Is translating or interpreting God's name using it in vain according to scripture?

If renaming and translating someone's name is so offensive, why did the Messiah do this exact thing? He renamed and then translated his chief disciples name.

It looks to me as if God has more than one name. Most of us have more than one name. My full name is James Ray Faulkner.

Matthew 1:22-23

This is very important to me. It shows that Matthew had no problem with interpreting or translating God's name.

Is Hebrew the sacred uncorrupted language of God?

Genesis 11:1-9

Notice, this does not say ALL languages except for Hebrew. All the languages were corrupted including Hebrew. Is there going to be a NEW language in the future?

Zephaniah 3:6-9

The New King James Bible translates this: “For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, That they all may call on the name of the Lord, To serve Him with one accord."
Brethren, that new language is NOT Hebrew, because Hebrew has been corrupted just like all the other languages of the world. Have you ever wondered why God doesn't give us the new language now? The answer is pretty obvious, if we had the new language now, we would corrupt it, wouldn't we? We need to wait for the return of the Messiah, to clean this world up to receive the new language. He will not allow this new language to be corrupted.

Does just pronouncing God's name, make someone holy?

Matthew 7:12-23

Even if you pronounce God's name correctly, if you don't keep his laws you are wasting your time.

Acts 19:11-20

These people believed that just saying God's name would produce miracles, didn't they? They were WRONG, weren't they? Yes, they were wrong.

Did the Messiah instruct us to refer to God by name?

Matthew 6:5-13

Matthew 23:9

This just kills the sacred name only movement in my opinion. Do you call your mom and dad by their names or do you call them "Mom" and "Dad"? I don't call Mom and Dad by their name because for me that would be disrespectful. Now, I do call my brothers and sisters by name. Kim, Jeff, Carolyn, Karen, Kathy, Melanie, Jerry and Jason. And I call my elder brother the Messiah by his names to, Yahweh, I AM, Melchisadeck, Yeshua, Messiah, The Word and Immanuel. But God the Father I call "Father", just as the Messiah instructed. You see, the Messiah was emphasizing what the world rejects. God is a family, not a trinity. God is a family, not a single entity. Our Father in heaven is, let's see how do I put this simply? Our Father in heaven. Wow, that is simple!

How about the Messiah's followers, did they practice what he taught?

What is God the Father's name anyway?

Revelation 14:1-5

Why didn't the Apostle John, who was a Jew, write the tetragram in this scripture?
Instead he writes, "The Father's Name". Why didn't he actually write his name. Maybe our Fathers' name is Father Yahweh and the Messiah's name is Yeshua Yahweh and it's a family name. That's a possibility. And maybe, we don't at this time know what our Father's name really is. And why wouldn't we know it? Because you can't corrupt what you don't know. Even if we do know it in our current language, we wouldn't know it in the new language yet, because the new language has not yet been revealed. We must wait on the return of the Messiah to bring with him the new uncorrupted language. Some have used this sacred name teaching to lead people away from the true Messiah.

Now, maybe you are sitting there thinking I'm crazy. Maybe your thinking, Noboby is going to take this Sacred Name teaching and reject the Messiah with it. Still need more proof?

An email I received from a Sacred Namer:

5th Month, 26th Day (8/17/2009 Bahbel/Roman date)

