To Loomis:
Loomis the offerings or sacrifices of animals served as a purpose. Under the Law. The sacrifices commanded under the Law covenant all pointed forward to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice or to benefits that flow from that sacrifice. (Heb 8:3-5; 9:9; 10:5-10) As Jesus Christ was a perfect man, so all animal sacrifices were to be sound, unblemished specimens. (Le 1:3, 10; 3:1) Both the Israelite and the alien resident who worshiped Yahweh/Jehovah were included in presenting the various offerings.-Nu 15:26, 29. Burnt offerings. Burnt offerings were presented in their entirety to God; no part of the animal being retained by the worshiper. (Compare Jg 11:30, 31, 39, 40.) They constituted an appeal to Yahweh/Jehovah to accept, or to signify acceptance of, the sin offering that sometimes accompanied them. As a "burnt offering" Jesus Christ gave himself wholly, fully. There were many other type of offerings, If you would like I can send you a E-mail with all the different kinds upon your request.
As leprosy progresses toward its advanced stage, the swellings that initially develop discharge pus, the hair may fall from one's head and eyebrows, nails may loosen, decay, and fall off. Then the victim's fingers, limbs, nose, or eyes may be slowly eaten away. Finally, in the most serious cases, death ensues. That Biblical "leprosy" certainly included such a serious disease is apparent from Aaron's reference to it as a malady wherein the flesh is "half eaten off."-Nu 12:12.
This description helps one better to appreciate Biblical references to this dread malady and the dire consequences of Uzziah's presumptuous act in improperly endeavoring to offer incense in Jehovah's temple.-2Ki 15:5; 2Ch 26:16-23.
Diagnosis. By means of the Mosaic Law, Jehovah provided Israel with information enabling the priest to diagnose leprosy and to distinguish between it and other less serious skin afflictions. From what is recorded at Leviticus 13:1-46, it can be seen that leprosy might begin with an eruption, a scab, a blotch, a boil, or a scar in one's flesh from fire. Sometimes the symptoms were very clear. The hair in the affected area had turned white, and the malady was seen to be deeper than the skin. For example, a white eruption in the skin might turn the hair white, and raw flesh might appear in the eruption. This meant that one had leprosy and was to be declared unclean. However, in other cases the malady was not deeper than the skin and a period of quarantine was imposed, with subsequent inspection by the priest, who made a final determination in the case.
It was acknowledged that leprosy could reach a stage in which it was not contagious. When it overspread the entire body, all of it having turned white, and living flesh was not in evidence, it was a sign that the diseased action was over and that only the marks of its ravages remained. The priest would then declare the victim clean, the disease posing no further danger to anyone.-Le 13:12-17.
God doesn't punish anyone to torture and pain for eternity.
HELL
A word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew she´ohl' and the Greek hai'des. In the King James Version the word "hell" is rendered from she´ohl' 31 times and from hai'des 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since she´ohl' is also translated 31 times "grave" and 3 times "pit." In the Douay Version she´ohl' is rendered "hell" 64 times, "pit" once, and "death" once.
Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28 ) says concerning "Hell": "First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation."
It is, in fact, because of the way that the word "hell" is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under "Hell" says: "fr[om] . . . helan to conceal." The word "hell" thus originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment but simply of a 'covered over or concealed place.' In the old English dialect the expression "helling potatoes" meant, not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar.
The meaning given today to the word "hell" is that portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a "hell" of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under "Hell" says: "Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment." The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs depicted the "nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness." Although ancient Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual victim would go on forever, they do portray the "Other World" as featuring "pits of fire" for "the damned."-The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow, Jr., 1898, p. 581; The Book of the Dead, with introduction by E. Wallis Budge, 1960, pp. 135, 144, 149, 151, 153, 161, 200.
"Hellfire" has been a basic teaching in Christendom for many centuries. It is understandable why The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: "Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." Nevertheless, such transliteration and consistent rendering does enable the Bible student to make an accurate comparison of the texts in which these original words appear and, with open mind, thereby to arrive at a correct understanding of their true significance.
