Names of God

[pat34lee]

One should be more interested or concerned as to why HaShem said this:

What does it mean that his name is there?

It is talking about the temple, which Solomon had just finished and was dedicating.

 

[pat34lee]

I really don't know how to explain this any more clearly. When you cite quotations like this, you are engaging in the process of "assuming that which is to be proven". That is, you want to assume that:

• Every use of the word "name" is a reference to the syllables of the tetragrammaton, and
• Every use of the tetragrammaton carries an implicit commandment that renders all other titles and designations invalid

Neither of those claims is even remotely demonstrated anywhere in Scripture.

Nice straw man arguments. It isn't all or nothing. Even one command to use the name by speaking it renders arguments against EVER using it invalid. As I quoted, there are not just one, but many.

That is precisely what we see in the group known as "Sacred Namers". What may have begun as a valid concern over perceived neglect of the tetragrammaton has become just the opposite--using it casually and without thinking. That is... taking it "lightly". That's exactly what the commandment was designed to prevent.

Once again, you have it backwards. So called sacred namers get so much flak because they take the name and commands to use it seriously. I remember a slogan from a while back, "They aren't the 10 suggestions." As a teacher, you should be especially in mind of Matthew 5:19. Rabbinic prohibitions do not count as commandments.

Once again, you assume what you want to believe is true. But wishing doesn't make it so.

And again... you are assuming the truth of your own views, and not giving any consideration to an opposing view. You want to believe that using alternative designations is wicked and false, but the fact is, "Adonai" is used plenty in the Tanakh. And I think the people who started using "Hashem" probably knew better than you what significance that carried.

I gave thought to opposing views and found them unacceptable. All scripture has to align with other scripture or either it is wrong, or more likely, our understanding is wrong. The fact that other titles are used only makes the fact that the name YHWH far outnumbers all of them more significant.

They knew exactly what they were doing, which is what makes me wonder why so many messianics who should know better follow their teachings.

Fine... except that's not what the text says.

As for teaching "the Name"... you are pretending that their isn't another equally valid possibility--that it refers to the character and teachings of the Almighty, rather than to the specific sounds of the letters.

The blasphemy charge is explicitly stated to be based on claims of equality, not on usage of the tetragrammaton.

Matthew 26
61 and said, "This [one] said "I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in three days."

64 Yeshua said to him, "It is as you said, Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65 Then the High Priest tore his clothes, saying "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard his blasphemy!

Note the phrase TEMPLE OF GOD in verse 61. This phrase never appears in the Tenach which always has TEMPLE OF YHWH. Also in verse 64 THE POWER is a common euphemism for YHWH which should appear based on the fact that this verse combines Ps. 110:1 with Dan. 7:13 where YHWH does appear in Ps. 110:1.
​

Could Yeshua have been being accused of blasphemy for having used the phrase "Temple of YHWH" could he have aggravated and confirmed the charge by citing the Ps. 110:1/Dan. 7:13 phrase with the name YHWH pronounced? The Mishnah sheds a great deal of light on the events of this trial. The Mishnah states: He who blasphemes is liable only when he will have fully pronounced the Divine Name.
Article
​

If you look at all of the scriptures, and read all of the commands and statements concerning the name, you cannot justify never using it, any more than you can justify changing the sabbaths and the feasts of YHWH.

 

[Lulav]

It is talking about the temple, which Solomon had just finished and was dedicating.

I am aware of where it is found in Scriptures, both places in fact. What I was saying is that perhaps we should look into why HaShem choose a place to put his name, why does his name need a place to 'reside'?

Some have seen the tetragrammaton in the hills outside of Jerusalem, in the place called Beth El where Jacob slept and saw the angels ascending and descending to heaven and earth.

Some also believe that the Garden of G-d resides in that area, perhaps the lush area that Abraham saw was outside it but it was perverted by the enemy? This is why the cities of the fertile plain were destroyed and covered up?

 

[pat34lee]

In my experience over the last 7-8 years, people into the "sacred name" cult/group will not hear what the sriptures do not say. They are only interested in their assumptions. That is one main reason I quit attending the shul that was so closeby my house in Ga. It had begun to creep even into the Rabbi's conversations......very causal conversations, at that!
Even the little ones were going that route: "in ____'s name I....," "by _____'s name we'll....," I actually began to feel like I was back in a WoF group! I was outta there in a flash, after they wouldn't hear me. (They're probably getting "slain in the spirit" every Fri night by now...sad.)

