Liberal Christianity 2

[Pete]

Yeah, I like that. I think that pretty much summs it up. Ever wonder why specifically the title "LORD" is used there? As opposed to God, or LORD God, or Lord.

Firstly the reason why the subject was started was to talk about liberal Christianity and I do not believe it is up to you to say what should or should not be on this forum.

Also your making a play on the word "Lord" as if Micah could of possibly made this as reference to Jesus. I do not think you will find many Jews that would support that assertion. It is just a Fundy play on words, as far as I am concerned and an attempt to make out of it more than what exists. Remember Jesus was a Jew and also used the word "Lord" in reference to God according to the book.

As for the condescending comments and dig at our fellowship Well all I can say is we do not have to all go to fundy churches for that and I am personally very grateful for that.

A few words about how only the fundy group is going to be saved. A smattering of neologisms from someone who claims they are speaking another language, but no can say what language. An emphasis on sin and how awful we all are in God's eyes. A talk about God's love and his need to crucify his only son as the only way in his royal stubbornness he can forgive anyone. A whip up into a frenzy with a few rousing songs and everyone leaves feeling that they are sure grateful that God even bothers with them.

Yes, I will sure miss that..

I am sorry, I know that is sarcasm..

The point is Cool your not the only one who can do condescending and rubbish another beliefs. Maybe its best to not use this approach..

Edited June 29, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Firstly the reason why the subject was started was to talk about liberal Christianity and I do not believe it is up to you to say what should or should not be on this forum.

Also your making a play on the word "Lord" as if Micah could of possibly made this as reference to Jesus. I do not think you will find many Jews that would support that assertion. It is just a Fundy play on words, as far as I am concerned and an attempt to make out of it more than what exists. Remember Jesus was a Jew and also used the word "Lord" in reference to God according to the book.

As for the condescending comments and dig at our fellowship Well all I can say is we do not have to all go to fundy churches for that and I am personally very grateful for that.

A few words about how only the fundy group is going to be saved. A smattering of neologisms from someone who claims they are speaking another language, but no can say what language. An emphasis on sin and how awful we all are in God's eyes. A talk about God's love and his need to crucify his only son as the only way in his royal stubbornness he can forgive anyone. A whip up into a frenzy with a few rousing songs and everyone leaves feeling that they are sure grateful that God even bothers with them.

Yes, I will sure miss that..

I am sorry, I know that is sarcasm..

The point is Cool your not the only one who can do condescending and rubbish another beliefs. Maybe its best to not use this approach..

Thanks for all the love Pete, but the underlying Hebrew word for LORD is YHWH. That is not a word play, that is not an interpretation, that is straight from the text.

It is not condescending to know something and share it.

[Pete]

Thanks for all the love Pete, but the underlying Hebrew word for LORD is YHWH. That is not a word play, that is not an interpretation, that is straight from the text.

It is not condescending to know something and share it.

And you meant what by the line -- "Yeah, I like that. I think that pretty much summs it up. Ever wonder why specifically the title "LORD" is used there? As opposed to God, or LORD God, or Lord."

As for the comment on love. Have you never been cross with someone you love?

Edited June 29, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

And you meant what by the line -- "Yeah, I like that. I think that pretty much summs it up. Ever wonder why specifically the title "LORD" is used there? As opposed to God, or LORD God, or Lord."

As for the comment on love. Have you never been cross with someone you love?

What I meant was that I agree with Hex and I felt like that line in Micah 6:8 was a good summary as to what our motivation and mode of operations should be.

Regarding the comment on "LORD" I was merely sharing a textual detail that I found interesting.

[Bro. Hex]

Ever wonder why specifically the title "LORD" is used there?

As opposed to God, or LORD God, or Lord.

Cool, now you have really got me confused.

If the original text used the Tetragrammaton,

Then the original text DID use the name of God

(not Lord)...didn't it???

Edited June 29, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Coolhand]

Cool, now you have really got me confused.

If the original text used the Tetragrammaton,

Then the original text DID use the name of God

(not Lord)...didn't it???

Yes, exactly, not Lord but YHWH.

[RevRainbow]

According to my old Scofield bible, the upper case LORD is substituted for YHWH, while the lower case Lord, is a respected title for master, or ones superior.

[Coolhand]

According to my old Scofield bible, the upper case LORD is substituted for YHWH, while the lower case Lord, is a respected title for master, or ones superior.

