GOD, DEITY OF THE NATIONS

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

(Continuing)

A STUDY OF SUPPLEMENT 2

   We will now analyze what we understand to be Supplement No. 2. In this Supplement, the Dean begins with this statement, “In German, there is no YAH or JAH. There is a Ja pronounced Yah, which means, yes, to be sure.” End of quote.

   It is plain that the Dean is not acquainted with the German language. If he would read the Brockhouse edition of the German Bible, he would find the Name Yah is in this Bible many times. Especially is this so in the Psalms where the Name Yah is compounded with the Hebrew word ALLEL (praise), so that we have ALLELU-YAH not only in the Psalms, but also in the Book of Revelation. See Rev. 19:1,2,3,5.

   We previously answered the Dean’s article (“The Advocate of Truth,” Jan. 2, 1952), in this study, by reproducing a photostatic copy of Psalm 68:4 from the Brockhouse German Bible (see Chapter 7, pg. 23 of this study). This shows the short form YAH, as well as the evidence that the Name Yahweh was known to the German scholar responsible for that translation. We have reproduced these photostats so that our German friends could read it, and thus be convinced of the truth of this Sacred Name restoration message.

   In this second Supplement, the Dean repeats himself from the previous issue, and states, “There is no syllable veh (in German), but there is weh pronounced ‘vay.’ It means lamentation, wailing, whining, sadness, melancholy. In other words, in German, if a man asked you if you had a headache, stomachache, etc., you would say, ‘YAHWEH,’ meaning, ‘Yes, I have an ache.’ This surely would not be God’s name in German.” End of quote.

   Our answer to this is the same which we gave previously, in which we said, “Is it not evident that the Dean of the Salem Bible Institute does not understand German? A man would have to say more than Yah-weh or Ja-weh to mean, ‘Yes, I have an ache.’ He would have to say, ‘Ja, Ich habe ain weh,’ and not simply weh, or Ja weh.”

   Next, the Dean says, “Let us investigate two other languages for this word, to see if they could pronounce it, and if so, what it would mean. In Latin, there is no word jah or veh. There is no reason to look for wey, for there is no W in the Latin, neither is there any Y in Latin. Therefore, to pronounce this so-called Sacred Name in Latin would be an utter impossibility, and therefore, the once Latin speaking world would be lost, because it could not speak this so-called Sacred Name. How absurd can we get?” End of quote.

   We would ask the Dean how he could propose to investigate two languages of which he knows apparently little. How can he investigate these languages if he evidently does not even know the letters which compose the alphabet of these languages? Does he not realize that, among the readers of “The Advocate of Truth,” there may be those who may be familiar with these languages?

   The vocalization of the Latin alphabet is different from the English, but not unrecognizable. In Latin, as in Greek and ancient Hebrew, the pronunciation of the English three-letter word WEH is pronounced in the Latin by the two letters “UA” (OOA). The elder says, “In Latin, there is no word Yah.” That is true. The English spelling Yah is not found in Latin, but the very same sound which uses three letters of the English alphabet, is produced by using only two letters of the Latin alphabet—IA. And, if the elder will take the trouble of reading the 19th chapter of Revelation, in his King James version, or in the Martin Luther edition of the German Bible, or the French Bible, and note verses 1, 3, 4 and 6, he will find that Yah is reproduced in these languages as IA, so we read AlleluIA (Allelu-YAH).

   Next the Dean says, “There is no W or Y in Latin.” This also is true; but, the corresponding vocalization in Latin of the English “W” is the Latin “V” which is the same a “U” and is pronounced as “OO.” The vocalization of the English “Y” is the Latin “I” which is pronounced as “ee.” In evidence of this, we offer a photostat of the Latin alphabet taken from a “Latin Primer.”

LATIN GRAMMAR

FIRST PART—SOUNDS

THE ALPHABET

   1. The Latin alphabet was borrowed from the Chalcidian Greek colonies of southern Italy and adapted to the sounds of the Latin language. Only capital letters were used; small letters did not come into use till the end of the eighth century A.D.

   2. In Cicero’s time, the alphabet consisted of twenty-one letters:

   3. Besides these, Y and Z were used in Cicero’s time and later, to transliterate Greek words, but were not generally included in the alphabet. Y represented the Greek v and had the sound of the German ü, as in Brüder; Z was used to transliterate the Greek Z and had the sound of the English z.

   4. Long and short vowel sounds, though quite distinct, were regularly indicated by the same letter. But long vowels were sometimes distinguished in early Latin as follows:  a, e, and i.

   Next the Dean says, “Now the Greek. There is no J, W, V, or Y in the Greek language. Therefore, our consonants Y H W H would not mean very much in Greek. However, they have their own letters that get these same sounds.” End of quote.

   The Dean says there is no “J” in Greek. This is true, but only as it pertains to the phonetics of the letter, which was borrowed by the English from the French in the 17th Century. The original “J” is the initial of the letter “I” in all European languages, with the exception of the French, where it is pronounced as “Dz;” and in Spanish where it is pronounced as “HA.” But in the Teutonic languages, and in the Old English, as well as in most Latin languages, it is a vowel, and is pronounced as a long “ee,” so that in the Teutonic languages, John becomes Iohn, or Yohn.

   Now as to the W. The Dean says, “There is no “W” in Greek.” This also is true, but, they have upsilon, which pronunciation is the equivalent of the English “W.” The Greek upsilon is but the counterpart of the European “U,” which is pronounced as “OO.” As to there being no “Y” in Greek, has the Dean referred to the Greek alphabet? If he had, he would have found out that the capital form of “V” is “Y” and is called upsilon, pronounced, as we said before, like the European “U” (OO).