Any doctrine can be taken to the extreme. That does not mean that the basic principle underlying it is wrong. Snake handlers and Benny Hinn do not invalidate Mark 16:18, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

 

[yedida]

Any doctrine can be taken to the extreme. That does not mean that the basic principle underlying it is wrong. Snake handlers and Benny Hinn do not invalidate Mark 16:18, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Except the deadly serpents do do them harm, and the deadly thing drunk does make them sick (until they build up an immunity to it) and the sick remain sick and don't recover for the most part - there's always the one of two exceptions, but they're rare.

 

[Avodat]

The oldest Greek manuscripts of the NT are no older than 200 AD. The first article from 2 posts back states that the name was most likely expunged from the texts from 70-130 AD.

Do you think that the original NT books were written in Greek? Manuscripts from Qumran prove that Hebrew was still written commonly, both in religious and everyday texts, and that the name YHWH was still being used. Matthew was known to be written first in Hebrew, and they would not have changed the name written in Hebrew.
YHWH in the New Covenant

That is not correct - academics certainly do not agree on that, not by a long, long way! I happen to agree that Matthew was written in Hebrew but I, and others, are in a minority!

 

[SplendidTree]

Mod Hat On

Thread Closed For Staff Review


Mod Hat Off​

 

[Princess Of Yahweh]

MOD HAT ON

Several posts have been deleted as a clean up of the thread. Please remember Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[pat34lee]

That is not correct - academics certainly do not agree on that, not by a long, long way! I happen to agree that Matthew was written in Hebrew but I, and others, are in a minority!

That is because many academics are still stuck in the pre-DSS (dead sea scrolls) era, when it was believed that Hebrew was no longer used at the time, leaving only Aramaic and Greek.

Semitic Origins of the New Testament #1
Semitic Origins of the New Testament #2

 

[Avodat]

That is because many academics are still stuck in the pre-DSS (dead sea scrolls) era, when it was believed that Hebrew was no longer used at the time, leaving only Aramaic and Greek.

Semitic Origins of the New Testament
Semitic Origins of the New Testament

That's as may be - but your statement doesn't really reflect majority academic thinking in general on this issue

 

[mishkan]

My purpose is to get you guys thinking. I didn't post for a debate.

Sorry this took so long. I was just poking around, and came across this nugget.

I notice you're young. I'll give you leeway for that.

But I'd like you to think about what you have said. There are people here who have been Messianic for longer than you've been alive (me, for instance). Who are you to imply that we don't "think"? If you have come across an idea that intrigues you, then by all means, post a summary of the view and a couple of links to sources that expand on the thought. If we are interested, then we will investigate further... and probably in a great deal more detail than you have.

But you are in serious error if you think we all sit around in a vacuum, pondering our navels, or that the members here don't know how to think outside the box.

Nobody says you have to engage in debate. But if you expect people to take you seriously, you have to provide at least a name or a title, to let us know you have done a little bit of homework. If you aren't willing to study your own idea, why should we take it seriously?

 

[yedida]

Sorry this took so long. I was just poking around, and came across this nugget.

I notice you're young. I'll give you leeway for that.

But I'd like you to think about what you have said. There are people here who have been Messianic for longer than you've been alive (me, for instance). Who are you to imply that we don't "think"? If you have come across an idea that intrigues you, then by all means, post a summary of the view and a couple of links to sources that expand on the thought. If we are interested, then we will investigate further... and probably in a great deal more detail than you have.

But you are in serious error if you think we all sit around in a vacuum, podering our navels, or that the members here don't know how to think outside the box.

Nobody says you have to engage in debate. But if you expect people to take you seriously, you have to provide at least a name or a title, to let us know you have done a little bit of homework. If you aren't willing to study your own idea, why should we take it seriously?

I think he may have fallen out of his high chair. It can be disastrous to meander into this forum of 'non-thinkers' without all your ducks in order, lol.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

I believe what twnsrkr is getting at might be this...