Yeah, very nice.

[Pete]

Yes, exactly, not Lord but YHWH.

and the significance of this was?

[Coolhand]

and the significance of this was?

The signifcance is that YHWH or Jehovah was being quoted in Micah 6:8.

[Dan56]

So, what we've established is that the basic liberal view is apathetic towards most of the bible. Most liberal Christians share a disdain for the mean & nasty God of the old testament, but they semi-embrace the more loving God presented in the new testament. Liberals also don't believe the bible is literally true, but appreciate selected sayings that appeal to them. They seem to have a difficult time reconciling the OT God for killing thousands of people, with the more loving God represented by Christ in the gospels.

Its understandable that a person would prefer to believe and accept a God who loves us and ask us to love one another, instead of a God who condemns evil and sin? This seems to be the basic obstacle that separates liberal from fundamental Christians. Liberals are turned-off by a God who's capable of turning Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, killing everyone in Jericho, and destroying evil by flooding the world, while fundamentalist understand what provokes God's anger.

The question was posed;"Why didn't God hear the prayers from the victims of the Holocaust?" But if God eliminated the evil Nazi regime by destroying Germany, wouldn't the liberal response be to condemn God for doing so? If not, why would liberal Christians reject God for destroying evil in Noah's time while simultaneously expressing outraged that God did not intervene against the evil Nazis for killing 6 million Jews? It baffles me when Christians characterize God's judgment as being too harsh when his wrath was provoked against wickedness in the past, but would fully endorse God ending evil today?

[Pete]

So, what we've established is that the basic liberal view is apathetic towards most of the bible. Most liberal Christians share a disdain for the mean & nasty God of the old testament, but they semi-embrace the more loving God presented in the new testament. Liberals also don't believe the bible is literally true, but appreciate selected sayings that appeal to them. They seem to have a difficult time reconciling the OT God for killing thousands of people, with the more loving God represented by Christ in the gospels.

Nice try Dan. Firstly I would not say that all liberals are apathetic about the bible, they just do not but the same emphasis upon it as fundamentalists do and do not interprete it in the same way. We see contradictions and some evil things said about God which when contrasted with other saying about God do not make sense. We are very often confused as to why fundamentalists keep supporting the idea of an inerrant bible when there are such glaring discrepancies that we can see. To be apathetic one needs to believe something needs acting upon but then not wish to do anything about it. That is not true of liberals as we just do not accept the fundamentalist position and therefore do not see the need to act on fundamentalism.

Its understandable that a person would prefer to believe and accept a God who loves us and ask us to love one another, instead of a God who condemns evil and sin? This seems to be the basic obstacle that separates liberal from fundamental Christians. Liberals are turned-off by a God who's capable of turning Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, killing everyone in Jericho, and destroying evil by flooding the world, while fundamentalist understand what provokes God's anger.

God's so called anger is irrational to many liberals, like the destruction of cities just because they messed up a census in the time of David or the hardening of the Pharaoh's heart just so he can heap more persecution upon the Egyptian people.Yes, most liberal are turned of by things like that.

The question was posed;"Why didn't God hear the prayers from the victims of the Holocaust?" But if God eliminated the evil Nazi regime by destroying Germany, wouldn't the liberal response be to condemn God for doing so? If not, why would liberal Christians reject God for destroying evil in Noah's time while simultaneously expressing outraged that God did not intervene against the evil Nazis for killing 6 million Jews? It baffles me when Christians characterize God's judgment as being too harsh when his wrath was provoked against wickedness in the past, but would fully endorse God ending evil today?

Well, no because God is said to be all powerful and therefore did not need to kill anyone. Also it is a fact that most German people did not know this was going on and found it hard to believe after they found out and therefore why would their be a need to persecute all German people for what happened.

The position of fundamentalism just does not appear rational in most liberal peoples eyes. That is the issue and it is not one of apathy.

[Coolhand]

Most liberal Christians share a disdain for the mean & nasty God of the old testament, but they semi-embrace the more loving God presented in the new testament.

Interesting.......considering this mean nasty God is YHWH, who is the one being quoted in Micah 6:8 which seems to be pretty popular at the moment.

