# Challenged by a YHWYist



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

I even hated putting that in the title, but that is what they are called. We had an aquaintance a long time ago who followed this legalistic and very loosely organized following.

However a few months ago I ran into another one in a chat room (the moderator ended up booting him).

Here's a question that I need to fight as it has come up in both circumstances. And of course don't you know, that I can't find the verse!!! It's in Isaiah...that I know. But my Sword Search isn't bringing it up.

There is a verse where is refers to the armies taking part in a ceremony similar to communion (bread and wine) in respect to "God". In this case the Strong's I believe brought up that "God" was the name of a pagan god. The yhwyist's point was that for us to call the Lord "God" and to take communion refering to HIM as such is really worshipping a pagan deity and not the true one.

Now, I know what god I worship...the great I AM. But I need help combating these ppl who favor symantics and like to mess with ppl's minds. Unfortunately, he stumped me in this case due to the Strong's actually backing his point.

Help?!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

okay...here is their argument:

The Old King James Version has this verse translated thus... ""But ye are they that forsake " the LORD",( Note YHWH==Strongs Exaustive Concordance, S.E.C.Heb.Num.3050,3068 , that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for " that troop",( Note GAD==GAWD=S.E.C. Heb. Num.1408,1409==A Babylonian Deity called Baal Gad), and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.""

This Babylonian Deity called Baal Gad was worshipped by the children of Israel ( Joshua 11:17; 12:7; 13:5), and the true Creator considered it Idolatry.

If you look in to the "" Webster's Unabridged Deluxe Dictionary, Second Edition, Page 746, "" GAD, 1.IN THE BIBLE, a son of Jacob. 2. A tribe of Israel descended from him. 3. The land where this tribe lived. GAD, gad, interj. A mild oath or expression of suprise, disgust, e.t.c., A EUPHEMISM FOR GOD. ""

Then, when you look at the word "" Baal"( S.E.C. Heb.Num.1167,1168), and one of its definitions is ""LORD"".

When the title of "" LORD GOD"" is transliterated back into the Hebrew, it is the same title of "" Baal Gad"", a Babylonian Deity that was condemned by YHWH.( Remember Old Eliyah the Prophet that faced the Baal prophets?).

This word " GOD==GAD==GAWD" is pronounced the same, and has been applied to the true Creator YHWH, in most all the English translations of scriptures.

The true Creator spoke through Jeremiah the prophet and said this would happen in the last days..."" How long shall this be in the heart( mind) of the prophets that prophesy lies?...Which think to cause my people to FORGET MY NAME( YHWH==YAH=3050,3068, see Psalms 68:4)...as their fathers have forgotten MY NAME( YHWH==3050,3068 for (Baal Gad==LORD GOD).""( Jer.23:26-27).
Also, He says that He would remove the names( plural) of Balim( lord and god) out of their mouths( See also Hosea 2:16-17).


----------



## blhowes (Aug 4, 2005)

Is this it?

Isa 44:15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

no, I just posted it above yours


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

I don't see what the problem is. 

Isaiah 65:11 "But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number."

These people forsake the Lord by giving false worship.

Isaiah 65:12 tells us that there is a great judgment coming for those who do not heed Him and do as He desires.

Where does this verse say that God or LORD is in reference to a pagan deity? 

Isaiah 65:13 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed"

This is God speaking, not the pagan deity. ?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

Their problem is that they believe we (and the bible translators) are calling God by a pagan name rather than by His name. They wonder why it is translated as "Lord" and "God" rather than by keeping his name El...or Yah...etc.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Their problem is that they believe we (and the bible translators) are calling God by a pagan name rather than by His name. They wonder why it is translated as "Lord" and "God" rather than by keeping his name El...or Yah...etc.



Okay. We are not Jews; we don't speak Hebrew. We translate the name YHWH as LORD and EL as God because we speak English. 

For the record:

Lord (Baal) and LORD (YHWH ) are two different words in the Hebrew and are usually distinguished by the capitilization of the letters or lack thereof. In fact only the term YHWH is restricted to God Himself. The 'word' el (especially in its plural form 'elohim') is often attributed to other gods than the true God.

In the NT Caesar called himself "Kurios" and Jesus Christ is also given this title. Caesar was also worshipped and yet Christ took that name upon Himself because He is what He says He is. Are we going to say that because of those pagan connotations that we cannot use this name? No. WE know what we mean by the words we use are called upon to disciple the nations in the 'tongue' of the church. 

If we are going to get hung up on the original Hebrew or Greek names and try to transliterate them into English then we really didn't need Pentecost now did we?  

Furthermore, the OT was translated into Greek (in the Septuagint) well before the time of Christ and many of the words and titles of God were changed into the common language of the day. That the apostles quote from the Septuagint (LXX) demonstrates that they believed this was alright to do.

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by poimen]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

Therefore the yhwyist really can't accept Christ's teachings nor the apostles' based upon their own process of elimination?


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Therefore the yhwyist really can't accept Christ's teachings nor the apostles' based upon their own process of elimination?



