Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
|
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums
Aimoo Forum List |
Ticket |
Today |
Member |
Search |
Who's On |
Help |
Sign In |
|
|
| Title: The Names of God | |
| Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > The Christian room - For Christians about Christianity | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
|
Sea Urchin
|
||
|
Date Posted：22/08/2009 12:29 PMCopy HTML Further to a brief chat box comment and in the interest of gaining more understanding, I'd like to start a thread on the various names that God is known by. From what I've discovered there are many different names in the OT and others that I'd never heard of (Ian mentioned that the Jews refer to God as "Hashem'). Discovering and understanding the names of God is not a quick study but I think it leads us to learn more about the character or attributes of God. This is what I've discovered so far; Genesis begins with God as CREATOR "The Hebrew word 'Elohim' carries with it the meaning 'strong one or creator' and it appears around 30 times in the first chapter of Genesis where we see His creative power" This information was taken from: Nathan Stone, 'Names of God' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1944) In Exodus1:14 (NIV) God replied to Moses "I AM WHO I AM. Say this to the people of Israel: I AM has sent me you". God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh*, the God of your ancestors - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob - has sent me to you". This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations. * (notes in margin) 'Yahweh' is a transliteration of the proper name YHWH that is sometimes rendered 'Jehovah' Ian has stated in the c/box that 'Jehovah' is a 'nonsense' word - I'd be happy to learn why this is considered a 'nonsense' word when it is used in the NLT. I read this recently; God is the shepherd who guides, the Lord who provides. the voice who brings peace in the storm, the physician who heals the sick, the banner that guides the soldier And most of all, he . . . is. The only thing I'd really like to ask is, could we please keep this thread positive and informative, rather than competitive and negative - if that's OK with everyone? Urch Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#1
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：22/08/2009 12:55 PMCopy HTML Urchles,
Strictly speaking the Christian God has but one personal name, "YHWH" (which was probably pronounced something like "Yahweh"). "YHWH", however, has made himself known in the Christian era as "Father", "Son" (or, Jesus Christ) and "Spirit". As Karl Barth once so famously (and rightly) quipped: "the Christian name for God is Trinity!" The many so-called divine "names" that Christians tend to belabor and "fuss" over are more descriptors than they are personal names, strictly speaking. The nonsense word, "Jehovah", simply can't exist in Hebrew. It's morphologically impossible. I'm more than happy to explain why if anyone is interested, but it will be a dry discussion. Anyway, the word "Jehovah" was coined in the Middle Ages by Christians who noticed the niqqud (or "vowel pointing") for "Adonai" under the consonants "YHWH" in the Masoretic Hebrew text. It's important to understand that there are certain words which were written in Hebrew one way, but which were intended to be read (and pronounced) in Hebrew another way (the so-called Kethiv and Qere). God's personal name, "YHWH", being what is known as the "perpetual Qere": any ancient Jew reading Scripture would come to the name "YHWH" and pronounce "Adonai" (or "Lord") instead. Nowadays, instead of "Adonai" modern Jews (by-and-large) read and pronounce "Hashem" ("The Name"). They do so because they understand God's personal name to be absolutely ineffable. There are many titles and other descriptors used to refer to God in the Old Testament; but "Jehovah" is very late, very wrong and very misleading "Christianese". Consequently very few English Bibles continue to propagate the error, those that do so are simply acknowledging it's long-standing use (a little like continuing to use the word "Comforter" to incorrectly render into English what is intended by the Greek word "Parakletos"). Blessings, Ian P.S. Well that's weird! I went to edit this post to include a closing reflection, and the post itself duplicated! Anyway, here's the intended reflection: if one wishes to properly understand the character and attributes of God, there is a far better way then attempting to "glean" data by delving into the various "names" used for him. The best and most satisfying approach is to read what the Gospels state about Jesus. After all, he alone is the very image of God, and his self-disclosure to mankind (so John 14:9 and 2 Corinthians 4:4). email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#2
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：22/08/2009 8:52 PMCopy HTML Jesus is really to blame for the concept of "Father" and he addressed His Father as "Abba" which means "Daddy" From NIDNTT V1, P614 "In Aramaic, 'abba' is originally, like the feminine equivalent 'imma', a word derived from baby-language. When a child is weaned, "it learns to say 'abba' (daddy) and 'imma' (mummy) .... etc (Urchy: NIDNTT stands for "New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology") blessings Metanaoia |
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#3
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：22/08/2009 9:08 PMCopy HTML PS Urchy, I have just had a mind blowing realization.