   The Dean comes to an erroneous conclusion when he says, “Therefore, we see it would be impossible for Yahweh to be the Name of Yahweh in Greek.” We shall quote directly from the “Jewish Encyclopedia,” Subject: Tetragrammaton and its use in the casting out of demons according to the New Testament: “The cures and the casting out of demons in the Name of Yahshua in the New Scriptures and in the Talmud imply that Jesus (Yahshua) was regarded as a god (elohim), and His name was considered as efficacious as the Tetragrammaton (the four lettered hwhy Yahweh) itself, for which it was substituted. It was in this connection that the Tetragrammaton was introduced in the papyri and, in all probability, in the writings of the Church Fathers; these two sources containing the following forms written in Greek letters, Iaooue. Iaoue” (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, Page 119).

   With the evidence just quoted from such a reliable source, the question may be asked, “Did the Greek try to pronounce the TRUE Name of the Most High to get results?” Surely a Bible student should think on these things, and seek to return to the “Old Paths,” of which the Prophet Jeremiah wrote: “Thus saith Yahweh, ‘Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the Old Paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest to your souls’” (Jer. 6:16). Alas, the last portion of this 16th verse reveals the attitude of some people, reading as follows, “But they said, ‘We will NOT walk therein.’”

   Is this the attitude of the Dean of the Salem Bible Institute? If so, we pray that Yahweh may have mercy on this institution and will cause this people to change their ways.

   Next, the Dean contrasted the Sabbath with the Name. He says, “The Sabbath is a universal word known, understood and pronounced in all languages.” End of quote.

   But is not the Name as universally known as the Sabbath? The 68th Psalm, verse 4, reads, “Sing unto El, sing praises to His Name, extol Him that rideth in the Heavens by His name JAH (YAH) and rejoice before Him.”

   There are variations of the word Sabbath; for instance, in Hebrew, the pronunciation is Shabbas, in Greek it is Sabbaton, in Latin it is Sabatu, in Spanish it is Sabado, in French it is Sabbat, in Italian it is Sabato, in German and English, it is Sabbath, etc. BUT! There is no variation of the Name as it is pronounced in every known language, in the short form YAH, as it is compounded in the ONLY UNIVERSAL word AL-LE-LU-YAH, or in the New Testament spelling ALLE-LU-IA, which has the exact vocalization. In different languages, this word is sometimes written differently, BUT it is NEVER pronounced differently. Its pronunciation in every language is identical, Allelu-YAH, or AlleluIA.

   This Name is indeed UNIQUE, for it is pronounced the same way in every language wherein the Bible has been translated. Will the Dean still insist that the Sabbath is MORE UNIVERSAL than the Name?

   In his next statement, the Dean says, “These so-called Sacred Name people place this Name on an equality with the Sabbath. Where is the proof of its universality?” End of quote.

   Apparently the Dean is very much mistaken. We do more than place it on an equality with the Sabbath. We have given proof of its universality and now continue to give proof of its greater importance than the Sabbath.

   In the first and third Commandments of the Decalogue, Yahweh emphasized the importance of His Name. It was important enough that the Most High used TWO of the Ten Commandments to emphasize it; and, if the order of the Ten Commandments would tend to show a greater importance to the first than to the last, then the first three would be of greater importance than the fourth. The first three Commandments pertain to the Creator’s own person, the fourth pertains only to the Creator’s act of setting apart and hallowing the day. Now the question arises: Which is greater, the day, or He who sanctified the day? The Scripture declares, “The less is blessed by the better.” See Hebrews 7:7.

   We sincerely hope that the answer to the above question will drive home the importance of this truth. If we are looking for a revival of the Old Fashioned Power, there must be a revival of the Old Fashioned Faith—the Faith of Elijah.

   Surely the proof of the universality of the Name can be found in every translation of the Book of Revelation, chapter 19, verses 1 to 5, where the word allelu-YAH, or alelu-IA, meaning praises to YAH, is repeated four times and it so transliterated in every language under the sun without variation. Is not this evidence of the universality of the Name Yah? Let the reader be the judge.

   Next the Dean of the Salem Bible Institute says, “No real standard dictionary of languages will give you Yahweh for the Name of God (Elohim). This is a concocted word by modern linguists and accepted by some as the Name of God.” End of quote.

   We should like to know where the Dean has looked for his information. Did he look in Webster’s New International Dictionary? Or the Oxford Dictionary? Or the New International Encyclopedia? Or the Standard American Encyclopedia? Or the many other good college encyclopedias? The “Rock of Ages Bible” (the very Bible which his own organization recommends and sells) states plainly in the Bible concordance, that Yahweh is the correct name of the Most High. All of the foregoing dictionaries and encyclopedias, likewise, carry the information that Yahweh is the Name of the Most High. The Dean may say that these are modern. Then we suggest that he search the ancient manuscripts of the Early Church Fathers. There he will find that Clement of Alexandria was most exact in his pronunciation of the Name, for Clement pronounced and wrote it in Greek as IAOUE, or YAOUE, which in English would have to be written Yahweh.

   Now, if you will vocalize IAOUE with the English and French YAHWEH, and the Latin IAUA, you will find that this Name is UNIVERSAL even though the spelling varies. Epiphanius, one of the Church Fathers and a historian of the Church, ascribes the same pronunciation to the early church. Origin used the short form YAH, Aquilla wrote the Name in Archaic Hebrew (the original Phoenician alphabet) and not in the modern, so-called Hebrew. See Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, pages 160, 161. In the same Vol. 9, page 162, caption “Rabbinical literature,” states, “The name Yahweh is considered the Name proper.”

   Next the Dean says, “As I have already stated, our English consonants may not be the original consonants used by God (Elohim) to man, as His Name. As I have stated, this is the nearest we can come to it in the English. This is still a guess. No man knows if God (Elohim) actually has a name as you and I.” End of quote.

   The foregoing statements would appear directly in contrast to what was written of the Savior, Yahshua, the Messiah; because, of the Messiah, it was said, “For He taught them as one having authority and not as the Scribes.” See Matthew 7:29. The Savior said that we should hallow the Name of our Heavenly Father (See Matthew 6:9). The Dean says, “No man knows if God (the Creator) actually has a name ...” yet, in the 17th chapter of John’s Gospel, verses 6 and 26, the Savior said that He had revealed the Name of the Father unto His own.

