GOD, DEITY OF THE NATIONS

By: Angelo B. Traina (Revised by Philip B. Wisman)

(Continuing)

CHAPTER FIVE

   We shall now analyze the Dean’s third article in his “Yahweh or God” series, in which he claims to discuss the etymology of the Name Joshua. “To do this,” he says, “we refer to men that are trained in the use of words and different sources to prove that Yahshua is simply another name for Christ in another language.”  End of quote.

   He then quotes from the answer which he received from Professor Henry Snyder Gehman, of Princeton University Theological Seminary, who states, “Joshua in Hebrew would be written Yehoshua. The spelling you have, ‘Joshua,’ is neither English nor Hebrew,”  End of quote.

   We would ask both the Dean and the Professor to read the Hebrew of Num. 13:16. They will find Oshea, or Hoshua (Hebrew ucwh), which means Deliverer, or Savior, was changed to YAH-Hoshua (Hebrew ucwhy), pointing out the fact that not Oshea, the son of Nun, but Yahweh Himself was going to Deliver, or Save the people from their troubles, and bring them into the promised land. Let them turn to Matt. 1:21, and note that the child to be born of the Virgin, by the direct act of the Spirit of Yahweh, was to bear the name of His Father (See John (5:43) whose abbreviated Name is Yah (See Psalm 68:4). He, “Yah the Son,” was to be Hoshea, (Hebrew Savior); that is, He was to save His people from their sins. The combination of the Name, Yah, and the character of the work He was to do, (that is, to save—Hoshua), formed the basis of the Name by which He was going to be known in the New Testament. That Name was, and still is, Yah-Hoshua, which is abbreviated Yahshua.

    It was this fact that was recorded in Matt. 1:21. But in the Hellenization of the Sacred Text by the Nicolaitans, they substituted the Sacred Name of the Holy One of Israel, and put in their Greek Zeus, the Sun-God. In Rev. 1:10, they substituted the Lord’s Day, or Sun-Day, in place of the Sabbath of Yahweh. Their descendants, the Christian Ecclesia, are still maintaining this great hoax, and worshipping Ie-sous or Ea-Zeus, the English Jesus, on the day dedicated to his worship—Sun-day.

   Next, we have the Dean’s question, “Did God ever say He was Yahweh?” Dr. Gehman answers, “When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, He said, ‘I am YHWH thy God.’ I write YHWH, because these are Hebrew consonants, and the vowels must be supplied.” End of quote.

   Here the Dean gets a clear and definite answer that the Holy One of Israel, when He gave to Moses the Holy Law, said, “I am Yahweh thy Elohim” (erroneously translated God). But does the Dean accept it? Does he not appear to confuse the issue?

   To the Dean’s next question, Professor Gehman states, “You ask whether Lord and God are as good as Yahweh? The word, God, in the Hebrew is Elohim, and the Hebrew word for Lord is YHWH (Yahweh). Accordingly, the use of the words Lord and God is determined by the Hebrew original.” End of quote.

   Here again the Dean gets proof that Elohim is the correct Hebrew appellation of the Holy One of Israel, and he gets this information from the men whom he says are trained in the use of words. Does the Dean accept the evidence?

   Professor Gehman clearly states that Yahweh and Elohim are the correct Hebrew, even though he says that Lord and God are used in the King James version. He knows that Lord is not the translation of Yahweh. Does he know that Lord is the English equivalent of Baal, and Adonai, and that both of these are names of pagan deities? You, who read this, can verify our statement by looking in your Bible Concordance under the word “Baal,” and “Adoni-Bezek.” As for God, does Professor Gehman know that God is not a translation of Elohim, but a transliteration of the Hebrew word G-D (Gawd, or God) translated “Fortune” in the Rotherham translation of the Bible, and also in the Leeser and many other translations of Isaiah 65: 11? It is identified as the Deity of the Assyrians, from whom the apostate Israelites borrowed it.

   Let us continue with Professor Gehman’s answer to the Dean, as he states, “As regards to your question whether Hebrew is the original language, we can safely say that is was not the original language of mankind; it is, however, the language of the Old Testament, except for those parts which are written in Aramaic. Yahweh is a philological reconstruction of what is supposed to have been the original pronunciation of YHWH.” End of quote.

   We would question the Professor’s statement, “We can safely say it was not the original language of mankind.” If he is sure, can he tell us which was the original language of mankind? Has he any evidence of an earlier language than Hebrew? If he has, why not produce it? The Bible plainly states that Shem and his descendant, Heber, were chosen to witness to the power and glory of the Creator. (See Gen. 9:26 and Gen. 10:21). From Shem, we get the Semitic language, which he learned from his ancestors, and which he taught to his descendants. Though Shem’s other children mingled with apostate Hamites and Japhethites, thus corrupting their language, Heber was faithful in his separation to Yahweh and his calling. Thus, Heber continued the language of his father, viz., the Semitic language, which they kept pure from adulteration, and which came to be known as Hebrew.

   The other children of Shem (who had mingled with the Hamites and Japhethites), while retaining the foundation of the Semitic language, added traces of the language they contacted. That is where we get the Aramaean-Semitic, Canaanite-Semitic, and the like.

   Abraham was a Hebrew. Yahweh called him out from Ur of the Chaldees, so that he would not be contaminated. Abraham, being a Hebrew, spoke the Semitic-Hebrew, which he transmitted to his descendants, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants. Therefore, according to the Bible, what other language was more ancient?

   We think the Spirit of Yahweh is the perfect Teacher; and we know He speaks Hebrew (See Acts 26:14). The Spirit spoke through the Hebrew prophets in the Old Scriptures, and the same Spirit spoke to the prophets in the New. This is NOT guess work, but evidence from the Bible, the greatest authoritative book in the world.

   Next, the Dean quotes from Professor J. Wash Watts, of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, who says, “Jesus and Jahshua do come from the same root, and have the same meaning in general. However the usage of the two names indicate this difference: God said that our Lord should be called Jesus because He would save His people from their sins. The name Jahshua refers to salvation, but it in no sense says that Jahshua will save His people from their sins.” End of quote.

    Professor Watts should know that the Name, Yahshua, is derived from a compound of two words.  “YAH” and “Hoshua.” This last word means “one who delivers” or saves. Any Hebrew dictionary will reveal this. As for Jesus, it is purely a Greek word; and this, too, is a compound. It comes from Ea, the Greek Goddess of healing; and Zeus the Greek God, the personification of the SUN-GOD.

   The Angel who was sent to the Hebrew maiden Miriam (Mary), did NOT speak Greek to her, but Hebrew; and told her that the Holy Child which she was to bear, was to be called by the Name of His Heavenly Father, Yah. And as He was to save (Hoshua) His people from their sins, His Name would be “Yah will save,” or “Yah-shua.” The Name Yahshua not only refers to salvation, but tells who it is that brings Salvation. It is no other than Yahweh who brings salvation through Yahshua, His Son.

   How can Jesus, the Greek word “Ie-sous, or Ie-Zeus” come from the same root as the Hebrew word Yahshua, which originates from the root-verb AHAYAH (to be)? The Greek word “Iesous” is a derivative of Ea-zeus, and it comes to us through the Nicolaitans.

   Next the Dean quotes from Dr. E. A. Speiser, Chairman of Oriental Studies of the University of Pennsylvania, who says, “Hebrew is a very ancient language, but by no means the oldest that can be deduced from the material now available.” End of quote.

   The Doctor agrees that Hebrew is a very ancient language, but he says it is not the oldest. Why does he not tell us what is the oldest, or should I say, older than the Hebrew, from the material now on hand? Can it be because there is NONE SUCH? When he says that there are no manuscripts available today from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we will agree with him; but when he says that we have no manuscripts of Moses, we wonder what he means. If he means that we have no original manuscripts in Moses’ own handwriting, we again will agree with him. But we do have transcripts of Moses’ original manuscripts in the Bible. From them we learn that Yahweh spoke to him in the Hebrew language when He gave Moses the Ten Commandments, including the rest of the commandments, judgments and statutes. Yes, and we know more than that: we also know that there were some original manuscripts from which Moses obtained his information concerning the subject matter contained in the Book of Genesis. Let us remember that the Book of Genesis covers a period of approximately 2360 years of history before Moses was born. Therefore, Moses would have had to obtain that material for the book of Genesis from records then available to him. We understand, from the word of Yahweh, that “Yahweh spoke through the mouth of ALL HIS HOLY PROPHETS, not since Moses, but SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN” (see Acts 3:21.