If we are told to not have the names of other gods on our lips, what do we do when we learn that other cultures had the same names for their deities as the names we use for our Almighty Creator? Adonai, El, El Elyon, etc., for example. Do we keep using these names? How do we discern how these names came to be used in the first place? It takes great knowledge of linguistics, geography, archaeology, and history to sift through, and even then, I'm sure there will be puzzle pieces missing.

I did a rather extensive study on the history of Ugarit and the Ugaritic language, within the last year or so, and it made me uncomfortable for the same reason. This is the region Abraham came out of before making his way to Canaan. Twnsrkr, I think I understand where your train of thought was going. Here are some of the links I saved from this study on Ugarit.

Ugarit and the Bible

h2g2 - El in the Ugaritic Texts

Oriental Institute | UGARIT RITUAL TEXTS

 

[yedida]

I believe what twnsrkr is getting at might be this...

If we are told to not have the names of other gods on our lips, what do we do when we learn that other cultures had the same names for their deities as the names we use for our Almighty Creator? Adonai, El, El Elyon, etc., for example. Do we keep using these names? How do we discern how these names came to be used in the first place? It takes great knowledge of linguistics, geography, archaeology, and history to sift through, and even then, I'm sure there will be puzzle pieces missing.

I did a rather extensive study on the history of Ugarit and the Ugaritic language, within the last year or so, and it made me uncomfortable for the same reason. This is the region Abraham came out of before making his way to Canaan. Twnsrkr, I think I understand where your train of thought was going. Here are some of the links I saved from this study on Ugarit.

Ugarit and the Bible

h2g2 - El in the Ugaritic Texts

Oriental Institute | UGARIT RITUAL TEXTS

At this point we can't do anything better than what the DDS reveals. If it states that particular names in the Hebrew (Scrolls) are correct, we can do no better than to trust that (or change, as necessary).
To attempt a change where there is a match seems mighty presumptuous to me.....

 

[sevengreenbeans]

At this point we can't do anything better than what the DDS reveals. If it states that particular names in the Hebrew (Scrolls) are correct, we can do no better than to trust that (or change, as necessary).
To attempt a change where there is a match seems mighty presumptuous to me.....

The Semitic languages are so close to one another, sorting out who's who and what's what (for archaeologists) must be daunting at times.

 

[mishkan]

If we are told to not have the names of other gods on our lips, what do we do when we learn that other cultures had the same names for their deities as the names we use for our Almighty Creator? Adonai, El, El Elyon, etc., for example. Do we keep using these names? How do we discern how these names came to be used in the first place? It takes great knowledge of linguistics, geography, archaeology, and history to sift through, and even then, I'm sure there will be puzzle pieces missing.

I did a rather extensive study on the history of Ugarit and the Ugaritic language, within the last year or so, and it made me uncomfortable for the same reason. This is the region Abraham came out of before making his way to Canaan.

I understand the discomfort. I went through the same thing many years ago. It was a result of that encounter that I concluded we must not focus on the verbal pronunciation of phonemes, but rather emphasize the allegiance and teachings represented.

• Aharon got away with saying of the Golden Calf, "These are your gods, that brought you out of Egypt". Same root--"el/eloah".

• The Hebrews clearly referred to the Lord as "Ba'al", for he spoke of a time when the relationship would be seen more as husband/wife than master/slave (Hoseah 2:16).

• References in the Psalms describe Hashem as "riding on the clouds", or "riding upon the heavens" (Tehillim/Psalm 68). This is right out of Cana'anite Ba'al imagery.

Calling him "Ba'al" was fine, as that was the common word for "Lord". Calling him "Ishi", is good, too, as it means "Husband". Likewise, we see David, with his deep relationship with Adonai, using Cana'anite religious poetry to describe the might of the Hebrew deity.

My point is that the Hebrews did not imagine that pronouncing the magic name or title was the key to the commandment against misusing the "Name" of the Infinite Spirit Being. Rather, the emphasis was to call upon the real Person, or to act according to the instructions of the One Who Commands.

A concise summary might be, "Obedience to the Torah is equivalent to giving due weight to his 'Name'. Disobedience is the same as taking his 'Name' in vain."

