the century that followed, Bible commentators often noted this form Iehue (or Iiheue) when using the more accepted Iehoua.

However, in spite of the masterly presentation, it remained theoretic because of lack of early proof (later, to mitigate this discrepancy, Protestant theologians re-examined the historical evidence of the first centuries). Genebrard's major contribution was to introduce the theological meaning of the Name into the search for its pronunciation, a process that provoked a profusion of new pronunciations due to the ever increasing knowledge of the Hebrew language and its history. Furthermore, Cardinal Robert Bellarmin asserted in 1578 that the form Iehoua was erroneous because it had the vowels e, o, a, of the qere Adonay (a, o, a becoming e, o, a for grammatical reasons!)

FROM SEVENTEENTH TO NINETEENTH CENTURY
Jan Drusius published in 1603 a long article dedicated to the pronunciation of the Name. His main arguments were that the Masoretic punctuation of the Tetragram could not be used as a basis for pronouncing the Name because it was a qere; so the form Iehovih, resulting from the qere elohim, would be nonsense. He thus concluded that Iehovah was also a barbarism. He repeated the same arguments as Genebrard against Ioua and then reminded his audience that according to the best grammarians of his time the expression "He is" should be pronounced Ieheve. This form is found in Johannes Merceri's Thesaurus and that of Santes Pagnino under the Hebrew form YeHeWeH (West Aramaic Peal imperfect) meaning "He will be" which is now pronounced YiHWeH.
He then theorized, using a few examples that the form Ieheve (or Iihveh) resulted from an archaic Iahave (or Iahveh), and, in conclusion, he noted that this form Iahave was identical to the Samaritan pronunciation Iave given by Theodoret. Louis Cappel dedicated almost one hundred pages to the pronunciation of the Name in one of his articles published in 1650. As well as resuming many of Drusius' arguments, he explained a few new ideas. He maintained that the first syllable was certainly Iah- because many names had lost their initial vowel, for example, Nabô had become Nebô, but he noted that the most ancient witnesses (hence the most reliable) usually used Iaô. He preferred Iahuoh to Iahave or Iahue.

However, the form Iahue eventually took over for two important reasons; first of all, it retained the first syllable Ia- as determined by the most ancient sources (it was also similar to the versions provided by Epiphanius, Theodoret, and Clement of Alexandria), and, above all, it was close to a grammatical form beginning with Ya-, meaning "He will cause to be" or "He will make exist," first suggested by Johannes Leclerc around 1700. This form would be a hypothetical imperfect hiphil, vocalized YaHaYeH, resulting from an archaic [?] YaHaWeH. The cabalistic approach was in fact more "scientific" (!) because it was based on the probable imperfect piel form YeHaWeH, meaning "He will make to be" or "He will cause to become." This very complicated explanation intended to justify the form Yahweh disconcerted some translators who had used the "simplistic" Iehoua.

Some nostalgic translators returned to a form "according to its letters," so the German translator Johann Babor used Ihoua (in 1805), the French translator Antoine Fabre d'Olivet used Ihoah (in 1823), the Latin translator Augustine Crampon used Jova (in 1856), etc.; however, the "scientific" shape Yahweh began to appear in force in the Bible towards the end of nineteenth century and competed with the "religious" shape Iehoua. For example, the agnostic translator Eugène Ledrain insisted (in 1879) on using the shape Yahweh because this name was in agreement with the meaning "He causes to be" or "He causes to become," a name which he systematically used in his translation finished in 1899. Other translators breached the barrier and used the name Yahweh as those of Emphasized Bible (187 , Rodwell (1881), Addis Documents of the Hexateuch (1893), Banks J.S (1895), Rotherdam (1897), Leidse Vertaling (1899), etc.

In front of this growing mess, the religious leaders decided to produce a qualitative translation directly from the masoretic text which would benefit most from all of the projections acquired in the study of languages. The first to initiate the banns (proclamations?) was the French Jewish translator who, by leaning on the works of the famous German grammarian Gesenius, chose systematically to return the Tetragram to Iehovah (1856). Then the Russian orthodox translator also systematically chose to render the Tetragram with Jehovah (1867), as did the American Protestant translators (1901), and finally the French Catholic translators who made the same choice (1904). This choice is surprising for two reasons. First of all, it was unanimous in spite of serious religious differences, and then it was decided in a very controversial context where Yahweh seemed to prevail.

IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY
One could have been led to believe that with the unanimous weight of religious authorities, the name Jehovah was going to be necessary, but such was not the case. To the contrary, religious authorities, and once more unanimously, utterly denied their first choice. It seems, by observing the histories of the various choices, that scientific arguments were not the only ones in play. Indeed, one can determine that the first translators who introduced the name Jehovah into the Bible were either Walden's sympathizers, such as François Vatable or Pierre Robert Olivétan, or they were anti-Trinitarian proponents, such as Michel Servetus or Sébastien Casteillon.
The first who attacked violently the name Jehovah were Catholic theologians as the archbishop Gilbert Génébrard or the cardinal Robert Bellarmin. When Walden's movement was completely absorbed by the Protestant reform, Catholic authorities started again in addressing this name Jehovah, which was this time violently attacked by Protestant theologians, as Jan Drusius or Louis Cappel. Finally, when the Watch Tower, magazine of the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1879, gradually drew attention to the use of this name, numerous translators wished to distance themselves from this movement. The descent became even more important when these students of the Bible took the Jehovah's Witnesses' name in 1931.

In the end of the twentieth century, the majority of translators have abandoned the form of Jehovah in their translations; it is a thorn to note that the shape Yahweh, which was used to eliminate it, is today considered absurd by the grammarians because all the arguments which served to support it are false. Indeed, the Greek witnesses in Iaô correspond to the Trigram YHW and not to the Tetragram YHWH as widely showed by the Elephantine letters. The dropping of the first vowel (a becoming e) cannot be invoked because this change took place in the third century before our era, and the Septuagint, which kept track of this phenomenon, did not preserve any theophoric names (without exception) beginning with Ia-. Finally, the causative shape of the verb to be, "He causes to be" or "He causes to become," invented to justify a verbal shape beginning with Yah-, has never existed and will never exist.

