Do We Honor Yahweh by Referring to Him as "Our God"?
By Larry & June Acheson
Part
I: Does the "Paganizing" of
Yahweh’s Titles Give Us a License To Appropriate Already-Corrupt Titles to Him?
|
I |
f you’re like me, you began
referring to our Heavenly Father by His name Yahweh only after diligently
researching this issue on your own, or perhaps you were introduced to the
belief by a friend, family member or acquaintance. At first June and I wanted to dismiss the
concept of rejecting the name we had been taught (“God”) in favor of “Yahweh”
as somewhat cultic, but our familiarity with a verse in the book of I
Thessalonians stirred in us a desire to at least check it out together,
prayerfully and diligently. In I Thessalonians 5:21 we are told, “Prove all
things; hold fast that which is good.”
We all have
our own stories of how we checked and double-checked information, went to
various libraries, etc., in our efforts to uncover the truth about Yahweh’s
name. The result: Our minds were
changed. Many of us were shocked to
learn that “God” is not the Creator’s name at all, despite its common
appearance in most English Bibles. Not
only do Bibles insert “God” where our Creator’s TITLE (Elohim) appears, but
they wrongly insert a TITLE (the LORD) where His NAME appears. If ever anything smelled of a conspiracy,
this was indeed prime evidence for one!
You see, I am one of the many who, while growing up, was taught that our
Creator’s name is “God.” In fact, over
two years ago, I conducted a poll in the office where I work and discovered
that nearly everyone there believes the Creator’s name is “God.” Of the ten people surveyed, only one person
listed a different name for the Creator, listing it as “Jesus.” Thus, the fact that I was wrongly taught our
Creator’s name as being “God” is not a singular, isolated incident. It is widespread.
Once I learned
that His name is not and never was “God,” other truths began to surface. I
learned the truth regarding a Babylonian/Canaanite deity of fortune named
“God,” and of how this idol is mentioned in Scripture, but translators cleverly
concealed its name. Isn’t it interesting that the name we are taught as
belonging to the Creator of the universe turns out to be the name of a
Canaanite deity worshipped by those who “forsake Yahweh” (Isaiah 65:11)? Not only
this, but translators "hid" Yahweh’s name and replaced it with
“the LORD,” then “hid” the name of the Canaanite deity of fortune, apparently
to justify inserting it as a “proper translation” of the Hebrew title
“Elohim.” Having thus effectively
covered their tracks, the stage was set for what is perhaps one of the greatest
deceptions of all time: The masking of Yahweh’s name. They had to hide Yahweh’s name, then
present the name “God” in a positive light in order for it to
become the accepted name and title that it is today. After all, who, upon discovering the truth
about the name of the pagan deity of fortune, would desire to refer to the true
Creator with that same name, only now as a “title”?
Yahweh is
not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33), but what translators have
done to Yahweh’s name is enough to make most peoples’ heads spin! Think about
it! They took out His name (Yahweh), replaced it with a title (the LORD), then
took the name of a false idol (God) and inserted that name as a title for
Yahweh, but most people in our society commonly regard that title as actually
being His name, because they know the title that has been substituted for His
name (the LORD) is clearly just that: a title! Is your head spinning yet? When
most people read the words “the LORD God” in their Bibles, they perceive “the
LORD” as being simply a title, not recognizing it as being a substitution of
His name, and the word "God" to them represents His name, even though
“God” is rendered as a translation of the Hebrew title “Elohim.” To make their
cover-up complete, the translators removed all evidence of there having been a
heathen deity named “God.” The result: Millions of people today sincerely, yet
wrongly, believe our Creator’s name is “God.”
Confusion abounds!
The
Separation Created by Rejecting the Name "God":
Deliberate
Separation or a Quest for Truth?
Having been
raised in a household wherein our Creator’s name was taught as being “God,”
combined with the fact that my wife and I plainly recognized the unpleasant
separation that would occur if we chose to abandon that concept, we did not
readily embrace the new truth about His name when it was first revealed to us.
Our previous experience with sharing the message about the truth of Yahweh’s
Sabbath day (versus Sunday observance) taught us an important lesson about
humanity: Many people are not open to new truths and are not interested in
making lifestyle changes of this magnitude.
Thus, as we began our study regarding Yahweh’s name, we knew in the back
of our minds that, if the teaching regarding Yahweh’s name were indeed true, we
would most likely go through a separation similar to the one we experienced
when we discontinued worshipping on Sunday.
We did not want to go through that again! Our decision to observe the Sabbath served to
sever the fellowship of over 120 people in our home town, and led us to a city
over 30 miles away, where we met with some fifteen individuals on a weekly
basis. Were we about to be “on our own”
by accepting the new teaching regarding Yahweh’s name? This was what weighed so heavily on our
minds, for we did not and do not desire to worship alone on the Sabbath,
especially if there is no valid justification for doing so! Despite our desire to fellowship with others
on the Sabbath, you by now know the result:
We were on our own.