The question was posed;"Why didn't God hear the prayers from the victims of the Holocaust?" But if God eliminated the evil Nazi regime by destroying Germany, wouldn't the liberal response be to condemn God for doing so? If not, why would liberal Christians reject God for destroying evil in Noah's time while simultaneously expressing outraged that God did not intervene against the evil Nazis for killing 6 million Jews? It baffles me when Christians characterize God's judgment as being too harsh when his wrath was provoked against wickedness in the past, but would fully endorse God ending evil today?

Hmmmmm.....I hadn't thought of that. It seems that God gets the blame both ways......

[Fawzo]

Wikipedia on the origins of Yaweh.

Development of Yahweh worship

Historians of the ancient near east offer viewpoints that describe worship of Yahweh as originating in pre-Israelite peoples of the Levant and evolving gradually from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism rather than the traditional view that worship of Yahweh was monotheistic from its beginning with the revelation to Moses at the burning bush.^[112] Theophoric names, names of local gods similar to Yahweh, and archaeological evidence are used along with the Biblical source texts to build theories regarding pre-Israel origins of Yahweh worship, the relationship of Yahweh with local gods, and the manner in which polytheistic worship of Yahweh worship evolved into Jewish monotheism.^[113]

One hypothesis presented in 2008 on the PBS science show Nova suggests that rebelling Canaanites, in an effort to create a clean national myth, perused the sagas of a minor group of Canaanite slave refugees from Egypt, acquiring the deity Yahweh from the Shasu people of Midian. The documentary points out that the Bible itself mentions that Moses first encountered Yahweh as a burning bush in Midian.^[114] An Egyptian inscription also makes reference to these people using the name Yahua/Yahweh.

The Exodus narrative is viewed, by Karel van der Toorn, as a "charter myth" offered by King Jeroboam for political purposes and later developed into the fabric of religious history by the Yahwist, Elohist, and Deuteronomistic sources.^[115] The Kenite hypothesis describes Yahweh worship as originating among the Kenite peoples of northern Midian/southern Edom in the 13th and 14th centuries BCE and being shared with the Hebrews through contacts with their neighbors.^[116] Van der Toorn suggests that Yahweh was the family deity of King Saul who promoted Yahweh worship as the official Israelite state religion after his rise to power. The transition from the traditional religions practiced at the family level to the state religion of Yahwism is described as a gradual process with the authorities active on two fronts: they endowed the state religion with temples, a clergy, a national charter myth, and they sought to curb the traditional religions opposed to Yahweh worship by integration of some and suppression of other aspects of the traditional religions practiced at the local and family levels.^[117]

Both the archaeological evidence and the Biblical texts document tensions between groups comfortable with the worship of Yahweh along side of local deities such as Asherah and Baal and those insistent on worship of Yahweh alone during the monarchal period.^[118] The Deuteronomistic source gives evidence of a strong monotheistic party during the reign of king Josiah during the late 7th century BCE, but the strength and prevalence of earlier monotheistic worship of Yahweh is widely debated based on interpretations of how much of the Deuteronomistic history is accurately based on earlier sources, and how much has been re-worked by Deuteronomistic redactors to bolster their theological views.^[119] The archaeological record documents widespread polytheism in and around Israel during the period of the monarchy.^[120]

For example, a tenth century (BCE) cult stand from Taanach (a town in Northern Israel, near Megiddo) has unambiguous polytheistic implications. The stand has four levels, or registers. On the bottom register, or level four, there is a female figure with hands resting upon the heads of lions standing on either side. The female figure can be interpreted as a goddess, either Asherah, Astarte, or Anat. The third register has two winged sphinx type figures with a vacant space between them. The second level contains a sacred tree flanked on both sides by ibexes standing on their hind legs. The top register shows a quadruped (either a bovine or a horse) with a sun disk above it. It is unclear whether Taanach was under Israelite or Canaanite control when the stand was produced, and interpretations vary.^[121] If the quadruped on the top level is taken as a bovine, it can be identified as either Yahweh or Baal. The solar disk above the quadruped is representative of either the sun god or the sky.^[122] Most authors agree that the sacred tree on the second register should be identified as an asherah, though the stylized tree is often viewed as a cult object rather than an image of a goddess.^[123] The winged sphinx type figures on the second level have been interpreted as cherubim with the space in between them representing the invisible Yahweh as "enthroned upon the cherubim" although the empty space has also been interpreted as allowing observers to view a fire or figurine inside the square stand.^[124] Though a variety of interpretations are possible, Mark S. Smith concludes, "In short, assuming the correct dating of this stand to the tenth century, the stand attests to polytheism in this area."^[125]