Furthermore, this form is trebly absurd, as the translators Pirot and Clamer point out. First of all, the metaphysical notion o***od "who is" or "who causes to be" is too much abstracted with regard to the time when it is supposed to appear (the time of Moses) and corresponds better with the philosophic thinking of the Greeks. On the other hand, the notion o***od who "will be" with his people is a very concrete idea which the Talmud often developed and is in agreement with the biblical context. Secondly, the notion o***od who "causes to be" would have to be expressed, of necessity, by the shape yehaweh (future piel in Hebrew). Finally, in Exodus 3:14, as mentioned in a note in the Jerusalem Bible, the grammatical shape used without a shadow of a doubt is a future shape qal (which one can translate by "I shall be," therefore "He will be").

It is amusing to note that the form of Yahweh, which was supported by some of the most brilliant theologians, the most competent grammarians, the most eminent Biblicists, the most prestigious dictionaries, is known finally to be inaccurate. The king Solomon, who is presented as having received God's wisdom, nonetheless never quoted the Tetragram in his famous book called Ecclesiastes but mysteriously used a rare grammatical shape yhw' for yhwh (Qo 11:3), which appears only once in all the Bible. At the height of the irony, Biblicists translate this shape into "it will be" (Bible of the King James, Darby, etc.), which is the elementary meaning of the Tetragram. The translators of the Septuagint themselves translated this shape into "He will be" (estai). Furthermore, the Hebrew vocalization of this word, kept by the Masoretes, is "Yehou," which constitutes the natural vocalization of the Tetragram. [/quote]

If you want more information on the subject, go read Dr. Gertoux's book on the subject and go to the following links.

[1] search.netzero.net/search...toux%2C%20

[2] digilander.libero.it/domi...ertoux.htm

[3] mysite.wanadoo-members.co...e.name.htm

[iris89]

Discourse on The Name of God (YHWH) You Worship Does Matter:

INTRODUCTION:

The Bible clearly shows that it does matter at Exodus 6:3 in the Authorized King James Bible (AV), "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." (AV). In fact, one man, Gerard Gertoux , the President of the French Bible Society, wrote an entire book on the subject of God's (YHWH) name, "The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which Is Pronounced As It Is Written I_Eh_Ou_Ah ." A brief advertisement for his book said:

"Can we be certain how God's Name was originally pronounced? Was it pronunced "Yahweh" as many modern scholars have thought? What has been the history of this name down through the ages? How and why should this affect us as individuals? How and why should this effect our translations of God's Word today? A recent scholarly study of this most important subject is as broad as it is deep, yet can be followed by all those who are notably interested in the greatest Name in the universe, Jehovah and are willing to put forth an effort commensurate with such a study as this. We only recommend those books that will add to our appreciation of Jehovah and His Word the Bible. This book by Gerard Gertoux will undoubtedly do these. 328 pages, University Press of America."

Yet some say, "Actually, it really doesn't matter, considering [name removed] believes the same Messiah as you do (in a way; only that he believes he is the same person as God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which you don't believe as being triune).

He also believes the same God as you do (see above message).

So why, especially if the only person who speaks to you here is [name removed], would you distinguish which God you are talking about?"

But, if this were true, Why would God (YHWH) say as he did at Exodus 6:3, "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them." (American Standard Version; ASV)? Obviously, God's (YHWH's) name is important to him or he would not have stated what he did at Exodus 6:3.

Now, if his name as expressed in Ancient Hebrew as YHWH [English transliteration of four Ancient Hebrew consonants] in the original Old Testament over 6,000 times as testified to in the English version of a Italian article published on the catholic magazine, edited from Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy which said,

"English version of a Italian article published on the catholic magazine, edited from Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy.For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the letters YHWH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider:

1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).
One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading.

However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text..." [source - Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy.]

NOW WHY IS THE USE OF GOD'S (YHWH) PROPER NAME IMPORTANT?

FIRST, Its use is important to show proper respect to our Creator, Almighty God (YHWH),which literally means 'He who causes to be.' Why is this so? He made it a point to the original faithful men he used as scribes, more than 40 he used to put the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the language of mem, to make his proper name that he wished to be known by known to them.

Even mere humans wish to be addressed by name and not by "man," "boy," or whatever, and many take offense when they are not. Now, if mere men take offense at NOT being addressed by their proper name; how much more so would the Creator, Almighty God (YHWH) maker of all there is.

SECOND, It is necessary to use God's (YHWH's) proper name to identify which god you are speaking about by the use of his transliteration name in English, YHWH, to identify him as the one and only true God (YHWH) creator of heaven and earth as there are over 2,000,000 false gods [Hindus have for example many gods]. In other words, we should distinguish him from the many false gods that there are, and from false creedal creeds that dishonor him. Let's look briefly at one of one of these false gods:

"'The Archeology of The Middle East'
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion.

Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.

Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria.

The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-god. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites."

In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues.

He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a crescent moon inlaid on its forehead with shells.

In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950's a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest .

The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms."

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected.

Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.

In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god."[source - The Archeology of The Middle East].

THREE, His Son's name is Jesus or Yeshua, English transliteration of Ancient Hebrew which literally means 'JHWH is Salvation.' Now with respect Jesus (Yeshua) it is absolutely necessary, also, to distinguish him from the many false messiahs that appear. In fact, all the children of Saturn were considered/called messiah's by the ancient Romans. Here is a little on that,

"In Roman Mythology, Saturn was the ancient god of agriculture. He was the husband of Ops, goddess of plenty. His children included Jupiter, ruler of the gods; Juno, goddess of marriage; Neptune, goddess of the sea; Pluto, god of the death, and Ceres, goddess of the grain. Saturn was shown as a man with a beard, in art, and carrying a sickle (resemblance to her glaive?) or an ear of corn."

NEED TO DISTINGUISH YHWH FROM FALSE CREEDAL CONCEPTS OF GOD (YHWH):

There are many creedal creeds that paint or posture God in strange surreal forms that are both false and dishonoring to the true God (YHWH) the maker of all there is such as he exist in three modes or manifestations or he is made up of either two or three individual spirit beings, etc.; however, only three of these will be considered as follows:

"[ONENESS THEOLOGY]
They believe that the Father (YHWH), the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit are the same God with no distinction in person or being. That only one God simply manifests himself in these three ways at different times.