If there is
a purpose to this lengthy introduction, it is to share with you the fact that
my wife and I, though choosing to be alone rather than worship with those whom
we feel dishonor our Creator by referring to Him with a name that is not and
never was His, did all we could to prevent those separations. We at first tried to dismiss the truth about
His name, saying, “If you want to speak Hebrew, then call Him Yahweh! I speak English, so I call Him God!” We later tried without success to actually
prove that “God” is an acceptable name for our Creator. In the end, truth must prevail over continued
associations with groups who reject that truth.
We thus chose to sacrifice our association with an assembly that was not
open to investigating the matter rather than sacrifice what we knew to be
truth. Our continued presence in such an
assembly could only have been construed as our acceptance of their position.
A
New Teaching Emerges ... Or is it an Old One Resurfacing?
The
separation created by the decision to reject the name “God” has been painful to
many, and understandably so when one considers the fact that Yahweh created us
to be social beings, needing the acceptance, approval and fellowship of others
to make our lives more complete. Partly
as a result of this desire to fellowship with more people, and largely due to
the well-intentioned desire to bring more converts to the faith, a relatively
new teaching has emerged that has been embraced by many in the Yahwist
Movement. Perhaps more accurately,
though, this teaching should be described as an old teaching that has
resurfaced. Some individuals, while recognizing the Creator’s name as rightly
being Yahweh, maintain that "God" is nevertheless an acceptable TITLE
for Him. We believe the main reason for
believing this way is the desire to not only attract more people into the
Yahwist Movement, but also to retain others who might eventually become
discouraged upon discovering how "separate" we become upon rejecting
the name/title “God.” As one individual
wrote:
I still say the whole [Yahwist] movement is far too
hung up on this topic [rejecting “God” as a proper title for Yahweh] and
expending energy they could better use
to tell a lost and dying world about a Saviour
named Yahushua the Messiah. This kind of
theorizing only leads us to run off otherwise sincere and seeking individuals.[1]
We sincerely
appreciate this man’s desire to bring people to the saving knowledge of our
Heavenly Father and His Son. Certainly we do not support the promotion of any
teachings that “run off otherwise sincere and seeking individuals” UNLESS those
teachings represent TRUTH. We earnestly desire for ALL to come to the Messiah,
but not at the expense of truth! Truth must prevail over bringing in numbers of
converts to the faith; we must not compromise truth for the sake of numbers.
The conclusion reached by the above individual
is largely based on an article originally written in 1997 in which the authors
themselves establish their concern that those who teach the rejection of the
title “God” have “cost” the Yahwist Movement members:
If we honestly evaluate -- without prejudice or bias
-- the growth and development of the Sacred-Name Movement, we would have to
admit our erroneous linguistic principles have cost the Movement dearly. Little
has been gained by challenging Christianity for employing the terms god and
lord. Instead, our most valiant efforts have only resulted in the fragmentation
of our Movement and in the development of some very radical organizations.[2]
The
admonition as stated above comes from a widely circulated article entitled “The
Truth Regarding Inspired Titles.” In
this article we are also told, “We ought to be willing to admit that the Hebrew
titles elohim and adonay can be translated into English as
god and lord.”[3] Elsewhere the authors of the treatise write,
“Therefore, if we truly wish to be honest with the facts, admitting that god and lord are perfectly acceptable English translations is a linguistic
necessity.”[4] It is our purpose to demonstrate that if we truly
wish to be honest with the facts, god
is not
a “perfectly acceptable English translation” of the Hebrew word Elohim.
Furthermore, we maintain that those who refer to Yahweh with such a
title dishonor Him, whether it be inadvertently or on purpose.[5] Please allow us to demonstrate why we believe
as we do.
As alluded
to earlier, in Isaiah 65:11 we are introduced to the heathen idol named
"God." The King James Version translators erroneously rendered the
Hebrew word pronounced “Gawd” in that verse as “that troop.”[6] The translators of other versions, at least
recognizing "God" as the deity of fortune, simply rendered the Hebrew
word as "Fortune," thus perpetrating the error of not transliterating
the name of this idol. The name of this deity remains cloaked to most
worshippers. Had the King James Version translators properly transliterated all
proper names that appear in Isaiah 65:11, here is how that verse would read:
But ye are
they that forsake Yahweh, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table
for God, and that furnish the drink offering unto Meni.
Once
we establish that "God" is indeed the name of a deity worshipped by
those who "forsake Yahweh," we are ready to ask the question, “Is it
proper to refer to our Creator with a title (such as "God") that
matches the name of a heathen deity?” Does this honor Him? How does referring to Yahweh with a
title that matches the name of a heathen deity honor Him?
Did
Yahweh Refer to Himself as a "Baal"?