   In the 30th chapter of Proverbs, and the 4th verse, Agur the son of Jakeh asks, “Who hath ascended up into heaven or descended? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is HIS NAME and WHAT IS HIS SON’S NAME? if thou canst tell.” If the Dean does not know the Creator’s Name, how does he know that there is a Creator? For one who knows the Creator surely knows His Name; for His Name is revealed throughout the entire Bible and can be seen by whosoever will.

   What are, to the Dean, English consonants—YHWH—are in Hebrew actually Hebrew vowels. These are the equivalents of the Old English, or European, I A U E; but now, according to the modern English method of spelling, in order to obtain the exact Hebrew pronunciation, we must use 6 letters and spell it YAHWEH.

   Again to the Dean’s statements that “No man knows if God (Elohim) has a Name,” why does he not look in Gen. 2:4, 4:26, 6:13; Ex. 15:3, 34:14, 20:2, 7; Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and almost 7,000 other places in the Bible in the Hebrew language, or in the Rotherham translation? There he will find that the Heavenly Father has revealed His Name to His people. In Rev. 2:7, we read, “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit says.” And the Spirit and the Word agree, that He has revealed His Name.

   Next the Dean says, “God (Elohim) does not want us to worship a name, but the one and only ETERNAL GOD.” End of quote.

   We are not advocating the worshipping of a Name, but we are advocating the worshipping of HIM WHO bears that Name. For He alone is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, even as David said in Psalm 83:18, “That men may know that THOU WHOSE NAME ALONE IS YAHWEH art the Most High over ALL THE EARTH.”

   Next, the Dean states, “I know that we will be attacked by these so-called Sacred Name people because of these articles. They will deride us for going to these learned professors of ancient languages, and they will say, ‘Why not go to the Catholic authorities to find out which day is the Sabbath, if you are going to use these men as proof against the Name?’ ” End of quote.

   We are not going to deride the Dean for going to these professors to inquire about the Name, and the antiquity of the language. But we would question him for not accepting and utilizing the information he received from most of them. The consensus of the opinions of the majority of those professors of whom the Elder inquired, was to the effect that the ancient Name of the MIGHTY ONE OF ISRAEL was, is and ever shall be, YAHWEH; that the Name revealed in the TEN COMMANDMENTS was YAHWEH; and that YAHWEH was the Name of the Holy One of the Hebrews. Has all of this positive information had no effect upon the Dean? Has he apparently made up His mind to negate the efforts of the “Back-to-Yahweh” movement regardless of evidence?

   The Dean then says, “Rest assured of one thing, the Catholics know and would tell you Saturday is the Sabbath, yes, even the Pope will acknowledge it. They admit they changed the Sabbath.” End of quote.

   We will grant that this is true; but do not the Jews admit, and the Christian theologians with them, that they have deliberately changed the Tetragrammaton (the Sacred Name YAHWEH hwhy ) to Adonai, Baal, Kurios, Lord, Herr, Pan, Signor, Manitobo, and what-have-you? Do not the Rabbis admit that wherever the Tetragrammaton (Sacred Name hwhy ) is found in the Scripture, they read it differently than it is written, for it is written hwhy (Yahweh) and they read it ADONAI? Does not Smith’s Bible Dictionary clearly state, “The substitution of the word LORD in the scripture is most unhappy, for while it in no way represents the meaning of the Sacred Name, the mind has to constantly guard against a confusion with its (Lord) lower uses; and above all, the direct personal bearing of the Name on the revelation of God (Elohim) through the whole course of Jewish history is kept injuriously out of sight.” See any early edition of Smith’s Bible Dictionary, under the caption “GOD” (toward the end of the article). In other words, what in effect the author of this well known Bible dictionary says is thus: that the TRUE NAME of the CREATOR, having been substituted by the names of the national deities, has been withheld from true worshippers because of the reluctance of theologians and ministers to publish and hallow the Name of our Heavenly Father.

   Thus we see that the real reason why the True Name of the Father is not generally known, is not because He failed to reveal it; but because the theologians have substituted another name in the place of the true, even as Jeremiah said in 23:27. Not only have we the testimony of both the Jewish and Christian theologians, but also the Bible itself bears record that Yahweh testifies against this infamy, as recorded in Jer. 23:27, saying, “Which think to cause My people to FORGET MY NAME by their dreams (ideas) which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten MY NAME FOR BAAL.” So, while it is true that the Catholics admit to the changing of the Sabbath, it is doubly true that both the Jewish and the Christian religionists, including the Catholics, acknowledge to the changing of the Name of the Holy One of Israel. One of the eminent professors to whom the Dean went for information, Dr. Millar Burroughs, of the Dept. of Eastern Languages, Yale University, answered the Dean, in these words: “YAHWEH was the NAME of the National God of the Hebrews, and is THEREFORE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.” Advocate of Truth, Nov. 26, 1951. Does this not prove that Christianity has changed its worship from the Mighty One of the Hebrews, namely, “YAHWEH,” to some other object of worship which they obtained from the Greeks at the Council of Nicea (pronounced NICKEA, from Nike, the evangelist of ZEUS) in 325 A.D.? See Rev. 2:6, 14 and 15. At the very same council where they changed the worship of Yahweh to the worship of the Lord (Kurios, Baal), they also changed the DAY of worship from SABBATH TO SUNDAY. Let him that readeth understand.

   Next the Dean says, “Certain points that have been made clear so far and which I wish to emphasize, are these: First, Jesus never called God Yah, or Yahweh. Second, in none of the oldest manuscripts, either the Old or New Testament, does the name of Yah or Yahweh appear. Third, the apostles of Christ never called God Yah, or Yahweh,” End of quote.