Uniqueness - They believe that they are unique in that they conform strictly to the objective of having only one God where as others have more than one God. In many aspects it is similar to Modalism, but theologically speaking it is considered a distinct creedal doctrine. However, many writers fail to differentiate between Modalism and Oneness Theology and this is an error.

[SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY OR MODALISM]
God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.

Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not heavenly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on your 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," (pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to have a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273).]
[[Note, this has much in common with Oneness Theology]]

[TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY]
They believe that there is one but God made up of three separate and distinct persons of but one indivisible essence. That these three persons existed from eternity, and are co-equal in power and substance. These individuals are known as Father (YHWH), Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit. The undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The Church (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants) confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

Uniqueness - They see a distinction in the persons of God, but hold that there is but one God. It is a mystery, i.e., they are not able to explain it."[ source - Discourse on John 1:1 + Appendix by a PhD Theologian who wishes to remain Anonymous in 1999].

Of course the followers of these distorting creedal creeds say it does NOT matter what name you call God (YHWH), but as we have seen this is NOT so and an outright lie in keeping with John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (AV).

Interestingly, the last creedal distortion with respect God (YHWH) is clearly shown as WRONG by two scriptures about his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) himself as follows:

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (AV)

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (AV)

By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. An eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. Clearly showing the deceitful creedal doctrine of two or three gods in one is false.

TRUTH MADE TO APPEAR INCONSEQUENTAL BY SOME WHEN IT IS REALLY VITAL:

As previously mentioned in the Introduction, one individual said, "Actually, it really doesn't matter, considering [individuals] believes the same Messiah as you do (in a way; only that he believes he is the same person as God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which you don't believe as being triune)." Yet this is nothing but a deceptive lie. As previously shown, it matters greatly, and proper respect must be shown to our Creator, Almighty God (YHWH).

See Part 2:

[iris89]

Discourse on The Name of God (YHWH) You Worship Does Matter:

INTRODUCTION:

The Bible clearly shows that it does matter at Exodus 6:3 in the Authorized King James Bible (AV), "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." (AV). In fact, one man, Gerard Gertoux , the President of the French Bible Society, wrote an entire book on the subject of God's (YHWH) name, "The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which Is Pronounced As It Is Written I_Eh_Ou_Ah ." In a brief advertisement for his book said:

"Can we be certain how God's Name was originally pronounced? Was it pronunced "Yahweh" as many modern scholars have thought? What has been the history of this name down through the ages? How and why should this affect us as individuals? How and why should this effect our translations of God's Word today? A recent scholarly study of this most important subject is as broad as it is deep, yet can be followed by all those who are notably interested in the greatest Name in the universe, Jehovah and are willing to put forth an effort commensurate with such a study as this. We only recommend those books that will add to our appreciation of Jehovah and His Word the Bible. This book by Gerard Gertoux will undoubtedly do these. 328 pages, University Press of America."

Yet some say, "Actually, it really doesn't matter, considering [individuals] believes the same Messiah as you do (in a way; only that he believes he is the same person as God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which you don't believe as being triune).

He also believes the same God as you do (see above message).

So why, especially if the only person who speaks to you here is [individual], would you distinguish which God you are talking about?"

But, if this were true, Why would God (YHWH) say as he did at Exodus 6:3, "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them." (American Standard Version; ASV)? Obviously, God's (YHWH's) name is important to him or he would not have stated what he did at Exodus 6:3.

Now, if his name as expressed in Ancient Hebrew as YHWH [English transliteration of four Ancient Hebrew consonants] in the original Old Testament over 6,000 times as testified to in the English version of a Italian article published on the catholic magazine, edited from Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy which said,

"English version of a Italian article published on the catholic magazine, edited from Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy.For a long time it was thought that the divine Tetragrammaton YHWH, in Hebrew written with the letters YHWH (which recurs over 6800 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) did not appear in the original writings of the New Testament. In its place it was thought that the writers of the New Testament had used the Greek word for LORD, KYRIOS. However, it seems that such an opinion is wrong. Here below are some factors to consider:
1) The Tetragrammaton in the Greek Version of Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX).
One of the reasons produced to support the above mentioned opinion was that the LXX substituted YHWH (YHWH) with the term KYRIOS, (kurios) which was the equivalent Greek of the Hebrew word ADONAY used by some Hebrews when they met the Tetragrammaton during the Bible reading.

However, recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version. As a matter of fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text..." [source - Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy.]

NOW WHY IS THE USE OF GOD'S (YHWH) PROPER NAME IMPORTANT?

FIRST, Its use is important to show proper respect to our Creator, Almighty God (YHWH),which literally means 'He who causes to be.' Why is this so? He made it a point to the original faithful men he used as scribes, more than 40 he used to put the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the language of mem, to make his proper name that he wished to be known by known to them.

Even mere humans wish to be addressed by name and not by "man," "boy," or whatever, and many take offense when they are not. Now, if mere men take offense at NOT being addressed by their proper name; how much more so would the Creator, Almighty God (YHWH) maker of all there is.

SECOND, It is necessary to use God's (YHWH's) proper name to identify which god you are speaking about by the use of his transliteration name in English, YHWH, to identify him as the one and only true God (YHWH) creator of heaven and earth as there are over 2,000,000 false gods [Hindus have for example many gods]. In other words, we should distinguish him from the many false gods that there are, and from false creedal creeds that dishonor him. Let's look briefly at one of one of these false gods:

"'The Archeology of The Middle East'
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion.

Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.

Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. From the mountains of Turkey to the banks of the Nile, the most wide-spread religion of the ancient world was the worship of the Moon-god. In the first literate civilization, the Sumerians have left us thousands of clay tablets in which they described their religious beliefs. As demonstrated by Sjoberg and Hall, the ancient Sumerians worshipped a Moon-god who was called many different names. The most popular names were Nanna, Suen and Asimbabbar. His symbol was the crescent moon. Given the amount of artifacts concerning the worship of this Moon-god, it is clear that this was the dominant religion in Sumeria.

The cult of the Moon-god was the most popular religion throughout ancient Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-god. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites."

