Forgetting the name of God was disobedient

[FredVB]

I wanted to make a response to something I saw earlier, but I see that it might be better to introduce what I would say as a new topic, so it could be discussed, and would not be considered off topic for another thread.

I want to say that following Jewish tradition of the time that Jewish leaders pushed followers to not pronounce the name of God is not a good idea without Biblical basis. In old testament times, it is clear from many passages that people of God freely used the name of Yahweh, in speaking of him and to him, and not speaking his name in vain, which would be the case if not really speaking of him or to him. The commandments should really have us speaking Yahweh's name, but not without an attitude of reverence to him.

By the way, I am not part of any movement that would have us think that to be saved we need any thing other than to believe and put our faith in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. But we should believe the Bible for the meaning of what was originally written, not settling for anything replacing any actual word, translated or transliterated.

Jesus rejected traditions of men that were not supported by anything in the Bible. God had told Moses, when he first called him and Moses questioned how he could tell Israelites God had sent him and not have the name of God, Tell them, Yahweh, God of your fathers, has sent you... This is my name, for all generations.

As it was to be remembered, for all generations, and Jewish tradition was going to permit it to be forgotten by not being spoken, but this later than the time the Hebrew scriptures were written, those who promoted the tradition were disobedient to God. Jesus would have nothing to do with this disobedience, and didn't.

 

[steve4.truth]

interesting....not a popular topic, huh! (btw, I totally agree.) The name was used almost 7000 times in the originals--more than "God" and "Lord" combined. check the concordance. Must have been important to all those men and women of faith throughout the ages, huh?

 

[FredVB]

Yes, maybe not popular, but since it is absolutely and totally Biblical, it should be the interest of believers to take interest. God would not possibly be mistaken in saying that it is for all generations. There is no other Bible portion that negates this position from the Bible. And it is true that it was important to people of God through the ages during Bible times anyway.

 

[Restin]

Jesus rejected traditions of men that were not supported by anything in the Bible. God had told Moses, when he first called him and Moses questioned how he could tell Israelites God had sent him and not have the name of God, Tell them, Yahweh, God of your fathers, has sent you... This is my name, for all generations.

Exodus 3:14-15

14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. KJV

I understand God as the 'great I AM'. It's an unfinished sentence... Jesus said 'I AM...the bread of life. I AM, the light of the world. I AM your healer. I AM... (all you need)! 'YAHWEH' comes across to me, as 'Jewish' understanding and interpretation, and while Jewry has a place in history, I rest with the words of Jesus Christ.

That said...I respect others that believe and feel 'Yahweh' is the correct understanding. However, words in human language, portray our heavenly father vaguely, at best. A time is coming when God will give us a name...a name who NO ONE KNOWS, save him who received it! Beyond these letters, it's the spirit that counts!

Peace...Restin

 

[FredVB]

I am glad you responded, Restin, and that you brought up this point. I understand what you see from that, and many have similar views. The text here from KJV, and a good number of other translations render it in much the same way, will give an impression, which I will explain:

Exodus 3:14-15

14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. KJV

When God says this is my name for ever, what is the name being referred to? With these translations I am referring to, although the ones that come to mind I respect as very good translations, you would easily conclude that I AM is the name referred to. Keep in mind though the knowledge that these translations follow a long tradition, certainly influenced by the push of Jewish leaders on their followers mentioned earlier, and render the name Yahweh as LORD, and if you read it while seeing it would be the name Yahweh in those places, in this passage it would become rather plain that the name Yahweh is the name referred to. Of course, God's name is tied up with his answer to Moses for the Israelites that he said I AM THAT I AM and I AM sends Moses. We know there is meaning we can grasp in God's phrase I AM, it is used as you say by Jesus so giving testimony to divinity, and the name of Yahweh certainly has a similar sound to the Hebrew phrase for I AM. So deep meaning this way is tied by this revelation from God to his name. But with this reading for the scriptural passage being discussed done to rightly, that is with the name displayed as it was ORIGINALLY written, from which we have translations, ti would read rather like this:


14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

I have tried to explain it well. Is what I am saying clear and reasonable now?

God bless you. Peace in Christ. Fred

 

[Restin]

...We know there is meaning we can grasp in God's phrase I AM, it is used as you say by Jesus so giving testimony to divinity, and the name of Yahweh certainly has a similar sound to the Hebrew phrase for I AM. So deep meaning this way is tied by this revelation from God to his name. But with this reading for the scriptural passage being discussed done to rightly, that is with the name displayed as it was ORIGINALLY written, from which we have translations, ti would read rather like this:


14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

I have tried to explain it well. Is what I am saying clear and reasonable now?

