Secrets of the Name of God & His Epithets (Titles) in the Holy Bible. Life Changing Stuff...

And now for something less misleading or distracting* from what actually matters for a change... (*: when it comes to Bible translations and the use of God's name in the Bible by Bible translators)

The title of the video below should be: "Vatican seeks to eliminate use of the divine name!"

“The tegragrammaton YHWH NEVER appeared in the original autograph book of the Law at any time. These letters were forged and placed in the scrolls centuries later by Babylonian occult scribes who intended that ADONAI, Ehyeh, and Yeh, should be replaced by those four letters and the mystic pronunciation of them.There is absolutely NO PROOF that the tetragrammation was ever in the text of Scriptures prior to the Babylonian captivity and up to the the time of Malachi. And when we find it supposedly there, as in the dead sea scrolls we discover that it is there hundreds of years later by fraud.

God NEVER gave to Moses the tetragrammaton anywhere else in the Bible. Any effort to change the word ADONAI/LORD to "YHVH or YHWH" and then insert either "Yahweh, Yahshua, or Jehovah" is false.”

“The true name of Jesus comes to us in the following manner: Je is derived from EHYEH the sacred name of God, dropping the first EH we have Yeh or Jeh as added to the name of Oshea (Numbers 13:16-Jehoshua). In Hebrew the "h" is silent so that Jeh becomes the "Je" in the name of Jesus. The word salvation is in the Hebrew "yehsa" (Strongs #3468). Again, Yeh of yesha is a contraction of EHYEH the sacred name of God given to Moses at the burning bush. Yehsha is the correct spelling but because the "h" is silent it is dropped to form Yesha. The name of Jesus is therefore derived not from Zeus but from "Yehsa" converting the "Y" to its proper "J" sound we have "Jehsa" and the adding the masculine (s) we have Jehsas and finally Jesus. The "sas" and "sus" are identical in purpose and pronunciation.”

“The guess name Jehovah is the same as the word "hovah"(Strongs 1943) and means ruin or disaster. The guess name Yahvah is the same as the word "ahvah" (Strongs 5753) and means to do perversily. The guess names "Yahveh or Yahweh" are the same as the word "ahveh" (Strongs 5773) and means distorting, perverting! By adding a "J" or a "Y" to these these words and forming false sacred names, the occult and mystic fabricators invented "Jehovah" and "Yahweh!"

The words Jehovah (Catholic) and Yahweh (Protestant) are guess names and they cannot save a anyone. Those guess name-words were never spoken by anyone until they were invented by mystics and those affiliated with the occult.

“Here is the conclusion: God's salvation name from before the foundation of the world, for that is when he set forth his plan of redemption and the Lamb's Book of Life, was Yehshas or Jehshas pronounced in English as Jesus. It was to this name all the others pointed and were partial revelations. So that the word *God* is a partial revelation of who Jesus is as Creator. The word Elshaddai is a more fuller revelation of the Almighty Creator and he who Blesses, as by this new name Abraham was blessed and given it for use in blessing. And then EHYEH is a revelation of the Covenant God. So that these point to the fullness of the revelation of the GREAT name of Yehshas or Jesus as Creator God, the Blessing God, the Covenant God, and lastly the Saving God. Hence we have here that as the tabernacle and all the symbols and rituals of the Old Testament were TYPES and SHADOWS to be fulfilled and brought to their climax and completion with Christ and the New Testament Church WITH THE REAL, so all the temporary and substitute names and titles of God were only types and shadows of the REAL name of God revealed in Jesus Christ. So that the name of Jesus or Yehshas is not derived from any name of God, but visa versa, they were all derived from and point to Jesus Christ from which they all have their type.”

Jesus sent his apostles to preach salvation only IN HIS NAME (Luke 24:47), not the words God, Elshaddai, Ehyeh, et al.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
...

This section comes first, as in the most ancient times, God had not yet revealed His Covenant Name (or any name) to the Patriarchs of the Hebrew peoples. ...

Exodus 3:13-16 and 6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah’s name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah’s name. The very name of Moses’ mother Jochebed means, possibly, “Jehovah Is Glory.” (Ex 6:20) Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (ʼElo·himʹ) or the “Sovereign Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.

Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.

God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yahʹ, from which the word ʼEh·yehʹ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”​—Ex 3:14, ftn.

That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from a Hebrew verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars suggest that the name means “He Causes to Become.” This definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.

This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah’s later statement to Moses: “I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”) while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.

To “know,” therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David’s name but still asked, “Who is David?” in the sense of asking, “What does he amount to?” (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.” (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt’s king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God’s carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, “You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God.”​—Ex 6:4-8.

Professor of Hebrew D. H. Weir therefore rightly says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, “have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch. lii. 6, ‘Therefore my people shall know my name;’ or in Jeremiah, ch. xvi. 21, ‘They shall know that my name is Jehovah;’ or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], ‘They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;’ we see at once that to know Jehovah’s name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)”​—The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857.

Known by the first human pair. The name Jehovah was not first revealed to Moses, for it was certainly known by the first man. The name initially appears in the divine Record at Genesis 2:4 after the account of God’s creative works, and there it identifies the Creator of the heavens and earth as “Jehovah God.” It is reasonable to believe that Jehovah God informed Adam of this account of creation. The Genesis record does not mention his doing so, but then neither does it explicitly say Jehovah revealed Eve’s origin to the awakened Adam. Yet Adam’s words upon receiving Eve show he had been informed of the way God had produced her from Adam’s own body. (Ge 2:21-23) Much communication undoubtedly took place between Jehovah and his earthly son that is not included in the brief account of Genesis.

Eve is the first human specifically reported to have used the divine name. (Ge 4:1) She obviously learned that name from her husband and head, Adam, from whom she had also learned God’s command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (although, again, the record does not directly relate Adam’s passing this information on to her).​—Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3.

As is shown in the article ENOSH, the start that was made of “calling on the name of Jehovah” in the day of Adam’s grandson Enosh was evidently not done in faith and in a divinely approved manner. For between Abel and Noah only Jared’s son Enoch (not Enosh) is reported to have ‘walked with the true God’ in faith. (Ge 4:26; 5:18, 22-24; Heb 11:4-7) Through Noah and his family, knowledge of the divine name survived into the post-Flood period, beyond the time of the dispersion of peoples at the Tower of Babel, and was transmitted to the patriarch Abraham and his descendants.​—Ge 9:26; 12:7, 8.

reply to: Dalamax

Jesus did instruct us on the proper way to pray. So that we prayed to the right God, not a false god, of which are many;

Luke 11:1-4,Matthew 6:5-15 NIV - Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer ...
www.biblegateway.com... 11:1-4,Matthew 6:...
Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer - One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” He said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us ...

Our Heavenly Father

I would not want to offer prayer to a false diety, my Lord & God is the One who Created All. He is not a pretender.

No other, but God in Heaven.

Thank you for this thread, and I thank God for bringing you, to us. I thank God for giving you the discernment to see truth.

Thank you Heavenly Father for your love and light.
Glory be to God in Heaven who created life.

Amen.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
... There are other proper names which God is known by in the Old Testament, such as ‘El Shaddai’ (... ‘God Almighty’), and I will deal with each of them in turn, with scriptural references & comments as appropriate.

God only has one personal and unique name. All the examples used by the OP of supposed "other ... names" are either titles or common nouns such as "god" (ʼelo·himʹ, ʼel, ʼe·limʹ or ʼelohʹah*), "lord" (ʼadho·naiʹ), or "father".

*: Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.​—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ʼe·limʹ, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·venehʹ ʼE·limʹ]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ʼE·limʹ by the singular form The·osʹ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”​—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.​—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”​—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.

“God” and “Father” not distinctive. The title “God” is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make a god of his belly; Php 3:19). In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (ʼElo·himʹ) is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16:23, 24; 1Sa 5:7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19:37) For a Hebrew to tell a Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped “God [ʼElo·himʹ]” would obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship went.

In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ʼElo·himʹ (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.”​—Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.

The same is true of the Greek term for God, The·osʹ. It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury). (Compare Ac 14:11-15.) Presenting the true situation are Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him.” The belief in numerous gods, which makes essential that the true God be distinguished from such, has continued even into this 21st century.