In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues.

He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead. An idol with the body of a bull and the head of man has a crescent moon inlaid on its forehead with shells.

In Ur, the Stela of Ur-Nammu has the crescent symbol placed at the top of the register of gods because the Moon-god was the head of the gods. Even bread was baked in the form of a crescent as an act of devotion to the Moon-god. The Ur of the Chaldees was so devoted to the Moon-god that it was sometimes called Nannar in tablets from that time period.

A temple of the Moon-god has been excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. He dug up many examples of moon worship in Ur and these are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Harran was likewise noted for its devotion to the Moon-god. In the 1950's a major temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the moon god were found. Each was a stature of a man sitting upon a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest .

The accompanying inscriptions make it clear that these were idols of the Moon-god. Several smaller statues were also found which were identified by their inscriptions as the "daughters" of the Moon-god. What about Arabia? As pointed out by Prof. Coon, "Muslims are notoriously loath to preserve traditions of earlier paganism and like to garble what pre-Islamic history they permit to survive in anachronistic terms."

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected.

Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.

In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god."[source - The Archeology of The Middle East].

THREE, His Son's name is Jesus or Yeshua, English transliteration of Ancient Hebrew which literally means 'JHWH is Salvation.' Now with respect Jesus (Yeshua) it is absolutely necessary, also, to distinguish him from the many false messiahs that appear. In fact, all the children of Saturn were considered/called messiah's by the ancient Romans. Here is a little on that,

"In Roman Mythology, Saturn was the ancient god of agriculture. He was the husband of Ops, goddess of plenty. His children included Jupiter, ruler of the gods; Juno, goddess of marriage; Neptune, goddess of the sea; Pluto, god of the death, and Ceres, goddess of the grain. Saturn was shown as a man with a beard, in art, and carrying a sickle (resemblance to her glaive?) or an ear of corn."

NEED TO DISTINGUISH YHWH FROM FALSE CREEDAL CONCEPTS OF GOD (YHWH):

There are many creedal creeds that paint or posture God in strange surreal forms that are both false and dishonoring to the true God (YHWH) the maker of all there is such as he exist in three modes or manifestations or he is made up of either two or three individual spirit beings, etc.; however, only three of these will be considered as follows:

"[ONENESS THEOLOGY]
They believe that the Father (YHWH), the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit are the same God with no distinction in person or being. That only one God simply manifests himself in these three ways at different times.

Uniqueness - They believe that they are unique in that they conform strictly to the objective of having only one God where as others have more than one God. In many aspects it is similar to Modalism, but theologically speaking it is considered a distinct creedal doctrine. However, many writers fail to differentiate between Modalism and Oneness Theology and this is an error.

[SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY OR MODALISM]
God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.

Uniqueness - They believe that God is one in earthly manifestations, but not heavenly. [Branham's Bible Believers, Inc.][ to Branham's 1189 page book "Conduct, Order, Doctrine of the Church," the "First thing is to straighten out you on your 'trinity' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God is like a three-foot rule... The first twelve inches was God, the Father; the second twelve inches, God, the Son, the same God; the third twelve inches was God, the Holy Ghost, the same God," (pp.182 & 184). Branham clarifies his position in a speech given October 2, 1957 when he exclaims, "See, there cannot be an Eternal son, because a son had to have a beginning. And so Jesus had a beginning, God had no beginning," (Ibid, p.273).]
[[Note, this has much in common with Oneness Theology]]

[TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY]
They believe that there is one but God made up of three separate and distinct persons of but one indivisible essence. That these three persons existed from eternity, and are co-equal in power and substance. These individuals are known as Father (YHWH), Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) and the Holy Spirit. The undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The Church (Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants) confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

Uniqueness - They see a distinction in the persons of God, but hold that there is but one God. It is a mystery, i.e., they are not able to explain it."[ source - Discourse on John 1:1 + Appendix by a PhD Theologian who wishes to remain Anonymous in 1999].

Of course the followers of these distorting creedal creeds say it does NOT matter what name you call God (YHWH), but as we have seen this is NOT so and an outright lie in keeping with John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (AV).

Interestingly, the last creedal distortion with respect God (YHWH) is clearly shown as WRONG by two scriptures about his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) himself as follows:

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (AV)

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (AV)

By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. An eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. Clearly showing the deceitful creedal doctrine of two or three gods in one is false.

TRUTH MADE TO APPEAR INCONSEQUENTAL BY SOME WHEN IT IS REALLY VITAL:

As previously mentioned in the Introduction, one individual said, "Actually, it really doesn't matter, considering [individuals] believes the same Messiah as you do (in a way; only that he believes he is the same person as God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which you don't believe as being triune)." Yet this is nothing but a deceptive lie. As previously shown, it matters greatly, and proper respect must be shown to our Creator, Almighty God (YHWH).

Even the purveyors of false creedal creeds know it matters a lot and they are very fearful of the truth, and what the Apostle John said at John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV). They leaders of groups that teach these false creedal beliefs do all they can to prevent their members from knowing the truth with regard the facts about God (YHWH) including trying to keep his proper name from being known or making it appear that you can call him anything you want and that is okay. Like one believer in these false creedal creeds said, "Actually, it really doesn't matter." This sentiment of course fosters complacency and makes it appear that sound doctrine is NOT important, but Titus 2:1 shows this to be just another lie or untruth, "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV).

Now let's look at some of the wicked atrocities these purveyors, who falsely claim to be footstep followers of Jesus (Yeshua) the Prince of Peace, of false creedal creeds have committed to silence those telling the truth. These very atrocities give salient testimony to the fact that it really does matter. Here are some representative examples from over 100,000 actual occurrences of wicked atrocities committed by purveyors of false creedal creeds to silence the voice of truth and fact:

[1] "This is where the theologian Michael Servitus comes in. In 1546 he wrote a book on spiritual regeneration. He attacked the doctrine of the Trinity. He thought the Nicene Creed dishonored the idea of redemption. That was dangerous thinking during the Protestant Reformation.

Servitus -- almost incidentally -- described the regeneration of blood in the lungs. It was part of his theology of regeneration. But it was quite accurate. Servitus told us just what Harvey did, 85 years later.