Foreknowledge, Foreordination
Predestinarian view. The view that God's exercise of his foreknowledge is infinite and that he does foreordain the course and destiny of all individuals is known as predestinarianism. Its advocates reason that God's divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient (all-knowing), not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would evidence imperfection. Examples such as the case of Isaac's twin sons, Esau and Jacob, are presented as evidence of God's foreordaining creatures before their birth (Ro 9:10-13); and texts such as Ephesians 1:4, 5 are cited as evidence that God foreknew and foreordained the future of all his creatures even before the start of creation.
To be correct, this view would, of course, have to harmonize with all the factors previously mentioned, including the Scriptural presentation of God's qualities, standards, and purposes, as well as his righteous ways in dealing with his creatures. (Re 15:3, 4) We may properly consider, then, the implications of such a predestinarian view.
This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or earthling man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden (Ge 3:1-6; Joh 8:44), and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation's beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details.
If the Creator of mankind had indeed exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man's creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: "Let us make man." (Ge 1:26) These facts bring into question the reasonableness and consistency of the predestinarian concept; particularly so, since the disciple James shows that disorder and other vile things do not originate from God's heavenly presence but are "earthly, animal, demonic" in source.-Jas 3:14-18.
Infinite exercise of foreknowledge? The argument that God's not foreknowing all future events and circumstances in full detail would evidence imperfection on his part is, in reality, an arbitrary view of perfection. Perfection, correctly defined, does not demand such an absolute, all-embracing extension, inasmuch as the perfection of anything actually depends upon its measuring up completely to the standards of excellence set by one qualified to judge its merits. (See PERFECTION.) Ultimately, God's own will and good pleasure, not human opinions or concepts, are the deciding factors as to whether anything is perfect.-De 32:4; 2Sa 22:31; Isa 46:10.
To illustrate this, God's almightiness is undeniably perfect and is infinite in capacity. (1Ch 29:11, 12; Job 36:22; 37:23) Yet his perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases. Clearly he has not done so; if he had, not merely certain ancient cities and some nations would have been destroyed, but the earth and all in it would have been obliterated long ago by God's executions of judgment, accompanied by mighty expressions of disapproval and wrath, as at the Flood and on other occasions. (Ge 6:5-8; 19:23-25, 29; compare Ex 9:13-16; Jer 30:23, 24.) God's exercise of his might is therefore not simply an unleashing of limitless power but is constantly governed by his purpose and, where merited, tempered by his mercy.-Ne 9:31; Ps 78:38, 39; Jer 30:11; La 3:22; Eze 20:17.
Similarly, if, in certain respects, God chooses to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him, then assuredly no human or angel can rightly say: "What are you doing?" (Job 9:12; Isa 45:9; Da 4:35) It is therefore not a question of ability, what God can foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for "with God all things are possible." (Mt 19:26) The question is what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for "everything that he delighted to do he has done."-Ps 115:3.
Selective exercise of foreknowledge. The alternative to predestinarianism, the selective or discretionary exercise of God's powers of foreknowledge, would have to harmonize with God's own righteous standards and be consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word. In contrast with the theory of predestinarianism, a number of texts point to an examination by God of a situation then current and a decision made on the basis of such examination.
Thus, at Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to "see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it." (Ge 18:20-22; 19:1) God spoke of 'becoming acquainted with Abraham,' and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, "For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me."-Ge 18:19; 22:11, 12; compare Ne 9:7, 8; Ga 4:9.
Selective foreknowledge means that God could choose not to foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures. This would mean that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, as well as exercising control over the animal creation, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them-not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God's arranging for a test by means of "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad" and his creation of "the tree of life" in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of "the tree of life."-Ge 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24.
To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God's Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to 'keep on asking and seeking' good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father's view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: "Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?"-Mt 7:7-11.
Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Mt 21:22; Jas 1:5, 6) He can in all sincerity urge men to 'turn back from transgression and keep living,' as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32; compare Jer 29:11, 12.) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness. (Compare Ac 17:30, 31; 1Ti 2:3, 4.) As Jehovah told Israel: "Nor said I to the seed of Jacob, 'Seek me simply for nothing, you people.' I am Jehovah, speaking what is righteous, telling what is upright. . . . Turn to me and be saved, all you at the ends of the earth."-Isa 45:19-22.