God bless you. Peace in Christ. Fred

Thanks Fred...I believe that God's hand is upon the translation(s) of His word, just like the original manuscript, even though all translations do not say word for word the same thing. These things are not left to the judgment or manipulation of men. TODAY there are no ORIGINAL manuscripts available to the public, all are translated by someone. In this, I don't lift up a 'previous translation' as being more correct than the 3 or 4 major translations we have today. Like the 4 gospels, there are 4 different ways to 'see' God, and all are correct, when seen in the spirit of God, and His Christ.

As 'clear and reasonable' as you appear...I don't think 'knowing God' is a matter of 'reason'. Understanding God is a matter of revelation. Jesus says I AM the good shepherd and my sheep hear my voice!

Peace....Restin

 

[FredVB]

Thanks Fred...I believe that God's hand is upon the translation(s) of His word, just like the original manuscript, even though all translations do not say word for word the same thing. These things are not left to the judgment or manipulation of men. TODAY there are no ORIGINAL manuscripts available to the public, all are translated by someone. In this, I don't lift up a 'previous translation' as being more correct than the 3 or 4 major translations we have today. Like the 4 gospels, there are 4 different ways to 'see' God, and all are correct, when seen in the spirit of God, and His Christ.

As 'clear and reasonable' as you appear...I don't think 'knowing God' is a matter of 'reason'. Understanding God is a matter of revelation. Jesus says I AM the good shepherd and my sheep hear my voice!

I think I see what you are saying. I too as you may imagine trust my understanding to God's revelation, for that is the only way to know ultimate truth that is needful for us, not being available though science. So we are not to put reason before revelation. And Jesus is indeed the "I AM" that God claimed he himself is, which is apparent from a number of Bible passages. We should submit ourselves to what Jesus says, he is Lord. About translations, they are derived, if they are at all trustworthy, from manuscripts of the original languages, which are copies derived from the autographa, the original writing from revelation, and so such manuscripts are quite trustworthy, although a method is to be used to find original intent where there are the few very minor deviations, much less than with copies of any other ancient writing. God's hand has been indeed on the translating of a number of the versions, but they do not and cannot be held to have the weight of inspiration that is manifest to have been with the original writing, and can be understood from the manuscripts that are used in the original languages. We indeed do not have the original writing, but access to these manuscripts is available, and I believe you can find them viewable from online. And regarding the name of God, it is found in the Hebrew we have for the old testament, and is used close to 7000 times, incuding clearly from many passages where people of God freely used the name of Yahweh, in speaking of him and to him, and not speaking his name in vain, which would be the case if not really speaking of him or to him.
As I was meaning to show, it has been a convention that follows Jewish tradition of the time that Jewish leaders pushed followers to not pronounce the name of God, which I was saying is not a good idea, keeping in mind that the Lord Jesus did not endorse Jewish tradition which contrasted with what the scriptures taught. I agree that there are many correct ways to see God, and I doubt there is great disagreement in what we believe. But I suggest that we do not close ourselves off from teaching we have not previously considered that is derived out of the Bible correctly.

Peace in Christ. Fred

 

[Restin]

But I suggest that we do not close ourselves off from teaching we have not previously considered that is derived out of the Bible correctly.

Peace in Christ. Fred

Some 8 to 10 years ago, a family member of mine and I got in to studying the 'original' language. And almost every discussion, it was thought and said 'but we have to have the original language to understand the purest truth'. As we never knew for sure of having the best translation, it was totally disturbing to the point, there was no peace in our Bible study. This continued off and on for some time.

Then we got in to reading about the day of Pentecost in Acts and peace came in to our discussions when/as we stopped worrying about the 'original' language and believed that God is the teacher, here and now as it was back then. Having a 'more pure manuscript' is not to be despised, and it does give direction, but it does not, of itself, give faith and hope. Only the voice of God coming to the repentant soul can bring peace to the troubled heart and mind.

Acts 2:6-8

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? KJV


God Bless ...Restin

 

[FredVB]

Some 8 to 10 years ago, a family member of mine and I got in to studying the 'original' language. And almost every discussion, it was thought and said 'but we have to have the original language to understand the purest truth'. As we never knew for sure of having the best translation, it was totally disturbing to the point, there was no peace in our Bible study. This continued off and on for some time.