The modern Orthodox Jewish concern for not speaking the tetragrammaton is probably a well-intentioned, but erroneous, caricature. It is similar to demanding that all Israel wash their hands before eating, despite the fact that there is no such injunction found in the Torah.

The over-emphasis on the pronunciation of the Sacred Name found in the Sacred Name/Hebrew Roots communities comes from the fact that they miss this historical background. In doing so, they come to treat the tetragrammaton and its invented pronunciations as magic words used to invoke the "Power of the Deity" (a little study into the occult helps us to see this connection).

But in the end... There is no magic. There is only relationship. Honor Hashem, and keep his commandments. That is the path to true blessing.

(BTW, thanks for the links to the articles on Ugaritic usage. That's exactly the kind of material that helped lead me to my own present understanding. The "Archeology" section was long my favorite part of a study Bible.)

 

[sevengreenbeans]

I understand the discomfort. I went through the same thing many years ago. It was a result of that encounter that I concluded we must not focus on the verbal pronunciation of phonemes, but rather emphasize the allegiance and teachings represented.

• Aharon got away with saying of the Golden Calf, "These are your gods, that brought you out of Egypt". Same root--"el/eloah".

• The Hebrews clearly referred to the Lord as "Ba'al", for he spoke of a time when the relationship would be seen more as husband/wife than master/slave (Hoseah 2:16).

• References in the Psalms describe Hashem as "riding on the clouds", or "riding upon the heavens" (Tehillim/Psalm 68). This is right out of Cana'anite Ba'al imagery.

Calling him "Ba'al" was fine, as that was the common word for "Lord". Calling him "Ishi", is good, too, as it means "Husband". Likewise, we see David, with his deep relationship with Adonai, using Cana'anite religious poetry to describe the might of the Hebrew deity.

My point is that the Hebrews did not imagine that pronouncing the magic name or title was the key to the commandment against misusing the "Name" of the Infinite Spirit Being. Rather, the emphasis was to call upon the real Person, or to act according to the instructions of the One Who Commands.

A concise summary might be, "Obedience to the Torah is equivalent to giving due weight to his 'Name'. Disobedience is the same as taking his 'Name' in vain."

The modern Orthodox Jewish concern for not speaking the tetragrammaton is probably a well-intentioned, but erroneous, caricature. It is similar to demanding that all Israel wash their hands before eating, despite the fact that there is no such injunction found in the Torah.

The over-emphasis on the pronunciation of the Sacred Name found in the Sacred Name/Hebrew Roots communities comes from the fact that they miss this historical background. In doing so, they come to treat the tetragrammaton and its invented pronunciations as magic words used to invoke the "Power of the Deity" (a little study into the occult helps us to see this connection).

But in the end... There is no magic. There is only relationship. Honor Hashem, and keep his commandments. That is the path to true blessing.

(BTW, thanks for the links to the articles on Ugaritic usage. That's exactly the kind of material that helped lead me to my own present understanding. The "Archeology" section was long my favorite part of a study Bible.)

Yes, I had to come to a similar conclusion.


I hope these last few posts proved helpful for twnsrkr's journey, as well. We all have a purpose, and I don't think he intended any maliciousness. He was never disrespectful. Also, he is right as to the usage of the term in question being used by others for their deities. And it is good to look into things for ourselves. If we never had, we wouldn't be here on this forum. Even if we disagree, we can agree to be kind.


You're welcome for the links.

 

[pat34lee]

The modern Orthodox Jewish concern for not speaking the tetragrammaton is probably a well-intentioned, but erroneous, caricature. It is similar to demanding that all Israel wash their hands before eating, despite the fact that there is no such injunction found in the Torah.

Actually, it's closer to them using the verse about do not incline after the majority (Ex 23:2) to mean "incline after the majority"; the opposite of what the word says, not just an addition to, or fence around the word.

The over-emphasis on the pronunciation of the Sacred Name found in the Sacred Name/Hebrew Roots communities comes from the fact that they miss this historical background. In doing so, they come to treat the tetragrammaton and its invented pronunciations as magic words used to invoke the "Power of the Deity" (a little study into the occult helps us to see this connection).

It sounds like you're talking about kabbalah, not sacred namers. The only reason most SNs use the name, speaking for myself also, is because he commands it and deserves at least the dignity we give our pets: his own name.