Paul’s reference to “God the Father” does not mean that the true God’s name is “Father,” for the designation “father” applies as well to every human male parent and describes men in other relationships. (Ro 4:11, 16; 1Co 4:15) The Messiah is given the title “Eternal Father.” (Isa 9:6) Jesus called Satan the “father” of certain murderous opposers. (Joh 8:44) The term was also applied to gods of the nations, the Greek god Zeus being represented as the great father god in Homeric poetry. That “God the Father” has a name, one that is distinct from his Son’s name, is shown in numerous texts. (Mt 28:19; Re 3:12; 14:1) Paul knew the personal name of God, Jehovah, as found in the creation account in Genesis, from which Paul quoted in his writings. That name, Jehovah, distinguishes “God the Father” (compare Isa 64:8), thereby blocking any attempt at merging or blending his identity and person with that of any other to whom the title “god” or “father” may be applied.

So much more misleading things to address from the OP. It's just too much (to address everything in textformat, the comments would just get too long). And when people don't bother watching the videos anyway, they are kept in the dark about any of this. Well then, that's their choice isn't it? As Jesus said: “This is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.* [Or “exposed.”]”​—John 3:19, 20.

Proverbs 14:5-8 (NW 1984 edition)

A faithful witness is one that will not lie, but a false witness launches forth mere lies.
6 The ridiculer has sought to find wisdom, and there is none; but to the understanding one knowledge is an easy thing.
7 Go away from in front of the stupid man, for you will certainly not take note of the lips of knowledge.
8 The wisdom of the shrewd is to understand his way, but the foolishness of stupid ones is deception.

(Study edition)

5 A faithful witness will not lie,

But a false witness lies with every breath.

6 The scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,

But knowledge comes easily to the person with understanding.

7 Stay away from the foolish man,

For you will not find knowledge on his lips.

8 By wisdom the shrewd man understands the way he is going,

But the stupid are deceived* [Or possibly, “the stupid deceive others.”] by their foolishness.

And it's not just the OP, the whole first page of this thread is filled with crap/excrement (misleading stuff; charlest2 pointed out something both obvious and true about what the Bible meant with 'speaking in tongues' though, so good job there, although it still was a bit distracting from things that matter more concerning God's only/unique personal name, used approx. 7000 times in the Bible and often replaced by Trinitarian Bible translators with the common noun "the LORD", or more deceptively and dishonestly "the Lord"*, or "God"). Just like most things on ATS. *: see the video "JW ARCHIVES DIVINE NAME JHWH YHWH JEHOVAH NWT NIV COMPARE" for a clue why "the Lord" is even more deceptive and dishonest than "the LORD" (at least the latter signifies that the Hebrew manuscripts actually have God's unique personal name there, rather than the Hebrew word for "lord"), or think about the fact that Jesus is also often called "the Lord" in the Christian Greek Scriptures (but never "the LORD" in Trinitarian translations that swap out God's unique personal name with that noun, while there already is a Hebrew and Greek word for "lord", which looks nothing like God's name in Hebrew, or the Tetragrammaton transliterated to "YHWH"; note that the Hebrew word for "lord" also has no vowel marks in ancient Hebrew). Also check out what it says at Ephesians 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3 and 1 Peter 1:3 quoted further below.

Proverbs 30:12

There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes

But has not been cleansed from its filth.* [Lit., “excrement.”]

2 Timothy 3:5-8,13

... 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith.
. . .
13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ..." (Ephesians 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3)

Addressing the next topic (concerning John 17:6,11,26: "How Did Jesus Make the Name of God Known?"; phrased as "revealed" in the OP's external source for the reasons* shown in the video below and demonstrated by Shazooloo; *: involving eisegesis, which is "the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it." Quoting from wikipedia.):


A little more from wikipedia about eisegesis:

Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. Exegesis is drawing out a text's meaning in accordance with the author's context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their interpretation of the text. Thus exegesis tends to be objective; and eisegesis, highly subjective.

