by Larry and June Acheson (with commentary by George Gabler)

Recently I called into question the practice of some within the Yahwist Movement who refer to Yahweh as our "God." Reaction to my criticism was swift and nearly unanimous.

Several individuals made certain I knew that my position is a "pharisaical" one, and that I am employing "misplaced zeal" in believing that we should not refer to Yahweh as our "God." In their attempt to guide me to a proper understanding of the truth, they directed me to an article entitled "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" by Dale George and Silvio Soto, unaware that I had already read this work a few years earlier. One man wrote, "Larry, I think you badly need to read the article ‘The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles’ by Sacred Name elders Dale George and Silvio Soto."

Interestingly, the 48-page article in question does not actually address the issue of whether or not one should refer to Yahweh as our "God" until page 44, and since the conclusion to the article begins on page 46, the authors are only left with three pages to actually deal with this topic. Do those three pages, combined with the pages leading up to page 44, successfully defend the appropriateness of referring to Yahweh with the title "God"? No, they do not. However, please do not take our word for this. We invite you to examine our perspective, then compare both positions with the clear intent of Yahweh in His Word. With this in mind, we ask you to read and consider our critique of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles."

It is not our job to question the motives behind the two men who wrote the article. On page one they plainly state, "This treatise should not be considered an attack against the Sacred Name Movement, of which the authors are proud to be an integral part and continue to personally promote and defend." At first, we were willing to accept the authors’ claim that their article should not be considered an attack. Indeed, they may well be sincere in their attempt to persuade us of their position; nevertheless, we are left to question the nature of the impact this "treatise" has had and will have on what is known as the Sacred Name Movement. Among the more serious issues we need to address with Mr.

Soto and Mr. George’s article involve the following:

• Failure to document statements, assertions and general information presented. Frequent use of generalizations without providing examples to demonstrate the validity of such remarks. For example, on page 30 it is reported that "... a coin has already been discovered by archaeologists where the short poetic form YAH appears engraved in an obvious tribute to Zeus!" This is a very interesting find, indeed. However, the authors did not choose to list their reference from which they gleaned this information. As the saying goes, "Inquiring minds want to know." Responsible journalism requires the writer to present accurate facts that can be documented. Unless documentation is provided, the reader is first of all left to question the accuracy of the statement, and secondly the reader has no reference to go to for additional information. According to The Volume Library, Book 1, 1990, by The Southwestern Company, Nashville, TN, page 1,092, "Journalists are expected to be fast writers and to have ingenuity in getting a story. But above all, they must be accurate. Accuracy is journalism’s highest value. A badly researched story that turns out to be wrong casts doubt on the whole publication (and might cost the writer his job)." Perhaps much of Mr. George and Mr. Soto’s article is indeed accurate, but how can the reader know if they choose to not document their statements and generalizations? In only one instance (apart from their use of Scripture) did they choose to employ documentation. This is insufficient.
• Presentation of generally understood facts as if it is new information, then doing "Scriptural overkill" to "prove the point." For example, on pages 8-13 the authors inform their reading audience of a fact that my family and I (as well as most of the folks we know in the Yahwist Movement) have known for nearly as long as we’ve been involved in it.

The fact: In Scripture Yahweh was referred to as a "baal," and He even referred to Himself as a "baal." This proves, of course, that Yahweh was known as being a "baal" long before this word was corrupted and used by pagan men as the name of a deity.

Despite this being "old news" for us, certainly it might be new to other individuals, so we do not protest the presence of this section (per se) in Mr. George and Mr. Soto’s article.

Nevertheless, if their purpose and intent in the article is to convince all that "God" is a proper title for Yahweh, then this entire section, as well as the ones pertaining to "adonay" and "elohim," was completely non sequitur. The difference between such titles as "baal" and "god" is that one traces its origin as being noble and righteous. It was originally ascribed to Yahweh. No amount of corruption can change the fact that it had its beginning in a noble setting, and just because the title became corrupted does not of itself mean that it should no longer be used in reference to Yahweh. The other title, however, was corrupt from the start. At best it is a title that originated with the name of a man (namesake of the tribe of Gad), and at worst it originated with the Canaanite/Babylonian deity of fortune. It is indeed curious how the name of a man (who was named by Leah, who in turn was reared in a pagan household) matches the name of a lifeless deity that Yahweh HATES, and this same Hebrew word is never used as a title for anyone, much less for Yahweh, at least not in Scripture. NOW, however, man takes the English transliteration of this heathen deity, slaps the label "translation" on it, and calls it an acceptable translation of the Hebrew "elohim"! The fact of the matter is, there is no proper way to compare "baal" to "god." This is a classic example of "comparing apples to oranges."