Then we got in to reading about the day of Pentecost in Acts and peace came in to our discussions when/as we stopped worrying about the 'original' language and believed that God is the teacher, here and now as it was back then. Having a 'more pure manuscript' is not to be despised, and it does give direction, but it does not, of itself, give faith and hope. Only the voice of God coming to the repentant soul can bring peace to the troubled heart and mind.

The discussion now almost touches on primacy of scripture or experience. If it goes there, I emphasize that although spiritual experience is necessary to believers, experience should never take priority over God's word. Having said that, I will deal with the topic of translations. We do not as simply believers have to depend on untranslated manuscripts passage by passage from the the Bible. That of course would be too difficult, and I doubt any individual ever in history had access to all Bible passages from the original languages at any time. I have said before translations I am referring to ... that come to mind I respect as very good translations ... God's hand has been indeed on the translating of a number of the versions. But it is certain, if we have been believers for a while, and know something about the translations these days for our language, we are not likely to think the same reliability can be trusted with all these versions, the King James, the New International Version, and the New World Translation. We are trusting good translators, but we need discernment, in the case of new believers certainly some guidance from more mature believers, for knowing what are good versions to trust. And if we have found what is truly a good version, meaning good translation, that it is right to trust, than we can place confidence that with prayer and the guidance of the Spirit of God what we can derive from reading that version of the Bible. But this indeed depends on good translation from translators really knowledgeable in the original language each has worked with. God's hand has worked with them, but as human beings, they have still had limits. Therefore, although you can trust a version on its own, if it is a good one, almost completely, and don't need to lack peace and say 'but we have to have the original language to understand the purest truth', there may come an instance on occasion where there is uncertainty on a passage, and it is probably likely that checking with another translation or two which would be also known one can trust would be sufficient. I myself have a Greek English Interlinear New Testament, and I really have it because I think there is good cause if I should find myself in discussion involving something that would be heresy and involves important doctrine. In this case it is good to have access to the original words, and my edition includes a Greek Lexicon. Not all will find this need, but for a believer who would talk to cultists, it would be helpful, a Greek English Interlinear New Testament would be a useful thing to consider having.

In your having said "it does give direction, but it does not, of itself, give faith and hope", we only have real faith and hope in Jesus Christ, who died for us and is risen, through whose righteousness which is applied to those who repent of sin separating them from relationship to God and put their faith in him, our Lord and Savior, come to be right with God.

 

[Restin]

In your having said "it does give direction, but it does not, of itself, give faith and hope", we only have real faith and hope in Jesus Christ, who died for us and is risen, through whose righteousness which is applied to those who repent of sin separating them from relationship to God and put their faith in him, our Lord and Savior, come to be right with God.

This I can agree with. I prefer the 'simpleton' side, and this is where I have peace....R

 

[FredVB]

I understand, and can agree that "the voice of God coming to the repentant soul can bring peace to the troubled heart and mind." I would not call that a "simpleton" position. Does the discussion in your eyes justify my statement that the name of God shouldn't be forgotten?

Peace in Christ. Fred

 

[Restin]

Does the discussion in your eyes justify my statement that the name of God shouldn't be forgotten?

Peace in Christ. Fred

Me justify YOUR statement....? That is between you and God. By our words we are justified and by our words we are condemned. God gives the command to 'remember' in order to help us to know that, of ourselves, we have no power to do so. If, by a thought, we could do anything, of ourselves, we would be one of the many Gods in this world that claim such power....I do not want to be one of them.

So, whatever God enables me/us to remember, so it will be remembered.

According as God wills...Restin

 

[FredVB]

Me justify YOUR statement....? That is between you and God. By our words we are justified and by our words we are condemned. God gives the command to 'remember' in order to help us to know that, of ourselves, we have no power to do so. If, by a thought, we could do anything, of ourselves, we would be one of the many Gods in this world that claim such power....I do not want to be one of them.