   As we are writing this answer to the Elder’s position, we have before us a copy of Delitzch’s Hebrew New Testament, and turning to Matthew 4:4, we read from the Hebrew, “But He answered and said, ‘It is written, men shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of YAHWEH.’ ” The Hebrew Tetragrammaton is very emphatic in this verse, and also in verse 7, 10, and also in many hundreds of other places within the four evangels, and almost 7,000 places in the Old Testament. Now to emphasize number 2, again we point to the Hebrew Old and New Testament that both the short form YAH and the complete Tetragrammaton are found in both texts. In Rev. 19:1-5, the word AlleluYAH (Allelu-IA), meaning “praise ye YAH,” is used four times. As to the Old Testament in the Hebrew, French, and Spanish, the short form Yah appears more than forty times, while the complete form YAHWEH appears almost 7,000 times.

   Now let us reply to his emphasis number 3. The apostles of the Messiah many times used the Sacred Name Yahweh; as evidenced in the Hebrew New Testament we have before us as we write. I shall quote two or three places where the Tetragrammaton (the Sacred Name) is very conspicuous. We could quote from Rev. 1:8; 2 Peter 2:9, 11; Hebrews 2:13 and hundreds of other places as we open the book at random. Is not the Dean’s position untenable on all three counts?

   Then the Dean says, “We are told that we should know the surname of God and call Him by that name. The Winston Dictionary gives for surname the last or family name. Let us suppose your family name is Jones. Would your children, in addressing you, call you Mrs. Jones or Mr. Jones? Or would they call you father, or mother? For the children to call their own parents by their surname is disrespect of the highest order of mankind. A son calls his parents, father or mother, Mom, Pop, Mama, Papa, Dad, etc. These names, or titles, show no disrespect to your parents, but rather show respect and loyalty to you as your child.” End of quote.

   It is a well known practice that when a son goes to represent his father’s business, he most assuredly will use the name of his father in conducting the business at hand. This our Savior did do as recorded in John 17:6 and 26. We will accept the Savior’s word for it. Please read it prayerfully! Next the Elder says, “The Son of God, Jesus Himself, called His Father, God, Lord, etc. His Father did not take this as disrespect, but rather as love and honor shown Him by His Son.” End of quote.

   The Savior, in identifying the true Father of mankind, EMPHASIZED the Name Yahweh. See the Hebrew New Testament.

   Next the Dean says, “I have stated before, and I repeat, I do not believe that the God of Heaven has a name such as we have here on earth.” End of quote.

   Does the Dean want his people to know what he DOES NOT believe, and follow him in his unbelief? We believe and teach what the Bible teaches that we should believe; and there lies the difference. “The Bible” teaches that the Creator has a name and that name is Yahweh. See Isaiah 42:8, in the Hebrew text, or Rotherham’s translation. And furthermore, Yahweh has declared that His people SHALL KNOW HIS NAME. See Isaiah 52:6. Does the Dean disbelieve what the Bible teaches on the subject, and does he want to pass on this disbelief to others?

   Next, the Dean says, “Will someone tell me what the family name of Noah and his family was? Come on now, you believe that God needs a surname.” End of quote.

   The very fact that Noah was known by that name to differentiate him from others is evidence of the necessity of names as an identification mark. To carry on this principle, Noah named his sons different names so as to differentiate one from the other. One was Shem, one was Japheth and the other was Ham. The same rule applies to objects of worship. Saul, or Paul (Shorty, as some call him), said, “There are gods many, and lords many, BUT to us there is only ONE ELOAH, the Father of Whom are all things, and we in Him, and One Savior, Yahshua the Messiah, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.” See 1 Cor. 8:5, 6. Does the Dean worship one of the many, or the ONE Saul emphasized?

   Next, the Dean says, “Let me ask you a question, in Matthew 6:9. Did Jesus tell us to pray to Yahweh our Father, or Yahweh our El, which means God? You answer, No. What did He say to call God? Listen to Him now: ‘After this manner pray ye: Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name (or Title).’ What name or title was to be hallowed? The Name of Father, We are His children.” End of quote.

   Now, let us analyze the foregoing. Our Savior in Matthew 6:9 was emphasizing the personal relationship between the Heavenly Father and His Spirit-born-children; that they should address Him as “Father.” Nevertheless, they had knowledge of the Name of their Father (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26), and they were exhorted to hallow that Name, to honor that Name; and that name is not Father. Father is not a name, Son is not a name, but a relationship. As it is the duty of children to bring honor to the name of their parents, so it is our duty to hallow the NAME of our Heavenly Father from all names, and give special honor and reverence to that Name, which is above all other names. How can we honor, respect or reverence a person whose name we do not know? Read Romans 1:13-14, in the Sacred Name New Testament.

   The Savior, in talking to the Samaritan woman, told her that the one she was worshipping at Mount Gerizim was not the same Whom the Jews were worshipping at Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that the woman claimed relationship through Jacob. See John 4:2 and 20. Yahshua countered with, “Ye worship ye know not what. We know what we worship! For salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).

   The Dean then quotes from Winston’s Dictionary, under the word Name, “A term, or title, by which a person or a thing is known.” End of quote.

   Why then does he not accept Winston’s Dictionary definition? The true Creator is known by His True Name, and His true Name is that by which He revealed Himself to all the Patriarchs and Prophets, and then, finally, by Yahshua His own beloved Son Who came to reveal that Name, which, through the theologians of His day, had been substituted by the name, or title of Adonai (Lord).

   In concluding this part of the article, we wish to quote the Dean’s closing remarks, and they are as follows: “What did Christ call His Father in His hour of agony on the Cross? Watch this carefully, Matt. 27:46, ‘And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani, that is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” End of quote.

   The very fact that the Savior said, “Eli, Eli Lama Sabachtani” proves that He did not call His Father, “Father,” or “God,” because (Gawd) in Hebrew and Chaldaic means Fortune, and is a name applied to the deity of Assyria. The word that the Savior used was Eli. El does not mean God, but the Mighty One, The Strong One, One Who is able to deliver. Eli means My El. Would not a more careful use of the dictionary help the Dean to help others? But by the questionable use he makes of the dictionary, is he not destroying that which he means to build?