   Next the Dean quotes from Dr. Edwin R. Thiele, Professor of Hebrew at Emmanuel Missionary College. He says, “Certainly the original manuscripts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses are not in the possession of anyone today, nor do we know what manuscripts the earlier Patriarchs may have had.” End of quote.

   As we said before, we do not have the original manuscripts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we know, from Acts 3:21, that such manuscripts did exist at the time of Moses, of which we have the transcriptions; and so we have access to their historic contents.

   Concerning the Hebrew language, this professor says, “Undoubtedly the Hebrew language as is spoken today has changed to quite an extent from the language of the second millennium before Christ. All languages are constantly changing with years, and certainly this must have been the case with Hebrew.” End of quote.

   We note that he states the Hebrew was spoken two thousand years before the Messiah, even though, as he says, there must have been a change to some extent. We will agree to this, but the main, basic element of the language remains, even though there may have been a change, or an evolution of the grammar. For example, when England overran Ireland and took over her schools, the Gaelic ceased, and the English language was taught in its place. But when Ireland obtained her freedom, the forgotten language made a comeback. The same thing is happening in Jerusalem today: the Hebrew—the original Hebrew—is making a comeback.

   The Professor states his ignorance as to the pronunciation, for he also says, “Exactly how YHWH was originally pronounced we do not know, for we have only consonants, and its original pronunciation has been lost. The word probably is a form of the verb ‘to be,” End of quote.

   We would suggest that both Professor Thiele and the Dean discard the myth of “no vowels” in the Hebrew Alphabet. Then they will be able to pronounce the Sacred Name. The four Hebrew letters which form the Sacred Name are not consonants, but VOWELS. But here, the Professor presents us with an apparent paradox: he admits that the word Yahweh is from the verb “TO BE.” Now, the verb “to be” in Hebrew is “AHYAH” and another root of the verb, “to be” or to exist, is HAWAH. Since he can pronounce the two verbs separately, we would ask, how does it happen that he cannot pronounce them together; for the compounding of the two root verbs form the Name Yahwah, or Yahweh (as both spellings are permissible).   He then says, “Jehovah is a combination of the consonants of Jahweh or God and the vowels of the word Lord.” End of quote.

   We wonder how Professor Thiele derived the vowels in the Hebrew word for Lord, IF, as he says, there are no vowels in the Hebrew Alphabet? Why does he not admit that the word Jehovah is an adulteration, an illegal mixation of the Holy YAHWEH and the profane Adonai, the pagan name? He also says, “A Hebrew (he means a Jew), in reading his Bible, never pronounces the word Jahweh, but always reads it as Lord.” End of quote.

   In reading Isaiah 65:11 (read margin) and Jer. 23:27, we may readily understand why the Jews substituted Lord, Hebrew Baal, or Adonai, in the place of Yahweh.

   Next the Dean quotes from Professor A. Jeffrey, of the Department of Semitic Languages of Columbia University, who writes, “There are no original Mss. of Biblical personages in possession of anyone. The earliest Hebrew Mss. of any size that we possess is the recently discovered Dead Sea Scroll of the Book of Isaiah. In my judgment, that scroll dates from the first century, A.D., though there are reputable scholars who are prepared to date it from the second century B.C.”  End of quote.

   We agree with Professor Jeffrey that there are no original manuscripts of any Biblical personage. But, we do have transcripts of a good many of them. Also, there is an abundance of evidence that the original writers of the manuscripts (from which the transcripts were made) had access to the manuscripts of their predecessors. Therefore, in this way, we have obtained our knowledge of ancient times.

   As to the Professor’s judgment of the antiquity of the Isaiah Scroll as being of the first century A.D., we would list the following men, namely, Dr. W.F. Albright, Professor of Languages of the John Hopkins University, Dr. John C. Trever, of the International Council of Religious Education, Dr. Millar Burrows, of Yale University, Dept. of Near Eastern languages, Dr. William H. Brownlee, of Duke University, Dr. E. L. Sukenik and his entire staff of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and many others who have examined the Dead-Sea Scroll. All these authorities concur that the Isaiah Scroll dates from the SECOND CENTURY B.C., and that the grammar construction and other identifiable data give positive evidence of Pre-Maccabaean Era.

   The question may be asked, in the face of the preceding facts: Why does this learned man from Columbia University make such statements? The answer is obvious: he wants to discredit the inspirational value of the Bible in order to uphold the modernistic position which is being taught in the Theological Department of the University. The faith of the Saints has no place in their curriculum.

   Next, the Dean quotes Professor Jeffrey as saying, “Hebrew is not the original language of mankind. Actually, we have no knowledge of the language of our first parents.” End quote.

   We would like to ask the Professor, if he has NO KNOWLEDGE of the language of our first parents, what makes him so sure it was not Hebrew? How does he arrive at such conclusions IF he presents no evidence of an older language?

   Next, Professor Jeffrey, as quoted by the Dean, says, “Abraham would not have spoken Hebrew. One would date the period of Abraham 2000 B.C., but one could not speak of Hebrew as a language earlier than 1200 century B.C.” End of quote.

   We would like to ask the Professor: Where did the Hebrew language come from, if not from the Hebrew people? Did not the Hebrews descend from Heber, and Heber from Shem? Abraham and his immediate family were called Hebrews long before the 12th Century B.C. See Gen. 14:13, 39:14,17, 41:12; Exo. 1:15, 16, 19, 2:7, 11; and Deut. 15:12.

   This next paragraph is the Dean’s quote from Professor Jeffrey, which needs careful screening: “The Semitic invaders, who became what we call Israelites, were speaking Aramaean when, about the XIVth Century B.C., they began to infiltrate Palestine from the East and Southeast. They settled in the hill country among people who were speaking a South Canaanitish dialect, mingling with them, and then took over their Canaanitish speech; but profoundly modified it by reason of their earlier habits. The result gave us what we call Hebrew.” End of quote.

   As we analyze Professor Jeffrey’s statement, quoted above, we first note that he apparently has not weighed the Bible evidence. The Bible tells us that the children of Israel went into Egypt and were eventually enslaved by the Egyptians, and were finally delivered by Yahweh’s personal intervention, who used Moses as His personal representative.

   By looking at the maps in the back of your Bible, you will probably find one that shows Egypt’s geographical position. It is Southwest of Palestine; but, according to the Professor, the children of Israel did not come from Egypt, (which is Southwest) but from the Southeast.

   Dr. Jeffrey states that the Israelites were speaking Aramaean at the time of their invasion of Palestine, before the Hebrew language was formulated. How does it happen then, that in Gen. 31:47, we have the Aramaean and the Hebrew language side by side? Here, in Laban’s Aramaean expression, “Jagar sahadutha,” we find the Hebrew equivalent in Jacob’s “Galeed.” See the margin, where it shows Laban’s “Jagar sahadutha,” as meaning “a heap of Witness,” in Chaldaic, or Aramaic; and Jacob’s “Galeed,” as meaning “a heap of Witness,” in Hebrew. Here, in the Bible, we have positive evidence that the Aramaean and Hebrew were spoken side by side at least six hundred years before the 12th century B.C. It was still spoken side by side during the reign of King Hezekiah, when the King’s officers asked the Assyrians to speak their own Syrian (Aramaean), and not the Hebrew language. This was so that the Israel population sitting on the wall would not understand. See Isaiah 36:11,13.

   This evidence comes from the Bible, and NOT from modernistic, unbelieving teachers who are endeavoring to discredit the Holy Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit. But let us go further to examine what the Professor has to say about the Biblical language of Abraham. He says, “Abraham obviously could not have spoken this Hebrew, but in all probability spoke an older Canaanitish dialect, or at least an older Semitic dialect.” End of quote.