Another example of polytheism in the southern Levant was the discovery of a combination of iconography and inscriptions at a religious center/lodging place for travelers at Kuntillet 'Ajrud, in the northern Sinai desert that dates to the 8th century BCE.^[126] Among various other artifacts was a large storage jar that has attracted much attention. The side of the jar contains iconography showing three anthropomorphic figures and an inscription that refers to "Yahweh … and his asherah". The inscription lead to some early identifications of two standing figures in the foreground as representing Yahweh and his consort Asherah, but later work identified them as Bes figures.^[127] A number of scholars, including William G. Dever,^[128] and Judith Hadley^[129] continue to interpret the inscription in a way that it refers to Asherah as an Israelite goddess and consort of Yahweh. William Dever authored a book, "Did God Have a Wife?" that references archaeological evidence pointing to many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel supporting his hypothesis that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh in Israelite folk religion of the monarchal period. One reviewer says Dever's "case is full of holes and the book is full of misinformation."^[130] In contrast to interpretations of "asherah" as a goddess in the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, a number of other authors, including Mark S. Smith,^[131] John Day,^[132] and Andre Lemaire,^[133] view the asherah in these inscriptions as a cult object, stylized tree, or location of worship through which Yahweh's blessing was imparted rather than a goddess who could function as a consort.^[134] "Neither the iconography nor the texts force us to interpret the relationship between 'Yahweh ... and his asherah' in Iron Age IIB in the sense of a (sexually-determined) relationship of two forces that are paired and thus compel us to assume that asherah has the status as a partner. 'Yahweh's asherah' does not have equal rank with Yahweh but is rather a mediating entity that brings his blessing and is conceived in the mind in the shape of a stylized tree that was thus subordinate to Yahweh."^[135]

Archaeologists and historical scholars use a variety of ways to organize and interpret the available iconographic and textual information. William G. Dever contrasts "official religion/state religion/book religion" of the elite with "folk religion" of the masses.^[136] Rainer Albertz contrasts "official religion" with "family religion", "personal piety", and "internal religious pluralism".^[137] Jacques Berlinerblau analyzes the evidence in terms of "official religion" and "popular religion" in ancient Israel.^[138] In a book described by William G. Dever as a "landmark study",^[139] Patrick D. Miller has broadly grouped the worship of Yahweh in ancient Israel into three broad categories: orthodox, heterodox, and syncretistic (Miller acknowledges that one man's orthodoxy is another man's heterodoxy and that orthodoxy was not a fixed and unchanging reality in the religion of ancient Israel).

Yahweh by historians

In contrast to the tradition of Mosaic authorship, the documentary hypothesis employs source criticism to interpret different character attributes as originating in four distinct source documents of the Torah.^[163] For example, anthropomorphic descriptions, visits from Yahweh and use of the personal name prior to Exodus 3 are attributed to the Jahwist source.^[84] Use of the generic title, Elohim, and descriptions of Yahweh of a more impersonal nature (for example, speaking through dreams and angels rather than personal appearances) are attributed to the Elohist source.^[164] Descriptions of Yahweh as particularly concerned with whether Judah's kings were good or bad and with centralized temple worship are attributed to the Deuteronomist source.^[165] Passages that portray Yahweh as acting through the Aaronid priesthood and temple-based sacrificial system are described as originating with the Priestly source.^[166]

Historians of the ancient near east describe worship of Yahweh as originating in pre-Israelite peoples of the Levant rather than in a divine revelation to Moses.^[167] Theophoric names, names of local gods similar to Yahweh, and archaeological evidence are used along with the Biblical source texts to describe pre-Israel origins of Yahweh worship, the relationship of Yahweh with local gods, and the manner in which Yahweh worship evolved into Jewish monotheism. In contrast, scholars who employ methods allowing for supernaturalism and divine inspiration continue to interpret the Biblical portrayal of Yahweh in a manner consistent with faith-based views.^[168] Worship of Yahweh alone is a central idea of historical Judaism.^[169] Much of Christianity views Jesus as the human incarnation of Yahweh.^[170] The importance of the divine name and the character of the "one true God" revealed as Yahweh are often contrasted with the significantly different character of rival deities known by different names in the traditional polytheistic religions.^[171]