   Coming now to another installment of the Dean’s supposed research as to the Name of the Holy One of Israel, he says, “Suppose we look at the words El, Elohim, Eloah, El Shaddai. I ask about these. Are the letters composing these words found in the Hebrew alphabet? You answer No. You admit then they are English letters and words? You say Yes. How do you know then these letters are exact Hebrew words, and that you pronounce the sounds exactly as the Hebrew?” End of quote.

   In his statement quoted above, the Dean would limit the intelligence of his readers to the level of his own lack of understanding of the subject he attempts to expostulate. His argument borders on the ridiculous. For it is an established fact that combinations of sounds form words whether they be English, Hebrew, German, Italian, or what have you, and therefore what combination of sounds one person utters can be duplicated by any other intelligent person. For instance, how many persons of German, French, or any other nationality, speak and pronounce as good English as does the Elder, and perhaps a little more refined, and without foreign accent?

   The Hebrew is no exception to the rule to those who have a mind to learn. But we are not discussing the necessity of speaking the Hebrew language as a whole. We are simply discussing the necessity of calling our Heavenly Father and His Son, Yahshua the Messiah our Savior, by Their true name, which they so clearly have revealed to the patriarchs, prophets, and to us by the Holy Spirit and the Word; thus separating them from the names of the pagan idols of the heathen.

   We previously presented definite evidence that the words Lord, God, Theos, Deus, Dios, Kurios, Herr, Gott, Dieu, and many others are NOT translations of the Name of the Holy One of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which inspired men of old have given us in the original prophetic writings, but are rank substitutions, deliberately made by men, energized by the power of Satan, as revealed in the prophetic word of Yahweh, “How thou art fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning; how art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations. For thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of El; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds: I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH” (Isaiah 14:12).

   How much plainer can we expect Yahweh to tell us about this Satanic hoax? Brother, in the Name of the Savior WHO died on the tree, wake up, arouse yourself from this stupefying dosage of Mother Babylon’s cup of the wine of her fornication, come out of her clutches and into the light of Him Who said, “I am the light of the world, he that followeth after Me shall NOT walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12).

   In the quotation of Isaiah 14:12, we have a revelation of Satan’s plan to usurp Yahweh’s place in the place of worship, and in the hearts of the people, by substituting his aliases in the form of the names of pagan deities for the NAME of YAHWEH the Mighty One over all the earth!

   In the next sentence, the Dean turns from the ridiculous to the distortion of facts when he says, “Dr. Brokenshire of Bob Jones University says we do not pronounce the sounds accurately.” End of quote.

   As we are answering this supplement, I have before me a copy of the “Advocate of Truth” magazine of Nov. 26, 1951, in which the Dean gave the full text of Dr. Brokenshire’s answer to his questionnaire. We here offer in evidence Dr. Brokenshire’s answer to a specific question of the Dean: Is it possible to pronounce the Hebrew in English?” The answer received from Dr. Brokenshire was these exact words: “It is possible to pronounce Hebrew with English sounds fairly well.” On the same question, from Dr. Millar Burroughs of Yale University, the Elder got an unqualified, “YES.” We wonder what he hopes to accomplish by his distortion of facts? Let the reader judge the correctness of the Dean’s tactics.

   Next the Dean says, “Remember the Spirit has to groan the Hebrew before the throne, therefore Hebrew is not the Heavenly language.” End of quote.

   We wonder what the Dean means by that statement?” Is he trying to confuse his readers, or is he confusing himself? The very fact that Yahweh revealed Himself to the Hebrew race, and to Israel in particular (please see Isaiah 63:14-19), is added evidence that Hebrew was the chosen tongue. And even though Israel, in contact with the heathen nations, has corrupted their religion and their languages, Yahweh has promised to return to them a pure language (see Zephanianh3:9), for the express purpose that they may call upon HIS (true) NAME, and come to the ONE CONSENT or UNITY in things pertaining to Yahweh. The very fact that Yahweh promises to return to them a pure language is evidence that this pure language was the original language, and that language was Hebrew.

   Is it not a fact that, when our Savior was agonizing on the cruel tree to pay the price for our redemption, that He called on His Father in Heaven in that agonizing cry of the Spirit? He said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.” Here was ONE heavenly Being speaking to another heavenly Being, in a language understood by BOTH, and that language was Hebrew (see Psalm 22:1). When Saul was on his way to Damascus, did not Yahshua speak to him in Hebrew, saying, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me” (Acts 26:14)? And, by the way, when the Holy Spirit made the choice of workers for the field, He did not say Paul (Greek, Paulus) but Saul, (Heb. SHAUL) and Bar-NABA (Heb. for SON of NABA).

   The Dean seems to be an expert in the use of words which have no meaning. His harangue on El (Mighty One) being equal with the letter “L” of the English alphabet utilizes a lot of print on valuable paper, but to little use, except to confuse the readers and deceive himself.

   The Dean, in his next paragraph says, “Now I would like to analyze, in closing, a very important text used by the Yahwists, Hosea 2:16, 17, ‘And it shall be at that day,’ saith the Lord, ‘that thou shall call me Ishi: (Husband) and shall call me no more Baali, (Lord), for I will take away the names of Baalam out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembered by their names.’ Here is where the Yahwists stop. I ask, why stop here? Are you afraid we might find out you are wrong if we read further? Will you kindly read verse 18?” End of quote.