Shalom Friends,
It’s been a while since we have sent out mail to those on our mailing list. You might say that we were waiting for the right words and the right moment. Over two months now we have been waiting and working up to that. By now, you may have noticed that our website has become “The Way of the Most High” instead of “The Way of the Anointed Son Ministry.” We worked hard to create a new Home Page and Our Beliefs page to reflect this change. Everything on our website now reflects the Most High and the TaNaKh (OT) alone, excepting for our articles, which we are in the process of editing. Our future website will be thewayofthemosthigh.com. Certainly we have received emails from many of you who have noticed these changes, and we can truly say that it has been a wonderful experience. There are roughly 185 people on our website ministry mailing list. Those who noticed the changes to our site and beliefs have contacted us. We were amazed at the amount of people who have been struggling to keep belief in the "New Testament" in spite of what they read in the TaNaKh (OT), and how they feel a drawing upon themselves to join with us in our current beliefs. We now recognize that there is a growing tide of people like my wife and I, and we wonder why we hadn't seen this two years ago when it was first presented to us. Two years ago we were not mature and ready enough to come to grips with the problems of the so-called "Anointed Son" and the "New Testament." On the other hand, we have received many rebukes from others in the past two months for our rejection of the "Son" and the "New Testament." For a great deal of time, Elisheba and I prayed to the Most High YaHU(W)aH only, as we studied our TaNaKh (OT) like never before. We pleaded with our Father to help us to know if our prayers and worship were an abomination for including “Yeshua/J.C.” in those prayers and worship as our “High Priest,” “Passover Lamb,” through his blood, and in his name. The more that we read the TaNaKh (OT), the more that we wondered about the writings of the “New Testament.” We wondered “Are we interpreting rightly? Perhaps there is a second fulfillment of this TaNaKh (OT) text in ‘Yahushua,’ even though the original context is different.” But the more that we studied the so-called quotations from the TaNaKh (OT) in the “New Testament,” the more we found the “New Testament” to be lying. In the majority of cases, we found that the “New Testament” quotes half a verse of the TaNaKh (OT), pulls it out of its original context and subject matter, changes a few words, and applies it to what the “New Testament” writer intends us to believe. Many of the things originally applying to a prophetess, prophet, Dawid (David), others, or the Most High Himself, were taken to apply to “Yahushua/J.C. the Anointed Son.” We cannot continue to pray in the name and blood of “Yeshua/J.C.” And Christians and Messianics/Notsrim (Nazarenes) should consider the brevity of that statement. We often prayed “in the blood of Yahushua.” And it should strike a chord in our hearts as we read Psalm 16:4 “Their sorrows will be multiplied that hurry after another mighty one; their drink offerings of blood I would not offer, nor take up their names upon my lips.” Did not “Yahushua/J.C.” say “Drink, all of you, for this is My blood” (Matt. 26:27-28; John 6:53-55)? This is a very big deal. Every year Christians and others sing songs like “There’s power in the blood! Power in the blood! Come for a cleansing to Calvary’s tide, there’s wonderful power in the blood!” Every year Christians and Messianics celebrate “the Lord’s supper” or “Passover,” and they eat and drink the body and blood of “Yeshua” or “Jesus.” “Yahushua/J.C." is a false mighty one, who asked people to eat his flesh and drink his blood, as part of the “New Testament” in his blood. And which “New Testament” is “Yahushua/J.C.” referring to? There is only one place where we find something that corresponds to this in the TaNaKh, found in YirmeYahu (Jer.) 31:30 in the original, verse 31 in KJV. That phrase is “b’rit khadasha,” seen in the last two words of the original text of this verse. But the context of this prophecy by YirmeYahu (Jer.) is not some guy pretending to be a “Passover Lamb” who lays down his life for the two houses of Yisra’El (Israel). The context is not a slaughtering of an animal or any other such offering. If we read YirmeYahu (Jer.) 31 from verse 30 to 33, we see that the Most High is going to make an oath (b’rit) with “the House of Yisra’El and with the House of Yahudah.” And according to this prophecy, “in those days” when this takes place, the Most High will “place My Torah within them and I will write it onto their heart; I will be the Mighty One to them, and they will be My people. … They will no longer teach everyone his neighbour, each one his brother, FOR ALL OF THEM WILL KNOW ME, … when I will forgive their crookedness and will no longer remember their transgressions” (vs. 30-33). Do we see a “Son” coming to die to usher in this “b’rit khadasha?” Does everyone now know YaHU(W)aH? Or are people still teaching others about the Most High and the truth of Scripture? Does everyone have the Torah on their hearts? Are people still transgressing? This prophecy states that the transgressions and crookedness will be taken away and not remembered any more. But people are still rebelling and Torah is not on their hearts. Not everyone knows YaHU(W)aH. Many people think that if a person rejects the "New Testament," then they will certainly end up rejecting the TaNaKh (OT), ending up with nothing. We have talked about this issue with others, and we have noticed that many people who have rejected the “New Testament” indeed proceed to reject belief in the TaNaKh (OT) also. Certainly there are contradictions/discrepancies with the TaNaKh (OT), but there is something we should note about this. The problems with the TaNaKh (OT) are not even close to the multitudinous problems of the “New Testament.” Reasoning that because there are problems with the TaNaKh (OT), therefore people can keep the “New Testament” with all its problems, does not seem like sound reasoning to us. The “New Testament” claims to be founded upon the TaNaKh (OT), and therefore one must first believe in the TaNaKh (OT). One can believe in the TaNaKh (OT) and not believe in the “New Testament.” But one cannot believe in the “New Testament” without belief in the TaNaKh (OT), since the foundation of the “New Testament” is claimed to reside in the TaNaKh (OT). Having gone through this change to the Most High and the TaNaKh (OT) alone, we have thought about the route in which YaH brought us to this belief and way of life. While many people go from heathen to “Jew,” there has been a greater purpose to the route which the Almighty took us through. First He brought us into Christianity, then “Notsrim (Nazarenes)” or whatever you would like to call it, then revealed the falsehood of Paul, and now has brought us to Him alone and Torah. Why? Because if it wasn’t for this route, maybe we would have been deceived by modern-day Judaism, the rabbis, etc. But in this path that the Most High has led us, the Most High caused us to doubt the “Church Fathers” first, the “rabbinate” also, and to follow the narrow path that is seldom travelled. It is a path which takes Scripture as it is in its original language and context, and actually lives it! We would like to encourage you to get a copy of Asher Norman's book Twenty-Six Reasons why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus. Please ignore his teachings on the “Oral Torah (Law)” which he believes heavily in. Other than that, it is a great place to start. The next thing is for you to get a "1985" version of the "JPS Hebrew to English TaNaKh." It has taken me close to a year, but now I can read the text of Scripture in Eebreet (Hebrew script), without looking at a concordance or dictionaries or commentaries. This truly does wonders for our understanding of how words were changed in the "New Testament," as well as the placement of words in the original changed, and the subject of the text was changed to apply to "Yeshua/J.C." or his followers, etc.