I generally try to avoid such fancy language (words). But it does safe on having to spell all that out if someone already knows what eisegesis is referring to. But there you go, I had some time and space left for edits anyway.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

And it's not just the OP, the whole first page of this thread is filled with crap/excrement (misleading stuff; charlest2 pointed out something both obvious and true about what the Bible meant with 'speaking in tongues' though, so good job there, although it still was a bit distracting from things that matter more concerning God's only/unique personal name, used approx. 7000 times in the Bible and often replaced by Trinitarian Bible translators with the common noun "the LORD", or more deceptively and dishonestly "the Lord"*, or "God"). Just like most things on ATS. *: see the video "JW ARCHIVES DIVINE NAME JHWH YHWH JEHOVAH NWT NIV COMPARE" for a clue why "the Lord" is even more deceptive and dishonest than "the LORD" (at least the latter signifies that the Hebrew manuscripts actually have God's unique personal name there, rather than the Hebrew word for "lord"), or think about the fact that Jesus is also often called "the Lord" in the Christian Greek Scriptures (but never "the LORD" in Trinitarian translations that swap out God's unique personal name with that noun, while there already is a Hebrew and Greek word for "lord", which looks nothing like God's name in Hebrew, or the Tetragrammaton transliterated to "YHWH"; note that the Hebrew word for "lord" also has no vowel marks in ancient Hebrew). Also check out what it says at Ephesians 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3 and 1 Peter 1:3 quoted further below.

...

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ..." (Ephesians 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3)

And now I am out of edit time. I wanted to add there:

Remember, whenever you see "the LORD" in such Trinitarian Bible translations, it is talking about Jehovah, not "our Lord Jesus Christ". When you see "the LORD" in the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures (cause that's where these Trinitarian translators will use this inappropriate, inadequate and intentionally misleading substitute for the purpose of giving people the impression that there is no notable difference with the noun "lord" and intentionally giving the false impression I just described), God's only and unique personal name was substituted and can be found in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts there (rather than the Hebrew word for "lord"). When you read "our Lord Jesus Christ" at Ephesians 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3 and Peter 1:3 for example, the Greek has the Greek word for "lord". But the video "JW ARCHIVES DIVINE NAME JHWH YHWH JEHOVAH NWT NIV COMPARE" also explains how in the Christian Greek Scriptures the personal name of God was often swapped out with the Greek word rendered "the Lord" on other occasions than the 3 verses just cited, so in these cases the translation and/or Greek copy isn't honest, accurate or appropriate in using "Lord" or its Greek equivalent (this happened long ago and has to do with the Jewish superstition of not pronouncing God's name). So then the reader has a difficult time figuring out what was actually said by the Bible writer who wrote in Greek. But when in the Christian Greek Scriptures something is quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, and if you have a translation that still uses "the LORD" in the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures, then you can still know what's up and how the translator is misleading you by not even being consistent with itself. Of course, modern Trinitarian translations (and their translators) have no scrupules about already using "the Lord" in the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures as well, so they can at least pretend to be consistent, it's still dishonest, cause it doesn't say "the Lord" there in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts. It says "Jehovah" (or if you're not happy with that spelling in English, "YHWH" after you transliterate from the Hebrew, i.e. יהוה in Hebrew).

Now back to the Jewish supersition that the OP nor his external source refused to honestly, accurately and appropriately describe as such (a superstition), and as a result, shared misleading and distracting information about.

“Jehovah” is the best known English pronunciation of the divine name, although “Yahweh” is favored by most Hebrew scholars. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts present the name in the form of four consonants, commonly called the Tetragrammaton (from Greek te·tra-, meaning “four,” and gramʹma, “letter”). These four letters (written from right to left) are יהוה and may be transliterated into English as YHWH (or, JHVH).

The Hebrew consonants of the name are therefore known. The question is, Which vowels are to be combined with those consonants? Vowel points did not come into use in Hebrew until the second half of the first millennium C.E. Furthermore, because of a religious superstition that had begun centuries earlier, the vowel pointing found in Hebrew manuscripts does not provide the key for determining which vowels should appear in the divine name.

Superstition hides the name.

At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E.

Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it. However, Jehovah himself said that he would ‘have his name declared in all the earth’ (Ex 9:16; compare 1Ch 16:23, 24; Ps 113:3; Mal 1:11, 14), to be known even by his adversaries. (Isa 64:2) The name was in fact known and used by pagan nations both in pre-Common Era times and in the early centuries of the Common Era. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. XII, p. 119) Another claim is that the purpose was to protect the name from use in magical rites. If so, this was poor reasoning, as it is obvious that the more mysterious the name became through disuse the more it would suit the purposes of practicers of magic. As demonstrated by the OP by going on about God's name and titles "hold[ing] incredible power when properly understood & rightly used within Christian faith & practice" and "benefit[ting] from the mysteries of the Name of God in a deeper way"; "mysteries" being a common term and concept in the study of magic. Often conspiracy theorists like Bill Cooper will use terms like "mystery schools" when talking about those components of "Babylon the Great"/false religion that are heavily involved with magic and its associated teachings and philosophies. "Babylon the Great" is the term the Bible uses to refer to all of false religion, including those into magic and sorcery. It's all very mystical and vague. Just like the doctrine of the Trinity which is also referred to as a "mystery" by many Trinitarian theologians using that as an excuse for why they can't explain it very well or why it's filled with internal contradictions as well as contradicting everything the Bible teaches about Jehovah and Jesus, or Jehovah's holy spirit, his active force. Their argument basically boiling down to 'well it's a "mystery of faith", you just have to believe it', with which they are encouraging blind faith, gullibility (see video below for an example from the official Assemblies of God website, or an example from Cardinal John O'Connor in the video embedded earlier called "and the Word was a god"). The term "Babylon the Great" is also introduced in the Bible as a "mystery" at Revelation 17:5:

On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.”Continued in next comment.

When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold. Some claim that it began following the Babylonian exile (607-537 B.C.E.). This theory, however, is based on a supposed reduction in the use of the name by the later writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, a view that does not hold up under examination. Malachi, for example, was evidently one of the last books of the Hebrew Scriptures written (in the latter half of the fifth century B.C.E.), and it gives great prominence to the divine name.

Many reference works have suggested that the name ceased to be used by about 300 B.C.E. Evidence for this date supposedly was found in the absence of the Tetragrammaton (or a transliteration of it) in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, begun about 280 B.C.E. It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek words Kyʹri·os (Lord) or The·osʹ (God) for the Tetragrammaton. But these major manuscripts date back only as far as the fourth and fifth centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name.

One of these is the fragmentary remains of a papyrus roll of a portion of Deuteronomy, listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266. (a picture can be seen in the video "and the word was a god"; at least I think that picture is this one) It regularly presents the Tetragrammaton, written in square Hebrew characters, in each case of its appearance in the Hebrew text being translated. This papyrus is dated by scholars as being from the first century B.C.E., and thus it was written four or five centuries earlier than the manuscripts mentioned previously.​

When did the Jews in general actually stop pronouncing the personal name of God?

So, at least in written form, there is no sound evidence of any disappearance or disuse of the divine name in the B.C.E. period. In the first century C.E., there first appears some evidence of a superstitious attitude toward the name. Josephus, a Jewish historian from a priestly family, when recounting God’s revelation to Moses at the site of the burning bush, says: “Then God revealed to him His name, which ere then had not come to men’s ears, and of which I am forbidden to speak.” (Jewish Antiquities, II, 276 [xii, 4]) Notice the similarity of this false claim (in particular the bolded part) with the first misconception and falsehood* in the OP I addressed in textformat in this thread (my 2nd comment on page 2). (*: something that is wrong/incorrect, whether or not it's a deliberate lie from the OP I'll leave in the middle, it is still a falsehood and thus belongs to the father of falsehoods, i.e. "the father of the lie", Satan the Devil, and comes from his misinformation campaign as carried about by his human pawns and victims, in this case predominantly theologians in Christendom, counterfeit Christianity, usually Trinitarians. Many of whom are spreading these falsehoods while knowing better, as admitted in their own encyclopedias and scholarly books, written by theologians of the same persuasion or even specific denomination, and usually in the fineprint, as quoted before. Just as the Bible warned: “However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.” 1 Timothy 4:1,2) Josephus’ statement, however, besides being inaccurate* as to knowledge of the divine name prior to Moses, is vague and does not clearly reveal just what the general attitude current in the first century was as to pronouncing or using the divine name. (*: "inaccurate" is a synonym for "false/incorrect")