Some who are
of the persuasion that "God" is an acceptable title for Yahweh answer
that Yahweh was referred to as a baal
in Scripture, and in fact refers to Himself as a baal. Moreover, Yahweh also calls Himself a molech in Scripture. Since both baal and molech are also
the names of heathen deities, coupled with the fact that Yahweh refers to
Himself with titles such as these – this, in their opinion, “proves” that it is
also acceptable and even honorable to refer to Yahweh as our “God.” Is this true?
First of
all, it is indeed true that Yahweh does refer to Himself as a baal and as a molech. Notice what Yahweh
says in Jeremiah 31:31-32:
31 Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day that I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they
brake, although I was an husband [Heb. baal]
unto them, saith Yahweh.
Notice
that the word translated “husband” is actually the Hebrew word “baal.” Thus
Yahweh identified Himself as having been a baal
to the children of
With the
understanding that Yahweh identified Himself as a baal, combined with the knowledge that there was indeed a pagan
deity named Baal, does this mean we can in similar fashion honorably refer to
Yahweh as our God, since it might be construed
that He is indifferent towards the titles we attribute to Him? Certainly, it
might appear, upon conducting a cursory examination, that we can properly refer
to Yahweh as our “God,” even if God
was the name of a heathen idol, for Yahweh referred to Himself as a
"baal," even though there was a heathen deity named "Baal."
Is there something missing here that needs to be explained? Yes.
What we need
to consider is the possibility and likelihood that Yahweh was referred to as a baal (husband) long before apostate men
began calling upon an idol named Baal. If this is true, the word baal was a perfectly legitimate title
for Yahweh long before it was transformed into a proper noun. Since no one can
go back to the beginning to listen to the words early believers employed in
reference to Yahweh, no one can say for certain that anyone ever referred to
Yahweh as baal prior to the emergence
of the deity named Baal. Thus, if it is indeed true that the deity named Baal
pre-dates anyone ever referring to Yahweh with the title Baal, then indeed a legitimate case can be made in favor of
referring to Yahweh as God. However,
it is prudent to note that baal was
in ancient times a common Hebrew term meaning “husband” or “master,”
demonstrating that from its inception this is exactly what this word meant, not
that it was originally the name of a false deity. As early as Genesis 20:3, this term was used
to represent a "husband." This is the account of Abraham’s telling
Abimelech, King of Gerar, that Sarah was his sister:
But the Almighty came to Abimelech in dream by night
and said to him, Behold, you are about to die because of the woman you have
taken, she being married to a husband
[baal].[7]
As
this verse demonstrates, the earliest usage of the Hebrew word baal implies that it simply meant
"husband" or "master."
There are no allusions to an original application to any heathen idols.
Certainly, in the beginning, there were no false believers, no heathens who worshipped
any mighty one other than Yahweh. From all appearances, baal was simply a generic word with no negative connotations or
associations with heathen worship. With
the commonly accepted meaning of "husband" or "master," it
is understandable that Yahweh was from time to time referred to as baal by His people. Once men branched out after the Flood and
began to repopulate the earth, though, corrupted worship began to creep in.
Perhaps innocently, certain individuals may have begun to refer to Yahweh as
their baal on a much more exclusive
basis than before. Gradually, they may
have drifted into referring to Him more as baal
than by His name. As worship became more and more corrupt, it is quite possible
that they eventually lost Yahweh’s identity completely, ascribing His
characteristics to Baal as their now
completely separate religion emerged, with Baal
as the name of the deity they worshipped.
Is this possible? Indeed it
is. Thus, all available evidence
supports the common term baal
evolving into a corrupted name for a heathen idol, not vice-versa.
The same can
be said for such titles as Elohim and
Adonai. Many in the Yahwist Movement wouldn’t dream of referring to Yahweh as their Baal, yet they refer to Him as their Elohim on a regular basis. Elohim
is a title that was commonly used in reference to both Yahweh and false
deities, but what many tend to overlook is the fact that Elohim was also the name of a heathen idol. According to The International Bible Commentary, “Elohim is clearly derived from
El, the name given to the king of the gods by the Canaanites, with Eloah,
surviving mainly in poetry, as the connecting link.”[8] In addition, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary provides the following
information: “Baal was the son of El,
the father of the gods and the head of the Canaanite pantheon, according to the
tablets from
With nothing
else to go on but the preceding information, one would be left to believe that Elohim, in its original form, is
corrupt. However, once again, we must
pause and recognize that, in the beginning, there was no corrupted worship. Was
Elohim a part of the pure worship
that pre-dated the corrupt worship? All
available evidence supports believing that it was. Otherwise, what became of the pure title that
was originally used? How did a corrupted
title come to completely replace an originally pure one? With no existing evidence to support
substitution of Elohim for an earlier
title, we are left to believe that, indeed, Elohim
was originally ascribed only to Yahweh as an honorable title. As time
progressed and man became more and more corrupt, Elohim was later applied to heathen idols as well as to Yahweh, and
a deity named El became known as the
"father of the gods."
