Jesus's Divinity?

[BukiRob]

It means I am a monotheist, no exceptions or word-games. I follow Judaism. Judaism is monotheist. The TNK teaches monotheism, without compromise. Since Trinitarianism and Mormonism and all these other things desire to be called "monotheism" also, we pure monotheists often have to use the word Unitarian to specify our beliefs, even though uni- and mono- literally mean the same thing.

I am Messianic also, but I do not worship the Messiah as a god, anymore than those who consider Schneerson the Messiah, or those who considered Bar Kokva the Messiah.

Yeshua did not stop people from worshiping him. He healed the paralytic by openly saying Son, your sins are forgiven...

Yeshua allowed worship and forgave sin... are those not attributes associated with G-d and G-d alone?

Matt 9:2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? 5 “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? 6“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he got up and went home. 8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Matt 2:2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

Matt 9:18 While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live.”

Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.” Why? Because the Son of God is God who can receive worship, He is God in the flesh.

Matt 28: 9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Yeshua said, “that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23)

Matthew 15:25: “Then she worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me.”

When Jesus walked on the water and made the wind and waves cease, they worshiped Him, saying, truly thou art the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33)


G-d and G-d alone is to be worshiped. exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me. At no point in scripture do you EVER see Yeshua forbidding or stopping anyone from worshiping him

 

[ErezY]

Talk about making up your own theology. You take several things for granted.

He's not really making it up himself. It's the standard 'orthodox' theology. And I agree he seems to take it for granted that it's the only correct theology. Seems the Rabbi's can pick and choose for us but we can not make our own minds up. The catholics garnered much from this system too.

You cannot make rules from exceptions when it defies every other rule, including common sense.

Yes, they can and do. In numerous places.


Now, if we are going to take someone's word for it I beleive I will stand behind Yeshua's own words here in the book of John.

John 17
6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. 9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. 24 Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."

​

I have manifest...declared to them 'Your name", and will declare it....... Which name do you think this was?

John 15:15
for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.

Matt 28
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
​

And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it.........

Yeshua revealed to them the name of God, and will do so... He identified that all things are his to reveal, and commanded it be revealed. Nothing will remain hidden.

Matt 10
26 Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. 27 "Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
​

Do not fear those who kill.....but Him who destroys. One says He is forever concealed, the other says to reveal what is concealed. The orthodox forever seem to conceal that which is supposed to be revealed. It's the nature of secret societies I guess.... You're out till they say your in. Silly game really. Considering it's God who matters, not men.

I believe God has been trying to talk one on one with people for some time now. But mankind seems to run behind another man to have to listen. (no don't speak to me in person I'll die, let 'him' speak to you and we will agree) I don't really believe this is God's desired pattern of communication. I think He's been trying to have a personal conversation with all of us for some time now. But we are too interested in our 'worldly' perceptions, and getting patted on the back by other men for towing the line.

 

[ErezY]

I am Messianic also, but I do not worship the Messiah as a god, anymore than those who consider Schneerson the Messiah, or those who considered Bar Kokva the Messiah.

So do you even believe Yeshua died and rose from the dead? Do you believe Yeshua is the living Messiah of Israel?

 

[Josephus]

He's not really making it up himself. It's the standard 'orthodox' theology. And I agree he seems to take it for granted that it's the only correct theology. Seems the Rabbi's can pick and choose for us but we can not make our own minds up. The catholics garnered much from this system too.

It's not orthodox theology. It's not theology of any kind. It's simply reading the Hebrew text as it's spelled. And it's spelled:

זה שמי לעלם

zeh shemi l'elem

this myname to conceal

Are you saying it doesn't say that? At all? That what is written is faulty? That we shouldn't believe it as it's written?

A name, in Hebrew ideology, is not what one is called, but rather what one does. To declare a name, is to establish by action who one is. That isn't to say that the Name as its pronounced can't be taught from teacher to student, and it is certain that Yeshua also did the same, when necessary. But G-d doesn't bow to someone speaking his name. That's a form of G-d control, which from a certain point of view could be taken as witchcraft. After all, if one is speaking G-d's ineffable name, and expecting G-d to act simply because the "proper" name is being used, but unwittingly using the wrong name because they don't know for sure... then what is one engaging in? Prayer? No. Idolatry. Witchcraft even. Something very dangerous.

Even if one knows the Name as it's pronounced, speaking G-d's name renders his name more common, not more holy, and the Torah says "this is my holy Name..." to teach us that we are to understand that what He does is holy, separated unto G-d and His work, and any formal pronunciation of his name is also separated unto G-d and His work and is meant to be kept so. That is why only the High Priest says the Name only on the holiest day of the year, in the holiest place on Earth, and no where or no when else, and even as it's said, the people are to cry out blessing G-d so as not to hear it spoken when it is. Anytime and anyone who pronounces G-d's name as written, makes His name more common, and less holy, by definition.