   Now what could this “older Semitic dialect” be, but Hebrew? We are told in Gen. 11:10-14 that “Shem begat Arphaxad,” who, in turn, begat Salah, who in turn begat Heber, the progenitor of the Hebrews. In this Heber line (being the elect of Yahweh to carry on the Semitic blessing—See Gen. 10:21), Yahweh had blessed Shem as in Gen. 9:26. From this time on, the purest of the Semitic dialect was preserved. It was not corrupted until Israel later apostacized themselves to the gods of the heathen nations around them.

   In his next paragraph, Professor Jeffrey states that the Hebrew has not changed very much, for he says, “So we can fairly say that the Hebrew we study from our Grammars is a genuine development of the Original Hebrew.” End of quote.

   Then, according to that statement, we still have, in the Biblical Hebrew, “A GENUINE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORIGINAL HEBREW.”

   Next, Professor Jeffrey says, “It is quite possible to transliterate Hebrew into Latin characters.” End of quote.

   We readily agree with this fact. Therefore, we would like him, or any other Hebrew scholar, to transliterate the Hebrew hwhy into Latin. When they do, we will have the following: For y we shall have the Latin “I,” for h we shall have the Latin “E” or “A” (as both are permissible) for w we shall have the Latin “U,” and for the last h again we have the Latin “E” or “A.” The result will be the complete Hebrew hwhy transliterated into the Latin as “IAUA” which, in English, is vocalized as YAHWEH. We have been contending for this for a long time.

   Professor Jeffrey says, “Yahweh IS THE ACCEPTED TRANSLITERATION of the Hebrew hwhy which occurs in the Old Testament as the PERSONAL NAME OF THE DEITY OF THE ISRAELITES, just as Chemosh was the personal name of the deity of the Moabites, and Zeus the personal name of the Greeks.” End of quote.

   Here we note that Professor Jeffrey agrees that Yahweh is the accepted English transliteration of the Sacred Name hwhy but he says that it is the name of the deity of the Israelites, the same as Chemosh of the Moabites, or Zeus of the Greeks. Could Dr. Jeffrey mean that he does not believe in the Mighty One of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Moses, any more than he believes in the gods of the Moabites, Canaanites, Greeks, or of any other heathen nation? Then we would like to ask, if he does not believe in the Mighty One of Israel, who or what deity does he believe in, and what is HIS NAME? The Bible clearly states, “For thy Husband is thy Maker, Yahweh of Host IS HIS NAME, the ELOHIM OF ALL THE EARTH SHALL HE BE CALLED” (Isaiah 54:5). And Zechariah 14:9 says, “So will YAHWEH become the KING OVER ALL THE EARTH, and in that day, there shall be YAHWEH alone, and His NAME ONE.” See Hebrew text, or Rotherham’s translation.

   If Yahweh, the Mighty One of Israel and of the ancient Hebrews, is only a tribal deity, then it becomes very evident that the Christian Church is worshipping a different deity than did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

   Next, the Professor says, “The Rabbis felt that the Name of the Deity was too holy to be pronounced by the lips of men, so when ever they came to hwhy in the Old Testament, they said “Adonai,” which means Lord. The translators of the English Bible accepted the device of using the consonants of Yahweh with the vowels of Adonai, and so produced the form Jehovah, which has become familiar to us in English. That may seem strange to you as you see it here on paper, but in Hebrew script, it is quite plain how they combined the two to form Jehovah.” End of quote.

   First of all, we wish to call attention to the fact that in the foregoing paragraph, the Professor clearly stated that “ADONAI” means Lord. Therefore Lord is NOT the translation of Yahweh. Lord is the English equivalent of the Canaanitish Adonai (See Joshua 10:1; Judges 1:5), and the Chaldean-Babylonian Baal (see any Bible dictionary on Baal).

   The next thing to notice in the Professor’s statement is what he said about Jews changing over from reading Yahweh to reading Adonai. This seems strange to us, that just because the Jews discontinued using the Name of Yahweh in their worship and in their reading the Bible, when they substituted the pagan Adonai) should the Christians also follow suit in accepting this device? The Jews also rejected the true Messiah, and as witnessed by Pilate, they chose Bar-Abbas a robber substitute, even as the Christians have rejected Yahshua the Messiah, and have chosen a robber substitute, the Pagan Greek Ie-Zeus Christos. This also may sound strange on paper, but in the Hebrew Script, it is very plain. As to the identity of those responsible for combining the four letters of the Sacred Name with the letters of the pagan Adonai, it was not the English translators, but the Roman Catholic Monk, Peter Galatin (the Confessor of Pope Leo the Xth) who formed the hybrid name Jehovah. It was the fornication of Mother Babylon the harlot, who, having filled her cup with the filthiness of her fornication of pagan gods and their doctrines, has caused the whole religious world to drink her “brew.” The Protestant churches have been nursing meekly at Babylon’s breast—and liking it. It is no wonder that the Catholic Church boasts that the Protestants are not following the Bible, but are following the doctrines of the Mother Church, such as the pagan names, pagan feasts, pagan Sunday, pagan hell, pagan Heaven, and many other pagan doctrines.

   Then Professor Jeffrey says, “Our familiar Jesus came into English from the Greek form of the name ’Iesous’ in an ATTEMPT to write in Greek characters the Hebrew Aramaic עwcy, which we may transliterate as Yeshua. This was not an uncommon name in Palestine.” End of quote.

   In his attempt to justify the use of the pagan name Jesus, in the Greek “Iesous,” the Professor admits that it is only “AN ATTEMPT.” An attempt is no guarantee of success; and in this case, they ATTEMPT to write in Greek the Hebrew and Aramaic עwcy failed.

   To transliterate the Greek “Iesous” into English is very easy. For, at the time the King James scholars translated the Bible, they had no letter “J” as we have today. Therefore, they had to use what they had. Now the true equivalent of the Greek “Iota,” is our English “I.” Thus, the translators transliterated “Iesous” into the English “Ie-sus.” You can see it thus written in any 16th Century copy of the New Testament. After the 17th Century, the English borrowed the French letter “J,” (which the French pronounced “DZ”). Then the English changed the pronunciation of Iesus into Gee-sus and wrote it as Jesus. Note that, in Latin, “J” was the initial form of “i” pronounced “e.”

   To transliterate the Hebrew עwcy into English, you get ISHUA. Now the meaning of Ishua is “to save,” or deliver. In Matthew 1:20, 21, we read, “Joseph, thou son of David, do not fear to take Miriam thy wife, for that which in her hath been begotten is of the Holy Spirit. Moreover she shall bring forth a Son and thou shall call His Name YAH-Ishua, for He (YAH) shall save (Ishua) His people from their sins.” In John 5:43, the Savior plainly declares that He had come in the Name of His Father; and, in Exodus 23:21, the Father plainly declared that His Name was in Him (the Son). Therefore, He who was to deliver His people from their sins was the Son of Yah (see Psalm 68:4). Now if we combine the Name YAH with the character of the work He was to do, we have the compound Name YAH-Ishua, which is shortened Yah-shua. It is true that the Name Ishua was not uncommon in Palestine, but the Saviour’s Name was not common; it was unique. His Name was Yah-Ishua; while many had the common Ishua.

   Now in summarizing this, his third article, the Dean says, “Take notice of one outstanding point introduced by Professor Jeffrey: that Yahweh was a National God named the same as Chemosh of the Moabites and Zeus of the Greeks. To this agrees Dr. Millar Barrows of Yale University in his dissertation written earlier in this article.” End of quote.

   We note that, in his summarizing, the Dean did not state whose national god Yahweh was. But Dr. Jeffrey said that Yahweh was the name of the national Deity of the Israelites; and Professor Millar Barrows said that Yahweh was the name of the Deity of the Hebrews. Now we would like to ask, what do they consider is the name of the universal Deity? Surely not the name of the Mighty One of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? For, according to Dr. Jeffrey of Columbia, and Dr. Millar Burrows of Yale, and the concurring teacher of the Salem Bible Training School; Yahweh is the personal name of the national deity of the Israelites and unsuitable for Christian worship. (See the earlier statement of Dr. Millar Burrows.) Notice that these two university professors apparently reject the name of Yahweh, the Holy One of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and all the prophets. Likewise the Dean, Apostle and headmaster of the Salem Bible Training School, also appears to reject the name of the Mighty One of the Hebrews as unsuitable for Christian worship.