The Jewish Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic teachings and traditions, is somewhat more explicit. Its compilation is credited to a rabbi known as Judah the Prince, who lived in the second and third centuries C.E. Some of the Mishnaic material clearly relates to circumstances prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 C.E. Of the Mishnah, however, one scholar says: “It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party . . .​—these are factors which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah’s statements. Moreover there is much in the contents of the Mishnah that moves in an atmosphere of academic discussion pursued for its own sake, with (so it would appear) little pretence at recording historical usage.” (The Mishnah, translated by H. Danby, London, 1954, pp. xiv, xv) Some of the Mishnaic traditions concerning the pronouncing of the divine name are as follows:

In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby’s translation of the Mishnah states: “And when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on their faces and say, ‘Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!’” (Yoma 6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: “In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word.” Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer was not guilty ‘unless he pronounced the Name,’ and that in a trial involving a charge of blasphemy a substitute name was used until all the evidence had been heard; then the chief witness was asked privately to ‘say expressly what he had heard,’ presumably employing the divine name. Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those “that have no share in the world to come,” states: “Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters.” Yet, despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah the positive injunction that “a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God],” the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited.​—Berakhot 9:5.

Taken for what they are worth, these traditional views may reveal a superstitious tendency to avoid using the divine name sometime before Jerusalem’s temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Even then, it is primarily the priests who are explicitly said to have used a substitute name in place of the divine name, and that only in the provinces. Additionally the historical value of the Mishnaic traditions is questionable, as we have seen.

There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second centuries C.E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance of the use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ʼAdho·naiʹ (Sovereign Lord) or ʼElo·himʹ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton. This is seen from the fact that when vowel pointing came into use in the second half of the first millennium C.E., the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ʼAdho·naiʹ or ʼElo·himʹ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. If using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in later copies, the reader, of course, found the Tetragrammaton completely replaced by Kyʹri·os and The·osʹ.​—See LORD.

Translations into other languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, followed the example of these later copies of the Greek Septuagint. The Catholic Douay Version (of 1609-1610) in English, based on the Latin Vulgate, therefore does not contain the divine name, while the King James Version (1611) uses LORD or GOD (in capital and small capitals) to represent the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures, except in four cases. All this truthful information is honestly presented in the videos in my first response in this thread (talking about this paragraph specifically now, such as the 3 videos about the KJV; there's more to say about it in those 3 videos and those probably take up less of your time than reading my commentary about it).

originally posted by: whereislogic
...

Translations into other languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, followed the example of these later copies of the Greek Septuagint. The Catholic Douay Version (of 1609-1610) in English, based on the Latin Vulgate, therefore does not contain the divine name, while the King James Version (1611) uses LORD or GOD (in capital and small capitals) to represent the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures, except in four cases. All this truthful information is honestly presented in the videos in my first response in this thread (talking about this paragraph specifically now, such as the 3 videos about the KJV; there's more to say about it in those 3 videos and those probably take up less of your time than reading my commentary about it).

Of course, you're still not going to (or at least it's unlikely; talking about watching those videos and accepting the facts/truths presented therein), because of this phenomenon (which is also a prophecy):

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

And because you prefer being kept in the dark about all this, as Jesus said and then explained why (quoted before in my commentary, John 3:19, 20. 2nd comment of mine from today). And as Jesus explained here when addressing the Jewish religious leaders for their refusal to believe him (most, if not all, of you are no different, these words are directly for you, they count as much for you as they counted for those Jewish religious leaders and teachers; it takes quite a bit of effort to overcome this stubborness and closedmindedness to the truth of the matter, but it can be done if you truly wanted to):

John 8:42-47

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

Matthew 13:13-15

That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

Proverbs 29:1

A man who stiffens his neck* [Or “who remains stubborn.”] after much reproof

Will suddenly be broken beyond healing.

Romans 10:13-15

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

2 Corinthians 4:3-9

If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination* [Or “light.”] of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. 5 For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God is the one who said: “Let the light shine out of darkness,” and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate them with the glorious knowledge of God by the face of Christ.