Edited June 30, 2010 by Fawzo

[Coolhand]

יהוה S3068, 3069, 3070, 3071, 3072, 3073, 3074 TWOT484a GK3378c. 6823 i.e. יַהְוֶה n.pr.dei Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel—(1. MT יְהֹוָה6518 (Qr אֲדֹנָי), or יֱהוִֹה305 (Qr אֱלֹהִים), in the combinations אדני יהוה & יהוה אדני (vid. אֲדֹנָי), and with prep. בַּיהֹוָה, לַיהֹוָה, מֵיהֹוָה (Qr בַּאדֹנָי, לַאדֹנָי, מֵאדֹנָי), do not give the original form. G and other Vrss follow the Qr. On the basis of Ex 20:7 Lv 24:11 יהוה was regarded as a nomen ineffabile (vid. Philo de Vita Mosis iii, 519, 529), called by the Jews הַשֵּׁם and by the Samaritans שׁימא. The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety (cf. Bö§ 88). The traditional Ἰαβέ of Theodoret and Epiphanius, the ־יָהוּ, יְהֹו־ of compound n.pr. and the contracted form יָהּ, all favour יַהְוֶה (cf. יַהֲלֹמ֑וּן ψ 74:6; תַּהֲרוּ Is 33:11), v. LagSym i. 14 BaudissinStudien i. 179 ff.; DrStud. Bib. i. 1 ff. For Jeve v. StaZAW 1881, 346 De ib. 1882, 173 f. & Gn. Excurs. ii. 2. on liter. of interpret. v. NesEg 67 Drl.c..—Many recent scholars explain יַהְוֶה as Hiph. of הוה ( = היה) the one bringing into being, life-giver (cf. הַוָּה Gn 3:20) Schr HSch; giver of existence, creator, Kue Tiele; he who brings to pass (so already Le Clerc), performer of his promises, Lag, NesEg 88 (but NesEg 91 inclines to Qal as RSBrit. & For. Ev. Rev. v. infr.); or from הוה he who causes to fall, rain or lightning RSOTJC ed. 1, 423; om. ed. 2, 245, cf. WeSkizzen iii. 175; ‘Fäller,’ destroying foes, StaG i. 429 (dubiously). But most take it as Qal of היה ( = היה); the one who is: i.e. the absolute and unchangeable one, Ri; the existing, ever-living, as self-consistent and unchnageable, Di; or the one ever coming into manifestation as the God of redemption, De Oehl; cf. also RSBrit. & For. Ev. Rev. 1876, he will be it, i.e. all that his servants look for (cf. Ewinfr.), he will approve himself (give evidence of being, assert his being Drl.c. 17).) theories of non-Heb. or non-Sem. origin. opposed (in their older forms) by BauRel i. 181 ff. (v. especially 230); DlPa 162 ff. claimed Bab. origin for יהו, agaisnt this KueNational religions, etc., Note iv (Eng. Trans. 329 ff.) JastrJBL xiii (1894), 103 f. cf. HptBAS i. 170 N; Dl Babel u. Bibel, 46 f., 73 f. makes same claim for יהוה, agst. this v. especially HirschZAW xxiii (1903), 355 ff. ZimKAT 3, 465 ff.; SpiegelbergZMG liii (1899), 633 ff. proposes (improb.) Egyptian etymol. for יהוה; further discussions see in KöEB Names, § 112 and n. 3. ‘Jehovah’ found in Jacob (? Johann.) Wessel († 1480), according to SchwallyThLZ, 1905, col. 612.