Contrary to what you've written, I choose to stand by what the Torah writes, and not by any man-made theology that seeks to control G-d.

If you don't want to follow my example, then follow the Master's example: when he entered Capernaum and read from the Isaiah scroll, he did not pronounce the Name, he used a circumlocution when reading of the very prophecy that described himself and its fulfillment in their ears. The Greek word is Kurios, from where we get the English, Lord, and in the Hebrew, Ad-nai. Our own Master, if he actively pronounced the Name, would have spoken it on that day. But he didn't. I choose to follow his example. I encourage you and others to do so too.

 

[ErezY]

I don't pick and choose between what is literally written in the Torah, and what is oral Torah. I accept both.

When you accept the oral Torah you are promoting the orthodox understanding of Judaism, above all other forms of Judaism. Deal with it. And be prepared to defend it from all other forms of Judaism.

It's not orthodox theology. It's not theology of any kind. It's simply reading the Hebrew text as it's spelled.

Contrary to what you've written, I choose to stand by what the Torah writes, and not by any man-made theology that seeks to control G-d.

I find you confused. When you accept the oral Torah you accept man-made theology. Only orthodox Judaism claims the oral Torah is 'needed' to understand the written Torah. And given at the same time as the written, just as holy if not more. Which if you havn't understood, goes against what is actually written in the Torah.

And I find it quite telling you stand contrary to what I quoted of Yeshua who said himself that he has manifest and declared God's name to us. Sort of lays waste your oral Torah concealment theology.

I'm seeing you in fact do hold to the theology of men over the Words of God in the flesh, as he spoke to his children personally.

You claim the oral was given by God to Moses, right? This would be the standard rabbinical postion. How do you twist together the descisions of men among the words of God? Who has the authority? The rabbinate, or Yeshua?

 

[ErezY]

If you don't want to follow my example, then follow the Master's example: when he entered Capernaum and read from the Isaiah scroll, he did not pronounce the Name, he used a circumlocution when reading of the very prophecy that described himself and its fulfillment in their ears. The Greek word is Kurios, from where we get the English, Lord, and in the Hebrew, Ad-nai. Our own Master, if he actively pronounced the Name, would have spoken it on that day. But he didn't. I choose to follow his example. I encourage you and others to do so too.

Seems you have a conundrum then. Because John 17 quotes Yeshua as saying; "I have manifest...declared to them 'Your name", and will declare it....... Which name do you think this was? You have him concealing it through doctrine and traditon while he himself states he reveals it openly to all who believe him. I will follow 'that' example. The one that is openly prevelant and obvious to see and understand. The peshat indicates Yeshua revealed God's name to us. No mention of this issue of unspokenness. If that was such an issue you thiink it would have come up at least once in the gospels. But you have to postulate it. In the face of Yeshua's own words too. Bad form, really.

 

[pat34lee]

[QUOTE Bukirob]That was a direct quote from scripture. NIV says Mighty one. KJV says Power, NASB says Power. CJB says HaG’vurah (translated power) Youngs says Power....

Think its pretty clear, what was copied from the NASB is correct[/QUOTE]

You see power because the name YHWH was removed from all NTs. You will not find it in any Greek or English translation.

For some reason it wouldn't let me respond with quote, so I had to do it this way.

 

[pat34lee]

Josephus,

Is the concept of an ineffable name spelled out anywhere in scripture? No. It is not a Hebrew concept. It was taken from the Egyptians and Babylonians.

In any culture, what is a name? It separates you from everyone else. Names have meaning. Yahweh had his name written in the Tanakh over 7000 times. In English, you would expect some common word like 'the' or 'and' to be the most used, but the name of Yahweh is the most common word in the Hebrew Tanakh.

If what I see is correct, you claim there are no errors in the Hebrew scriptures. I can give you a whole missing verse that cannot be denied. In Psalm 145, each verse begins with a Hebrew letter, going from Alef to Tav. Problem: there are only 21 verses, and none begin with NUN.

 

[Josephus]

When you accept the oral Torah you are promoting the orthodox understanding of Judaism, above all other forms of Judaism. Deal with it. And be prepared to defend it from all other forms of Judaism.