This same
historical pattern is characteristic of the title molech. In I Samuel 12:12 we
read,
And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me,
‘Nay; but a king shall reign over
us: when Yahweh your Almighty was
your king.
The
spelling of the Hebrew word translated "king" (|elem) in the above verse is identical to the spelling of
the name of the Ammonites’ chief deity, Molech (|elom).[10]
The only notable difference between these two words lies in the vowel
pointings, which weren’t added until the seventh century CE.[11] Thus, if we were to transliterate the Hebrew
word translated “king” in the above verse, it could read “...Yahweh your Almighty was your molech.”
This pattern
is also evident with regard to the title adonai.
All available evidence supports these titles as having been originally ascribed
to Yahweh before later becoming corrupted. Does the corruption of an
originally-pure word or title make it unusable?
No, it does not. Consider, for example,
the very name of Yahweh. As we are about to see, this name was brutally
misappropriated and perverted by heathen men.
According to French epigrapher André Lemaire in his article “Who or What
was Yahweh’s Asherah?,” published in the Nov.-Dec. 1984 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, an
inscription found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BCE) states
the following:
I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria, and through his
Asherah!
Another
inscription, found at ‘El Qom, from the same time period, reads:
Uriyahu, the king, has written this. Blessed be
Uriyahu through Yahweh, and his enemies have been conquered through Yahweh’s
Asherah.
Asherah is
the name of the Canaanite mother-goddess whose worship is expressly forbidden
in such Biblical passages as Deuteronomy 16:21 (consistently rendered
"grove" in the King James Version).
Clearly, Yahweh’s name was misappropriated and corrupted by heathen
worshippers.
Not only did
apostate believers inanely associate Yahweh’s name with a “goddess,” but His
name was also incorporated into the name of an Egyptian moon idol! According to Encyclopedia of Gods, one of the many idols worshipped by ancient
Egyptians was one named Yah:
Yah
Moon god.
Egyptian. Yah may have been an
import to
We can
certainly see that the adversary has had his hand in virtually everything having
to do with pure worship, including the very name of our Heavenly Father. Thus mishandled, shall we now discontinue
calling upon that name? Do we discard
the name of the Creator simply because it becomes misused? No. If
this were the answer, we would find ourselves constantly changing the Creator’s
name in response to all the subsequent abuses each "clean" name would
incur. Yahweh is still Yahweh, no matter
how men attempt to make Him fit into their own image of what He should be. Yahweh is His name forever (Exodus 3:15), no
matter what other plans man may have in mind.
Similarly, any titles originally ascribed to Yahweh do not become
"unclean" just because they are later conferred upon heathen idols.
Just because apostate men “paganized” Yahweh’s Hebrew titles, naming deities
after “elohim,” “baal,” “adonai,” and even “molech,” does not mean that man can now
honorably take any already pagan-to-the-core name or title and apply it to
Yahweh as a “perfectly acceptable translation” of the original Hebrew
title. Does the wrongful “paganizing” of
the titles that Yahweh gave to Himself give mankind a license to apply “just
any old pagan name or title” to the Creator?
No, it does not. This is a
classic case of the proverbial “Two wrongs don’t make a right” expression.
Once we
establish the fact that any title originally ascribed to Yahweh cannot ever
properly become disassociated from Him in spite of its having become tainted
with heathen worship during the course of history, we are then poised to ask
the pivotal question around which this article centers: Is it appropriate to
take an already-corrupt name and
apply it to the Creator as a title? The
answer, again, is no. For example, what
sincere truth seeker and servant of Yahweh would ever consider referring to Him
as “our Zeus” or “our Apollo”? Each of
the preceding two names represents the names of pagan deities, the worship of
which is clearly outlawed by Yahweh.
Yahweh commands His people to have “no other” deities before Him (Ex.
20:3). He later adds, “I am YAHWEH,
and there is none else, there is no mighty one beside Me. I girded thee, though thou hast not known Me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me. I am Yahweh, and there is NONE ELSE!”
(Isaiah 45:5-6).
If Yahweh
doesn’t even recognize any deities other than Himself, then why would anyone
professing to follow Him willfully choose to refer to Him with a title
emanating from heathen worship, specifically from the NAME of a heathen idol? Would doing such a thing bring honor
to Yahweh? Would we honor Yahweh if we
referred to Him as “Yahweh our Zeus” or “Yahweh our Apollo”? We could expand this to include such idols as
Nisroch, an Assyrian deity mentioned in II Kings 19:37. Should it be considered appropriate to refer
to our Creator as “Yahweh our Nisroch”?