For example, the only place you find the word "Immanu'El" is in YeshaYahu (Isa.) chapters 7-8. In context, the lady that is referred to by the prophet YeshaYahu (Isa.) was not a "virgin" (b’tulah). She was a “young lady” (almah – 7:14), a "prophetess" (8:3) and the wife of YeshaYahu (Isa.), and she bore YeshaYahu (Isa.) a son. This was a prophecy made to the sovereign of Yahudah (Judea), Akhaz (Ahaz) (see 7:3,10). Akhaz (Ahaz) was afraid because two other rulers were going to come against him in war. But YeshaYahu (Isa.) told him not to be afraid, because the "prophetess" would become pregnant and bear a son, and by the time that son is old enough to know "right from wrong" (7:14-15), the two rulers that were going to attack Akhaz (Ahaz) would be gone. And this would prove to Akhaz (Ahaz) and Yisra'El (Israel) that "Elohim" is with them (Immanu'El)" (see specifically 8:10). Read the chapters for yourself now. This was clearly not a prophecy regarding "Yahushua/J.C." And this is only one of many non-contextual quotations from the TaNaKh (OT) in the "New Testament." We will have some articles on this and other issues in the future. On top of this, if J.C. was a historical figure, you would expect that people would have written about this issue. Apparently the evidence is that there is no evidence, except from a mythological perspective, such as in Shattering the Christ Myth, Forgery in Christianity, The Jesus Mysteries, The Jesus Puzzle, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, The God who Wasn’t There, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, and many others. Strangely enough, there are many preachers who have taught and are teaching that because there is no proof that the resurrection did not occur, then we should believe. Their view is that there is a great conspiracy to cover it up. They teach that if J.C. didn't rise up, Christianity would not have arisen. This of course is where we went wrong... thinking that this teaching had merit in the past. We now know it is like searching for the proverbial "needle in the haystack." It isn't there. Preachers are admitting there is no evidence that Pontius Pilate executed such a person, or that such a person rose from the dead. Coming to grips with Paul as being a false “apostle” who taught people that it was okay to eat food offered to idols (1 Corinthians chapter 8) was a great stepping stone for what we write now. If you are interested in studying this, here is our page regarding that. "New Testament" stuff is still proliferated in many of our articles, but we’re working on editing them. We will be sharing articles on the issues presented in this short blog in more depth in the future, as soon as we finish editing our current site articles to reflect our current beliefs.