Interesting. Land of Life:

to believe that the Hebrew of Ex 3:15:

זה שמי לעלם

is read:
zeh shemi l'olam

this myname for'ever

is um... to actually accept what the oral Torah says of how this Hebrew is to be read, when the Hebrew reads l'elem "to conceal"! So, since you accept what the oral Torah says of this verse, and not what is literally written, then per your own challenge, I ask you to defend the belief that l'olam "forever" is the only legitimate means to read the word in this verse and thus the only legitimate means to understand it. I hold to both understandings. You appear to be only holding to the oral Torah's understanding of this verse. Please, by all means, defend it.

I find you confused. When you accept the oral Torah you accept man-made theology. Only orthodox Judaism claims the oral Torah is 'needed' to understand the written Torah. And given at the same time as the written, just as holy if not more. Which if you havn't understood, goes against what is actually written in the Torah.

The oral Torah came before the written. G-d spoke. Then Moses wrote.

And I find it quite telling you stand contrary to what I quoted of Yeshua who said himself that he has manifest and declared God's name to us. Sort of lays waste your oral Torah concealment theology.

Actually, no where in Matt-Rev is the name of G-d ever recorded as pronounced either as a teaching or indirectly. In fact, in every place the Name is intended, we find a circumlocution - Kurios in the Greek. Not any Greek transliteration of the Holy Name. Regardless, even if there were (and there isn't) the Torah prohibition, as literally written in the Torah, is clear, and can not be contradicted. Thus if we assume the Master and the disciples were observant of the Torah, then we can't accept anything they wrote or what is written about them, as indicating that they broke it.

You claim the oral was given by God to Moses, right? This would be the standard rabbinical postion. How do you twist together the descisions of men among the words of God? Who has the authority? The rabbinate, or Yeshua?

I know this may come as a shock, but the decisions of men, can beTorah itself: in Deut 17:11 by the the words "whatever they tell you to do, do it. Turn not either to the right or left." Are inescapable. This alone gives the full weight of Torah authority to their words, which are the words of the Sages as taught by the Sanhedrin, even from Jesus' day, who also tell us to "do what they tell you." Even you as a mere man, can prescribe Torah with the full weight and authority of the Torah itself: all you have to do is make a vow. It's not adding to Torah. It is Torah. So yes, the "decisions" of men, when in the context of authorized Torah legal legislation, is authoritative, equal to the Torah itself since those kinds of words are included in the Torah's words. How to distinguish between what is authoritative and what is not? By context. Who, when, and where? The Torah gives us the instructions on the context. Since it is Yeshua who is the Word of HaShem, the Torah incarnate, then even when you make a vow... your vow is a part of Yeshua just as much as the rest of Torah. Keep that in mind.

Seems you have a conundrum then. Because John 17 quotes Yeshua as saying; "I have manifest...declared to them 'Your name", and will declare it....... Which name do you think this was? You have him concealing it through doctrine and traditon while he himself states he reveals it openly to all who believe him. I will follow 'that' example. The one that is openly prevelant and obvious to see and understand. The peshat indicates Yeshua revealed God's name to us. No mention of this issue of unspokenness. If that was such an issue you thiink it would have come up at least once in the gospels. But you have to postulate it. In the face of Yeshua's own words too. Bad form, really.

What does it mean to declare a name? Seeing as how it is never written what that name is, how can you conclude that "I will declare it" means pronouncing it? Especially if the Torah prohibits it. Since the Torah prohibits it, either Yeshua is pronouncing the name contrary to the Torah prohibition (making him a sinner), or he means something else. It's not a conundrum. To declare a name, is to be it. To do it. Since a name is what one does. We declare the name of Jesus, for example, when we do what Jesus does.

Shalom.

 

[pat34lee]

Actually, no where in Matt-Rev is the name of G-d ever recorded as pronounced either as a teaching or indirectly. In fact, in every place the Name is intended, we find a circumlocution - Kurios in the Greek. Not any Greek transliteration of the Holy Name. Regardless, even if there were (and there isn't) the Torah prohibition, as literally written in the Torah, is clear, and can not be contradicted. Thus if we assume the Master and the disciples were observant of the Torah, then we can't accept anything they wrote or what is written about them, as indicating that they broke it.

I know this may come as a shock, but the decisions of men, can be Torah itself: in Deut 17:11 by the the words "whatever they tell you to do, do it. Turn not either to the right or left."

1. The name was written in the original books of the NT and were removed when they were translated into Greek.

2. This is speaking of judges and the legal system. We are still to obey civil authority today as then.

 

[BukiRob]

1. The name was written in the original books of the NT and were removed when they were translated into Greek.

and you know this how?

 

[Josephus]

1. The name was written in the original books of the NT and were removed when they were translated into Greek.

You have proof of this? Else you'd be adding to what is written, if not. This is where I point out that you have a theology that you are reading into the scriptures, rather than having the scriptures teach you about this matter. It's just a slippery slope, since at which point does one stop doubting what is written then? Just tryin' to help.