And what about the deity mentioned in Isaiah 65:11 -- the idol whose
name is “GOD”? Should it be considered
appropriate to refer to our Creator as “Yahweh our God”? Remember, Yahweh Himself identifies this
deity as one worshipped by those who FORSAKE Him. Shall we therefore take the name of an idol
worshipped by those who forsake Yahweh and apply that name to Yahweh as a title
for Him? Would doing such a thing convey
honor
to our Creator? The answer, again, is
no. If our ultimate goal as truth
seekers and servants is to live our lives striving to bring honor
to Yahweh, then we should earnestly seek to refer to Him with titles that bring
Him the most honor! Does “God” pass the
test? No, it does not.
We would
like to believe the information thus far presented serves to close the case in
favor of not referring to Yahweh as “our God.” However, many individuals
are not persuaded of this, and they present various arguments in an attempt to
defend their use of the title “God” in reference to Yahweh. In the next section, we will examine seven
arguments we have heard in support of referring to Yahweh as “our God,” and
determine if any of them have any substance.[13]
Before we
present those arguments, though, we need to address a misunderstanding that
surfaced when the preceding portion of this study was published in the January
– February 2001 issue of Frank Brown’s Search
the Scriptures newsletter.
Clarification of Part One: Let’s Make One Thing Perfectly
Clear!
|
O |
ne of the great challenges
an author is faced with when writing to his audience is that of clearly
communicating his thoughts - his very perspective - in such a manner that he is
not misunderstood. Upon reading Part One
of this study, at least one person misunderstood our intent regarding the
translation of titles from one language to another, and we would like to
clarify that now.
Titles may be translated from one language
to another. This is a fact that is so widely recognized
that we won’t even attempt to explain its validity. Names, on the other hand, are not translated. Instead, they are transliterated, which means their pronunciation is carried over
from one language to the next with little variation. Although we have been subtly taught that names may be translated from one
language to another, the truth of the matter is, they cannot, unless you want
to say something like, “The name Daniel
means ‘Elohim is Judge.’” Despite this Hebrew
to English translation, no one is going to argue that we should be referring to
this Hebrew prophet as Elohim is Judge
when we speak English. Instead, we refer
to him as Daniel, without altering
his name from the original (at least not intentionally). Conversely, no one is going to attempt to
translate into English names such as Adolf
Hitler, Mao-Tse-Tung, Osama bin Ladin, or Pocahontas. Titles, however,
are a different matter. For example, a cook is called a cocinero in Spanish, and a fireman
is termed a bombero. A nurse
is considered an enfermera. The Spanish translations of these titles in
no way resembles the English counterpart!
Sometimes, though, a title can be spelled the same (or nearly the same)
from one language to the next. For example, a
doctor is un doctor in Spanish. Policeman is policia. President is presidente. When
it comes to Yahweh’s titles, the most common ones employed in the Hebrew
language are adonai and elohim.
We do not deny that these titles can rightfully be translated into the
English language if one so chooses, and in fact this is what June and I
normally do. We usually refer to Yahweh
as our Almighty, our Mighty One, or our Sovereign, all of which
are considered accurate translations of the Hebrew title elohim.
As indicated
by the title of our study, a controversy exists with regard to the limits to
which we can go when it comes to translating elohim from Hebrew into English. We know that a proper translation
must take into consideration the original
intent of that Hebrew word, conveying strength,
might, and power. All one has to do to
learn the original, intended meaning of elohim
is to look it up in a Strong’s
Concordance. This Hebrew word is
most commonly translated “god” in English, and is word #430 in Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. It is traced to word #410 in Strong’s (el), which literally means strength and mighty. Equipped with the
knowledge of the original meaning of elohim,
we come face to face with the question regarding the validity of the
translation that was arbitrarily chosen by the translators of such versions as
the King James Version. Does the translation “god” most accurately and properly reflect the intended meaning of the Hebrew word elohim?
From where does the word “god” hail?
Should the word “god” be considered a “translation” of elohim or a "transliteration" of the name of an idol? Do we honor Yahweh by referring to Him as
“our God”?
Review of Part One: If We
Can Properly Refer to Yahweh as "Our God," Then Can’t We Also Refer
to Him as "Our Zeus"?
|
I |
n part one of our study, we shared how we, like many
others, diligently researched the issue pertaining to the name we should call
our Heavenly Father, and contrary to what we had been taught, we concluded that
indeed His name is Yahweh, not God. The end
result, of course, was that we rejected the error and accepted the truth. We then mentioned that a recent trend within
the Yahwist Movement has been to accept a new teaching that has spread through
our ranks, a teaching that is actually an old
one resurfacing. This teaching
involves recognizing "God" as an acceptable title for Yahweh. We addressed one of the chief arguments used
in support of this belief, which is as follows: Since titles originally ascribed
to Yahweh (such as baal, elohim and adonai) were eventually converted into names of heathen deities,
some believers deduce that this "paganization" of an originally pure
title justifies converting an already-heathen name of a false idol
(God) into a legitimate English
translation of the Hebrew title "Elohim." As presented in part one, Yahweh identifies a
false deity named God as an idol worshipped by those who forsake Him (Isaiah
65:11). We countered the argument listed
above by stating that if we are at liberty to apply the name of this heathen
idol as a title for Yahweh, then we must be equally free to apply the names of other
deities as titles as well. We would thus be free to refer to Yahweh as “our
Zeus,” “our Artemis,” “our Apollo,” and even as “our Satan.” We live in a free country. We are free to
worship our Creator however we see fit, with only a few exceptions. We can
pretty much obey Him however we want and we can even call Him whatever we
choose. The question begging an answer,
though, is, “Does referring to Yahweh as
‘our God’ HONOR Him?”