In a similar vein, the apostle Peter writes: "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise [of the coming day of reckoning], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2Pe 3:9) If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, it may well be asked how meaningful such 'patience' of God could be and how genuine his desire could be that 'all attain to repentance.' The inspired apostle John wrote that "God is love," and the apostle Paul states that love "hopes all things." (1Jo 4:8; 1Co 13:4, 7) It is in harmony with this outstanding, divine quality that God should exercise a genuinely open, kindly attitude toward all persons, he being desirous of their gaining salvation, until they prove themselves unworthy, beyond hope. (Compare 2Pe 3:9; Heb 6:4-12.) Thus, the apostle Paul speaks of "the kindly quality of God [that] is trying to lead you to repentance."-Ro 2:4-6.
Finally if, by God's foreknowledge, the opportunity to receive the benefits of Christ Jesus' ransom sacrifice were already irrevocably sealed off from some, perhaps for millions of individuals, even before their birth, so that such ones could never prove worthy, it could not truly be said that the ransom was made available to all men. (2Co 5:14, 15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; Heb 2:9) The impartiality of God is clearly no mere figure of speech. "In every nation the man that fears [God] and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Ac 10:34, 35; De 10:17; Ro 2:11) The option is actually and genuinely open to all men "to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us." (Ac 17:26, 27) There is no empty hope or hollow promise set forth, therefore, in the divine exhortation at the end of the book of Revelation inviting: "Let anyone hearing say: 'Come!' And let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life's water free."-Re 22:17.
But I don't think you would know. Why do you arrogantly assume god will tell you everyting he knows?
Titus 1:2 - "upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life
which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting"
God cannot lie!
MickeyMouseboy wrote:The earth, stars, universe and other stuff. It's not atheist for him to say he's the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end when there really isnt anyone he has to listen to.
Could Life Originate by Chance?
The Primitive Atmosphere
In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an "atmosphere" of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.
Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions." 6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth's primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like.
Probability and Spontaneous Proteins
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?
The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 1040,000! "An outrageously small probability," Hoyle asserts, "that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." He adds: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."
However, the chances actually are far fewer than this "outrageously small" figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life."
The Remarkable Genetic Code
More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20100-another huge number "larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes."
Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code-a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of 'the chicken or the egg' rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." 16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: "Which came first," the protein or the DNA? He asserts: "The answer must be, 'They developed in parallel.'" 17 In effect, he is saying that 'the chicken' and 'the egg' must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: "The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled."
Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts." But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of "inconvenient facts" so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code "the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life." And Francis Crick concluded: "In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow."
Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished "in one blow" by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.
Amazing Photosynthesis
An additional hurdle for evolutionary theory now arises. Somewhere along the line the primitive cell had to devise something that revolutionized life on earth-photosynthesis. This process, by which plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, is not yet completely understood by scientists. It is, as biologist F. W. Went states, "a process that no one has yet been able to reproduce in a test tube." Yet, by chance, a tiny simple cell is thought to have originated it.
This process of photosynthesis turned an atmosphere that contained no free oxygen into one in which one molecule out of every five is oxygen. As a result, animals could breathe oxygen and live, and an ozone layer could form to protect all life from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Could this remarkable array of circumstances be accounted for simply by random chance?
Is Intelligence Involved?
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: "These issues are too complex to set numbers to." They add: "There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one."
Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: "Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." Thus an observer might conclude that a "psychological" barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any "design or purpose or directedness," as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?
Is It Scientific?
If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Does that sound like objective science?
British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as "simple dogmatism-asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen." How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.
Not All Scientists Accept It
Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." He further observed that after Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, "evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." A sad but true commentary.
Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: "From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe-and finding it." In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. So Wickramasinghe concludes: "There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale."
As astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."
If you want more on this subject I can send you a book about it or parts of the book thru e-mail also upon request
Which god? Humans have invented over 7000 of them -- which god should we follow?
The True God Jehovah/Yahweh (YHWH as in the Hebrew Tentragrammaton) Ps 83:18. on AV bibles look at Ex 6:3 (Dy Footnote)
Jehovah
(Je·ho'vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah' (become); meaning "He Causes to Become"].