2. This is speaking of judges and the legal system. We are still to obey civil authority today as then.

This doesn't remove the phrase "this is My Name to conceal" though.

 

[pat34lee]

and you know this how?

In the papyrus P90 dated 150 CE which contains the verses of John 18:36-19:7, the name of Jesus is this time shortened into JS according to the process of nomina sacra, like the word Kurios (Lord) which is written KS. So, when the sacred name was absent the word ‘Lord’ had to be written without abbreviation. For example, in this codex the verse of John 12:38 have appeared:

INA.O.LOGOS.HSAIOU.TOU.PROFHTOU.PLHRW
QH.ON.EIPEN.KURIE.TIS.EPISTEUSEN.TH.AKOH
HMWN.KAI.O.BRACIWN.KURIOU.TINI.APEKALU

(John 12:38)
However this part of the gospel of John quoted a verse from the book of Isaiah and in all the Septuagints of this period (before 150 CE) there are none with the name Kurios (Lord) instead of the Tetragram. For example:

INA.O.LOGOS.HSAIOU.TOU.PROFHTOU.PLHRW
QH.ON.EIPEN .TIS.EPISTEUSEN.TH.AKOH
HMWN.KAI.O.BRACIWN..TINI.APEKALU

ΙΝΑ.Ω.ΛΩΓΩΣ.ΗΣΑΙΟΥ.ΤΟΥ.ΠΡΩΦΗΤΟΥ.ΠΛΗΡΩ
ΘΗ.ΟΝ.ΕΙΠΕΝ .ΤΙΣ.ΕΠΙΣΤΕΥΣΕΝ.ΤΗ.ΑΚΟΗ
ΗΜΩΝ.ΚΑΙ.Ο.ΒΡΑΧΙΩΝ..ΤΙΝΙ.ΑΠΕΚΑΛΥ

(Isaiah 53:1 [LXX])
There are only two ways to explain this modification, where the Tetragram was exchanged by the word ‘Lord’. Either the Christians changed this name after 150 CE(more exactly between 70 and 135) because they did not understand it anymore, or they changed it before 150 CE (more exactly before the previous period) for theological reasons but without there being any archaeological witnesses. The first explanation seems more logical because if the Christians (Judeo-Christians) had changed this name during the first century (before 70 CE) this teaching would have been seen in the NT especially among a Jewish environment, what is never the case.

THE NAME OF GOD YeHoWaH. ITS STORY, by Gérard Gertoux

 

[pat34lee]

You have proof of this? Else you'd be adding to what is written, if not. This is where I point out that you have a theology that you are reading into the scriptures, rather than having the scriptures teach you about this matter. It's just a slippery slope, since at which point does one stop doubting what is written then? Just tryin' to help.

This doesn't remove the phrase "this is My Name to conceal" though.

2 I explained in the prior post. Misspellings happen. One command does not undo dozens in any case.

* Scripture clearly teaches that we are to set apart ("hallow {make holy}, sanctify"), revere ("fear"), remember, think upon, wait upon, walk in, trust in, love, seek, declare (proclaim), bless, publish, call upon, sing unto, praise, esteem ("glorify"), make known ("manifest"), and know His Name.

The Name Yahweh In The "New Testament"? (Torah, Jehovah, doctrine) - Christianity -Â[bless and do not curse] - City-Data Forum

 

[Josephus]

2 I explained in the prior post.

Kurios and the absence of Kurios in the Greek texts you posted is the only difference. There is no replacement for Kurios documented, no tetragramaton with vowels written in any Greek codex. You still have nothing, and only speculation at best - which compared to the written prohibition that is as clear as day, would mean you have nothing at all in this matter, except forcing a theology to conform with preconceived notions that the Name is supposed to be pronounced in a common manner.

Misspellings happen. One command does not undo dozens in any case.

On the contrary, one command undoes dozens understanding of cases - meaning that the case is not wrong, but the understanding of those cases are.

Do you agree what is written in the Hebrew? That it says "zeh shemi l'elem?" This MyName to conceal? In any legal matter or dispute, any proven "exception" is the rule.

 

[pat34lee]

On the contrary, one command undoes dozens understanding of cases - meaning that the case is not wrong, but the understanding of those cases are.

Do you agree what is written in the Hebrew? That it says "zeh shemi l'elem?" This MyName to conceal? In any legal matter or dispute, any proven "exception" is the rule.

From my post #48 this thread. Last paragraph in particular.

