Hostility to God's "name"

by AwSnap 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  possible-san

  Narkissos.
  
  Thank you for the interesting explanation.

  The metaphors in the least abstract uses -- Job/Ecclesiastes -- are possibly (although marginally due to their rarity and late date) interesting for the hypothesis of Yhwh as a "storm-god" (Southern variant of Baal).

  Originally, YHWH was only Jews' God.
  Since "Baal" is a meaning of a "lord", your explanation is correct possibly.
  I think that your explanation is interesting, IMO.

  But the Bible is the book of "faith."
  I think that it is not a book for merely reading from the academic point of view.
  
  And in the New Testament, the divine name is not used any longer.
  I think that it is because the Christians in the first century understood the meaning (symbolic meaning) of "I AM", IMO.
  http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/viewtopic.php?t=40

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3M6cboaOKk&fmt=18

  possibe
• 

  Narkissos

  PSac,

  "None of your freaking business" is about the (negative) answer to the request of a name in Genesis 32 and Judges 13, and the enigmatic reply in Exodus 3 certainly retains something of that.

  However it combines with a more positive theme in Exodus 3, since it is "prepared" by v. 11-12: to Moses' (verbless) question "who am I?" (my anky) Yhwh answers "I am/shall be with you" with the verbal form (ky-'hyh `mk) which is unusual in Hebrew -- the standard answer would be 'n(k)y `mk, without a verb. So the hyh "explanation" adds an affirmation to the rebuttal. Who/what Yhwh is remains a mystery, BUT his being-with is asserted. That's all what matters.

  And it is all the more ironical that the emphasis shifted to a metaphysical definition of God as (the only true) being in the history of exegesis.
• 

  PSacramento

  Narkissos,

  Would I be correct to assume that, " I am here, that is enough", would be the central core message of that exchange?
• 

  Narkissos

  PSac,

  I don't know if it's "correct," but that's about how I understand the passage (considering it is a relatively late development around the name of Yhwh which probably already implies a monotheistic perspective, not the "true meaning" of Yhwh in its earlier polytheistic context).
• 

  QuestForThruth

  [url]http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Neglected_Commandments/Honouring_His_Name/Appendix2[/url]

  [url]www.hebdomad.com/hebdofiles/MARYA.doc[/url]

  [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy#Peshitta_Primacy_Approach[/url]
• 

  smiddy

  AwSnap

  Jesus is the anglicized version of his name ( first century jews didn`t speak english )" yesuous" or something similar was more likely the way his name sounded, in the original language of the day , and since the bible has been printed ,jesus is the way it has been published in english which is the most popular way of expressing his name,and that is basically the same argument jw`s use for adopting the name jehovah,while admitting it may not be the exact pronunciation used by the high priests.See the first edition of "Aid to Bible Understanding"under the name Jehovah.

  smiddy
• 

  QuestForThruth

  "Jesus is the anglicized version of his name ( first century jews didn`t speak english )" yesuous" or something similar was more likely the way his name sounded, in the original language of the day"

  -If the name was not "altered"

  -If the original scriptures was not hebrew or aramaic

  -To know the signification of the name "Jesus" we need to go back in hebrew "Joshua/Yeshua/Y'shua" =Yah is salvation.