If you read
part one, you know that our answer to the above question is an emphatic, “No!” Let us now proceed with
part two, as we critically examine seven objections that have been presented in
opposition to our conclusion.
Objection #1: Is God connected to God?
|
I |
n defense of his position, an acquaintance within the
Yahwist Movement wrote, “I still do not believe the Baal God of Isaiah 65:11 has anything to do with the titles used in
English of Lord and God. I do not
believe you have proven ‘Gad’ of this passage is the ‘gott’ of the Teutonic
tribes, which influenced the English to use the title ‘God.’ ... I don’t believe
you can make such a connection and successfully prove your point beyond a
reasonable doubt.”[14]
Our
response: What this man’s short commentary amounts to, in a nutshell, is
saying, “I don’t believe God is in
any way connected to God.” Does this make any sense? My dad has a saying that seems to apply to
this situation: “If you can’t tell the difference, there isn’t any!” We maintain that it is unwise, and even
confusing, to take a word that is pronounced a certain way, then take another
word that is pronounced identically, then arbitrarily declare, “They aren’t
connected in any way!” Consider the
absurdity of this situation. The man
quoted above might as well say, “I know Yahweh detests God, but Yahweh is my God!”
Would this remark make sense? No, it would not.
The man
quoted above stated that he doesn’t believe one can “make such a connection”
and successfully prove it “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Our contention, however, is that a truth
seeker bent on serving Yahweh will not gamble on offending Him in any way. If there is any conscious recognition of the
risk that referring to Yahweh as “our God” might offend Him, the truth seeker
will avoid doing so. Thus, the burden of
proof for “making connections” versus proving “beyond the shadow of doubt” that
no connection can be made falls upon the man making the statement above. Instead of promoting the title God as a valid title because an
irrefutable connection with the Canaanite deity of fortune [15]
has not yet been established by etymologists, we suggest not accepting the legitimacy of that title until it can be proven
that there definitely isn’t a
connecting link. First and foremost, though, it is our contention that we don’t
need
to make the connection, for Yahweh has already made it for us! Yahweh says that God is the name of a false
idol. This sufficiently demonstrates
that He would not appreciate anyone converting that name to a title, then
applying it to Him! The man making the
statement above needs to somehow prove that there definitely isn’t
a connection between the English “God” and the Hebrew “God.” Instead of applying “reasonable doubt” to
taking the “sure way,” however, he is applying the term to go the “unsure
way.” We support applying the man’s
“reasonable doubt” principle towards referring to Yahweh with a title only if the preponderance of evidence
supports its having an honorable origin.
In other words, the title “Almighty,” for example, has no apparent ties
to heathen worship; we therefore conclude that such a title is honorably
applied to Yahweh, unless someone can produce “reasonable doubt.” Can the same be said with regard to the title
God? No, it cannot.
Some
individuals rely on the conclusions of etymologists to form their conclusions
as to the origin of the word God,
even though, as stated above, Yahweh has already told us that God is the name of a false deity worshipped by those
who “forsake Him.”[16] We believe Yahweh is right, no
matter what conclusions the etymologists reach!
Relying on etymologists’ conclusions as to the origin of the word God poses a serious problem, for even
the etymologists have to admit that they are uncertain of their own
conclusions. Note the following, as
taken from The New Dictionary of Theology:
The etymology of the English word “God,” as well as of
the equivalent words in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, is much disputed.[17]
The Oxford English Dictionary, Volume VI, item “god,” validates the information
above.[18] Wilfred Funk, in his book Word Origins and Their Romantic Stories, even more dramatically underscores the
etymologists’ dilemma in tracing the origin of this word:
The central word of all faiths is God, and the history of the title God is a tangle of guesses. The word God itself is related to similar words in Danish, Saxon, Old High German,
Scandinavian, and other languages, and may even be related to an ancient
Lithuanian word that referred to someone who practiced magic.[19]
Since
even the etymologists are uncertain of the validity of their own conclusions,
why should we feel more inclined to accept their “findings” above Yahweh’s?
Does a “tangle of guesses” have preeminence over the very words of Almighty
Yahweh? Again, Yahweh has already told us that God is the name of a false idol worshipped by those who “forsake
Him.” Is Yahweh’s own Word not
sufficient?