But in the end... There is no magic. There is only relationship. Honor Hashem, and keep his commandments. That is the path to true blessing.

Don't you mean the parts of his commandments that we decide to keep? If you cut one out, why not another, or several?

"He knows my heart is for him, so I can work on Saturday, eat ham and shrimp and keep Sunday as 'his' day. After all, the law can't save you. You're just being a legalist by believing you have to do what the OT says. Keeping the law is just being self-righteous."

These are the same arguments used against speaking his name. All are self-serving excuses for not doing what he commanded so we can keep our traditions.

 

[mishkan]

Actually, it's closer to them using the verse about do not incline after the majority (Ex 23:2) to mean "incline after the majority"; the opposite of what the word says, not just an addition to, or fence around the word.

I think you are forcing the meaning of that verse a bit. The point is not to succumb to mob mentality, allowing peer pressure to lead us into doing evil. This is the same idea as Tehillim/Psalm 1:1. Actually, the context of the first few verses of Shemot 23 seems to relate to trial procedures and false testimony.

You may want to revisit that passage if you're going to use it as an accusation like that.

It sounds like you're talking about kabbalah, not sacred namers.

This sounds suspiciously like the refrain of some, that, "If it is Jewish, and it sounds foreign to me, then I will arrogantly judge it to be negative."

Be that as it may, any time one emphasizes the pronunciation of a special word or phrase over the Person being addressed, s/he has resorted to a "magic" mentality. This occurs frequently in certain circles. A good illustration was the so-called "Prayer of Jabez" that was so popular about ten years ago. The repeated incantation of that short prayer was claimed to have the power to effect change in one's life. That's called "magic".

The only reason most SNs use the name, speaking for myself also, is because he commands it and deserves at least the dignity we give our pets: his own name.

You don't seem to have understood what was said in my previous post, then. I believe you misunderstand the idea of "calling upon the Name of the Lord". It was never about the pronunciation of "the magic word". It was always about living a righteous life--kiddush Hashem, rather than chillul Hashem.

I would also warn that, in ancient and aboriginal religion, to "name" a deity was perceived as giving one power over that god. The use of the name was thus perceived as giving one a direct link to power. While you may think the naming of your pet is a high honor to the pet, it is really a way of demonstrating your dominance over the animal. I believe this idea is at the heart of the Sacred Name practices, as well.

Don't you mean the parts of his commandments that we decide to keep? If you cut one out, why not another, or several?

Do you visit a mikveh every month? Do you sacrifice a peace offering? Do you leave the gleanings of your field? In other words, I'd love for you to tell me you keep every commandment in its every detail.

I strongly suspect you do the exact same thing of which you accuse others. In the absence of the Temple, and while living in diaspora, we all must of necessity make certain decisions regarding what is observable and what is not. It is one thing to engage the arguments of the sages, and choose to differ on specific details for specific reasons. It is another to paint all the sages of Israel as evil and/or foolish, and not worthy of respect. And even worse to paint all practicing Messianics with the broad brush of hypocrisy for not towing your pet theological argument.

"He knows my heart is for him, so I can work on Saturday, eat ham and shrimp and keep Sunday as 'his' day. After all, the law can't save you. You're just being a legalist by believing you have to do what the OT says. Keeping the law is just being self-righteous."

Perhaps you know people like that. One would think that, by now, you know how foolish that sounds to most of the participants here. Non-SN people are just as sincere and devoted in their practice as SN-ers. And I believe they have a better understanding of the Biblical texts.

These are the same arguments used against speaking his name.

As a matter of fact, they are not. You clearly skipped over my previous post, where I described the fact that many of the names and titles applied to the God of Israel are direct loan words from Cana'anite religion. It is not the word that matters, but the Person.

All are self-serving excuses for not doing what he commanded so we can keep our traditions.

Do you realize how insulting and mean-spirited this sounds? Are you really so arrogant as to think that all the followers of Yeshua in the Messianic Movement are merely "self-serving tradition-followers", while you alone have the Truth of God Almighty? What makes you think you have any better insight than anyone else?

 

[pat34lee]

I had started on separate replies and lost about 30 minutes work when the power blinked here, so I'll keep brief this time.