   In answer to the Dean’s wresting of facts concerning Hosea’s message, in the 2nd chapter of his book, it will be necessary that we read back beginning with vs. 1-5, in which Yahweh describes, through Hosea, that apostate Israel has been playing the harlot, and that she is marked for judgment. In verses 6-8, Yahweh makes out His case against her, summarizing in verse 8 the fact that Yahweh had given Israel every blessing, spiritual and material, and that she had given the credit, the praise, the thanks and the glory for these blessings to Baal (the Lord), so that, in verses 9 to 14, Yahweh plans to withhold His blessings from her from then on, and finally bring Israel into the Wilderness. This was, symbolically, the place of testing (Ezekiel 20:35 and Rev. 12:6 and 16); and there He would plead with her, or persuade her, there in the Valley of Achor (trouble, or tribulation), until she realizes her mistakes and acknowledges Yahweh as her Husband (Heb., Ishi) or Bridegroom. Then, in verse 17, Yahweh takes from her mouth all the names of the Baalim (lords), all the lords of the heathen, whatever their names, so that they will never again be remembered by Israel, or the BRIDE. Now, dear reader, if all of this is done through tribulation, because of the stubbornness of those who refuse to acknowledge her sin and forsake it, shall we, individuals, continue to share her sin and punishment or shall we come out from her, so that we be not partakers of her sins, nor receive of her plagues (judgment)? You be the judge! Prophecy shows that the Body of Believers, as a whole, will see the truth only after she has her tribulation experience, and she learns her lesson the hard way. But, must we as individual believers, who claim to be commandment keepers and have the Spirit of Truth dwelling in us, wait for the rod of correction, to bring us into line, or shall we melt for the rod of correction to bring us into line, or shall we melt and surrender to the voice of Love, which says, “If you love Me, Keep My Commandments,” and conform to the prayer our Savior taught us to pray, “Hallowed be Thy Name,” and start NOW? Yes brother, we Yahwists can go back to verse 18 of Hosea, too, after we have digested what we read in verses 1 to 17 and know that we have met Yahweh’s standard of righteousness. At that time, He will make for us a covenant with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of the air.

   Why don’t you test Yahweh now and see if He will make a covenant of peace for you? Why wait until after the tribulation? You may not survive the tribulation! WHAT THEN, dear brother? Where will you be? The wise virgins don’t wait until after the Bridegroom has come to put the oil in their lamps (see Song of Solomon 1:3 in the American Standard version, or Rotherham’s translation of the Bible). The OIL is His Name; for that text reads, “Thy Name is Oil poured forth,” and the Word of Yahweh is the Lamp. So think it over.

   Remember that members of the “firstfruits” company, who meet the Savior in the air at His second coming, have the Name of the Lamb and the Name of His Father written on their foreheads. See Rev. 14:1 in any translation other than the King James. It is foolish virgins who think that they can wait until after He comes to get oil for their lamps. They that are left behind will do a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

   Next, the Dean says, “They tell us Yahweh was the Name used by the prophets in the Old Testament. We have disproved this. However, what if it is true?” End of quote.

   We guess the Dean must be playing a game of solitaire, where the player likes to believe he has won. Where, when and how has he disproved the fact that the prophets exclusively used the true Name, Yahweh? From Genesis to Malachi, almost 7,000 times, the name Yahweh appears in the Hebrew text, and in many of the translations now on sale at any religious book store, for instance, the Rotherham’s translation, the Young’s translation, the French translation, and many others. Every one of his consultants of the 15 leading universities to whom the Dean sent questionnaires, told him in their replies that Yahweh was the correct rendering of the Tetragrammaton. And as for an answer to his “However, what if it was true,” we would advise him to change his way before Yahweh takes from him the opportunity to repent, as He took it away from Esau, who, afterward besought it with tears, but it was too late; he found no place for repentance.

   Again the Dean says, “Now according to them (the Yahwists), Hosea was calling God ‘Yahweh.’ Then on the strength of these verses by Hosea, I would say Yahweh was one of the names of Baalim that was to be removed from the mouth of Israel when they would call ‘Ishi.’ The movement should be called ‘the ISHI Movement,’ if they want to go according to the Text.” End of quote.

   Strange reasoning this, which the learned Dean uses. If a woman be married to a man, and she leaves him and goes after other lovers, and finally she becomes abandoned by all of her lovers, and seeks to go back to her first husband, and he being merciful enough to forgive and forget and take her back on the proviso that she forget the names of her paramours and henceforth becomes true and faithful to her own husband, is she to forget also the name of that husband who was so kind to take her back unto his bosom just because he is her husband? Surely these are the facts described in Hosea 2:1-18, but evidently the Dean is so full of his own preconceived ideas that he cannot understand what he reads in Hosea. We of the Yahwist movement have been made to see, by the Spirit of Yahweh, that we were worshipping in the pagan names and have acknowledged our sins, and have forsaken the names of the Baalim, such as Lord, Adonai, God, Theos, Zeus, Deus, Kurios, Pan, Dios and what other false idols there are, and we have gone back to Yahweh, Who so loved us to give His own Son for our redemption. AlleluYAH.

   Now leaving the Dean’s misinterpretation of Hosea 2, let us go on to his next statement, as he says, “I would like to state that YHWH, which are the four English letter consonants composing the Sacred Name of God, is called ‘Tetragrammaton.’ It is so called because it is a word of only four letters. As soon as you add even one letter or vowel, it is no longer a Tetragrammaton.” End of quote.

   In the first place, let me correct the Dean. The English letters Y H W H are not the Tetragrammaton which designates the Name; for the English letters Y H W H do not form a word, but the Hebrew letters  h w h y  are the true Tetragrammaton, for it actually forms a pronounciable word which, to pronounce it in English as it is pronounced in Hebrew, we would have to use six English letters to reproduce the same pronunciation produced by the four Hebrew letters. In Greek and in Latin, the same vocalization as in the Hebrew can be reproduced with four letters for the Greek equivalents for the Hebrew “yod, hey, waw, hey” which are Iota (I), Epsilon (E), Upsilon (U) pronounced as the English W, and Epsilon (E); and in Latin it would be J. A. U. A., the J in Latin being the capital form of the vowel (I). The Greek word tetragrammaton can be applied to any four letter word, such as OPEN, DOOR, BOOK, COME and so on.