If "abba" is indeed baby language then most likely, indeed very likely, the VERY FIRST words that Jesus would have spoken as a child would be "abba - daddy"... .... interesting in that although we have the record in John's Gospel that Jesus did acknowledge His eternal relationship with the Father, yet when the incarnation took place, Jesus must have held a special relationship with His Father from His earliest age... blessings Metanoia |
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
Share to:
#4
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：22/08/2009 11:37 PMCopy HTML The best and most satisfying approach is to read what the Gospels state about Jesus. After all, he alone is the very image of God and his self-revelation to mankind (so John 14:9 and 2 Corinthians 4:4).
______________________________________________________________________________________ Not only in the Gospels but in every page of the Bible - it's all about Jesus! I recently read the story again of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus after Jesus was crucified and how they did not recognise him in his resurrected form. In Luke 24:25, he said to them "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" And in v 27 "And beginnng at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things concerning Himself." He revealed Himself in every Book and showed them 'pictures' of Himself in every page! Many people today think that the OT is insignificant - but this shows that everything in it is there to point to Jesus. Imagine how excited these two disciples must have been when Jesus began revealing that HE was the promised seed in the garden of Eden who would crush Satan's head. Or how each of the five Levitical offerings depicted HIS one perfect work on the cross. What an amazing Bible study on the road to Emmaus! It's as though Jesus didn't want them to have faith by 'seeing' Him (their eyes were 'restrained') but by hearing the scriptures that talked ABOUT Him! I believe that Jesus showed us HOW we are to study the Word - He does not want us to read it to find out what to do and what not to do, but to study it to see Him and all the things in it concerning Himself. Just my thoughts..... Urch Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#5
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：23/08/2009 12:05 AMCopy HTML Good morning, Urch.
I believe that Jesus showed us HOW we are to study the Word - He does not want us to read it to find out what to do and what not to do, but to study it to see Him and all the things in it concerning Himself. I think it's quite the mistake to view this as an "either/or" proposition. Jesus explicitly stated that Scripture is to be read, understood and acted upon, whilst Paul reinforced that one of the principle functions of Scripture is for the training and correcting of one's behaviours. In others words, "what to do and what not to do". Consequently Christians are to approach Scripture with the explicit aim of receiving guidance of this sort. As for how we, as believers in Christ, should study the Word of God, it's important to understand that we should read it christologically: with the Old Testament pointing forwards to Christ, and the New Testament pointing backwards to Christ. The Saviour of the World, and he alone, functions as the centrum scripturam. However, acknowledging such as the overarching hermeneutical key does not provide carte blanche license to "spiritualise" the biblical text. Context remains king. Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#6
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：23/08/2009 12:24 AMCopy HTML Good morning, Eric.