Shalom,
Sha'ul ben Yahukhanan
The Way of the Most High Ministry
"Professing belief in the Most High Father YaHU(W)aH, through the TaNaKh (OT)."

The transition from belief to disbelief:
1. People reject the translation of God's name.
2. People reject the New Testament being written in Greek.
3. People reject the writings of Paul.
4. People reject the New Testament.
5. People reject the Messiah.
6. Often, they eventually reject the Old Testament too.
Satan is the master of deception and does whatever he can to take away our faith. To be quite frank about it, I don't believe the scriptures because they are so clear and easy to prove. The apostle Paul knew the Old Testament probably as well as anyone in his day, and yet when he saw the Messiah and the teachings the Messiah taught, did Paul believe? Did the Old Testament so clearly show Yeshua was the Messiah, so that Paul first believed? NO, Paul did not at first believe. God had to give him faith that what the scriptures taught was true and we must be given that faith too.
An email I got from Mark Carr's Feast Mailing List:

Linguistic Superstition And The Sacred Name Only Movement

By Dr. Daniel Botkin
Let me begin by saying that I am in favor of the reverent and proper use of the Sacred Names. In our congregation, we utter the Name every Sabbath when we face Jerusalem and say the Shema: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is One." Every day throughout the week, I utter the Name in private prayer more times than I can count. However, I avoid using the Name in casual conversation, because I truly do regard it as a Sacred Name which should be used only in a sacred context. The issue I wish to address is misrepresentation of that "Name." To distinguish between those who (like me) are not opposed to using the Sacred Name in a sacred context and those whom I call "hardcore" advocates, I will refer to the latter as "Sacred Name Only" groups. In these Sacred Name Only groups (hereafter SNO), I have witnessed some adherents using the Name in a lighthearted manner in casual conversation, even while joking around. However, my main complaint against the SNO movement is not the use or non-use of the Name per se, but the fact that their linguistic superstition about "God" and "Lord" unnecessarily separates brethren from one another. Their linguistic superstition discredits SNO advocates and gives Christians and Jews an excuse to reject everything else that is being restored through the Messianic movement--the Sabbath, the Feasts, the dietary laws, etc. Paul warned Timothy about teachers who are continually "doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings [suspicions]" (I Timothy 6:4). I cannot think of a more accurate description of the SNO movement which has been driven by linguistic superstition since its inception. Linguistic superstition is the belief that saying certain "negative" words will produce negative results, and saying certain "positive" words in just the right way will produce positive results. This sort of belief system is most apparent in occult magic. Practitioners of occult magic believe that certain words have an inherent power or force within them which can be harnessed and utilized when the words are pronounced in a precise, prescribed manner. The seven sons of Sceva believed this. When they saw Paul doing miracles in the name of Yeshua, they tried to cast out a demon by saying, "We adjure you by Yeshua whom Paul preacheth." The demon in the man replied, "Yeshua I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" Then, the man leaped on them and gave them a good beating (Acts 19:13-16).
You would think that Bible Believers would know better than to get entangled in linguistic superstition. Sadly, that is not the case. We have seen linguistic superstition manifested by some Christians in the "Word of faith"/ "positive confession" movement. Now, we are seeing linguistic superstition of another sort being manifested in the Sacred Name Only movement. The Sacred Name movement itself began in the late 1930s as an offshoot of the Church of God, Seventh Day denomination, its main focus being (as the phrase "Sacred Name" suggests) the use of God's Hebrew name. In most SN literature, God's Hebrew name is transliterated as "Yahweh" (though at least 38 other variant spellings exist among various proponents). Jesus' Hebrew name is usually mistransliterated as "Yahshua" (though at least 55 other variant spelling exist among SN believers).