   Now back to the Dean as he quotes, “The American College Dictionary, under names Yahweh, and Jehovah says, “The transliteration of the Tetragrammaton  is Y H W H.” End of quote.

   We agree with the American College Dictionary that Yahweh is the English transliteration (or literal pronunciation) of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH. Why doesn’t the Dean accept what the American College Dictionary says, and teach it in his Bible Training School?

   Next, the Dean leaves his talking about the Name and turns his attack on the Sacred Name New Testament, as he says, “It is my sacred duty to show how these people, in disagreeing with the King James version, have put out their own version called, The Sacred Name New Testament, and have changed the meaning of the New Testament in many places. Any one disagreeing with the King James version could do the same thing, and what a conglomeration of versions we would have. In fact there are too many versions of the Bible in the world today, and this so-called Sacred Name New Testament is one too many.” End of quote.

   We welcome criticism of the Sacred Name New Testament, even though it may be the destructive kind, as is the Dean’s, for it gives us an opportunity to bring before the people the truth concerning the reasons for the necessity of the need of the Sacred Name version, and let the people be the judge.

   In the first place, we would state that there are over 22,000 mistranslations in the King James version, and this is an acknowledged fact by all the theological institutions except, of course, The Salem Bible Training Institute. This is the reasons that so many translations of the Bible have been made, each version endeavoring to correct the omission of the others. The very fact that there have been many versions of the Bible, and still many more to come, is evidence that there is an acknowledged need of a more faithful translation of the original. These corrective translations are based on later discoveries of earlier and more authoritative texts and better knowledge of the Hebrew. For instance, to show the need why it is necessary to have better translations of the Hebrew, let me give a few of the erroneous renderings of some New Testament verses. Examine Acts 12:4, 19:12; Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23; and 1 John 5:7-8 in the King James version, from which translations many false doctrines have been promulgated, which many of us have repudiated as false. This is only a small sample. But let us get back to the Dean’s criticism of the Sacred Name version and learn more about the misleading King James version. The Dean says, “Acts 12:26; King James version: ‘And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.’ Same verse, Sacred Name version, “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the congregation, and taught many people.’ They just leave out what they don’t agree with. They wouldn’t say they became, or were called, Messianics at Antioch, so they just left it blank.” End of quote.

   As we said before, we welcome criticism, even though it is destructive, because it gives us the opportunity of bringing before the readers the reason why we have made the changes, and that these changes were based on well-documented authority. Let me call the attention of the reader to Revelation 2:6 and 14. Yahshua was speaking to both the assembly of Ephesus and the assembly of Pergamos. He warned them of the Nicolaitanes who were infiltrating their assembly. Now these Nicolaitanes (Nike-Laity, the missionaries of Zeus, [see Webster’s International Unabridged Dictionary]) were the originators of Christianity, and it was finally completed at Antioch by a strong organization of Zeus-worshippers who overcame the weak disciples after the death of the great Apostle Saul. The second book of Maccabees, Chapter 6:1 to 4 reads as follows: “Not long after this, the King (Antiochus Epiphanes) sent an old man of their fathers, not living after the laws of Elohim, to pollute the Temple of Jerusalem, and call it the temple of JUPITER-OLYMPUS: and that at GARAZIM, of JUPITER the DEFENDER of the STRANGERS, as they did desire that dwelt in that place. The coming of this mischief was sore and grievous to the people; for the Temple was filled with riot and reveling by the Gentiles, who dallied with HARLOTS, and had to do with WOMEN WITHIN THE CIRCUIT OF THE HOLY PLACES, and besides that, brought in things that were not lawful.”

   This , dear reader, is taken from the Sacred History which is contained in any family Bible which you have in your home.

   What better description of the Catholic Church, with its central worship of the Sun-God Zeus (JUPITER), and its unmarried priests and its nuns for their use within the circuit of their holy places? The Catholic Church, the Babylon of Revelation 17, the Mother of Harlots, is based on the very foundation of this Antiochian principle described in II Maccabees 6:1-4. How long shall the Born-From-Above children of the Most High nurse at her breast, or drink of her cup of abominable paganism? The phrase, “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” is a rank interpolation of the NICOLAITANES when they took over the Assembly of Yahweh at the council of Nice (Nicean, or NIKEAN) in order to get the basis for their authority. The very characteristics of Antiochian doctrines of the Maccabbean days are the stronghold of the Christian Church today, whose head is the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

   Now let us pass on to the next criticism of the Elder as he says in Acts 26:29, King James version: “Then Agrippa said unto Paul, ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’ Same verse Sacred Name Version: “Then Agrippa said unto Saul, ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a disciple.’ These people do not know that Saul’s name was changed to Paul. They don’t believe that we are Christians, so the word is changed to disciple.” End of quote.

   Now it is common knowledge that when a man tells one lie, he must follow it up with more lies to make the first lie stand up, and so it is with the usurpers of the Apostolic Assembly. Having laid the foundation of “Christianity” in Acts 11:26, they needed a man of authority to back it up, so they chose to use Agrippa for their corroboration. The word “Christian” in the text is an interpolation, a great hoax upon an unsuspecting people. The word is NAARYAH, which means “servant of YAH,” and it was from this word in the New Testament that the word “disciple” was translated in the Sacred Name version.

   The Dean also stated in his argument, that we of the Sacred Name Movement do not know that Saul’s name was changed to Paul. We will gladly confess that, from the SCRIPTURE, we do not know that Saul’s name was ever changed. Saul (Heb. Shaul) means, “Asked for,” or, desired. Paul, (Greek, Paulus) means Little, the equivalent of our vernacular ‘SHORTY’, a nickname. Yahweh is NOT vulgar to use such language. The Spirit of Yahweh never called the great Apostle by any other name than Saul. See Acts 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1, 4, 8, 11, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26; 11:26, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7, 21; 22:7, 13; 26:14. Only in Acts 13:9 do we read, “Then Saul, (who is also called Paul) filled with the Holy Spirit, set his eyes on him.” Please, dear reader, look up this text in your Bible, and you will find that the words, “Who is also called Paul. They are enclosed in brackets, which is the translator’s way of telling us that this passage is interpolated. In other words, it is an admitted fact that these words were not in the original, but were added later. We are indeed surprised that the learned Headmaster of the Salem Bible Training Institute did not know this, but if he can show us when and where the Almighty ever changed the name of the great Apostle, in any place that we have overlooked, we shall be ever grateful.