Superstition hides the name.
At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God's true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.
Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would 'have his name declared in all the earth' (Ex 9:16; compare 1Ch 16: 23, 24; Ps 113: 3; Mal 1: 11, 14), to be known even by his adversaries. (Isa 64: 2) The name was in fact known and used by pagan nations both in pre-Common Era times and in the early centuries of the Common Era. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. XII, p. 119) Another claim is that the purpose was to protect the name from use in magical rites. If so, this was poor reasoning, as it is obvious that the more mysterious the name became through disuse the more it would suit the purposes of practicers of magic.
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold. Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B.C.E.). This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.
Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Ky'ri·os (Lord) or The·os' (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.
One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 326) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.-See NW appendix, pp. 1562-1564.
When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?
So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God's revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: "Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men's ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak." (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Josephus' statement, however, besides being inaccurate as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name.
The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: "It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . . .-these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah's statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage." (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:
In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby's translation of the Mishnah states: "And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, 'Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!'" (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: "In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word." Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty 'unless he pronounced the Name,' and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to 'say expressly what he had heard,' presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those "that have no share in the world to come," states: "Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters." Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that "a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]," the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited.-Berakhot 9:5.
Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalem's temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces. Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic traditions is questionable, as we have seen.
There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C.E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance of the use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ´Adho·nai' (Sovereign Lord) or ´Elo·him' (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E., the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ´Adho·nai' or ´Elo·him' into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Ky'ri·os and The·os'.
Translations into other languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, followed the example of these later copies of the Greek Septuagint. The Catholic Douay Version (of 1609-1610) in English, based on the Latin Vulgate, therefore does not contain the divine name, while the King James Version (1611) uses LORD or GOD (in capital and small capitals) to represent the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures, except in four cases.
What is the proper pronunciation of God's name?
In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God's name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ´Adho·nai' (meaning "Sovereign Lord") or ´Elo·him' (meaning "God").
The Codex Leningrad B 19 A, of the 11th century C.E., vowel points the Tetragrammaton to read Yehwah', Yehwih', and Yeho·wah'. Ginsburg's edition of the Masoretic text vowel points the divine name to read Yeho·wah'. (Ge 3: 14, ftn) Hebrew scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Ha·lelu-Yah' (meaning "Praise Jah, you people!"). (Ps 104: 35; 150: 1, 6) Also, the forms Yehoh', Yoh, Yah, and Ya'hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as I·a·be' and I·a·ou·e', which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as "Yahuwa," "Yahuah," or "Yehuah."
Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form "Jehovah" in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah', Isaiah would become Yesha'·ya'hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu'a' (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous' (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.
Importance of the Name. Many modern scholars and Bible translators advocate following the tradition of eliminating the distinctive name of God. They not only claim that its uncertain pronunciation justifies such a course but also hold that the supremacy and uniqueness of the true God make unnecessary his having a particular name. Such a view receives no support from the inspired Scriptures, either those of pre-Christian times or those of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In the Hebrew Scriptures the New World Translation contains the divine name 6,973 times, because the translators took into account, among other things, the fact that in some places the scribes had replaced the divine name with ´Adho·nai' or ´Elo·him'. (See NW appendix, pp. 1561, 1562.) The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests to its importance to the Bible's Author, whose name it is. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as "Sovereign Lord" or "God," applied to him.
Noteworthy, also, is the importance given to names themselves in the Hebrew Scriptures and among Semitic peoples. Professor G. T. Manley points out: "A study of the word 'name' in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs. . . . When a person puts his 'name' upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection."-New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1985, p. 430; compare Everyman's Talmud, by A. Cohen, 1949, p. 24; Ge 27: 36; 1Sa 25: 25; Ps 20: 1; Pr 22: 1.
"God" and "Father" not distinctive. The title "God" is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make a god of his belly; Php 3:19). In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (´Elo·him') is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16: 23, 24; 1Sa 5: 7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19: 37) For a Hebrew to tell a Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped "God [´Elo·him']" would obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship went.
In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ´Elo·him' (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: "It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living."-Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.