Servitus sent a copy of his book to Calvin. Calvin took it very badly. He ordered Servitus's arrest and trial as a heretic. A tribunal sentenced Servitus to burn in a fire fueled by slow-burning green wood and his own books. "[source - MICHAEL SERVITUS, by John H. Lienhard ]

[2] "Standard Number One: Commandment Nine, "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness," and Commandment Six, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." According to Hebrews 4:12, This not only includes actual murder, but the desire to murder or have murdered. In other words, a person or a Church (group of people) can have murder committed for them, and they don't actually have to get their hands bloody. All they have to do is desire for a murder to occur (murder is the "Intent of Their Hearts")!

The written history of the "Inquisition" is specific in its' details; and some of those details are as follows:

See Part 2:

[iris89]

Part 2:



The Inquisition was a medieval Catholic church court instituted to seek out and prosecute heretics (heretics, by Catholic definition, were almost always Sabbath Keeping Sabbatarians). The Church worked in conjunction with the military powers of the land (Kings & Queens) to accomplish their misdeeds. Papal documents as well as the Second, Third, and Fourth Lateran councils (1139, 1179, 1215) prescribed imprisonment (with torture), and confiscation of property as punishment for heresy and threatened to excommunicate princes (Kings & Queens) who failed to punish heretics. They were notoriously harsh, and their procedures resulted in unbelievable tortures, most often resulting in excruciating death; "The Crusaders" were the soldiers used by the inquisition to round up the so called Sabbatarian heretics. The Sabbatarians (Any and All Seventh Day Sabbath Keepers) were burned at the stake, buried alive, had their feet burned off, and were hacked into pieces by the Crusaders. The Inquisition was defended during the Middle Ages by appeal to biblical practices and to the Catholic church father (the "So Called") saint Augustine (354-430AD.), who chose to interpret Luke 14:23 as endorsing the use of physical force against so called heretics.

Luke 14:23 (a physical to Spiritual parallel or anthropomorphism)
23 The lord said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my (Spiritual) house may (ultimately) be filled.

Note: The word Compel, as used in Luke cannot go against Yahweh's Laws of Love. Therefore, the wicked saint Augustine used physical force, when Matthew intended for them to use Moral argument to convince people to come into G_d's house. A True Saint would have known this, but a True Power Hungry Heretic would not care. So here we have an example of a True Heretic (saint Augustine) pretending to be a Saint, and torturing True Saints (Sabbath Keepers) and calling them heretics. One last thought on this standard: Sabbatarians, as a group, never murdered, tortured or persecuted anyone; but, whenever they try to make the Truth Known, they are quickly called "Catholic Bashers." What will Yahweh be called, when He destroys the True Heretical Catholic-christians (Christopagans) from off the face of the Earth?

King Louis IX of France (1229 AD) called Sabbath Keepers heretics.

Catholic canon (Law) #3 (1229 AD) (The Council of Toulouse) Quote: The Lords of the different districts shall search the villas and woods for the hiding places of the Sabbath Keeping heretics.

Standard Number Two: Commandment Four, "Keep The Seventh Day Sabbath Holy." True Believing Sabbatarian Congregations are Overt and not Covert. Why? Mainly, because True Believers have nothing to hide, they are not deceptive, use secret codes or hide behind clever semantics. Additionally, True Believers are humble and obedient to the Words of Yahweh. True Believers are not heretics, who at first pretend to be True Believers, and then over a period of time change their beliefs. The Seventh Day Sabbath was observed as a Holy Day of Convocation, even by the Catholic church, and it wasn't until the Catholic church imagined that they had the power to change the Laws of Yahweh that those "In Power" re-invented "The Lord's Day," and started enforcing Sunday as their "Day of Rest." Revelation 1:10, Acts 2:20, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Thess. 5:2, and 2 Peter 3:10 are the only places in the Bible that the "Lord's Day" is even mentioned, and those who are Spiritually enlightened know that this is always referring to the (future) Day of "The First Resurrection" when "The Last Trumpet" will sound, and the kingdoms of this Earth become the kingdom(s) of The Son(s) of Yahweh.

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet

So when and how did the Catholic-Christian (Christopagan) church begin to reveal its' true identity? History records that the Catholic-Christian church began to show her true colors about the late third or early fourth century.

However, the Catholic-Christian church in Scotland remained loyal to The Saturday Sabbath well into the tenth century, according to: "Ad**nan Life of St. Columbs" 1874, p.96 by W.T. Skene; "History of The Catholic church in Scotland," Vol. 1, p.86, by Bellesheim (a Catholic Historian); "The Rise of The Mediaeval Church," p.237, by Flick; "History of Scotland From The Roman occupation," Vol. 1, p.96, by Andrew Lang; and "Celtic Scotland" Vol. 2, pp.330-349.

The Seventh Day Sabbath prevailed in the Catholic church in Wales until 1115AD. when St. David's Cathedral seated its very first Roman Catholic indoctrinated bishop.

Roman Catholic canon (Law) #26 (305 AD) of The Council of Elvira, Spain, reveals that the church in Spain observed the Seventh Day Sabbath, but were at odds with the church in Rome, because the Rome church had already imposed a Sabbath Fasting Period (to make the True Sabbath unpopular with the masses).

Catholic canon (Law) #16: On Saturday the Gospels and Scripture shall be read aloud.

Catholic canon (Law) #29: Catholic-Christians shall not JUDAIZE (a Jew Hater statement) and be idle on the Sabbath, but shall work on that day, but shall not work on the (re-invented) "Lord's Day."

Pope Sylvester (314-335AD.) was the first to order that the Catholic church "Fast" (go hungry and thirsty) each and every Sabbath (Friday at sunset to Saturday at sunset). This was a major change in the Sabbath (and not according to Holy Scripture), and was done to make the Sabbath less appealing than Sunday. Of course, this only psychologically affected the members of The Catholic church, as True Believers (Sabbatarians) continued to keep the True Sabbath according to G_d's Word.

Pope Innocent (402-417) made fasting on The Sabbath a binding law for all in subjugation (psychological and legal slavery) to the Catholic church.