   Now to return to the Dean’s next criticism of the Sacred Name New Testament, he says in Luke 23:43, King James version, “And Jesus said unto him, ‘Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.’ Same verse, Sacred Name version: ‘And Yahshua said unto him, verily I say unto thee, in that day thou shalt be with Me in the glory.’ Christ did not say this and they know it. Paradise means Eden, and we shall be in Eden restored,” End of quote.

  We feel very sorry for the Dean and Headmaster of the Salem Bible Training Institute, that he is so naïve as to shoot where there is no target, shooting in the air and hoping that he will hit something but he does not know what. He should know that the King James version of Luke 23:43 is responsible for the unscriptural doctrine of immediate transition, or the going to heaven at the very moment of death. The Savior never taught such things, neither is there any hint anywhere in Scripture that would support such theory. The Elder knows, or should know, that we sleep in the grave until the resurrection. Besides our source material from which we made our translation, the context itself, even the King James version belies the contention of the Dean. Here are the facts in general. The thief on the stake somehow was inspired to recognize that Yahshua was the King of the coming Kingdom, which the prophets had long proclaimed. He believed it and asked for a part in the Kingdom, when it was established. Here are the words of the repentant thief’s request, “Rabbi, remember me when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom” (Luke 23:43). He asked not to be remembered in the restored EDEN, in the New Heaven and Earth after He turns over the Kingdom to His Father (1 Corinthians 15:28), but to be remembered before, when Yahshua comes to set up His millennial Kingdom. The thief’s request—”when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom,” is very plain language. The Headmaster of the Salem Bible Training Institute should be able to understand it. It was this request that the Savior answered when He said, “Verily I say unto thee, ‘On that day (the day I come into MY Kingdom), thou shalt be with ME in the glory.’” This was the original text.

   The Dean will do well to meditate on these things and not let his ego run away with him. He should know that Eden is not restored at the Second Coming of our Savior and King, but after the Millennium. The thief evidently understood this better than does the Dean of the Salem Bible Institute, so he asked to be remembered, “When Thou comest into Thy Kingdom.” The “yom” in Hebrew, according to the context, is rendered “this day, today, or that day.” The context in Luke 23:42 and 43 is very plain, and the Sacred Name version has the true rendering.

   Now for the Dean’s last criticism, in the last of his supplements, he says in III John 6: King James version, “Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well.” Same verse, Sacred Name version, “Which have borne witness of thy love before the Assembly, whom, if thou bring forward on their journey worthily of Elohim, thou shalt do well.” “Note, Elohim is plural and means Gods in English. Eloah is singular and means God in English. The King James version is correct by saying, ‘After a Godly sort.’ The Sacred Name version is wrong by saying, ‘Worthily of Elohim.’” End of quote.

   The Dean is to be pitied. Perhaps it is not his fault, he was trained wrong and it would be hard for him to correct himself. If only he could learn a little Greek and Hebrew he might be able to determine between right and wrong. The word, erroneously translated “Godly” in Hebrew is “Kawseed,” which implies piety, religiousness, a saint, merciful. This word is not used in the Hebrew text. In Greek, the word is Axios and it means worthily, appropriately, worthy, and this is the word which is used in the Greek text to denote worthily. The Greek text reads as follows, “Axios Ton Theos” (English, worthily of Zeus), while the Hebrew in the Hebrew New Testament reads, “Lo Penay Elohim” which in English would read, “Before Elohim.” It is true that Elohim is a multi-plural noun, but this is the word used principally in the Old Testament and it implies the unity of the Father and the Son, for we walk before both, and both share in our praise, our devotions, and our service. Thus, according to the Hebrew text, the Sacred Name version is correct, and even the Greek text conforms to the text except for the substitution of Theos (Zeus).

   Before closing this article, we would like to ask the learned Elder this question: How does it come that he is so ardent in the defense of the King James version of the Bible at this time, when he, and the whole Church of God movement have many of the King James’ renderings of the Bible, for instance, Acts 7:45, 12:4; 1st John 5:7; Luke 23:43; Revelation 8:13; Luke 16:9, and many other such passages? What has happened since the Sacred Name version came out? Of the verses referred to, which version does he accept, the King James version, or the Sacred Name version? We and a great many more people would like to know if he and the Church of God have changed their position on the King James version renderings of these verses, and how does such acceptance effect their doctrinal position?

   On the verses cited above, would he recommend the King James version with its mistakes, or the Sacred Name version with its corrections?

   This concludes the answers to all of the Elder’s supplements in which he has attacked the true Name of our Heavenly Father, and of our Savior, Yahshua the Messiah. Our prayer is that the Holy Spirit will deal with the dear man, help him to see the error of his ways, and bring him to the place of humility before the throne of Yahweh. In our answers, we have tried to bring out the truth as it is written in the Holy Scriptures, in the hope that the readers might have a clear understanding of the subject, and that the Dean also may have profited by a review of his position, and see how wrong he was in attacking the Sacred Name Movement without first investigating thoroughly the subject matter, If he had, it would have made him a defender and not an attacker of the Sacred Name.

   We, therefore, close with prayer to Yahweh and to Yahshua our Savior that both the Dean and his readers, who have not heretofore seen the importance of the Sacred Name, may now, not only see it, but come out of the Babylonian pagan worship of Christianity and come into the glorious revelation of the Restored Gospel which Yahweh has seen fit to reveal to us, His children, in the closing days of this age. We humbly present this study.

Should you have any questions on any of the above,
please feel free to contact us by e-mail.

HalleluYah!