I think you are forcing the meaning of that verse a bit. The point is not to succumb to mob mentality, allowing peer pressure to lead us into doing evil. This is the same idea as Tehillim/Psalm 1:1. Actually, the context of the first few verses of Shemot 23 seems to relate to trial procedures and false testimony.

You may want to revisit that passage if you're going to use it as an accusation like that.

Look up Rambam and majority rules. He twisted this scripture to mean that a majority of rabbis can overrule any prophet or YHWH himself.

This sounds suspiciously like the refrain of some, that, "If it is Jewish, and it sounds foreign to me, then I will arrogantly judge it to be negative."

Be that as it may, any time one emphasizes the pronunciation of a special word or phrase over the Person being addressed, s/he has resorted to a "magic" mentality. This occurs frequently in certain circles. A good illustration was the so-called "Prayer of Jabez" that was so popular about ten years ago. The repeated incantation of that short prayer was claimed to have the power to effect change in one's life. That's called "magic".

http://www.kabbalah.com/wisdom/72Names

You don't seem to have understood what was said in my previous post, then. I believe you misunderstand the idea of "calling upon the Name of the Lord". It was never about the pronunciation of "the magic word". It was always about living a righteous life--kiddush Hashem, rather than chillul Hashem.

I agree that it's not about pronunciation, but these, including where Acts and Romans quote Joel, were about prayer.

I would also warn that, in ancient and aboriginal religion, to "name" a deity was perceived as giving one power over that god. The use of the name was thus perceived as giving one a direct link to power. While you may think the naming of your pet is a high honor to the pet, it is really a way of demonstrating your dominance over the animal. I believe this idea is at the heart of the Sacred Name practices, as well.

Then what does it mean to diminish a name given to you?

Do you visit a mikveh every month? Do you sacrifice a peace offering? Do you leave the gleanings of your field? In other words, I'd love for you to tell me you keep every commandment in its every detail.

I strongly suspect you do the exact same thing of which you accuse others. In the absence of the Temple, and while living in diaspora, we all must of necessity make certain decisions regarding what is observable and what is not. It is one thing to engage the arguments of the sages, and choose to differ on specific details for specific reasons. It is another to paint all the sages of Israel as evil and/or foolish, and not worthy of respect. And even worse to paint all practicing Messianics with the broad brush of hypocrisy for not towing your pet theological argument.

Not hypocrisy, but a blind spot as I see it. I have them, which is why I put out what I believe, hoping that if someone can correct it USING SCRIPTURE, that I can learn and adjust my thinking. It took many years to form the patchwork theology I have, and I am constantly revising it in small ways. I call it patchwork because much of it crosses borders if using standard theological groupings.

Perhaps you know people like that. One would think that, by now, you know how foolish that sounds to most of the participants here. Non-SN people are just as sincere and devoted in their practice as SN-ers. And I believe they have a better understanding of the Biblical texts.

Because they believe as you do. I believe that many SNs have the better understanding. And it isn't about sincerity as we can be sincerely wrong.

As a matter of fact, they are not. You clearly skipped over my previous post, where I described the fact that many of the names and titles applied to the God of Israel are direct loan words from Cana'anite religion. It is not the word that matters, but the Person.

You don't think that it could be that the Canaanites borrowed the words from even earlier followers of YHWH? Moses may be the earliest Hebrew writer of the scriptures (Actually, I heard that Job is the oldest book), but people knew YHWH all the way back to the beginning.

Do you realize how insulting and mean-spirited this sounds? Are you really so arrogant as to think that all the followers of Yeshua in the Messianic Movement are merely "self-serving tradition-followers", while you alone have the Truth of God Almighty? What makes you think you have any better insight than anyone else?

Sometimes it takes a slight shock to get us to actually think why we do things, rather than to react or justify what we do. Traditions are insidious, even when we know they are just traditions. It is worse if we accept that tradition as fact.

How many people actually think about where the prohibition came from, why, and should it have been done? We know the tradition came from Babylon mystery religions, and that YHWH explicitly said not to learn the ways that other people worshiped. That alone should be enough for alarm bells. The fact that the name is written in every OT book except Esther should say more. I believe that it was also originally in every NT book before they were translated.