Hard-core SNO proponents are afraid to utter the words "God" or "Lord" when referring to the Creator. They insist that He must be addressed by His Hebrew Name. Most SNO literature gives a reader the impression that knowing the correct pronunciation of God's Hebrew name is more important than knowing God Himself. Much of what I have read in SNO literature is dangerously close to the occult thinking that existed in first-century Gnosticism. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (pg. 27) says this: "Heretical Gnostic systems combined magic and astrology with the Bible. The Hebrew name of God, IAO [the Greek transliteration of YHWH- DB], fascinated sorcerers by its vowels, always crucial in ancient magic." Like first-century Gnostic sorcerers, many SNO believers seem equally fascinated by the Hebrew name of God, and have made a fetish out of the Sacred Name. This in itself is not sorcery, of course, but it is a step in that direction. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, a translation which has greatly influenced the SNO movement, says in its introduction that "the name Yahweh has some inherent meaning of great force" and speaks of "some self-evident force" contained in the Sacred Name (pg. 26, 28). This sort of thinking can lead to linguistic superstition and worse. Noted Hebrew scholar David Bivin, in an article called "The Fallacy of Sacred Name Bibles," writes: "The use of correct formulas and correct pronunciations is very important in magic rites, but not in one's relationship with the God of Israel" (Jerusalem Perspective, Nov.-Dec. 1991, pg. 12; reproduced with permission in this Herald Issue). The SNO movement has produced a mixture of good and bad fruit: on the positive side, it has done a lot to help people see that the Sabbath, the Feasts, and the dietary laws are still valid for New Covenant Believers--on the negative side, it has spawned a lot of rotten fruit. Does the good fruit outweigh the rotten fruit or vice versa? We will let God be the Judge of that. We do not wish to judge, but to warn against the poison of rotten fruit. The purpose of this article is not to attack or embarrass or publicly humiliate anyone. The sole purpose of the article is to expose error. For this reason, SNO writers and sources will not be cited. (If readers wish to know the sources, that information will be shared privately.) Some minor errors in a person's thinking can be relatively harmless. Unfortunately, some of the errors in the SNO movement are not harmless. The proof of this statement is in the rotten fruit the movement has borne. This unhealthy fruit is primarily a glaring lack of love for the brethren. We all know the importance of loving one's neighbor as one's self; we know that the fruit of the Spirit is love; we know about I Corinthians 13. Yet if it were not for a few loving SNO friends whom I know personally, I would have to conclude from SNO literature that SNO believers hate the brethren. And I have been reading SNO literature regularly since the mid-1980s. Indeed, many SNO proponents do not even consider the brethren their brethren. Christians who do not use the Hebrew names are often regarded as lost at best and as devil worshipers at worst. One large SNO organization printed these words in a newsletter last August: "Christianity calls 'God's' Son by the name 'Jesus'. Thus, those worshiping 'this son' are committing spiritual adultery!!" This is from one of the more tolerant SNO organizations. Other SNO writers have flatly stated that Christians who use the words "God," "Lord," and "Jesus Christ" are actually worshiping Satan. SNO believers do not fare much better when it comes to loving their own. One well known SNO leader who has been around for decades admits this. He writes: "The Sacred Name movement has been characterized by knowledgeable observers as 'a bunch of splintered, divided sects'; and this is EXACTLY what I found." (Emphasis his.) A Christian reader hearing about this for the first time might well be asking the questions: "These people think that I'm actually giving homage to the devil when I pray to 'God' or 'the Lord'? All the worship I've given to God all these years has really gone to Satan, simply because I didn't address God by His Hebrew name? Where in hell did that idea come from?" The answer to the last question is in the last question. However, for the benefit of those who want an explanation of how this convoluted idea developed, let me explain.
SNO History
SNO believers reject the English words God and Lord because these are words which, when not capitalized, can refer to pagan gods and to human lords. SNO believers think it is disrespectful at best or Satan worship at worst to refer to the Creator by these generic titles. However, the Hebrew equivalents of these two words, elohim and adonai, are also generic words that often refer to false pagan gods and to human lords. Yet the Creator refers to Himself as elohim and adonai hundreds of times in the Hebrew Scriptures. If He is not offended by the generic titles in Hebrew, why should He be offended by the equivalent generic titles in English? English even has the added advantage of capitalizing the G- or the L- to distinguish the