   Why then does the Dean propagate the 7th day Sabbath so strongly, when the 7th day Sabbath is the sign of the name of the National Deity of the Hebrews? According to Ex. 31:17, the 7th day Sabbath is the evidence of Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel. So if “the name of Yahweh is unsuitable for Christian worship,” the 7th day is unsuitable for the Christian rest day, for the 7th day Sabbath belongs to Yahweh, who has given it to Israel first, and to the Gentile believers who are joined to Yahweh, to serve Him. See Isaiah 56:3.

   Is not the Dean’s conclusion, as summarized in his last statement, proof that he is not accepting the name of the Holy One who gave the Ten Commandments, whose name Dr. Millar Burrows said was Yahweh?

     The Dean says, and teaches, that he is worshipping the Lord, whose Hebrew equivalent is Adonai, and Baal. See any Bible Concordance. These two deities were the tribal deities of the Canaanites, the Tyrenians and the Babylonians. Then he should be worshipping on the day of “the Lord,” which, according to universal acceptance, is the Sun’s Day. Why is he not consistent?

CHAPTER SIX

   This last witness, upon whom the Dean calls, is Rabbi Walter Gilbert Peiser, Ph.D., Congregation B’nai Israel, Baton Rouge, LA., and answering for the University of Louisiana. The Rabbi answers, “Your letter addressed to the University of Louisiana was turned over to me to answer. The word ‘Jahweh’ is a better equivalent, because there are no vowels in Hebrew. ‘Y.H.W.H.’ is found often throughout the Old Testament. It is called the Tetragrammaton because it consists of four letters.” End of quote.

   In spite of the fact that the Rabbi used the letter “J” in Jahweh, the Rabbi knows that the “J” is pronounced as ‘Y’ in Yahweh. Why does not the Dean teach it in his classes? The Semitic Baal is Lord, which may be ascertained in a Bible dictionary, or in the back of any reference Bible, In fact, in the Reference Bible sold by the Publication Department of the Seventh Day Church of God, it is plainly written that the true Name is “Yahweh” and that Baal means Lord and Master.

   Now the Rabbi said, “There are no vowels in Hebrew.” Evidently he is following the tradition of the Post-Babylonian Jews, who had forgotten their ancient Hebrew alphabet after they adapted the square Assyrian alphabet used by the Babylonians. Apparently in the 5th Century A.D. the Massorites invented what they term vowel points. These are, in reality, no more and no less than markings similar to English diacritic marks which are familiar to all who have used the self-pronouncing King James version of the Bible.

   These vowel points, as in the English diacritic marks, originally were used to give the five vowels their different sounds according to the way they were used. For instance, two dots over the English A gives us the broad A, as in father; while the_ over the A would give us a different sound as in flavor.

   The theory that there are no vowels in the Hebrew alphabet has now been exploded by archaeology, bringing into focus the fact that the four letters of the Sacred Name are really four vowels.

   Rabbi Peiser also writes, “In reading and coming to that word (Yahweh), the name of God, ancient Jews used to say “Adonoi,” or my Lord. The vowels of Adonoi put in YHVH make ‘YHOVOH,’ or Jehovah, as you have it spelled. The use of ‘Jehovah’ dates back to the early centuries of the common era when somebody misread the vowel signs, put in to indicate that ‘YHWH’ was to be read Adonoi or My Lord.” End of quote.

   From the Rabbi’s statement, it is very plain that the Jews did not attempt to use the Name, but substituted the pagan ‘Adonoi’ or ‘Adonai’ (My Lord) for the True Name of the Holy One of Israel, thus fulfilling Jer. 23:27, as Adonai is the same as Baal in Hebrew.

   Next the Rabbi says, “Your question, ‘Is Yahweh the modern ancient form of Jehovah?’ is answered above. The question has no meaning in light of the facts I have stated. Your question was, ‘Can we be sure the Hebrew now in possession is the original Hebrew spoken by Abraham?’ All languages change somewhat in the centuries. Hebrew today bears the same relationship to the Hebrew of Abraham’s day, as Shakespearian English to modern English. However, we do know that they used a different alphabet. The square Aramaic letters were introduced by Ezra somewhere around the 5th century before the common era.”  End of quote.

   In the Rabbi’s answer, there is much one could learn. His statement upholds our contention, both as to the original language and as to the vocalization of the Sacred Name. Notice also that the Rabbi states that the square Aramaic letters of the present Hebrew alphabet were not the original alphabet which Abraham used. The alphabet which Ezra introduced on the return to the Holy Land was the Assyrian-Babylonian alphabet, and bears no resemblance to the ancient Hebrew alphabet of the Shemites, which alphabet was the parent of the Greek which was the parent of the Latin, which was the parent of the English and all other European alphabets.

   In the Psalms, we come across the word selah, which means pause and consider. Well, we need to do some pausing and considering of the foregoing as it is very important to our understanding of the Bible we love.

   Now back to the Rabbi’s answer to the Dean’s question. The Rabbi says, “Your question was: ‘Is Yahweh and Yahshua Hebrew or English?’ The answer: YHVH and YHSH are translations of the Hebrew with the vowels put in YHOVOH and YHOSHUA.” End of quote.

   This is plain enough, we would say, that YHVH and YHSH are translations of Yahweh and Yahshua. The ‘V’ which the Rabbi uses instead of the ‘W’ is the Ashkanazim (German) way of pronouncing the Hebrew WAW, VOV. Theological authorities agree that the ancient name of the 6th letter of the Hebrew alphabet was, and still is, vocalized as WAW, and has the same value of ‘U’ pronounced OO.

   Next, according to the Dean, the Rabbi says, “Your question: ‘Did God say He was Yahweh when He gave the Ten Commandments to Moses?’ Answer: According to the Book of Exodus in the Bible, God called Himself by a name that would be the first Person of which YHVH is the third Person.”

   Next the Rabbi says to the Dean, “Your question:  ‘What is the origin of Yahweh or Jehovah?’ This question is already answered above. Your next question:  ‘Is Lord and God as good as Yahweh?’ I don’t understand the question. If you mean what shall we call God, that is a matter for the individual heart. Lord and God are both English. I usually use English when I pray.”  End of quote.

   In the foregoing, do you think it is possible that the Rabbi knows all about the Name? Does tradition hinder him from using Yahweh in his worship, so that he uses the substitute Lord, or God, with the rest of Israel?  Not until the Jews get the vision of ‘HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED’ (see Zechariah 12:10), will they drop the pagan substitutes and confess that Yahshua is the Messiah, and that Yahweh is the Holy One of Israel, their Savior and Father, as revealed in Isaiah 64:8, “But, O Yahweh, Thou art our Father.” See Hebrew or Rotherham’s translation.

   Now here is the last statement from the Rabbi to the Dean. “Your question was, ‘Is Jesus the equivalent of Yahshua?’ Answer: In the same way that James is the equivalent of Jacob, Jesus is Greek, and Jashua (Yahshua) is Hebrew.” End of quote.

   To the above quotes, we wish to call to the attention of the reader, that the Rabbi does not say Jesus is the transliteration of Yahshua. He simply and faithfully states that Jesus is Greek, to which we add that Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek IESOUS or IE-ZEUS, the chief God of the Greeks, the personification of the Sun-God, and therefore Lord; and the Day of the Lord or SUN-DAY comes from SUN-GOD. But Yahshua is Hebrew, and the Name comes from YAH-SAVES, for which revelation of this truth we are very thankful in these closing days of this age. May Yahweh bless the readers of these articles with the same revelation.

   In closing, the Rabbi writes the following to the Dean: “I hope this gives you something of an answer to your questions. You can find them, of course, also in any good Hebrew dictionary of the Bible.” End of quote. Next, the Dean observes the fact that different people are using different spelling and vocalization of the Name. The Elder may not realize that these folks are doing this very thing as a result of an unconscious desire to obey the voice of the Savior, who taught us to say, “Hallowed be Thy Name.” There is also a desire to seek independently for the truth of the Word, and not follow the traditions of the Elders who apostacized from the truth.

   As for Mr. Israel Klar and his “Bible Truth Center,” we have said in previous articles that he knows very little Hebrew. The average Jew in this country speaks Yiddish, and NOT HEBREW, and Mr. Israel is one of these.

