The Bible says that the personal name of God is Jehovah/Yahweh/Jah etc.Thing is,we don't know it's correct pronounciation (or the pronounciation of any hebrew name).The name Jehovah as we know it today means "h e causes to become".Someone who causes something to become is just called "creator" or "maker".Right?He gave that name to his self so that people or the angels could call him by a name.Also,how was he called before the creation of the anything?How can some people claim to be His friends if they don't know His actual name?Discuss
Does God really have a personal name?
Yes he does it's "Thor!"
My fleshly father's name was Kenneth. People who were his friends called him Kenny. His closest kin, myself and siblings, called him father, papa, daddy. See where I'm going with this? Are we friends or family to God? Do we call him by a particular 'name' as a friend of the family would do, or do we call him Papa, as his child? How did Jesus teach us to address God?
I totally agree with you Watkins even Jesus at Matthew 6: 9 and 10 does not call God by his first name but says "Father" and "may your name be Hallowed or honored." If the name Jehovah was to be used would not Jesus have used it here of all the places in the Bible.
This scripture is the one that really gets to me the most because it was on of the first door to door presentations I was taught to use in field service to convince people that we are to call God by his first name because Jesus says to honer God's name by using it. It made total sense to me as a born in JW teen who knew no better but now it just makes me shake my head at how I could not see how wrong it was. If the JW's were right then then Matthew 6: 9 and 10 should read 'You must pray, than this way. Jehovah in the heavens, let your name be sanctified let your kingdom come let your will take place in heaven also upon earth.' But Jesus did not use the word Jehovah because he had respect for his father and called him "Father" like we all should.
One of my favorite books, the Tao te-Ching, says at the very beginning:
The name that can be named is not the eternal name,
The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth.
To give something or someone a name makes it common and ordinary. It is impossible to give a name to the entity from which all life emanates. It is far beyond anything so mundane.
Read this somewhere and copied it to my notes:
How did Jesus address YHWH?
Matthew 11:25 Matthew 26:39-42 Mark 14:36 Luke 10:21 Luke 22:42 Luke 23:34 Romans 8:15 Galations 4:6Jesus did not address him by his first name. Simple as that... If using a first name was a condition that had to be met for salvation, why wouldn't "Jehovah" tell Jesus to tell us that? How reliable is Jesus' information if He forgot both to tell us AND use His Father's name?
There is a Jewish Scholar named Nehemiah Gordon who researched ancient documents and came across some previously unresearched documents where the writer had accidentally left vowels in the tetragram.
Watch this video to see how and why he comes to a conclusion about its pronunciation:
What I find interesting is there is a couple of scriptures saying something to the 'I will take out a people for my name'. This is one of the reasons JW's think they're gods chosen because of this and the name they have chosen for themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. But when God changed the name of Isaac or Jacob (can't remeber which) he changed it to IsraEl after Elohim and later in the new testament were the spiritual nation is referred to IsraEl of God. So Even though the Jews refer to the Elohim as meaning just God, since they were monotheism could it still not be the name God chose for himself?
Interesting video, Ablebodiedman.
Problem is, Nehemiah Gordon contradicts himself, saying the proper pronounciation is not "magical", but then also quotes the scriptures that says the importance of God's name being known, as if there's some blessing to be had that is dependent on knowing it.
Of course, he's selling a few BOOKS on the topic, so he's following in a long line of those who personally profit from the age-old scam, so he's not exactly an independent objective Bible scholar. It's funny to see how he is very accommodating of the female Christian host: wouldn't want to hurt sales to the lucrative Christian sales market, I guess!
Funny thing is, while he bags on the Islamic God Allah, he apparently didn't offer the tid-bit that 'Allah' is likely rooted in the OTHER name for God used in the Hebrew OT, the singular 'Eloah' (vs the more common plural form, 'Elohim', referring to YHWH's Divine Counsel). Most people can see that 'Eloah' is not far from 'Allah', considering how much pronouncations shift with time and across languages/cultures.
But in general, the whole idea of God having a personal name vs a title is pretty silly, anyway, as if a deity has any need for a personal name (like Fred, etc); it plays right into humanity's narcissism and ego-trips, since WE have personal names: why shouldn't the all-powerful all-knowing creator, too?
As if people can be BFF with God, whom they know on a first-name basis. We all saw how that version of "I've got a secret!" played out in field service, when JWs would ask the question to householders, "Did you KNOW God has a first name?" (as if begging them to ask, "Why NO, I didn't! What IS IT?!?")
Just to play DA here, isn't this semantics? People are recorded as saying "Praise Jah". Jah a shortened form of the divine name pretty much without dispute. Use that if you want. Our cultural imprints regarding what we do and do not call our own parents mean very little here. Why can't you have the option to do all of the above?
I think there is a decent case for "Jehovah", about as much as anything else. Nothing can be stated with certainty, other than a superstitious reverence for the name led scribed to alter it a long time ago, so that we know very little as a certainly. But it does appear thousands of times. To argue it in and of itself has no validity or isn't something to even try to be known, I think is not intellectually honest. I think it harms the Trinity doctrine a bit and that might be why these arguements surface.
ALl of this is of course only meaningful if you even believe in the scriptures to begin with. I am finding myself less inclined to believe the bible is a book different than any other sacred scriptural text. I think the Hindu Vedas are much older than the bible no?