God’s name (Jehovah) is so ambiguous to the extent of even supporting The Theory of Evolution!

by venus 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • venus

    We have been taught that the name Jehovah means “He causes to become.” It is interpreted that He causes Himself to become whatever needed to accomplish His will—as happened in the case Israelites to whom He “caused Himself to become” a Savior leading them from slavery in Egypt.

    But there is a problem with this definition. Nobody would use the phrase “cause to become” with regard to himself. One may say: “I helped him,” (but he won’t say: “I caused myself to become a helper to him.”) “Causing myself to become a helper to another person” obviously implies helping nature comes with effort as though it is not in my nature. On the contrary, in God all the good qualities would come naturally without any effort, or would flow freely; hence question of “causing Himself to become something” does not arise in the case of God.

    That means “causing to become” relates to whatever that becomes outside of God. In other words, everything that has “become” was ‘caused to become’ so by God.

    1) When we say all the different species evolved from simple life forms, it would mean “He caused” them to evolve by adding the massive amounts of new information required on its way.

    2) He ‘caused many to become’ apostates’ which we know is not the case with us all because we simply used our freewill.

    If meaning of God’s name is so ambiguous that it can take the responsibility of even those who become apostate, then questions would arise:

    How can His name be profaned?

    How can people pray that His name be sanctified?

    Who will ‘cause His name to become’ sanctified again?

    Is this ambiguous name really the invention of some humans?

  • waton

    wt has linked that idea to the 4 different faces of the angelic creatures at the corners of the divine chariot moving erratically at right angles, bringing different faces, qualities into the forefront, the bull* for strength (to the exclusion of intelligence) , for example.

    Would that not be one of the least stable personality types?

    * it is not called "bull" for nothing.

  • tor1500


    God doesn't have a name...after we are resurrected then maybe he'll tell us... (that's if this story is true).

    Why does God have to have a name....doesn't Jesus say there are so many things to tell us, but not now...

    God says he causes to become.....what he is saying...I can do whatever I want to do...I'm God, darn it...

    Jehovah Witnesses strive so hard to be different so much that they bite off more than they can chew....they have gone beyond the scriptures....there are going to be so many new lights...but it's going to be little by little...they can no longer support their doctrine...people that are not witnesses are poking holes in the JW doctrine...Notice the question from readers...don't think so, the org. is cleaning up some of their misinterpreted doctrines....oh they explain it...but they are noticing that people that are not witnesses can read and are challenging their doctrine...

    JW 's use the name Jehovah just to be different to be in the in crowd with God....see we in with God, because we know his name....NOT....

    Listen, who cares what God's name is...if he can help me through trouble...he will bring me back to life ....as far as I'm concerned...if he can do these things....he's alright with me...for those who still believe in God, this is what I think...those that don't that's your choice....no judging here...

    I have read about evolution and it has it's points but so does the Bible....

    No matter what you believe....we are our brothers keeper...


  • venus

    Hi tor1500,

    I agree with you that people got the meaning of God differently, and JWs want to be different among them. Vatican had no problem with the meaning of God's name. In September 2008 they embraced evolution, adding its voice against the specter of intelligent design. A few days ago, it embraced science once again when Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, paid tribute to Galileo Galilei, once branded as a heretic by the Catholic Church for telling the truth.

  • rocketman

    I think we may be dealing with a case here of Hebrew idiomatic expression that doesn't quite mesh with our current way of expressing the idea of God's name.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Forget "Jehovah" -- it was the Latinization of the much older Yehweh (YHVH), which is thought to have come from the Canaanites or the Egyptians. Actually, the name, which is believed to mean "He Commands the Wind, or Storm," actually was given by God to Abraham who then subsequently lived among the Egyptians and taught them astronomy and mathematics. The name, as given, was "I Am," which was also given to Moses. The name itself was also, in later form, said to mean "the Unchangeable One." Exodus 6:3 says that He was known to the earliest patriarchs as El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by the name Jehovah was He not known to them. This is contradicted in other writings and has led some to wonder if the original text wasn't posed as a question (there have been numerous changes over the centuries, but none containing huge doctrinal problems).

    The biblical text does not say where the various forms of God came from, but we know the patriarchs respected the name and refused to say it, substituting the word "Lord" for it. I'm not sure where you got the "changeable" part of the name as it was just the opposite. Technically, the early Christians saw YHVH as being Christ, the Mediator, not the Father. If you look at the titles, the role, everything -- the Son is the one who spoke to Moses. He was God of Israel and the Judge of mankind (see Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: The Story of Israel's Second God**). She argues that the earliest Hebrews saw Yahweh as God's Son, not the Father.


    **What did "Son of God," "Messiah," and "Lord," mean to the first Christians when they used these words to describe their beliefs about Jesus? In this book Margaret Barker explores the possibility that, in the expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine, these titles belonged together, and that the first Christians fit Jesus' identity into an existing pattern of belief. She claims that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic and that the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in a pre-Christian Palestinian belief about angels--a belief derived from the ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a "High God" and several "Sons of God." Yahweh was a son of God, manifested on earth in human form as an angel or in the Davidic King. Jesus was a manifestation of Yahweh, and was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord. Barker relies on canonical and deutero-canonical works and literature from Qumran and rabbinic sources to present her thoughtful investigation.

  • S K Ditta
    S K Ditta
    substituting the word "Lord" for it.

    The word, "Lord" seems to imply respect. If someone addressed a person as "Lord", such as a judge in courtroom, it would seem to imply respect.

  • venus

    cold steel,

    Your explanation is good; yet the problem remains because question is why should God choose a name the meaning of which no one is sure? Name should be self-explanatory, or else it is not a name.

  • venus

    Interestingly, Bible writers themselves are confused.

    1) Abraham says God's name is "eternal" (Gen 21:33)

    2) Isaiah says His name is "holy" (57:15)

    3) God Himself says His name is "I AM" (Ex 3:13, 14)

    4) JWs say His name is "He causes to become"

    5) Jesus simply says He has a name (He prayed: "let your name be sanctified"), yet did not say what the name is.

  • S K Ditta
    S K Ditta
    a case here of Hebrew idiomatic expression that doesn't quite mesh with our current way of expressing the idea

    Succinctly put!

    These conversations, were they to be in another language, would be perceived quite differently. God's attributed name is, no exception.

    I personally see wisdom in ambiguity; perhaps it is adaptability! This "ambiguity" or "adaptability" affords us the freedom we so cherish; also opportunity to reveal what is deep in our hearts.

Share this