I. יהוה is not used by E in Gn, but is given Ex 3:12–15 as the name of the God who revealed Himself to Moses at Horeb, and is explained thus: אֶהְיֶה עִמָּ֑ךְ I shall be with thee (v 12), which is then implied in אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה I shall be the one who will be it v 14a (i.e. with thee v 12) and then compressed into אֶהְיֶה v 14b (i.e. with thee v 12), which then is given in the nominal form יהוה He who will be it v 15 (i.e. with thee v 12). Cf. EwBTh ii. 337, 338 RSl.c., Proph. 385 ff. Other interpretations are: I am he who I am, i.e. it is no concern of yours (Le Clerc LagPsalt. Hieron. 156); I am, (this is my name), inasmuch as I am (אֲשֶׁר = כִּי; AE JDMich WeJD Th xxi, 540 = Comp. Hex 72); Di al. I am who I am, he who is essentially unnameable, inexplicable.—E uses יהוה sparingly by the side of אלהים and האלהים in his subsequent narrative. The Ephraimitic wriers in Ju S K use it in similar proportions. P abstains from the use of יהוה until he gives an account of its revelation to Moses Ex 6:3; but subsequently uses it freely. He gives no explanation of its meaning. He represents that אֵל שַׁדַּי was the God of the patriarchs. J uses יהוה from the beginning of his narrative, possibly explaining it, Gn 21:33 be עולם אל, the evergreen tamarisk being a symbol of the ever-living God; cf. De Gn 21:33. Elsewhere יהוה is the common divine name in pre-exilic writers, but in post-exilic writers gradually falls into disuse, and is supplanted by אלהים and אדני. In Job it is used 31 times in prose parts, and 12:9 (a proverb); not elsewhere in the poem. Chr apart from his sources prefers אלהים and האלהים. Dn uses יהוה only in chap. 9 (7 times); Ec not at all. In the Elohistic group of ψ 42—83 it is used 39 times (see אלהים). It occurs as the name of Israel’s God MI 18. It is doubtful whether it was used by other branches of the Shemitic family, cf. COT Gn 2:4b DlPa 158 ff. DrStud. Bib. i. 7 ff.