Objection #2: Did Yahweh Inspire the
Germanic Title Gott at
Another
gentleman, in his objection to our claim that applying the name/title “God” to
Yahweh dishonors Him, proposed that Yahweh inspired God to be an acceptable, generic title when the Germanic languages
were given at
Who, when the languages were confounded at
Perhaps,
as the man quoted above stated, it is true that God is not the only word employed in modern English worship that
sounds like the name of a pagan deity in another language. However, so far as we know, God is the only title applied to Yahweh that not only sounds exactly like the name of a pagan deity in another language,
but it originated with the name of a
pagan deity in another language. To make
matters worse, that “other language” just happens to be Hebrew, the very language of Scripture! As if to seal the matter, Yahweh Himself
identifies this deity named God as a
deity worshipped by those who forsake
Him (Isaiah 65:11)! There are
certainly other words besides “god” that sound like the names of pagan deities
in other languages. We would have to
scrap the entire English language if we were to disassociate each one. Out of respect for our great and majestic
Heavenly Father, we do make every attempt to remove from Him titles with
origins as patently heathen as the word “god.”
Of course, the
logic employed by the man quoted above is this:
Since Yahweh confounded the languages, and since He inspired god to be the word used in reference to
Germanic deities, He therefore
“must” approve of our referring to Him as “our God” in English or in German. Is it true, though, that the Germanic
language can be traced all the way to
We thus see
that even the network of Germanic languages has experienced substantial
evolutionary changes, with its Gothic base having been pronounced
“extinct.” Given this understanding,
does it seem likely or even remotely possible that Yahweh ordained the
Germanic language at Babel along with its generic title for deity, god/gott? No, it does not.
But let’s go
back to the dead Gothic language, from which the Germanic languages hail. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, Online Edition, 1999, item
“Etymology of the Word ‘God,’” this word is derived from the Gothic root
“gheu.” The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology traces the word god to the Indo-European ghut, then ultimately to the Sanskrit hu, which means “to invoke the gods.”[22] This same reference, by the way, admits to
this word’s formation being “of uncertain origin,” providing yet another
admission from the etymologists themselves that they really cannot be certain
how to trace the origin of the word
“god.” Note, though, that even
the best etymological sleuth can only succeed in tracing this word to a root
(such as hu or gheu) that sounds nothing like “god”! This being the case, we can safely conclude
that Yahweh definitely did not inspire “God” or even “Gott”
as a generic title in any language when He confounded the languages at
Equipped
with the understanding that there really isn’t much of a match between those
two words, one should be able to safely conclude that, indeed, Yahweh
is right! You see, there is
a match between the English name/title “God” and the Hebrew name “God”! Yahweh identifies “God” as a false idol
worshipped by those who forsake Him. None of the ancients ever applied this term to
Yahweh. Much later, though, a group of heathen Germanic (Teutonic) people known
as the Druids were indeed found worshipping and invoking their many deities,
referring to them as “gods.” Note the
commentary on the origin of the word “God” as found in the Encyclopedia International:
The word “God” and its cognates existed in the
Germanic family of languages (German Gott,
Danish Gud) in pre-Christian times,
and referred to that which is worshipped or invoked in sacrificial offerings. With
the conversion of the Teutonic peoples to Christianity, its pre-Christian
meanings were largely reshaped and absorbed into the Judeo-Christian tradition.[23]
Truly,
even if Yahweh had not Himself spoken against the idol God, we would still be faced with the sobering realization that
even by etymologists’ admissions, this word hails from heathen roots.
What
if Yahweh Had Not Spoken Against "God"?
Although we
have just demonstrated the pronunciation “mismatch” between the words god and gheu, coupled with the fact that a perfect match exists with
the Canaanite deity of fortune, we would like to pause for a moment to insert a
brief concession: If all
we had to go on was the etymologists’ (in)conclusions, we would be willing to acknowledge
(albeit somewhat reluctantly) that “god” is an acceptable title for Yahweh, as
even the Apostle Paul referred to Yahweh with the generic title theos in such passages as Acts 17:23
(see Objection #6 for an in-depth commentary on this Greek title). Paul evidently employed the title theos, even though its established
association by Greeks had been directed toward the idols they worshipped. In the same way, the etymologists do not
trace the English term god to the
name of any deity, but rather to expressions and epithets used in reference to
idols worshipped by Indo-European peoples.
The dilemma we are faced with regarding god, however, is that an alternate etymology is in
question. We maintain that it is more
than just “sheer coincidence” that our English term god “just happens” to share the same pronunciation as the name of
the Canaanite deity of fortune. We
further maintain that the relationship between those two words has to be either
etymological in nature or the
result of a fiendish plot on the part of the great deceiver to cause otherwise
sincere believers to unwittingly give honor to a false idol. Perhaps it is both.