There is a misunderstanding here. There is a meaning to "justified" that we can be only by the work of God, in light of our faith. But with God's commands, it is not all just between each one of us and God. Believers are accountable to one another, and we are to judge sin in light of commandments. Indeed, we are liable before the law, which is established with the allowance of God. So if we break commandments in the sight of others, it may certainly be pointed out to us. And God does not give us commandments that can not be kept. If we are only in a fallen and unredeemed state, we only live according to our sinful nature, and it is difficult to meet a standard of righteousness, which we in that state do not have an inclination toward anyway. But with redemption we are given a new nature, with the help of God's Spirit in any case. We can indeed turn from sin, and turn toward righteousness, and desire to. It is according to God's will, and requires this. We are not saved from commandments, but should do those for us, as we are enabled to do so. As far as remembering what God tells us to, we can certainly do that, so it is not to tell us that we cannot do it. And making a decision according to our will is how God designed us, according to his will, and it does not make us Gods. There is only one, and we are made with this capacity as we are made in God's image as he has said.

 

[Restin]

There is a misunderstanding here. There is a meaning to "justified" that we can be only by the work of God, in light of our faith. But with God's commands, it is not all just between each one of us and God. Believers are accountable to one another, and we are to judge sin in light of commandments.

Psalms 51:3-4
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:
that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when
thou judgest. KJV

With Psalms...I acknowledge my transgression, my inability to perfectly perform the will of God, that includes the inability to always remember. In this, I am not saying it is ok to 'forget', I am saying this earthy flesh does not have the ability to always remember, and so this fleshly existence is given to to keep us humble.

Indeed, we are liable before the law, which is established with the allowance of God. So if we break commandments in the sight of others, it may certainly be pointed out to us. And God does not give us commandments that can not be kept. If we are only in a fallen and unredeemed state, we only live according to our sinful nature, and it is difficult to meet a standard of righteousness, which we in that state do not have an inclination toward anyway.

Romans 5:19
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. KJV

But with redemption we are given a new nature, with the help of God's Spirit in any case. We can indeed turn from sin, and turn toward righteousness, and desire to. It is according to God's will, and requires this. We are not saved from commandments, but should do those for us, as we are enabled to do so. As far as remembering what God tells us to, we can certainly do that, so it is not to tell us that we cannot do it.

I believe God is NOT saving this body of flesh in which I live and move about in this life. God is saving the spirit. The 'new nature' in this life, is a deposit of the 'new nature' it is not the complete thing. It does come through the Holy Spirit. However, the law of sin and death still remains in this earthy flesh (while it remains it does NOT reign), and wars against the law of our mind, till God changes our mortality to immortality.

And making a decision according to our will is how God designed us, according to his will, and it does not make us Gods. There is only one, and we are made with this capacity as we are made in God's image as he has said.

Jesus prayer to the Father, in the Garden of Gethsemany... not my will, but thy will be done.

Peace...Restin

 

[FredVB]

I agree that it is against Yahweh God that we are most truly acting when we sin. What is meant in what I previously said is that, according to new testament teaching for us, believers are brothers and sisters to each other, and we have responsibility to each other. If we are made aware of Bible defined sin being done among us, we should point it out, of course in love. We are not to remain ignorant of our own transgressions, but should be mindful of them and turn from them, and we should be ready to accept correction.

Yes, we have our righteousness from Christ. We are saved from sin to move from sinning, from the way we have, from now on. The gnostics were heretics that were a danger to the doctrine of Christians from even in the first century. They thought of the human body, and physicality generally, as sinful and evil, and among many heresies, they thought with their special knowledge, their spirit was saved, and it did not matter what the body would do then, for their spirit only would be saved then, and the body would have no future.

While we battle against the fallen nature that remains, we are to die to it and live according to the new nature with the Spirit of God. We should learn that it always matters what we do in our bodies, and as for believers they are the temple of the Spirit of God, we should present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. And in being surrendered to the will of God, we still have decisions to make, it is unrealistic to say we cannot do that, as much as we had to do previously.

Peace in Christ. Fred

 

[FredVB]

I believe the points dealing with the intended topic stayed close to on course until this was posted:

"Does the discussion in your eyes justify my statement that the name of God shouldn't be forgotten?"

​

Me justify YOUR statement....? That is between you and God.

After that, the discussion went to sin and justification, indeed worthy topics, but after I posted what should have clarified understanding on these things, I no longer got a response, leaving the point of the thread unanswered, that is, "Yahweh", the name of God, should not be forgotten. It was already well established here.

I do have a group I formed for good fellowship of Christians agreeing to have a totally Biblical position, including agreement on this one, and would like to find others who would agree to that to look and truly consider joining it.

Fred
http://christiantribeofyahweh.yolasite.com