   Next, the Dean says, “The call is to come out of Babylon, and you can readily see that all these names bring is Babylon—confusion. Why not pray to your Heavenly Father in the Name, ‘Eternal God.’ He is your El or God.” End of quote.

   This is strange. How can a person come out of Babylon and still hold to the names God and Lord? These names are Assyro-Babylonian. So how can anyone come out of Babylon without leaving these Assyro-Babylonian names behind? The Roman Church completed what the Greeks started, in mixing up the pure doctrine of Yahshua the Messiah with the pagan doctrine of the Greeks and other heathen.

   Then the Dean says, “Remember that no one in the English takes God for the real name of God; it only identifies that the Eternal is God.” End of quote.

   Exactly what does the Dean mean by the preceding statement: “How can GOD not be the real name of GOD, and still justify the use of the name GOD?”

   The Dean then says, “His Name to us is ‘Eternal.’ Most all other languages use Eternal, or Great, to emphasize that this is the God.” End of quote.

   There appears to be confusion. First, he says, “God is not the real name,” and “His Name to us is Eternal;” and, in the next breath, he says, “Most all other languages use Eternal, or Great, to emphasize that this is the God.” It makes no sense at all. In the first place, outside of one French translation, and one English translation (Moffatt’s), I know of no other Bible that uses the word “Eternal” as the Name of the Holy One of Israel. Dr. Moffatt uses it, but in the preface, Dr. Moffatt said that the substitution of any other Name in the place of Yahweh was a distinct loss to the authoritative force of the Scripture. 

   Next, the Dean says, “In the different languages, God is spelled and pronounced differently. These are not the names of God, as the so-called Sacred Name people try to say, but they are the national titles of the ones they worship.” End of quote.

   Judging from the Dean’s statement just quoted, is it possible that he does not know any other language than English? Should he not know that God or the equivalent in any other language is definitely the actual name of the National Deity of the people speaking that language? Let us prove it. First, we will turn to the Bible and read from II Kings 17:33. Here is an account of the nations that Shalmaneser transplanted into the land of Israel (Samaria) in place of the Ten Tribes which were transported into Assyria. “And they feared Yahweh and served their own gods after the manner of the nations who carried them away from thence.” See also same chapter, verse 28 thru to 34. While this is in the Old Testament, we also find the same thing in the New Testament. See 1 Cor. 8:5, where we read, “For though there be that which are called GODS, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be GODS MANY and LORDS MANY ...” These facts prove that it is against the will of the Holy One of Israel to interchange the names of the heathen deities for the Name of the Holy One, Who created the Heavens and the earth. We also would like to call attention to the beginning of this subject, where we demonstrated by the Bible that the word God was applied to a heathen object of worship. We proved by Isa. 65:11 that God (Heb. GD) was a heathen deity to which the Israelites turned to worship when they contacted the Assyrians. We also quoted from many dictionaries and encyclopedias that God, in ancient times, was an idol worshiped by the heathen.  GOD, in the Chaldean language, means “deity of Fortune” or “Good-Luck.” See Moffatt’s and Rotherham’s translations of Isaiah 65:11.

   In his next statement, the Dean apparently is not familiar with other languages, for he says: “In English, we would say, “ ‘The Eternal God’ in German, ‘the Eternal Gott’ in French, ‘the Eternal Dieu’ in Latin, ‘the Eternal Deos’ (he means Deus), in Spanish, ‘the Eternal Senor’ in Polish, ‘the eternal Pan’ in Greek, ‘the Eternal Teou’ (he means Theos), and in Hebrew, ‘the Eternal Elohim.’ ” End of quote.

   We would suggest that the Dean obtain a few foreign language dictionaries. The Latin word for God is Deus, which is derived from the Greek Zeus. The Spanish word for God is not Senor, but DIOS. The Greek word is Zeus and Theos. The Spanish word “SENOR” is the equivalent of the English Lord, the German Herr, the Hebrew Baal, and the Phoenician Adonai. As for the Polish Pan, again the Dean is not correct. Pan is the equivalent of the English Lord, the Greek Kurios, and the Hebrew Baal. The equivalent of the English God, the German Gott, in Polish, is Bog.

   Next the Dean says, “For each of these names as God, Gott, Dios, etc., you can find that they were attributed to others besides the God of Heaven. Therefore God tells us to worship Him in HIS NAME and NOT in the NAMES of THESE GODS,” End of quote.

   If, by the expression, the “God of Heaven,” the Dean means the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then the Dean is, in effect, admitting that the Holy ONE of Israel DOES NOT WANT US (His Children) to call Him by the names of these pagan deities. If the Elder will stick to this, all we have to do is to find in the Bible the Name by which the Almighty wants Himself called, and all the difficulty will have been solved. Now the Bible testifies to the following fact: The Name by which the Almighty revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, and all the Prophets, is YHWH; or to be more specific, Yahweh. So, why not be satisfied with Yahweh’s revelation as confirmed by ancient and modern scholarship?

   In his next statement, the Dean says, “His Name as it has been proven is I AM, or Eternal.” End of quote.

   Where did the Dean obtain this information? He distinctly received from Dr. Brokenshire of Bob Jones University, Dr. Miller Burrows of Yale University, and others, quite different information. They told him that “I AM” is the King James translation of the Hebrew verb “EHYEH,” or “AHYAH.” It is the Hebrew verb meaning “TO BE,” the root from which YAHWEH is derived, and not the Name itself. It does appear, that the Dean chooses not to believe the very people from whom he sought to obtain the information. Regardless of what those professors said about other things, they all agreed on the word “EHYEH” or “AHYAH” as being the verb “TO BE.” From this, and another verb, AHWAH, or AHWEH, was the whole Name “YAH-WEH” formed. See Dr. Brokenshire’s reply in the 7th section of his answer to the Dean’s questions.

   Next, the Dean says, “Those words such as ‘Senor,’ ‘Pan,’ ‘Tou,’ (he means Theos), or Elohim, have no meaning in themselves.” End of quote.

   Before making such a statement the Dean should consult some foreign language dictionaries. He should realize that some of his readers may know French, or Polish, or Spanish, or German.

   How about the Mexican branch of the Church of God? They speak Spanish, and know that “Senor” has plenty of meaning. It means Lord, Mister, Tyrant, Master, Sir. It is a title of respect and awe. For instance, the Spanish Old Testament in Isaiah 52:6 reads “Yo Yehovah: este es Mi NOMBRE:   a otro no dare Mi Gloria, ni Mi alabanza a esculturas.”

   As for these names having no meaning, let us examine the matter. Take Pan for instance. In Greek, Pan is the deity of flocks, herds and pastures. He is pictured as half man and half goat. See Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Pan in Polish means Tyrant, Lord, Master, Sir. It is a title of nobility, the same as Herr and Von of the Germans. Pan also means “all,” as in Pan-African, Pan-German, Pan-American, and so forth. Pan also is connected with Pan-de-monium, a wild uproar, a tumult, a wild, lawless, riotous place; also another name for Hell, the so-called place of demons.

   Then the Dean says, “Elohim has no meaning.” But is he not wrong? For Elohim is the plural of Eloah, and El. It is a multi-plural noun, and means MIGHTY ONES, denoting power and might.

   Now we will go on with the rest of this article, and read where he says, “These nations have had other gods before they found the true God; therefore, they worship in the word meaning God in their language regardless of what source it came from. But as long as they worship God in the Name of the Eternal, then they are worshipping Him as their God in His name.” End of quote.

   Let us check the Dean’s remarks by going to the Bible. In Psalm 96:5, we read, “For all the Elohim of the Nations are IDOLS; but Yahweh made the Heavens.”  See Hebrew, or Rotherham and American Standard versions. In fact, the passages found in Jer. 16:14-21 bring this same situation down to our present day and the near future. In these verses, we see that it refers to the nations of our era as having been taught nothing but lies and false deities. Then once more Yahweh will reveal His name.