Well, I wouldn't be too sure about "Abba" being the Aramaic equivalent of "daddy" if I were you. At least, not in a first century world context, old bean. When Jesus was physically stomping the earth, "Abba" certainly was a term of intimacy, but it was also a more respectful and deferential expression than our modern equivalent, "daddy", implies. You probably aren't aware of this, but the whole "Abba means daddy" angle was first proposed by Joachim Jeremias in his work, "New Testament Theology: the Proclamation of Jesus". Jeremiah proposed that the lexeme functioned in much the same way as did the koine Greek vocative, and that it could be traced back to "baby talk". However, James Barr well and truly demolished both of these assumptions in his article, "Abba Isn't Daddy", published as it was in the Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988). Probably the best way to understand "Abba" in New Testament usage, is simply as an example of familial language, in this case one that expressly emphasises the concept of fatherhood. Blessings, dude. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#7
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：23/08/2009 2:12 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Good morning, Eric. Well, I wouldn't be too sure about "Abba" being the Aramaic equivalent of "daddy" if I were you. At least, not in a first century world context, old bean. When Jesus was physically stomping the earth, "Abba" certainly was a term of intimacy, but it was also a more respectful and deferential expression than our modern equivalent, "daddy", implies. You probably aren't aware of this, but the whole "Abba means daddy" angle was first proposed by Joachim Jeremias in his work, "New Testament Theology: the Proclamation of Jesus". Jeremiah proposed that the lexeme functioned in much the same way as did the koine Greek vocative, and that it could be traced back to "baby talk". However, James Barr well and truly demolished both of these assumptions in his article, "Abba Isn't Daddy", published as it was in the Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988). Probably the best way to understand "Abba" in New Testament usage, is simply as an example of familial language, in this case one that expressly emphasises the concept of fatherhood. Blessings, dude. Ian Hey Dudos I'd like to read that Journal. Do you have it on hand or should I dig around..Is it on ATLA ?? Interesting TDNT V1 P.6. says "in any case there can be no doubt that the use of the word in the community is linked with Jesus' term for God and thus denotes an appropriation of the relationship proclaimed and lived out by Him. Jewish usage shows how this Father-child relationship to God far surpasses any possibilities of intimacy assumed in Judaism, introducing indeed something which is wholly new.. " Eulogeo Metanoia |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#8
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：23/08/2009 3:43 AMCopy HTML Hi, Eric.
'Yep', I have a copy of the journal in question; however, so too would your college. Due to copyright issues, you'll have to track the thing down and read it for yourself. Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
Share to:
#9
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：23/08/2009 12:35 PMCopy HTML I believe that Jesus showed us HOW we are to study the Word - He does not want us to read it to find out what to do and what not to do, but to study it to see Him and all the things in it concerning Himself.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Then let me make an amendment to the above - He does not want us ONLY to read it find out what to do and what not to do, but to......... I like this: "it's important to understand that we should read it christologically: with the Old Testament pointing forwards to Christ, and the New Testament pointing backwards to Christ. The Saviour of the World, and he alone, functions as the centrum scripturam" Urch Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#10
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：24/08/2009 3:50 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Hi, Eric. 'Yep', I have a copy of the journal in question; however, so too would your college. Due to copyright issues, you'll have to track the thing down and read it for yourself. Blessings, Ian Am waiting for college reply... have tried their website but for $28 to view, I rather save money for Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers which would be more useful to me at this stage.. While I have your attention. As an informed textual critic, what do you know of the United Bible Societies moves to produce a fifth edition GNT. Is it yet proving viable ?? Metanoia |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#11
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：24/08/2009 5:05 AMCopy HTML Hi, Eric.
There's been some talk in the past two years about a pending 5th edition to the UBS GNT, and 28th edition to the NA GNT. However, I think some of the motivation for these waned with the recent printings of both editions, given that they updated their respective apparatus criticus to include the latest papyri. Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#12
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：24/08/2009 5:48 AMCopy HTML
Yeah I heard the same thing! ¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#13
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：24/08/2009 5:51 AMCopy HTML Rob,
Ya big lummox!  Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#14
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：24/08/2009 6:09 AMCopy HTML I can pretend I'm smart
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|
|
Sea Urchin
|
Share to:
#15
|
|
|
Re：The Names of God Date Posted：24/08/2009 11:26 AMCopy HTML Ha, you can 'pretend' you're smart Prezy, but I don't even bother pretending to pretend!
Urch Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