II. 3. יהוה is used with אלהים with or without suffs., especially in D; a. with אֱלֹהֶיךָ in the Ten Words Ex 20:2–12 (5 times) = Dt 5:6–16; in the law of worship of JE, Ex 23:19; 34:24, 26; in D 234 times; Jos 1:9, 17; 9:9, 24 (D); elsewhere Gn 27:20 Ex 15:26 (JE), Ju 6:26; S & K 20 times 1 Ch 11:2; 22:11, 12 2 Ch 9:8(×2); 16:7 Is 7:11; 37:4(×2); 41:13; 43:3; 51:15; 55:5 Je 40:2 + (3 times) Ho 12:10; 13:4; 14:2 Am 9:15 ψ 81:11. b. with אֱלֹהֵיכֶם in D 46 times; D 28 times; H 15 times; P 15 times; elsewhere Ex 23:25 (E); 8:24; 10:8, 16, 17 (JE); Ju 6:10 1 S 12:12, 14 2 K 17:39; 23:21 1 Ch 22:18 + (10 times Chr) ψ 76:12 Je 13:16 + (5 times) Ez 20:5, 7, 19, 20 Jo 2:13 + (6 times) Zc 6:15. c. with אֱלֹהֵינוּ in D 23 times; in D 5 times; Ex 8:6 (JE) Ex 3:18; 5:3; 8:22, 23; 10:25, 26 (E) Ju 11:24 1 S 7:8 1 K 8:57, 59, 61, 65 2 K 18:22; 19:19 = Is 36:7; 37:20, 1 Ch 13:2 + (15 times Chr) Mi 4:5; 7:17 Is 26:13 Je 3:22 + (17 times) ψ 20:8; 90:17 (?; Baer אֲדנָי) 94:23; 99:5, 8, 9(×2); 105:7; 106:47; 113:5; 122:9; 123:2 Dn 9:10, 13, 14. d. c. אֱלֹהֵיהֶם Ex 10:7 (J) Ex 29:46(×2) Lv 26:44 (P) Ju 3:7; 8:34 1 S 12:9 1 K 9:9 2 K 17:7, 9, 14, 16, 19; 18:12 2 Ch 31:6; 33:17; 34:33 Ne 9:3(×2), 4 Je 3:21; 22:9; 30:9; 43:1(×2) 50:4 Ez 28:26; 34:30; 39:22, 28 Ho 1:7; 3:5; 7:10 Zp 2:7 Hag 1:12(×2) Zc 9:16; 10:6. e. with אֱלֹהָיו Nu 23:21 (E) Ex 32:11 (J) Lv 4:22 (P) Dt 17:19; 18:7 1 S 30:6 1 K 5:17; 11:4; 15:3, 4 2 K 5:11; 16:2 2 Ch 1:1 + 13 times Chr; Mi 5:3 Je 7:28 ψ 33:12; 144:15; 146:5 Jon 2:2. f. with אֱלֹהַי Nu 22:18 (JE) Dt 4:5; 18:16; 26:14 Jos 14:8, 9 2 S 24:24 1 K 3:7; 5:18, 19; 8:28; 17:20, 21 1 Ch 21:17; 22:7 2 Ch 2:3; 6:19 Ezr 7:28; 9:5 ψ 7:2, 4; 13:4; 18:29; 30:3, 13; 35:24; 40:6; 104:1; 109:26 Is 25:1 Je 31:18 Dn 9:4, 20 Jon 2:7 Hab 1:12 Zc 11:4; 13:9; 14:5. g. with אֱלֹהַיִךְ Is 60:9 Je 2:17, 19; 3:13 Mi 7:10 Zp 3:17. h. with אלהים, probably always due to later editors, or to a Qr which has crept into the text Gn 2:4b—3:23 (J, 20 times either אלהים inserted by RP as Di De; or יהוה inserted by J in an older source); Ex 9:30 (J, but not in G Sam.; Sam. אדני יהוה; possibly MT from earlier Qr, & Sam. from later Qr); 2 S 7:22, 25 (G אדני יהוה and 1 Ch 17:20–23 only יהוה); 1 Ch 17:16, 17 (but 2 S 7:18, 19 אדני יהוה) 1 Ch 28:20; 29:1 2 Ch 1:9; 6:41(×2), 42; 26:18 (but in the original ψ 132:8 stood יהוה (so ℌ), or else no divine name); ψ 72:18 (the late doxology) 84:12 (but it makes the line too long); Jon 4:6. For the combinations with other divine names see those names. 4. the phrase †אֲנִי יהוה is noteworthy:—a. after אמר either alone Ex 6:2, 29 (P) or before relative and other clauses: Gn 28:13 (J) 15:7 ® Ex 6:6 (P) with אלהיכם Ju 6:10 Ez 20:5. b. after ידע כי (α) Ex 7:17; 8:18; 10:2 (J); Ex 7:5; 14:4, 18 (P); 1 K 20:13, 28 Je 24:7 Ez 6:7 + 4:8 times Ez; (β) with אלהיכם Ex 6:7; 16:12 Dt 29:5 (P) Ez 20:20 Jo 4:17; (γ) with אלהיהם Ex 29:46 (P) Ez 28:26; 34:30; 39:22, 28; (δ) before relative and other clauses Is 45:3; 49:23, 26; 60:16 Ez 7:9; 17:24; 21:10; 22:22; 35:12; 36:36; (ε) with various forms of קדשׁ Ex 31:13 (P) Ez 20:12; 37:28; 39:7; (ζ) with דברתי Ez 5:13; 17:21, cf. יֵדְעוּ אשׁר אני י׳ Ez 20:26. c. after כִּי in various combinations Lv 11:44, 45 Nu 35:34 (P), Lv 20:7, 26; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:16; 24:22; 25:17; 26:1, 44 (all H); Ex 15:26 ® Is 41:13; 43:3; 61:8; Je 9:23 Ez 12:25; 21:4 Zc 10:6 Mal 3:6. d. emphatic Ex 6:8; 12:12 Lv 26:2, 45 Nu 3:13, 41, 45 (all P); Lv 18:5, 6, 21; 19:12, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32, 37; 21:12; 22:2, 3, 8, 30, 31, 33 (all H) Is 43:15; with אלהיהם Ex 29:46; with אלהיךָ Is 48:17; with אלהיכם Lv 23:43; 25:38, 55 Nu 10:10; 15:41(×2) (P) Lv 18:2, 4, 30; 19:2, 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; 20:24; 23:22; 26:13 (all H) Ez 20:7, 19 Jo 2:27; with מְקַדֵּשׁ Lv 20:8; 22:9, 32 (H), with דברתי Nu 14:35 (P) Ez 5:15 + (11 times Ez); with clauses Is 27:3; 41:4, 17; 42:6, 8; 45:5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21; 60:22 Je 17:10; 32:27 Ez 14:4, 7, 9; 34:24; †אָנֹכִי יהוה is used in the Ten Words Ex 20:2, 5 = Dt 5:6, 9 cited ψ 81:11 Ho 12:10; 13:4; elsewhere only Ex 4:11 (J) Is 43:11; 44:24; 51:15. 5. יהוה is also used with several predicates, to form sacred names of holy places of Yahweh יהוה יראה Gn 22:14 (J); יהוה נסי Ex 17:15 (E) יהוה שׁלום Ju 6:24 יהוה צדקנו Je 33:16 (cf. 23:6 where it is applied to the Messiah); יהוה שָׁ֑מָּה Ez 48:35.—On combinations such as הַר י׳, י׳ צְבָאֹות etc., v. הַר, צָבָא, etc.