Josephus,

Is the concept of an ineffable name spelled out anywhere in scripture? No. It is not a Hebrew concept. It was taken from the Egyptians and Babylonians.

In any culture, what is a name? It separates you from everyone else. Names have meaning. Yahweh had his name written in the Tanakh over 7000 times. In English, you would expect some common word like 'the' or 'and' to be the most used, but the name of Yahweh is the most common word in the Hebrew Tanakh.

If what I see is correct, you claim there are no errors in the Hebrew scriptures. I can give you a whole missing verse that cannot be denied. In Psalm 145, each verse begins with a Hebrew letter, going from Alef to Tav. Problem: there are only 21 verses, and none begin with NUN.

 

[Josephus]

If what I see is correct, you claim there are no errors in the Hebrew scriptures. I can give you a whole missing verse that cannot be denied. In Psalm 145, each verse begins with a Hebrew letter, going from Alef to Tav. Problem: there are only 21 verses, and none begin with NUN.

There are no errors in the Hebrew scriptures as we have them today - no information is lost. G-d preserves his Word. Yes I believe that wholeheartedly.

There is no "missing" nun verse. To have a missing verse, you need to know what the actual verse is. The Septuagint adds a nun verse, but it's simply a rehash of the final verse of Psalm 145. Instead, the nun subject is mentioned in the samekh verse in the word noflim or fallen ones. I believe the fact that there isn't a verse in Psalm 145 that begins with nun, is intentional by the author, and points to a deeper mystical meaning and application that I don't believe this thread is the proper place to delve into that tangent.

Are you saying by this point of contention that you don't believe the Torah is accurately transmitted to us when it is written in every single available copy known to modern man, "zeh shemi l'elem"? If so, you take a position of authority on the scripture that seems to have no legal justification, nor limit in its application. As I said, without direct evidence of contrary codexes giving the Hebrew as it should be, then there is no witness to the fact. And according to Torah law, two witnesses are required, of which there is none. Only speculation on your part. I don't believe G-d is powerless so as to have his truth dependent on mere speculation.

Shalom.

 

[pat34lee]

Are you saying by this point of contention that you don't believe the Torah is accurately transmitted to us when it is written in every single available copy known to modern man, "zeh shemi l'elem"? If so, you take a position of authority on the scripture that seems to have no legal justification, nor limit in its application. As I said, without direct evidence of contrary codexes giving the Hebrew as it should be, then there is no witness to the fact. And according to Torah law, two witnesses are required, of which there is none. Only speculation on your part. I don't believe G-d is powerless so as to have his truth dependent on mere speculation.

Shalom.

I haven't seen every available copy known to man. Have you?

Even if you are correct that every text is spelled that way, you have not proved that this is a different word (meaning "hide"), and not just an alternate spelling for "forever". According to Strong's online, there are 16 variations of "olam" in the Tanakh; all spelled differently. I had posted that nobody else saw the meaning 'hide' in this verse. Yonah showed me that I was wrong there and I apologize.

I still think it incorrect, but it is not your error.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I haven't seen every available copy known to man. Have you?

You know what a critical apparatus is in a scholarly biblical text, right? The scholars have examined every available edition so that we don't have to! And there is no textual variant. It reads זה שמי לעלם in every Hebrew copy. The word עולם olam can only be spelled two ways: עולם (plene) or עלם (defective). If Strong's says that olam is spelled sixteen different ways (which I doubt he does), you should disregard that comment. It's not true.

 

[yonah_mishael]

How is it that only you see "hide" in this verse when everyone else sees "forever"?

Even Rashi comments that this is how the word could be read. See Chabad's online English translation of the Bible with Rashi on Exodus 3, especially Rashi's comment on verse 15, as follows:

This is My name forever: Heb. לְעֹלָם [It is spelled] without a vav, meaning: conceal it [God’s name] תהַעִלִימֵהוּ* [so] that it should not be read as it is written. — [from Pes. 50a] Since the “vav” of (לְעֹלָ&#1501 is missing, we are to understand it as לְעַלֵּם, to conceal, meaning that the pronunciation of the way God’s name is written (י-ה-ו-&#1492 is to be concealed. — [from Pes. 50a.]​

Notice that the origin of this reading is from the Talmud, not from a poster called Josephus on ChristianForums.com. It comes from the Talmud and is repeated by Rashi. It's an old opinion within Judaism, so how do you so easily blast it out of the water with your bandwagon argument (argumentum ad populum)?

* The word written תהַעִלִימֵהוּ on Chabad's website is actually העלימהו in Rashi's text and should be pronounced הַעֲלִימֵהוּ ha'alimehu, not as written on their site (which is a typo).