true Creator from the false pagan gods and the human lords. If the Creator is offended by generic titles, wouldn't He be more offended by the uncapitalizeable elohim and adonai than He would be by a capitalized God and Lord? SNO supporters imagine a linguistic connection between the English God and Hebrew Gad ("luck, fortune"). Because the pronunciations of these two words are very similar, they claim that "God" is the god of good luck. However, the fact that two words in two different languages sound the same is not proof that the two words are cognates. On the contrary, such is usually not the case. For example, Spanish con ("with") has no connection to English cone; German nein ("no") has no connection to English nine; Hebrew ki ("because") has no connection to English key; Yiddish teler ("plate") has no connection to English teller; Russian tut ("here") has no connection to English toot, etc., etc. Concerning the SNO believers' ban on God because of its similarity to Gad, noted linguist and Hebraist Isaac Mozeson, author of THE WORD: The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English, wrote this in a personal letter to me: "If the word Gad were so terrible per se, there would be no tribe of Israel or prophet of King David by that glorious name. It seems I agree with you on these issues." SNO believers avoid using even the Hebrew Adonai because of its similarity to the Greek god Adonis. Some refuse to transliterate Adonai, even though Scripture uses this word over 200 times to refer to the Creator. I have even seen one SNO Bible that translated Adonai as "Yahweh." This is not honest translation; it is deliberately misrepresenting what the Hebrew Scripture really says. Isaac Mozeson wrote (in the letter previously mentioned): "I don't shun the Hebrew ADoNe (master, lord) + suffix AI simply because Adonis is a pagan god or because the Brits have a House of Lords." If They Borrow It, We Can't Use It? The Hebrew Bible refers to the Creator as Adonai over 200 times. It is linguistic superstition to avoid a word that the Hebrew Bible freely uses. Yes, it is possible that the Greeks borrowed the Hebrew Adonai and used it to refer to their god Adonis. So what? We know that Yahweh is the true Adonai/Elohim/Lord/God. The fact that pagans use some of the same nouns for their idols is no reason for us to stop using the words. If the pagans were to say that their gods are "good" and "strong," would SNO believers feel a need to avoid these two adjectives and use different synonymous adjectives such as "beneficent" and "powerful"? Most SNO literature substitutes Mighty One and Master for God and Lord. However, the terms mighty one and master are every bit as generic as god and lord. This is evident even in SNO literature, which refers to false gods as "mighty ones," the only difference being capital letters. This is not spiritual progress; it is simply re-inventing the wheel. The Brit HaDoshah Is Silent...
The New Testament (Brit HaDoshah), by its glaring silence on the "Name" issue, also refutes SNO teaching. If avoiding generic titles and using the Hebrew names is so vital to one's salvation and spirituality, why do the New Testament writers consistently refer to God by the generic Greek titles Theos and Kurios (words which can also refer to pagan gods and to human lords)? And why do they consistently refer to the Messiah by the Greek form of His name, Iesous Xristos? The New Testament writers could have written the Hebrew characters into the Greek script, but there is no solid evidence that they did any such thing. They used Theos and Kurios, just as the Hebrew Scriptures use Elohim and Adonai. It is very important to note this: Even when they were directly quoting Old Testament Scripture, the New Testament writers used the generic Greek titles as substitutes for the Sacred Name. Many Old Testament verses which contain the Sacred Name are quoted in the New Testament, yet the Sacred Name itself never once appears in the New Testament. A generic title is substituted every single time. If the New Testament is to have any bearing whatsoever on our theology, we cannot ignore the fact that the New Testament writers used generic titles as substitutes for the Sacred Name. The only argument SNO proponents can use to try to refute these facts is to accuse "wicked scribes" of changing the New Testament manuscripts. Some go so far as to claim that the entire New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, complete with the Sacred Name, of course. History tells us that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew, but there is no reason to suppose that the rest of the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew. On the contrary, when one considers the fact that the epistles were addressed to congregations composed primarily of Greek speaking believers who knew