   Now, if the nations, referred to by the Dean, worshipped these idols by their names, how could these same names be applied to the TRUE CREATOR WHO made the Heavens? He said that His Name was YAHWEH, and that He would not give His glory to another.  See Isaiah 42:6. Exodus 23:13 distinctly states, “And in all things that I have said unto you, take ye heed, and make no mention of the names of other gods (elohim), neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.” See American Standard version, or any other translation.

   The word GOD, as the name of a pagan deity, is definitely used in the language in which YAHWEH revealed Himself to the Prophets. See Isaiah 65:11, Moffatt or Rotherham translations of the Bible with marginal references. So then, the word God is taboo, verboten, forbidden to be mentioned by the Creator’s own express order. Micah says, “All peoples walk every man in the name of his God; we therefore will walk in the Name of YAHWEH to time age abiding and beyond.” Micah 4:5, Rotherham’s translation. See also American Standard version.

   Why then, should we not emulate David? He said, “They multiply their IDOLS, another have they purchased, I will not pour out their drink-offerings of blood, nor will I take up their names on my lips. Yahweh is my portion and my cup,” Psalm 16:4, 5. See Rotherham’s and American Standard version, or Hebrew text.

   Let us analyze the Dean’s next paragraph: “We are told by these so-called Sacred Name people that Yahweh is God’s Name in all languages. This is an impossibility. For instance, in French, it is impossible to say Yahweh. There is neither a syllable for Yah, Weh, or Veh, in the French language. Check this with an English-French Dictionary.” End of quote.

   Is it not evident the Dean is hardly conversant with the French language? To prove it, I will quote from the French Bible itself. This will conclusively show, not only that the French can say Yahweh, but that the name of Yahweh is found throughout the entire OLD TESTAMENT of the French translation of the Bible, which I have in my library and use for reference. Naturally, while I cannot put the entire French Bible within the pages of this article, I can offer in evidence a reproduction of the 117th Psalm. I have chosen this Psalm because it is the shortest Psalm, and it looks forward to the time when ALL NATIONS shall recognize the TRUE NAME of the Most High and all join in the praise of His Holy Name.

   117          Nations, louez toutes Yahweh;
                  peoples, celebrez-le tous!
     2           Car sa bonte pour nous est grande,
                  et la verite de Yahweh subsiste a jamais.

   Over 7,600 times, does the NAME Yahweh appear in the French Old Testament from which this smallest of the Psalms is taken.

CHAPTER 7

   Now let us get back to the Dean again. He says in his article: “In German, there is no YAH or JAH. There is a Ja, pronounced YAH, which means yes, to be sure.” End of quote.

   Again the Elder has misunderstood or else he has been misinformed. While it is true that the German JA or Ya, means “yes,” it in no way bars YAH, and YAHWEH, or JAHWE (pronounced YAHWEH) from the German language. As evidence, we herewith insert a reproduction of Psalm 68:4, where the German Jah (pronounced YAH) appears in verse 4 as the Name of the Holy One of Israel.

   In his closing paragraph, the Elder, still speaking of the German language says, “There is no syllable ‘VEH,’ but there is a ‘WEH’ pronounced ‘VAY.’ It means lamentation, wailing, whining, sadness, or melancholy. In other words, in German, if some one asked if you had a headache, stomach ache, etc., you would say, ‘WEH,’ meaning, ‘Yes, I have an ache.’ This surely would not be God’s name in German.” End of quote.

   Apparently, the Dean is little acquainted with German. In this language, a man would have to say more than WEH, to mean “Yes, I have an ache.” For he would have to say, “Ja, ich habe ain WEH,” and not simply WEH.

   And as for the full name of Yahweh, we also insert a photostatic reproduction of a page of the preface of the Brockhouse German Bible. Here the translator explains that while he is using the word JAHOVA (pronounced Yahova) in his translation, he states that the true Name is “JAHWE” (pronounced YAHWEH).

   Now, we wish to point out that the Name of the ALMIGHTY can be pronounced in all languages. We wish here to show that the Spanish Bible (even the version which is published by the American Bible Society, and the British Foreign Bible Society, as used by the Mexican branch of the Church of God) does contain the Name of the Holy One of Israel.

   We offer here the 5th verse of the 118th Psalm, which, in Spanish, reads as follows: “Deste la angustia invoque a YAH; y respondeome YAH, poniendome anchura.” The 17th verse of the Psalm reads: “No morire, sino que vivere, y contare las obras de YAH.”

   In fact, throughout the entire Old Testament of the Spanish Bible, we find the short form YAH many times, and the fuller from Yahova (Yahweh) over 7 thousand times. Why does not the Dean inquire of some Spanish-speaking representative of the Mexican branch of the Church of God? He will learn that the Spanish translators of the Bible were more accurate and faithful than the King James translators.

   We have now finished analyzing all of the Dean’s four articles. Next, we will examine his four supplements, and any other article he may choose to write on the subject. By doing this, we hope to bring forth more light, so that the darkness in which this glorious truth has been shut up for so long may be dissipated. Thus, the truth once more may bring light to the people of Yahweh.

   In continuing to answer the Dean’s articles against the use of the Holy-Spirit-given names of our Heavenly Father and Son, our Saviour, we now come to a series of supplements which follow the four articles in the Advocate of Truth.

   Inasmuch as we received these supplemental articles all at one time, we are not sure of the sequence in which they were not numbered. Therefore, we must necessarily answer them without regard to their sequence. What actually matters is the subject matter they contain.

   We are starting with the article we think may have been the first, in which the Dean begins with the following: “The Al in Allah in Arabic means God; in English we say God. Anyone that says El, in Hebrew, Al in Arabaic, or God in English says the same thing. Be not deceived.” End of quote.

   First, we wish to call to the attention of the readers that the Arabic spoken language is a branch of the Semitic group of languages and akin to the Hebrew. In fact, the Arabic nations are descendants of the Hebrew family. They were made up to the children of Lot, Moab and Amon and the children of Esau, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, with a sprinkling of some of the children of Abraham by Keturah. So the words Al, or El, are stems of the same root, the same foundation—the Semitic language.

   El, or Al  (la), in Hebrew has many meanings, depending on the context in which the word is used. When it is used in reference to the Creator, or of an angel, or even of a judge, it means “Mighty One,” or “strong one,” for it denotes strength. As such, it can even be applied to signify the mighty ones, or the deities of the heathens; but never as a name. Again, El or Al (la), is used as a negative participle, such as, “not, nothing, nay, neither, never, no, nor.” Another meaning of El, or Al, can be used as denoting motion, such as, “toward, forward, within,” and so on. See any reliable Hebrew dictionary, Strong’s Analytical Concordance, Young’s Concordance, or any authoritative Hebrew grammar. But as to the word God, which was originally derived from the Assyrian word Gawd (Heb. dg GD) it was, and is a definite name actually applied to one of the deities of the Assyrians. And Israel, apostacizing from Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, and going after the deities of the Assyrians, adopted the idol the Assyrians called God, or (Heb. dg GD, or Gawd).

   Next, the Dean quoted the “Third Angel’s Message,” as written in Rev. 14:9-11. We believe it as it is written and given by the Angel, but not as it is applied by the Dean. The Dean says, “What have those who stand on the sea of glass gotten the victory over? Rev. 14:2: ‘And I saw, as it were, a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that had gotten the victory over the beast and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.’ The first text says, ‘The mark of his name,’ and the second, ‘the number of his name.’ This name is recognized by all Sabbath-keeping people to be, ‘Vicarius Filiis De’ in Latin. In English, this means Vicegerent, or Vicar of the Son of God.” End of quote.

   We do not question the text just quoted, as it appears in the Bible, but we do have a great deal against the application which the Dean makes of the Scripture, for we suggest that he is fulfilling 2 Peter 3:16 against himself. In the first place, let us analyze Rev. 14:9, “And the Third Angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘… If any man worship the Beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand…’” In analyzing the above-quoted Scripture, we are not trying to absolve the Roman Catholic Church of their heathenisms, but we want to show that the Papal System is not involved in this Scripture, as it shall be plainly demonstrated. The Bible is very definite in identifying the Beast. “These beasts which thou sawest are Four Kingdoms, which shall arise out of the earth” (Dan. 7:17). This is a very plain statement. Beast, in prophecy, represents a Kingdom, an Empire, a Union of Nations, a civil and military power, and not an ecclesiastical heirarchy. So, the Beast spoken of in Rev. 14:9 has reference to the revived 10-horned empire exercising civil and military power. It is separate and distinct from the Papacy, the latter of which is the designated ecclesiastical power, working for a time in cooperation with the Beast, until finally the Beast (the civil power) breaks with the Church, and causes her complete downfall. See Rev. 17, especially verse 16.