Note.—BonkZAW 1891, 126 ff. seems to shew that as prefix, in comp. n.pr., יְהֹו is the oldest and the latest form and that יֹו is intermediate, belonging to the earlier post-exilic period until the time of Chr; occasional copyists’ mistakes being taken into the account.

Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Strong's, TWOT, and GK References Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), xiii.

484a יהוה (yhwh) Yahweh.

484b יָה (yāh) Yahweh.

The root signifies either existence, e.g. of a tree trunk, being at rest where it falls (Eccl 11:3), or development, e.g. of Nehemiah’s alleged scheme to become king of Judah (Neh 6:6). Only three other instances of hāwâ II are preserved in the Hebrew ot (Gen 27:29; Eccl 2:22; Isa 16:4), though hāwâ remains as the standard form of the verb “to be” in biblical Aramaic.

יַהוֶה (Yahweh). The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the Lord, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and his most frequent designation in Scripture, occurring 5321 times (TDNT, III, p. 1067) in the ot (KJV and ASV, the Lord, or, in those contexts where the actual title “Lord” also occurs, GOD, except KJV, Jehovah, in seven passages where the name is particularly stressed (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18 [H 19]; Isa 12:2; 26:4] or combined with other elements, such as Jehovah Jireh [Gen 22:14; cf. Ex 17:15; Jud 6:24; ASV, consistently Jehovah]).

R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980), 210.

יהוה (hwh): n.pr.; ≡ Str 3068, 3069, 3070, 3071, 3072, 3073, 3074;—LN 12.9 (true God) (njb) Yahweh: Jehovah, the Lord as an euphemism for Adonai, most versions the name of the one true God, with a focus on sure existence and His relationship to his covenant persons and peoples (Ex 3:15), see also 3363

James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), HGK3378.

[Pete]

What can I say,

Perhaps we will get the phone directory next..

[Fawzo]

My point was to show that there is physical evidence which strongly suggests that just as there are parrallel Mesopatamian stories which pre-dated the Biblical stories, even the names and labels given to God by the Israelites could very well be carry overs from the surrounding cultures as well.

[Coolhand]

My point was to show that there is physical evidence which strongly suggests that just as there are parrallel Mesopatamian stories which pre-dated the Biblical stories, even the names and labels given to God by the Israelites could very well be carry overs from the surrounding cultures as well.

Can you articulate what is convincing about that arguement to you?

[RevRainbow]

My point was to show that there is physical evidence which strongly suggests that just as there are parrallel Mesopatamian stories which pre-dated the Biblical stories, even the names and labels given to God by the Israelites could very well be carry overs from the surrounding cultures as well.

Considering that God always was, would it not be logical that perhaps someone heard of Him before the Israelites? Was YHWH no one's God before Moses wrote about Him? Any evidence of Pre-historic existence of the knowledge of God, IMO, does not discredit the biblical God or how He may have communicated with humanity. The similarities of recorded events would, IMO, give more credibility to the written word being more fact than fable, regardless of the myth factor which may have been employed in various cultures.

PS to Pete: Sorry, phone books are not innerrant, besides there are too many characters and no plot.

Edited July 1, 2010 by RevRainbow

[Pete]

Considering that God always was, would it not be logical that perhaps someone heard of Him before the Israelites? Was YHWH no one's God before Moses wrote about Him? Any evidence of Pre-historic existence of the knowledge of God, IMO, does not discredit the biblical God or how He may have communicated with humanity. The similarities of recorded events would, IMO, give more credibility to the written word being more fact than fable, regardless of the myth factor which may have been employed in various cultures.

PS to Pete: Sorry, phone books are not innerrant, besides there are too many characters and no plot.

An interesting site for me on the topic is :- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Yahweh

It seems to support Fawzo view and I have seen other sites that also make links with other cultures.

Phone books maybe not inerrant but I believe the bible is also not inerrant.