little if any Hebrew, the idea seems ludicrous. To accuse wicked scribes of tampering with the text is circular reasoning, and has no basis in historical or linguistic fact. Theories have been put forth to try to debunk the Greek New Testament. Some SNO proponents have claimed that Paul could not have known Greek well enough to write his epistles in that language. Jews did not learn Greek, we are told by SNO writers. We know from Acts 21:37 that Paul knew Greek well enough to converse in it. I also found this information in a pamphlet: "The Oxyrinchus Papyri shows that even Jewish children could read and write Greek. The Greek language was common in Palestine, even though the vernacular was Aramaic and the Sacred tongue was Hebrew." It is very ironic that this information appears in a pamphlet written by the late A.B. Traina, the man who is regarded by some as the "granddaddy" of the SNO movement. Luke, New York Times Writer?
Some SNO believers argue against a Greek New Testament by stating that the Greek text is awkward and clumsy, "poor Greek"; therefore the New Testament must be a translation of a Hebrew original--which, it is assumed, contained the Hebrew names, of course. Do these SNO believers know Greek well enough to tell that the New Testament is a poor translation of a Hebrew original? Is the Greek of the New Testament so poor that a Hebrew original must be assumed? We will let two scholars who know Greek answer the question. Dr. Brad Young, a present-day scholar of great repute, states that Paul, in his epistles, "gives evidence of his bi-lingual abilities by writing in Greek like a native" (Paul the Pharisee, Yavo Digest 19:4, Sept. 1997, pg. 15). Robin Griffith-Jones, master of London's Temple Church and a former New Testament Oxford University teacher, says that Luke used "very sophisticated Greek. He would have been asked to write New York Times op-ed pieces" ("Gospels according to new book," Peoria Journal Star, 5/28/00). In 1978, George Howard wrote an article in Biblical Archaeology Review. Howard did not argue for an original Hebrew New Testament in this article, but he did theorize that the writers of the Greek New Testament might have written God's name in the Hebrew characters when they wrote their original manuscripts. A SNO proponent sent me a copy of this article, complete with his complimentary underlining, arrows, brackets, and exclamation marks in the margins. I marked a few more things in the article myself. In Howard's short essay, I circled the following words: "...suggested that… suggested... argued that... It seems to me... is hardly likely that... In all likelihood...very probably… suggests that... no doubt... Perhaps… may have... Assuming this to be generally correct... In all probability… probably... no doubt... must have... impossible to know with certainty... must have been… must have taken… must have meant… must have meant… was probably... probably... suggest that... it may be that... probably... may be..." The appearance of all these words and phrases of ambiguity on just one and one-half pages of text tells me that Howard himself is not very certain of his theory. Yet SNO people will swallow an unproven theory simply because it agrees with their doctrine. One major reason SNO advocates misunderstand the "Name" issue is because they do not realize the broader meaning of the Hebrew word shem (usually translated "name"). When they read a verse that says something about "the name of Yahweh," they think mainly in terms of nomenclature, the word that is used to address someone. However, shem means much more than just "name" in this narrow sense of nomenclature. Shem also means the reputation, honor, or character of the person. Any good lexicon will confirm this. Isaac Mozeson also confirms this in his letter to me: "Also SHeM means 'repute' more than merely 'name.' The problems of the 'sacred name believers' will lessen when they consider this." Shaming Yahweh's Reputation
Even in English we use the word name in its broader sense: "You've ruined the family name!" Such a statement does not mean that the person has altered the pronunciation of his surname or changed it to a generic name like "Jones." It simply means that he has brought shame and reproach on the family by his behavior. The Scriptures say many things about the name of Yahweh. There are verses that speak about misusing, blaspheming, or shaming His name. There are verses about knowing, glorifying, praising, trusting in, and speaking of the name of Yahweh. These verses are not referring to the correct pronunciation of the four-lettered Tetragrammaton; there are speaking about the character and reputation of Yahweh. Thus, trusting in "the name" of Yahweh means that we trust in His character and His reputation, not in the correct pronunciation of His nomenclature. A person who trusts