   Now having identified the Beast as a civil power, and not as the ecclesiastical power, let us turn to his image. This image is not another Kingdom, as some people interpret it, nor is it the Statue of the King. But it is an idol, a deity, an idolatrous object of worship. It is a duplication of the image or idol-statue which Nebuchadnezzar set up in his day. It is the National Deity which is recognized by the civil power, and worshipped according to the ritual directed by the ecclesiastical authority. Surely, the Roman Church, the Papal system, is mentioned in the 14th chapter of Rev., but not by the Third Angel. It is, however, mentioned by the Second Angel, when he cried, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that Great City, because she made all nations drink of the wine of her fornication” (Rev. 14:8).

   According to this, Babylon, the Papal system, is destroyed during the time of the Second Angel, leaving the Beast, the civil power, in sole and complete charge over the territory covered by the Beast. BE NOT DECEIVED. The Beast is not the Church (the Papal system) but the State. The Church (the harlot and her daughters), of ecclesiastical Christendom, is symbolized in prophecy as Babylon. So again, apparently the Dean is wrong.

   The Pope is the head of the ecclesiastical system, or the Papacy. The future military dictator of the soon-to-be-formed United Nations of the white race will be the head of the Beast. The two heads of these two respective systems will cooperate for awhile, until the head, or dictator of the civil power (the Beast), feels strong enough to go it alone. Then, heads or states (the 10 horns) will destroy the Harlot (the Babylonian Ecclesiastical System) with her head, the Pope. Thus, the Beast, or dictator, becomes the sole ruler until he, in turn, is destroyed by the returning of the Messiah. See Rev. 19:11-20.

   Having identified the Beast (the State) as a separate entity from the harlot Babylon (the Church), let us get back to our analysis of Rev. 14:9—“the Beast and his image, and the number of his name.” The word which is translated “image” in English, is “tsellem” in Hebrew, and “ikon” in Greek. These words are used in the Scriptures to designate an idol, an idolatrous statue, an object of worship; in other words, a deity which the Beast designates as a state religion. See Daniel 11:38-39. As to “the mark of his name,” the word “mark” in Hebrew is “toth,” and means signature. The “signature,” or mark of his name is the same as the number of his name. We have this number, even in the Greek New Testament. It can be read both as a name XZS and as a number: 666, where X = 600; Z = 60 and S = 6. Anyone having an interlinear Greek and English New Testament, such as the Emphatic Diaglott, can verify this by turning to Rev. 13:18. This is the name and number of the image or idol, which the Beast will force upon the people. When translated into English, these letters, which can be read as a number and as a name, will be found to be Christ Ie-zeus, or Jesus Christ. The words “Vicarius Filii Dei” are neither the name nor the number of the Beast, but a “title” which the Pope has appropriated unto himself. We are not, and do not want to be representatives of the son of God. We are representatives and worshippers of the Son of Yahweh, Yahshua the Messiah, HalleluYah.

   In his next statement, the Dean makes some startling admissions, as he says, “Now watch what the Woman in Rev. 17 is full of. This woman represents the Papacy. What means the Papacy? It means in Latin PAPA, in English Father. In this title, Papacy, we see the Pope’s usurpation of the names, or title of God, Father, or Papa. The Pope claims to be the Holy Father, or Papa. Let us read. 17:3, ‘So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman, “Church” sit on a scarlet-colored Beast, full of names of Blasphemy, having 7 heads and 10 horns.’” End of quote.

   Now in these statements just quoted, the Dean says that the woman represents the Papacy, and we agree with him. We agree that Papa means Father; but let us recognize that these titles are “assumed” by the man who is the head of the woman, “the Church,” and note the head of the Beast, “the State.” The prophecy clearly states that the woman, “the Church,” sits, or rides, upon the Beast, “the State.” The Woman is not the Beast. Therefore, the Papacy is separate from the Beast; and she rides, or is permitted to exercise religious authority within the realm of the Beast. But this is only by suffrage, as long as it suits the purpose of the Beast to let her ride in the saddle. Now when the Church, (the Papacy or the Babylonian system) after having regathered her daughters, (the Protestant Churches) assumes more power, and tries to dominate the State, it is then that the 10 horns (10 states) on the Beast turn and hate the whore and burn her flesh with fire.” See Rev. 17:16-17.

   As to the definition of words, the Dean might better consult a dictionary. He gives a list of titles claimed by the Pope and then he defines them as follows:

                “Pope—Holy Father”
                “Vicarius Fillii Dei—Vicar of Christ”
                “Holy See—All seeing”
                “Pontiff—over all Fathers.” End of quote.

   Now, “Pope,” or Papa, does not mean Holy Father, but just plain “Father.” Vicarius Fillii Dei,” is Vicar of the Son of God. “Holy See” does not mean “All seeing,” as the Dean says, but it means Papal jurisdiction. And as for “Pontiff,” it does not mean, “over all Fathers,” as the Dean claims, but it means “pathfinder,” waymaker, one that bridges a span between two points. See any reliable dictionary.

   Next, the Dean says, “Now, friends, think a moment. If God paid no attention to the Name of God, then the Pope would be doing nothing wrong in assuming these titles, and would not be committing blasphemy. In my search to find whether the Pope had ever assumed one of the so-called Sacred Names, I have run completely into a blank wall. The Pope takes the titles of God, in Latin “Deus.” These so-called Sacred Name people tell us “Deus” is Pagan. Then the Pope only assumes a pagan name, and is not the Head of the Woman of blasphemous names. O, people of God, be not deceived.” End of quote.

   It is evident that the Dean does not even know that the Apostate Church, in prophecy, is known not only as Babylon, the Mother of Harlots, but also as Jezebel which calls herself a prophetess. She teaches and seduces the servants of Yahweh to commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols. See Rev. 2:20. In the Old Testament, Jezebel brought into Israel the worship of Baal and Adonai, the Canaanite and Babylonian names of the English “Lord.” Every Bible student should know that it was the same Jezebel who forced, enticed, and seduced the priesthood of Israel to worship Baal (Lord), instead of Yahweh. This brought the showdown at Mount Carmel in which Elijah stood firm for Yahweh. But let us get back to modern Jezebel, or Babylon, the Mother of Harlots. Now a harlot is not a woman devoted to one husband, but one who prostitutes herself to others than her original husband. In fact, the Harlot whom the Bible calls Babylon, worships not the Creator, but the Babylonian deities. Thus, Yahweh rightfully calls her Babylon, to indicate that she left Him to take on the worship of these Babylonian deities. So the names, or titles, which the Harlot (Papacy) assumes are the names or titles of pagan deities, such as God, Lord (Baal); Christ (Kristos and Krishna) and Je-sus (Ie-Zeus). The entire calendar of the Papacy, (which she forced on all the nations of the world) is but the Babylonian and Egyptian calendars. The feast days and the weekly rest day of the Church, (headed by the Papacy) are not the feasts and Sabbaths of Scripture, but those of the pagan deities. For instance, Christmas is the birthday of the Sun-God Zeus. Easter is the anniversary of Astarte; and all the way down. The Roman church calendar of holy days can be positively identified as days devoted to heathen idols. See Hislop’s, “The Two Babylons.” The very fact that the Dean states the Pope takes on himself the name of Deus, (which is another form of Zeus the Sun-God) proves that he apparently is very much confused in what he believes and what he teaches.

   Jezebel in the Old Testament (see 1 Kings 16:31-33) led both her husband and the nation of Israel away from Yahweh, and seduced them into the worship of Baal (the Lord). Likewise, the New Testament Jezebel, after the death of the original Apostles, led the assembly, which the Messiah founded, into the worship of the same old Baal, whom the English call “Lord.” Thus, the Bride of Yahshua left her first love and married the deities of the New Testament Jezebel! These are named Lord, God, Deus, Dei, etc. Therefore, the Papacy rightfully assumes the titles and names of these deities whom she married.