Pope Gregory I (590-604 AD.), according to epistles #1 and #B 13:1, called all those within the Catholic church who forbid working on the Saturday Sabbath, "Antichrists."

Catholic canon (Law) #13: "Council of Friaul," Italy, 791AD., Sunday, the so called "Lord's Day," became a commanded observance (purely CULT tactics).
...

Conclusion: I could continue for days on this subject, but I doubt that very many people would take the time to read it all. Kind of like owning a Bible, which you don't even read. Did you know that having a Bible is a privilege, that not many people have had through the centuries.

Catholic canon Law #14 (of the thirteenth century in France) "Lay members are not allowed to possess the books of the Old or the New Testaments."

Now why would a so called Christian church prohibit their members from having access to the word of YHWH? Could it be because ignorant members are easier for cults to lie to and control, and because control is power, and power relates to profit and vanity? Yes! But more importantly, it relates to "The Will of Satan."

My friends, this Roman Government sponsored church and its' christian harlot daughter churches have not only failed to represent the True Children of G_d, but have murdered them. Has this church group changed its' spots or truly repented of their sins? No! For even now they are trying to regroup and regain the powers that they once had. Have you not heard of Ecumenism? If not click here. The Catholic church is a threat to all True Sabbatarian Believers everywhere. Will we wait in disbelief as the Jews did in World War II? I pray not!

Finally, can any True Believer, follow any of the holiday traditions or ritual practices belonging to or coming out of The Catholic church? Absolutely Not! Why? Because this church is the original "Cult Church" and The Mother of Christian (Christopagan) harlots as mentioned in Revelation 17:4-6. They have perverted every Holy Tradition of Yahweh, mistranslated scripture, replaced Yahweh's Weekly Sabbath with Sunday and Yahweh's Annual Sabbath Holy Days with pagan holidays (Xmas & Easter/Ishtar, etc...), suppressed the study of scripture, murdered True Believers and Jews, assisted Hitler in World War II, perverted the "Breaking of Unleavened Bread" at Passover to the unbroken Sun Wafer of the "Eucharist" at Ishtar/Easter Time and other non-Holy days, and the list goes on. How can any brain conscious human being ever place even an ounce of faith in this perverted religious system.

Revelation 17:4-6
4 The woman (spiritual harlot / false church) was dressed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of (Spiritual) abominations (read Ezekiel & Jeremiah), even the unclean things of her (Spiritual) sexual immorality (with pagan gods and goddesses),
5 and on her forehead a name written, "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE (Spiritual) PROSTITUTES (Christianity & others) AND OF THE (Spiritual) ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

6 I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the (TRUE) saints (Sabbatarians), and with the blood of the martyrs of Yahshua (The TRUE Messiah). When I saw her, I wondered with great amazement.

NOTE: This woman is Spiritual Babylon, which was pure paganism (false religions) prior to The Messiah, but was covertly transferred to The Catholic church (Mother of Christianity) even before The Messiah's Sacrifice.[source - The Mother of All Cults
by Dan J. Love, Minister, SCY]

[3] The burning at the stake of Durmaid in 1542 in Ireland by Catholic authorities for preaching that there is only ONE SUPREME GOD who is indivisible and not made of parts and/or other gods in keeping with Mark 12:32, "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:" (AV).

Now we can see from these wicked atrocities and many more like them that it really DOES matter with regard to what god we call on. For this reason, these purveyors, who falsely claim to be footstep followers of Jesus (Yeshua) the Prince of Peace, of false creedal creeds have committed to silence those telling the truth. These very atrocities give salient testimony to the fact that it really does matter.

However, many have been complacent and feel it does NOT matter, and as we have seen say just that. But in reality this is just a cover-up for something that really does matter. This is similar to the cover-up some wish to do with respect the occurrence of the Holocaust. One individual, the head of the Neo Nazi group in Latvia, said with respect the Holocaust during which millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis, "Oh, the Jews and the Nazis had a few small differences, but nothing of significance." Major differences and atrocities should NOT be sweeped under the table; the truth should be told; but evil purveyors of falsehoods will go to great lengths to sweep truths under the table. Be on guard.

CONCLUSION:

Believe no creedal creeds. Accept only the Bible as the word of God (YHWH), and accept it all the way, not half way as do the creeds, both the New Testament and the Old Testament. Why? Because it is the only book God (YHWH) ever used over 40 faithful men as scribes under inspiration to put the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men.

As noted in this article, the purveyors of false creedal creeds have committed many atrocities in the name of Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father, Almighty God (YHWH) which is wickedness and blasphemy of the highest order. Today, notice how the followers of false creedal creeds either try to sweep under the table the fact that truth really does matter and/or are very nasty and make false accusations and tell lies about those telling Biblical truths that show up their falsehoods and creedal mysteries such as Oneness, Modalism, the Trinity, the Duality, the Hindu Trinity, etc.

Remember John 8:44, " Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (AV), and John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

YHWH/JEHOVAH: The name of God .
All the gods of World Religion have a name. Every
single deity has a personal name. Islam worships
Allah. Buddhism has various"Buddified" deities in
association with Siddhartha Buddha. Hinduism has the
Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva; and even Krishna
as Supreme personality of godhead. In ancient times,
the Egyptians directly worshiped their gods using
personal names. The ancient Greek had Zeus, who
later became Jupiter to the Romans, as their chief
deity. The Babylonians had Nebo their god of wisdom
and agriculture; and Marduk. The inhabitants of
ancient Canaan worshiped Baal; who was basically their
god of fertility. Without Baal's blessings, the
Canaanites believed Mot - a vindictive Canaanite god,
would bring disaster upon them. Zoroastrians worshiped
their god Ahura Mazda. In Egyptian worship the god of
the dead was Anubis and Osiris was the chief god ofthe underworld.
What about the God of the Old Testament; did he have a
name? The answer is yes; apart from his title of
El·o·him [God], he has a personal name. El·o·him is
actually a Hebrew word in plural form, used by the
Bible writers to express grandeur and supreme
sovereignty. In a similar manner, the monarchs of
Europe apply this routine when they refer to
themselves as "we" and not "I". In ancient times,
there was fierce competition between gods. Indeed the
God of Israel had to contend for the loyalty of theIsraelites
with other gods. In Canaan He had to continuously
punish the Israelites who kept deviating to worshipingthe
aforementioned Baal.