The same is true of the Greek term for God, The·os'. It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury). (Compare Ac 14: 11-15.) Presenting the true situation are Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: "For even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords,' there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him." The belief in numerous gods, which makes essential that the true God be distinguished from such, has continued even into this 20th century.
Paul's reference to "God the Father" does not mean that the true God's name is "Father," for the designation "father" applies as well to every human male parent and describes men in other relationships. (Ro 4: 11, 16; 1Co 4: 15) The Messiah is given the title "Eternal Father." (Isa 9: 6) Jesus called Satan the "father" of certain murderous opposers. (Joh 8: 44) The term was also applied to gods of the nations, the Greek god Zeus being represented as the great father god in Homeric poetry. That "God the Father" has a name, one that is distinct from his Son's name, is shown in numerous texts. (Mt 28: 19; Re 3: 12; 14: 1) Paul knew the personal name of God, Jehovah, as found in the creation account in Genesis, from which Paul quoted in his writings. That name, Jehovah, distinguishes "God the Father" (compare Isa 64: 8 ), thereby blocking any attempt at merging or blending his identity and person with that of any other to whom the title "god" or "father" may be applied.
Not a tribal god. Jehovah is called "the God of Israel" and 'the God of their forefathers.' (1Ch 17: 24; Ex 3: 16) Yet this intimate association with the Hebrews and with the Israelite nation gives no reason for limiting the name to that of a tribal god, as some have done. The Christian apostle Paul wrote: "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of people of the nations? Yes, of people of the nations also." (Ro 3: 29) Jehovah is not only "the God of the whole earth" (Isa 54: 5) but also the God of the universe, "the Maker of heaven and earth." (Ps 124: 8 ) Jehovah's covenant with Abraham, nearly 2,000 years earlier than Paul's day, had promised blessings for people of all nations, showing God's interest in all mankind.-Ge 12: 1-3; compare Ac 10: 34, 35; 11: 18.
Jehovah God eventually rejected the unfaithful nation of fleshly Israel. But his name was to continue among the new nation of spiritual Israel, the Christian congregation, even when that new nation began to embrace non-Jewish persons in its membership. Presiding at a Christian assembly in Jerusalem, the disciple James therefore spoke of God as having "turned his attention to the [non-Jewish] nations to take out of them a people for his name." As proof that this had been foretold, James then quoted a prophecy in the book of Amos in which Jehovah's name appears twice.-Ac 15: 2, 12-14; Am 9: 11, 12.
In the Christian Greek Scriptures. In view of this evidence it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called New Testament. Yet the name does appear in these sources in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19: 1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression "Alleluia" or "Hallelujah" (KJ, Dy, JB, AS, RS). The call there recorded as spoken by spirit sons of God to "Praise Jah, you people!" (NW) makes clear that the divine name was not obsolete; it was as vital and pertinent as it had been in the pre-Christian period. Why, then, the absence of its full form from the Christian Greek Scriptures?
Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?
The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky'ri·os or The·os' for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila's Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen's Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by PIPI; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones."
As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: "And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., YHWH] in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters." In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: "The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho'ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read PIPI [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI]."-Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.
The so-called Christians, then, who "replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios" in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.-2Th 2: 3; 1Ti 4: 1.
Used by Jesus and his disciples. Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Did Jesus and his disciples use the divine name in speech and in writing? In view of Jesus' condemnation of Pharisaic traditions (Mt 15: 1-9), it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter. Jesus' own name means "Jehovah Is Salvation." He stated: "I have come in the name of my Father" (Joh 5: 43); he taught his followers to pray: "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified" (Mt 6: 9); his works, he said, were done "in the name of my Father" (Joh 10: 25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father's name manifest to his disciples and asked, "Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name" (Joh 17: 6, 11, 12, 26). In view of all of this, when Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures or read from them he certainly used the divine name, Jehovah. (Compare Mt 4: 4, 7, 10 with De 8: 3; 6: 16; 6: 13; also Mt 22: 37 with De 6: 5; and Mt 22: 44 with Ps 110: 1; as well as Lu 4: 16-21 with Isa 61: 1, 2.) Logically, Jesus' disciples, including the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, would follow his example in this.
Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky'ri·os and The·os'. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Restoration of the divine name in translation. Recognizing that this must have been the case, some translators have included the name Jehovah in their renderings of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ´E'ven bo'chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.
As to the properness of this course, note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. He said: "If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm 110:1, instead of saying, 'The Lord said unto my Lord,' might have said, 'Jehovah said unto Adoni.'"
Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: "Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word "Kyrio" occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression 'the angel of the Lord' occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression 'the word of the Lord' would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title 'the Lord of Hosts.' Wherever, on the contrary, the expression 'My Lord' or 'Our Lord' occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used." (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded.
Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, used throughout this work, in which the divine name in the form "Jehovah" appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this.
Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning. Exodus 3:13-16 and Ex 6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah's name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: "Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, 'The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,' and they do say to me, 'What is his name?' What shall I say to them?" But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah's name. The very name of Moses' mother Jochebed means, possibly, "Jehovah Is Glory." (Ex 6:20) Moses' question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God's power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of "God" (´Elo·him') or the "Sovereign Lord" (´Adho·nai') therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.
Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just "labels" to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram's name (meaning "Father Is High (Exalted)") was changed to Abraham (meaning "Father of a Crowd (Multitude)"), the change being made because of God's purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God's purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses' going to the Israelites in the "name" of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses' question was a meaningful one.
God's reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh·yeh' ´Asher' ´Eh·yeh'. Some translations render this as "I AM THAT I AM." However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah', from which the word ´Eh·yeh' is drawn, does not mean simply "be." Rather, it means "become," or "prove to be." The reference here is not to God's self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." Jehovah thereafter added: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, 'I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.'"-Ex 3:14, ftn.
That this meant no change in God's name, but only an additional insight into God's personality, is seen from his further words: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, 'Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation." (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha·wah', "become," and actually means "He Causes to Become." This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.
This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah's later statement to Moses: "I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them." (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning "Father of a Crowd (Multitude)") while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.
To "know," therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David's name but still asked, "Who is David?" in the sense of asking, "What does he amount to?" (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: "Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away." (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt's king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God's carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, "You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God."-Ex 6:4-8.
Professor of Hebrew D. H. Weir therefore rightly says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, "have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, chap. lii. 6, 'Therefore my people shall know my name;' or in Jeremiah, chap xvi. 21, 'They shall know that my name is Jehovah;' or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], 'They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;' we see at once that to know Jehovah's name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; Ps lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)"
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857.
Known by the first human pair. The name Jehovah was not first revealed to Moses, for it was certainly known by the first man. The name initially appears in the divine Record at Genesis 2:4 after the account of God's creative works, and there it identifies the Creator of the heavens and earth as "Jehovah God." It is reasonable to believe that Jehovah God informed Adam of this account of creation. The Genesis record does not mention his doing so, but then neither does it explicitly say Jehovah revealed Eve's origin to the awakened Adam. Yet Adam's words upon receiving Eve show he had been informed of the way God had produced her from Adam's own body. (Ge 2:21-23) Much communication undoubtedly took place between Jehovah and his earthly son that is not included in the brief account of Genesis.
Eve is the first human specifically reported to have used the divine name. (Ge 4:1) She obviously learned that name from her husband and head, Adam, from whom she had also learned God's command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (although, again, the record does not directly relate Adam's passing this information on to her).-Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3.
As is shown in the article ENOSH, the start that was made of "calling on the name of Jehovah" in the day of Adam's grandson Enosh was evidently not done in faith and in a divinely approved manner. For between Abel and Noah only Jared's son Enoch (not Enosh) is reported to have 'walked with the true God' in faith. (Ge 4:26; 5:18, 22-24; Heb 11:4-7) Through Noah and his family, knowledge of the divine name survived into the post-Flood period, beyond the time of the dispersion of peoples at the Tower of Babel, and was transmitted to the patriarch Abraham and his descendants.-Ge 9:26; 12:7, 8.
The Person Identified by the Name. Jehovah is the Creator of all things, the great Fir
what do you mean something has to happen to all those bodies? yes I do christians and non-christians will die in the tribulation. but what you haven't given me is scriptural proof to all this you're saying.