   Next, the Dean says, “At no time has the Pope ever assumed the name Jah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Yeshua, Yahshua, or what have you. The name that we should know our Heavenly Father by is GOD.” End of quote.

   The Dean is correct in the first part of his statement. At no time has the Pope assumed the Name Yah, or Yahweh, nor Yahshua, and for a good reason. They are not worshipping Yahweh. They are worshipping Dei, Deus, Zeus, so it is natural that they assume the name of the one they worship. It is no wonder then, that they worship on the day of their Sun-Deity, Zeus (Sun-Day), and do not recognize the Sabbath of Yahweh. The Dean is in the wrong church with the Seventh-day Sabbath; for the Seventh Day belongs to Yahweh. Observance of Sunday indicates the worship of the Sun-God Zeus, Deus, Dei, and your English God, Lord. The observance of the Seventh Day should indicate the worship of Yahweh, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who is the true and only heavenly Father.

   Next, the Dean quotes Romans 8:26, and then says, “Any name that a man may call God would not be His correct one if He had one, because His name would be in the Heavenly language, which cannot be uttered or spoken by man. The spirit is the melting pot of the languages of man before the throne of God. What ever name you call God in your language, the Spirit knows how to interpret it to the Father. None of us know how to pray as we ought, the text tells us, and therefore the Spirit must take our prayers and translate the whole thing to God in the Heavenly Language. Don’t argue with me over this procedure: I never invented it; it is revealed to us by the Apostle Paul.” End of quote.

   Is not the Dean mistaken? He might read 1 Cor. 14:2-22. The Dean is very wrong in saying the Creator has no name. Genesis 2:2-4 gives the history of the sanctification of the Seventh-Day Sabbath. The Creator places His signature to the document, and that Signature was Yahweh.

   When Jacob received his heavenly vision, and saw the ladder with the angels ascending and descending, the Creator, Who stood above it, said, “I Am Yahweh, the Mighty One of Abraham and the Mighty One of Isaac.” Yet the Dean says He has no name. In Psalm 83:18, we are told that His name alone is Yahweh (mistranslated Jehovah), yet the Dean would make Him the Unknown and Un-named.

   If the Dean had only learned to read a little Hebrew, he would read in Isaiah 42:8, “I am Yahweh, that is My Name, and My glory I will not give to another, neither My praise to graven images.” Yes, he will find the name almost 7,000 other places in the Hebrew Bible. In Rotherham’s translation of the Bible, he will find it over 6,000 times.

   As to the Creator’s name in heaven, we read in Rev. 4:8 of John (on the Isle of Patmos) hearing the four living creatures (mistranslated beasts) in heaven, who “rest not day and night, saying, Quodesh, Quodesh, Quodesh, (Holy, Holy, Holy) Yahweh El-Shaddai.” And, in verse 10 and 11, we read of the 24 elders bowing before the throne, and saying, “Worthy art Thou, O Yahweh, to receive glory and honor and power.” And again, in Rev. 19:1-4, we read of the heavenly chorus singing, “HalleluYAH, salvation, glory, honor and power, unto YAHWEH our El.”

   Next the Dean has considerable to say about the word El, and assumes that the words El, Eloah, and Elohim are names of the Most High. These are not names, they are titles, or attributes, as we explained previously. El means strength, or might; Eloah means Mighty One; Elohim means Mighty Ones. The last indicates the Unity of the Father and Son in their mighty acts. (See John 1:2-3).

   The title El is used also for pagan deities, but never as a name. Note in Judges 11:24, El, as a title, is used for a deity, but the name of the deity is Chemosh. In the same verse, El, as a title, is also used for the Creator, whose name is Yahweh. In the first place, Chemosh is the El of the Moabites; in the second, Yahweh is the El or (Mighty One) of Israel. This principle runs throughout the entire Bible. Should not the Dean utilize his energies in studying the Bible?

   Next, the Dean says, “Now these Yahwists tell us we should not say God because the Name God is used for heathen Gods. What a silly argument to use if they use (and they do) the Hebrew word El, which is also used for heathen gods (el).” End of quote.

   We will repeat again that the English word God is the transliteration of the Assyrian name Gawd, spelled G-D in Hebrew, and is the actual name of one of the Assyrian deities, which Israel adopted in the apostasy. See Isaiah 65:11 in the Hebrew text, or the Leeser, Rotherham, or Moffatt translations of the Bible, where the name Gawd (God) is translated “Fortune” and “Good-Luck.”

   In as much as this name is a definite designation of a particular pagan deity, the children of Yahweh, and the followers of the Messiah in particular, are forbidden to mention such names in worship. See Exodus 23:13; Joshua 23:7; Psalm 16:4; Zechariah 13:2 and Hosea 2:17. Yahweh has promised to take those names away from the mouth of all His children.

   Next, the Dean says, “If we would delete from the English language the words God and Lord, there would be no equivalent in our language for the word El in Hebrew.” End of quote.

   Again, the Dean is wrong, for we have an English equivalent for the Hebrew word “El,” or Eloah, and that word is “Mighty-One.” As for Yahweh, we need no English equivalent. There is no equivalent for names because we all know that names are not translatable. If the Dean’s name is Bartholomew, in West Virginia, and he should move to West India, or West Africa, or even to the East Indies, his name would still be Bartholomew. The name of the President of the U.S. is Harry S. Truman, and he is known in China, Russia, Japan and every other nation, city or hamlet, by the same name by which we know him right here in this country. Did we translate the names of Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Stalin, Franco or any other European or Asiatic ruler? Then why does the Dean make an exception to the Holy One of Israel, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Who emphatically objects to any change, being that His Name is holy, and more exalted than that of mere man? A little meditation of Psalm 83:18 will surely set us on the right road and we will not be misled.

   Did the Dean have to learn the Russian language to say Stalin, or the Italian language to say Mussolini, or to say PAPA? The Elder says, “Let me ask you, in all fairness, why stop at terms and names of God? Why not learn to speak Hebrew and forget the English language? Be consistent. If one goes, so goes the other.” End of quote.

   The Dean asked the question, so we will give the answer. In the first place, we are not instructed by our Savior to hallow the Hebrew language, but to hallow our Father’s Name. See Matt. 6:9. We are doing just that. We are hallowing and sanctifying our Father’s name. That name is the same in heaven and on earth. He told us many times in His word, that “Yahweh” is His Name. See Jer. 33:2, Isaiah 42:8, and many other places. We are doing just that. In the second place, one does not learn a language to unlearn another language, but one learns languages in order to increase knowledge and understanding.

   In closing this supplement, the Dean says, “Now I will give you a suggestion how you might start, and even then you will still be pronouncing the name of God in English. Drop the A and E out of Yahweh, and you leave only Y H W H. Now what is the meaning of these letters? You know as well as I. ‘I am that I am.’” End of quote.

   The Dean is wrong. We do not know that the meaning of Y H W H is “I Am that I Am,” and neither does he. The Hebrew equivalents of the accepted Y H W H are  hwhy, and the sounds, or vocalization of these four Hebrew letters can only be reproduced in English by using 6 English letters. Thus, we get the very same Hebrew pronunciation with English letters, and that pronunciation is YAHWEH. “I Am that I Am” is not a translation of Y H W H (Heb. hwhy). “I Am that I Am” is a mistranslation of “Ayah Asher Ayah,” the correct translation of which would be, “I will be what I will to be.” See any reliable grammar, or Lesser’s, Moffatt’s, Rotherham’s, or any other translation of the text.

   We would like to see the “born again children of the Most High,” as a people who know the truth. The time has now come when we can no longer plead ignorance, since we are now living in the last days, when knowledge is on the increase, not only in technology, but also in things which pertain to the Kingdom of Yahweh.

   “Isis” and all the pantheon of the pagan deities are being unveiled. Christianity has been the opiate that has thrown the Church into a coma, from which Yahweh is bringing her out in these closing days. Thus, we are in preparation for the judgment of the nations, and for the establishment of Yahweh’s Kingdom upon the earth.

We, at Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah, sincerely pray that you are continuing to find Elder Traina's book to be a blessing to you.  You may continue on with Supplement Two of this enlightening book by clicking here.