In this atmosphere, a God not having a name could not
have gained fame. The Israelites knew and freely used
God's personal name. In the Hebrew language, God's
name is written YHWH. These four letters are commonly
called the Tetragrammaton. The Bible actually
encourages God's name to be in wide appropriate use -
[Exodus 3:15; Proverbs 18:10; Isaiah 12:4; Zephaniah
3:9] God's personal name actually appears almost 7,000
times in the original Hebrew scriptures.
Why now do we not know the correct pronunciation of
God's personal name; the name of Jesus' Father? By the
1st century CE the Jews developed a superstition about
God's name. Not only did they stop using God's name,
but forbade its pronunciation altogether. Commentaries
supplementing scriptural laws, based on explanations
by rabbis came to be in writing. From these, an
unscriptural book known as the Mishnah began
forbidding God's name from being spoken - [Sanhedrin
10:1] This book began circulating with the Jews in the
late second and early third century CE. Eventoday,Jews
strictly forbid the uttering of the divine name. By
this act of the Jews, deliberately or otherwise, the
correct pronunciation of God's name seems almost lost.
However, many names of people and places
mentioned in the Bible contain an abbreviated form of
the divine name. Using these, one can arrive at an
educated guess on the proper pronunciation. The
pronunciation of Biblical names have survived intact
throughout the centuries. "In ancient times, parents
often named their children after their deities. That
means that they would have pronounced their children's
names the way the deity's name was pronounced. The
Tetragrammaton was used in people's names, and
they always used the middle vowel" - George Buchanan,
professor emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary,Washington D.C.,
U.S.A.

Let us consider a few of these examples of proper
names found in the Bible that includes a shortenedform of God's name.
Jehoaddah (YEHOADDA)- Jehovah has decked himself
Jehoaddan (YEHOADDAN)-Jehovah is pleasure
Jehoahaz (YEHOAHAZ)- May Jehovah take hold
Jehoash (YEHOAS)- Jehovah has been gracious
Jehohanan (YEHOHANAN)- Jehovah has shown favor
Jehoiachin (YEHOYAKIN)- Jehovah has firmly established
Jehoiada (YEHOYADA)- May Jehovah Know
Jehoiakim (YEHOYAQIM)- Jehovah raises up
Jehoiarib (YEHOYARIB)- May Jehovah contend
Jehonadab (YEHONADAB)- Jah is willing; noble; generous
Jehonathan (YEHONATHAN)- Jehovah has given
Jehoram (YEHORAM)- Jehovah is high; exalted
Jehoshabeath (YEHOSABAT)- Jehovah is plenty
Jehoshaphat (YEHOSAPAT)- Jehovah is judge
Jehosheba (YEHOSEBA)- Jehovah is plenty
Jehoshua (YEHOSUA)- Jehovah is Salvation
Jehozabad (YEHOZABAD)- Jehovah has endowed
Jehozadak (YEHOSADAQ)- Jehovah pronounces righteous

Jonathan, which appears as Yoh_na_than or
Yehoh_na_than in the Hebrew Bible; means "Yaho or
Yahowah has given" -according to professor Buchanan.
The prophet Elijah's name is 'E_li_yah' or
E_li_yah_hu in Hebrew; meaning "My God is Yahoo orYahoo_wah."
Similarly, Jehoshaphat is Yehoh_sha_phat', meaning
"Yaho has judged" - the professor explains. A
two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as
"Yahweh" would not allow for the "o" vowel sound to
exist as part of God's name. But in the dozens of
Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this
middle vowel sound appears in both the original and
shortened form; such as Jehonathan and Jonathan. Thus,
Professor Buchanan says regarding the divine name: "In
no case is the vowel "oo" or "oh" omitted. The word
was sometimes abbreviated as "Ya", but never as
"Ya_weh"...in one syllable it was "Yah" or "Yo". When
it was pronounced in three syllables it would have
been "Yahowah" or "Yahoowah". If it was ever
abbreviated to two syllable it would have been "Yaho"
- [Biblical Archaeological Review]

Usually, God's name is presented as fundamental in the
monotheistic religions, but its pronunciation is
controversial (YeHoWaH, Yahve, Jehovah,...).
However, the key to unlock this mystery was provided
by the famous Maimonides 800 years ago, when he wrote
that the Name of God (the tetragram YHWH) "is read as
it is written". The paradox starts and ends here withthese intriguing
words.
THE NAME OF GOD Y_EH_OW_AH WHICH IS PRONOUNCED AS IT
IS WRITTEN I_EH_OU_AH. Gérard Gertoux, University
Press of America,(r) Inc Lanham _ New York _ Oxford"How God's Name Was
Pronounced
Biblical Archaeology Review, Mar./Apr. 1995 Volume 21Number 2; page
30: 1-Among the magical papyri the name appears as
IAWOUHE (Ya_oh_oo_ay_eh), but it is difficult to know
how much this pronunciation had to do with
the Tetragrammaton...so it is not certain how many of
these syllables were thought to belong to the name. At
least, however, it has more syllables than two,
and the central vowel is not omitted, as is done inYah-weh.
However, if the word were spelled with four letters in
Moses' day, we would expect it to have had more than
two syllables, for at that period there were no vowel
letters. All the letters were sounded. At the end of
the OT period the Elephantine papyri write the word
YHW to be read either yahu (as in names like
Shemayahu) or yaho (as in names like Jehozadek). The
pronunciation yaho would be favored by the later Greek
from iao found in Qumran Greek fragments (2d or 1stcenturies B.C.) and
in Gnostic materials of the first Christian
centuries.-Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
There was only one group in antiquity to pronounce the
divine name similar to the popular form, 'Yahweh."
And this only because Theodoret (fifth-century CE
Antiochene theologioan) claimed that the Samaritans
pronounced the divine name as Iahe. But, "all other
examples [from antiquity] maintain the middle vowel.
George Buchanan, "How Gods Name Was Pronounced" BAR21.2 (March-April
1995, 31-32.