Any Yahwist
believer should be able to recognize that Satan does not want anyone to call
upon the Creator with the name that He gave to Himself. Satan would much prefer that we call upon the
Creator with the name of a false idol, which, as the Apostle
Paul reminds us in I Corinthians 10:19-20, is not really an “idol” anyway,
but a demon! Notice what he
wrote:
What do I imply, then? That food
offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that
what pagans sacrifice, they offer to demons
and not to Yahweh! (RSV)
Obviously,
then, if sacrifices offered to idols are in actual fact offered to demons,
then if we call upon the names of idols we are in actual fact
calling
upon demons! We believe that
most Yahwists are willing to acknowledge this, as well as the fact that Satan
would prefer that we call upon those demons than to call upon the Creator by
His true name. These same Yahwists, we
would like to think, should similarly recognize that Satan would be willing to
settle for applying the name of that false idol as a title for Yahweh. After all,
Satan is known as the master of compromise, and as we will see in
Objection #4, God was considered to be
the name of a demon by post-Messianic Jews!
Even if
etymology truly had nothing to do
with the relationship of the English “god” to the Hebrew name "God,"
we are nonetheless faced with a very colorful, yet adverse history of this word
as outlined by the etymologists themselves. Consider the following background
on the word "god" as found in the book The Private Lives of English Words:
English preserves no more spectacular example of what
etymologists call “ameliorization” than the etymological development of this
word, which goes back to an ancient Proto-Indo-European phrase meaning “enjoyer
or consumer of that which ahs been poured forth” (presumably wine or blood, as
a sacrifice). The full phrase survives in Sanskrit as huta-bhug, where it was one of the epithets of Agni, the god of
fire, whose name is cognate with the Latin stem from which English gets the
word ignite. The Sanskrit huta ‘that which has been poured forth,
the sacrifice’ is the exact cognate of the English word God, following localization in which the full meaning of the phrase
centered in its first element, which occurred in the early Germanic ancestor of
English. The Slavic branch of Indo-European reversed this choice, localizing
the meaning in the second element of the phrase, and leaving the Slavic bog “God” as the survivor.
With what linguists call “connotative extension,” the
meaning became “Deity who enjoys the sacrifice,” but as sacrificial offerings
vanished from religious practice, that part of the meaning which had once been
primary faded, leaving only the sense in use today, “Deity.”[24]
We
thus see that either way one “links” this name/title, it is stained with the
impurity of heathen worship. In addition,
according to the above reference, god
is derived from the word huta, two
words that in no way resemble each other: another pronunciation mismatch! Anyone wishing to apply such a term to
Yahweh, knowing what we have just shown to be true about the word, must
simultaneously ignore or otherwise accept this title’s former association, not
to mention the unlikely evolution of the word huta (or gheu) into the
word god. Let’s not speculate with
the etymologists and their “tangled guesses” regarding the origin of the word god, though! Trust in Yahweh, Who uses this word to
identify a FALSE IDOL.
Objection #3: Should a Culture
Redefine a Word Borrowed From Another Language?
|
A |
mong the reasons listed in
the article “The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles” offering support for
referring to Yahweh as “our God” is the belief that an individual can morally
utter vulgar or otherwise culturally unacceptable words, so long as he or she
doesn’t have unethical motives. Note the
following:
Languages, on the other hand, depend on the INTENTION
and CONCEPT of the user to make them a moral issue. A word, phrase, dialect, or
language can only be ‘pagan’ if the user intends to convey a “pagan” idea or
concept! And, even then, it would only be immoral because of the manner the
user intended to use it and NOT due to its very existence! Therefore, another
individual could employ the same words, phrases, dialect, or language and not
suffer any divine condemnation for his actions because his INTENTIONS are more
noble![25]
The
authors go on to say, in the next paragraph of their article, “There is no such
thing as a sinful sound.”[26]
Is it true
that “there is no such thing as a sinful sound”? Is this teaching found in the pages of
Scripture? No, it is not. The Apostle Paul recognized the fact that
there are “sinful sounds,” which is why he wrote the following in Colossians
3:8:
But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as
these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.
(NIV)
Exhorting
us to rid ourselves of filthy language is another way of directing us to get
rid of the “sinful sounds” that might come out of our mouths. Thus, the
teaching that there is no such thing as a sinful sound did not originate from
the pages of Scripture. It came from men
attempting to apply their own understanding to the will of the Father.
Let’s turn our attention back to the paragraph above as quoted from the article “The Truth Regarding Divine Titles.” Is it true, as they wrote, that “languages depend on the INTENTION and CONCEPT of the user to make them a moral issue”? Again, this is simply not true. While intention and concept are very important aspects within the expression of words in any language, there is more to consider. I’d much rather not have to ask this, but think, if you will, of a word considered a “bad word” in our culture. Can you imagine anyone familiar with the protocols of our culture who would willfully, yet innocently, express such a word? Can you picture such an adult sweetly voicing a “four-letter word” without having the slightest clue as to what he or she is saying? Can you then imagine how that person would react if you were to respond, “I BEG YOUR