They cannot consistently apply their principle of intepretation throughout the scriptures.

BTW, did my post above answer your question(s)?

[Edited on 8-4-2005 by poimen]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

Pretty much...other than I know one more come back they would have:

Lord is not a true translation of YHWY given that YHWY is a name unless it is the meaning of the name (ie my name being Colleen/chailin meaning girl would be whatever word means girl in another language). However, my understanding is that no one really knows how to pronounce this name let alone it's "meaning"? (which alone should debunk their instance upon it's use)


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Pretty much...other than I know one more come back they would have:
> 
> Lord is not a true translation of YHWY given that YHWY is a name unless it is the meaning of the name (ie my name being Colleen/chailin meaning girl would be whatever word means girl in another language). However, my understanding is that no one really knows how to pronounce this name let alone it's "meaning"? (which alone should debunk their instance upon it's use)



Well we could also translate it as "I AM" as Jesus does in John 8:58. Some translations go for Jehovah or YHWH or LORD etc. Again, we as the church know what it means and teach what it means (via the preached word) so I don't think there is any problem. 

The only problem, it seems, is that the YHWHvist wants a monopoly on the name and uses it for their own ends (sounds cultish to me). That's why there are 'JEHOVAH's' Witnesses and 'CHRISTadelphians' and 'Disciples of Christ.' But they have emptied the content of those names and given them new meaning yet still retaining the original (think Schleiermacher, Barth, the Federal Vision etc).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 4, 2005)

> The only problem, it seems, is that the YHWHvist wants a monopoly on the name and uses it for their own ends (sounds cultish to me). That's why there are 'JEHOVAH's' Witnesses and 'CHRISTadelphians' and 'Disciples of Christ.' But they have emptied the content of those names and given them new meaning yet still retaining the original (think Schleiermacher, Barth, the Federal Vision etc).



BINGO!!!

They ARE cultish...and they believe (much like the oneness pentacostals) that you weren't baptised "correctly" if they didn't do it in Yahshua's name, they hold strictly to OT laws and Shabbot, etc. The one I knew went out into the hills and with others formed their own little community/commune. They even reprint bibles and hymnals replacing everything that says Lord, God, Christ, Jesus with the hebraic terms.

I just was stumped on this one...thank you for the help! I like to be prepared


----------



## Poimen (Aug 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > The only problem, it seems, is that the YHWHvist wants a monopoly on the name and uses it for their own ends (sounds cultish to me). That's why there are 'JEHOVAH's' Witnesses and 'CHRISTadelphians' and 'Disciples of Christ.' But they have emptied the content of those names and given them new meaning yet still retaining the original (think Schleiermacher, Barth, the Federal Vision etc).
> ...



They sound bizarre! 

You are welcome.


----------



## Archlute (Aug 5, 2005)

> BINGO!!!
> 
> They ARE cultish...and they believe (much like the oneness pentacostals) that you weren't baptised "correctly" if they didn't do it in Yahshua's name, they hold strictly to OT laws and Shabbot, etc. The one I knew went out into the hills and with others formed their own little community/commune. They even reprint bibles and hymnals replacing everything that says Lord, God, Christ, Jesus with the hebraic terms.
> 
> I just was stumped on this one...thank you for the help! I like to be prepared



Sounds like a bunch of modern day Ebionites (Judaizing "Christians"). 

They go further than the apostles themselves, who never once transliterated the OT names for God in their epistles. The Evangelists, under the power of the Holy Spirit, used the Greek term _christos_ rather than a transliteration of the Hebrew _meshiach_, for the Anointed One of Israel (read spiritual, not national). They essentially impute error to the work of the Spirit (and therefore God himself) by attacking believers who hold to apostolic practice in their speech and worship. 

If they followed the logical implications of thier beliefs they would have to read and preach the Scriptures in their original languages, in order to properly reverence them as God's word. I imagine, however, that most of them have only what they can get out of Strong's, and no real knowledge of the languages, much less a theologically correct understanding of the typological fulfillment of the OT in Christ.

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Archlute]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 5, 2005)

One other thing...that should be a major tip off (okay, two things):

They deny the trinity. But they aren't oneness...they are "twoness" if you can believe that! The Father/The Son...but the Spirit is just their "power" or an extension thereof.

There are also a few (not many) that deny that the Son was Creator and with the Father in the beginning (easily dismissed of course).

I did back the one that I knew into a corner until I forced him to admit there was a trinity...he "just didn't like the terminology".


----------



## Archlute (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> They deny the trinity. But they aren't oneness...they are "twoness" if you can believe that! The Father/The Son...but the Spirit is just their "power" or an extension thereof.



This is just the reappearance of an old heresy, Dynamic Monarchianism. If you want a brief read, try Berkhof's _The History of Christian Doctrines_, pp.77-80. The Socinians also held the Spirit to be a mere extension of the power of God, and not a person as defined by orthodox Christian theology.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 5, 2005)

I can't find that online..... 

Well, I guess it's going on the wishlist!


----------