Also arguing for a trisyllable pronounciation is David
Thomas: "It is sometimes argued that the form Jehovah
is a made-up composite form which bears little
resemblance to Yahweh, the presumed Hebrew
pronunciation...If we accept Yitschak=Isaac without
any problem, this appears to be 'straining at the gnat'.-"A Further
Note on YHWH" BT 44.4(October 1993), 444-445

"In the history of the English language however, the
letter J has a written counterpart in the German J,
although the latter J in German is pronounced like an
English Y. The bulk of theological studies having come
from the German sources, there has been an intermixed
usage in English of the J and the Y. Our
English translations of the bible reflect this, so we
have chosen to use J, thus Jehovah, rather than
Yahweh, because this is established English usage for
Biblical names beginning with this Hebrew letters. No
one suggests that we ought to change Jacob, Joseph,
Jehoshaphat, Joshua etc. to begin with a Y,
and neither should we at this late date change Jehovah
to Yahweh." -Bible Translator Jay P. Green, Sr.
Johann David Michaelis in his German translation of
the Old Testament of the eighteenth century...said in
part: "On the other hand, the name Jehovah [Jehova in
German] is used. . . . so I considered it to be a
matter of integrity in translation to identify it,
even though it might not always be pleasing to the
German ear." ....Several of my friends insisted that I
not at all insert this foreign word. . . Jehovah is a
Nomen Proprium, and, just as properly as I retain
other nomina propria [such as] Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob... In the translation of a classical author one
would not have the slightest hesitance toward the use
of the names Jupiter, Apollo and Diana; and why then
should the name of the Only True God sound moreoffensive? I do not
therefore see why I should not use the name Jehovah inthe German
Bible."

In English, the shout of "Hallelujah" means "Praise
Jah you people." The Jah comes from the one syllable
Hebrew translation of the divine name to Yah. Hence,
God's name in English is Jehovah; from the above
Yahowah. The personal name is the causative form, the
imperfect state, of the Hebrew verb ha·wah' [become];
meaning "He Causes to Become".

However, if we are reasonably confident of Gods true name
in its original Hebrew language, is it acceptable to
use its English equivalent? Absolutely.
Francis B. Denio, who studied and taught Hebrew for 40
years says: "Jehovah misrepresents Yahweh no more than
Jeremiah misrepresents Yirmeyahu. The settled
connotation of Isaiah and Jeremiah forbid questioning
their right. Usage has given them the connotations
proper for designating the personalities which these
words represent. Much the same is true of Jehovah. It
is not barbarism. It has already many of the
connotations needed for the proper name of the
covenant God of Israel. There is no other word which
can faintly compare with it. For centuries it has been
gathering these connotations. No other word approaches
this name in fulness of associations required. The use
of any other word falls so far short of the proper
ideas that it is a serious blemish in a translation."
On the Use of the Word Jehovah, JBL 46, 1927, 147-148

On the name "Jehovah" the Catholic Encyclopedia
states: (1913) (http://www.newadvent.org)
"Jehovah: The proper name of God in the Old Testament;
hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the
great name, the only name,.... Finally, the word is
found even in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a
work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III,
dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745).

PROBABLY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH
ANTEDATES EVEN R. MARTIN. No wonder then that this
form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of
the Divine name by such scholars as Michaelis
("Supplementa ad lexica hebraica", I, 1792, p. 524),Drach (loc. cit.,
I, 469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache,327), and others."
So, God's name was most probably pronounced Yehowah
or Yahoowah before man's traditions deemed itunutterable.
Today, the name Jehovah is absolutely acceptable when
referring to YWHW, the Almighty God of the Bible.
And we can see that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the
only people to recognize Jehovah as the proper English
name for identifying the True God. Nor are Jehovah's
Witnesses the only people to use the Divine Name
"Jehovah" in their Bible(NWT) either.

The King James Version uses Jehovah at Ex.6:3,Ps.83:18, Is.12:2;26:4
The American Standard Version uses Jehovah thousandsof times.
Young's Literal Translation uses Jehovah thousands of times.
The Holy Bible by J.N.Darby uses Jehovah thousands of times.
The Literal Translation/King James 2 Version by Jay P.
Green uses Jehovah thousands of times.
The Recovery Version by Livings Dreams Ministry usesJehovah thousands
of times.
The New English Bible uses Jehovah at Exodus chapters3 and 6.
The Living Bible/Protestant and Catholic editions uses Jehovah over
300 times.
The English Revised Version uses Jehovah at Ex.
6:2,3,6,7,8, Ps. 83:18, Is. 12:2;26:4.
The Bible in Living English by Byington uses Jehovah thousands of
times.
The Webster Bible uses Jehovah in the same places as the KJV above.
The Modern Language Bible/New Berkeley Version uses
Jehovah at Exodus 3:15; 6:3, Numbers 3:13, 45; 15:41;21:14; 35:34,
Ezra
6:21; Ps. 8:1, 9; 16:2, Is 12:2; 140:7; 141:8; 147:1,
Hosea 12:5, Zech. 4:10 etc. The Emphatic Diaglott uses Jehovah at
Matt 21:42;
22:37, 44, 23:39, Mark 11:9 and Acts 2:34
Boothroyd's Versions uses Jehovah thousands of times.
S. Sharp's translation uses Jehovah thousands of times.
The Reina Valera Bible uses Jehova thousands of times.
The Moderna version uses Jehova thousands of times.

At Exodus 9: 15,16 Jehovah stated, " For by now I
could have thrust my hand out that I might strike you
and your people with pestilence and that you might be
effaced from the earth. But, in fact, for this case I
have kept you in existence, for the sake of showing
you my power and in order to have my name declared in
all the earth." Jehovah, the author of mankinds
languages(Gen11:7), has truly made His Name,
His character, the kind of being that He is(One that
will "prove to be" with his people) known to the most
distant parts of the earth. And as he did with the
gods of Egypt, Jehovah God will do again when
he fulfills his promises, as written in his inspired
words, "And I will bring myself into judgment with
him, with pestilence and with blood: and a flooding
downpour and hailstones, fire and sulphur I shall rain
down upon him and upon his bands and upon the many
peoples that will be with him. And I shall certainly
magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself
known before the eyes of many nations; and they will
have to know that I am Jehovah." Eze. 38: 22,23.