only in the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is reducing the name of Yahweh to nothing more than a magical incantation. Again, touting linguistic superstition gives people an excuse to reject truth. SNO writers discredit themselves in the eyes of intelligent, thinking people by their sloppy scholarship. Some of it is so pathetic that calling it "sloppy scholarship" is actually a compliment. SNO writers often try to prove a point by making long, detailed linguistic arguments based on the details of a Hebrew word. They end up proving nothing to people who know Hebrew. All they end up doing is advertising in the most embarrassing manner possible their ignorance of linguistics and the Hebrew language. One brother who leads a large Messianic organization based in Jerusalem once said of the SNO movement, "We have scholars in Jerusalem who have done nothing but study the Hebrew texts for their entire lives, and even they are not 100% certain how God's name is pronounced. And yet, we get letters from people in places like Arkansas telling us that they know exactly how the Name is pronounced, even though they have never studied Hebrew." (No offense to people in Arkansas. He could have named any other state.) One thing that has been cropping up in SNO literature in recent years is the alteration of certain Hebrew words. The Hebrew word for Judah is no longer transliterated as Yehudah; now it is YAHudah. Jacob is now written YAHakob instead of Ya'akov. Jerusalem is no longer Yerushalayim; now it is YAHrushalayim (or according to one writer, YAHUWSHALEM). Even Messiah is changed from Mashiach to Messi-YAH. It seems that whenever SNO people see the letter "Y" in a Hebrew word, they think that there should be an "H" after it, so they remedy the problem by restoring the missing "H" that the wicked scribes allegedly removed in their attempt to suppress the Name. Anyone who knows Hebrew can see the foolishness of this. One SNO writer (who since has declared that Yeshua of Nazareth was a false messiah), when trying to explain why Joseph's name was really YAH-sef instead of Yosef, stated that "it doesn't take much imagination" to see that wicked scribes, intent on hiding the Sacred Name, removed the "H" from the original name of YAH-sef and turned it into Yosef. Maybe it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see this, but it certainly takes some imagination to see it. It also takes complete ignorance of the fact that the yo- prefix is the common, standard prefix that is used to conjugate third- person, masculine singular, future tense verbs in this category. One of the most bizarre allegations in SNO literature is the claim that the word Hallelujah is "a hybrid with one word of Hebrew and one word of Greek." The SNO writer who made this amazing discovery has "unleavened the hybrid" and restored the "correct" pronunciation for us. According to this SNO writer, we should be saying "Halle-atah-YaHVaH" instead of "Hallelujah." This erroneous conclusion would never have occurred if the writer had known that the plural imperative is formed by adding a vav suffix to the verb. This is something that a beginning Hebrew student learns in ulpan within the first couple weeks of study. In another recent article a SNO brother writes about the different names people use to refer to the Messiah. This writer tells his readers that the Yeshu form used by unbelieving Jews is made up of three Hebrew letters which can form an acronym for "may his name and memory be blotted out." This information is true. The three Hebrew words are "yimach sh'mo v'zikhro." (See Stern's Jewish NT Commentary, pg. 5.) However, this SNO writer tells us that the three Hebrew words are "yiddish sh'mo w'zither." This gross mis-information does not appear in some self-published rag that is obscure and unknown to SNO people. It appears in a glossy SNO periodical that has been around since 1937. If we want to be taken seriously as a people, if we truly want to have the Glory of Yahweh's Holy Name restored, we have to do better than we have done in the past. Our scholarship must be able to pass the test. More importantly, we must be a people whose actions truly represent the "Name," reputation, honor, and character of the One whom we claim to represent. May it be so for all who truly love His Holy Name.

Dr. Daniel Botkin is founder, editor and primary writer for "Gates of Eden" magazine, a bimonthly publication that addresses theological issues, and has written for a variety of publications. Daniel also is an award winning artist whose mixed-media paintings have been exhibited in art shows across the nation.

Conclusion:
Brethren, let's be careful not to fall for this trap that Satan has laid for God's people.
In this manner therefore pray, Our FATHER which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name...