7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us. 8 We are hard-pressed in every way, but not cramped beyond movement; we are perplexed, but not absolutely with no way out;* [Or possibly, “but not left in despair.”] we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed.

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“And stop being molded by this system of things,* [ Or “this age.”] but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2)

And:

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’ By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.” (1Ti 6:20,21)

“But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

The Great Delusion, is choosing not God, but the world.

Three strange things of the world:
loving war more than peace,
loving excess more than sufficiency,
loving falsehood more than truth.

Mankind is three things;
who others think he or she is,
who he or she thinks he or she is,
who he or she really is.

GOD knows who we are, even knows the number of hairs on our heads to the exact digit. GOD created two Genders.

The Great Delusion, is believing of lies over Truth.

They are the disciples of the anti Christ.

They and their houses, do not, serve The Lord in Heaven.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
So much more misleading things to address from the OP. It's just too much (to address everything in textformat, the comments would just get too long). And when people don't bother watching the videos anyway, they are kept in the dark about any of this. Well then, that's their choice isn't it? As Jesus said: “This is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.* [Or “exposed.”]”​—John 3:19, 20.

Proverbs 14:5-8 (NW 1984 edition)

...

(Study edition)

5 A faithful witness will not lie,

But a false witness lies with every breath.

6 The scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,

But knowledge comes easily to the person with understanding.

7 Stay away from the foolish man,

For you will not find knowledge on his lips.

8 By wisdom the shrewd man understands the way he is going,

But the stupid are deceived* [Or possibly, “the stupid deceive others.”] by their foolishness.

And it's not just the OP, the whole first page of this thread is filled with crap/excrement (misleading stuff; charlest2 pointed out something both obvious and true about what the Bible meant with 'speaking in tongues' though, ...) ...

Proverbs 30:12

There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes

But has not been cleansed from its filth.* [Lit., “excrement.”]

...

Oxidaddio wins on that front though. But that also makes it more obvious what we're talking about here, mental poison (see my signature). The stuff in the OP (or by the OP, all 5 main posts/comments on page 1*) is a bit more subtle and "cunning" (and thus less obvious). As that term is used at Ephesians 4:14 quoted before (previous comment).

*: technically it was 6 comments, but one of those comments didn't have much content and was therefore not (that) misleading (unless it was misunderstood in light of what was presented in the other 5 comments; which is why I added "(that)" in that sentence; this whole footnote is an edit of my original comment above, which I edited a bit as well, once you see "(...)" in my comment it's usually an edit after reading what I wrote, thinking I should clarify a bit more and often trying to be a bit more specific; I often read back what I wrote while trying to put myself in the shoes of a Trinitarian or someone who might object to what I'm saying or is likely to refuse to believe it's true/factual/correct, without error, i.e. refuse to "accept" it as it says in the footnote for "listen" in my quotation of John 8:42-47).

Videoformat is so much easier than text, less words, less timeconsuming (for both me as well as any potential viewer), and the evidence can be shown (such as in the form of pictures of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that contain the divine name, related to the point being made there). In that light, a few more videos that I haven't embedded yet:


Concerning the video below, take note of what is mentioned under "11 / GOD: THEY CHANGE" (8:46), "12 / GOD: THEY HATE" (9:26) and "26 / STRAIN OUT GNAT BUT GULP DOWN THE CAMEL" (22:43), the latter 2 specifically about the use (or non-use) of God's name in Bible translations:

Isaiah chapter 45 from an honest accurate translation that doesn't try to hide God's name from the people, i.e. what it really says and who it really is talking about (and how obvious it is that the Bible does not teach that God is a trinity, nor that Jesus is the same individual as Jehovah, i.e. that Jesus is Jehovah), and demonstrates the importance of that name to the Bible writers who were all witnesses and worshippers of Jehovah, just like Jesus was:

Something more about Exodus 3:14 (which came up before in my commentary when discussing a more accurate translation of ʼEh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ. Inaccurately rendered by some translations as “I AM THAT I AM.”; which makes the misleading connection made by Trinitarians to what Jesus says at John 8:58 a little easier to confuse people with, as if it is in any way related, which it isn't, which becomes more obvious if you honestly and accurately translate both passages without the blatant Trinitarian bias leading to improper English syntax at John 8:58 in their translations):