To make a long story short here, the authors of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" literally wasted their time and the time of their readers on pages 8-33. These are the pages wherein they proved that which nearly everyone already knew: Baal, adonay and elohim are originally inspired titles for Yahweh. Despite how man has attempted to corrupt them by naming deities after these titles, nothing can change the fact that these are YAHWEH’S titles first and foremost! We do agree with the conclusion that Mr. George and Mr. Soto present concerning this matter on page 32:

"All things considered (just as we have seen in our previous linguistic analysis of baal and adonay), el and elohim are acceptable common nouns that Inspiration uses over and over again and applies as titles to Yahweh with the utmost reverence." It took the authors 33 pages to prove this point—a point already acknowledged by nearly everyone we have known in the Yahwist Movement. In fact, they could have gone a step further to demonstrate that it would not be wrong to refer to Yahweh as our Molech! The Ammonite god Molech’s name is actually the same, exact spelling for the word "king" in Hebrew, the only difference being the name "Molech" is vowel-pointed differently than the word "melek," which is the Hebrew word for "king." Yahweh is referred to as a "melek" or "molech" in I Samuel 12:12. Clearly, Yahweh was a "molech" long before the detestable Ammonite deity Molech was even dreamed about! Does this mean we personally apply the title "molech" or "melek" to Yahweh? No, but more on that later.

On more of what may seem a "minor scale," yet it is MAJOR, the authors of "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" committed the following offense:

• Choosing to trust the inconclusive findings of etymologists instead of the clear word of Yahweh. Note their commentary found on page 6:

"As to its pagan connection, it was argued that the English language derived the name God from the Babylonian deity of fortune. Many still teach this, even though no etymologist can be produced to prove the contention."

Also note Mr. George and Mr. Soto’s assertion regarding "god" and "lord," found on page 44 of their article:

"Linguistically speaking, it should be noted that we cannot definitely PROVE a pagan connection for either word [god or lord]." That has been tried and it has failed, as linguistic authorities which exist do not agree with our traditional contention (most linguistic scholars trace our English word God to the Teutonic language and not to the Babylonian deity Gawd, and also trace Lord to an Old English word that meant, ‘the keeper of the loaf’)."

We respond:

In Yahweh’s Word (IsaYah 65:11 specifically), two pagan deities’ names are mentioned, and Yahweh definitely speaks AGAINST these deities. Since the English translators chose to translate these deities’ names, many people are completely unaware that any heathen deities are even named in IsaYah 65:11:

"But ye are they who FORSAKE YAHWEH, that forget My holy mountain, that prepare a table for GOD, and that furnish the drink offering unto MENI."

Fact: Three names appear in this verse: The name of the Creator (YAHWEH), the name of the deity of fortune (GOD), and the name of the deity of fate (MENI). Let us turn our attention to the deity named GOD. According to the Word of Yahweh, there was indeed a pagan deity whose name was pronounced "gawd." Since Yahweh’s Word is clear on this, there is no need to check with etymologists to get their perspective. No speculation is necessary. It is a fact that a pagan deity was worshipped and this pagan deity’s name was GOD. Would those who are so adamant regarding their belief that referring to our Creator as "our God" honors Him be as willing to likewise refer to Him as "our Meni," since it is apparently acceptable in their eyes to refer to our Creator with a title that dovetails perfectly with the name of a pagan deity? In fact, where WOULD they draw the line? One of the foremost leaders in the early assembly was Apollos, who was most likely named after the Greek deity Apollo. Thus, applying the apparent logic of Mr.

George and Mr. Soto, if one would choose to translate "elohim" into the word "apollos" or "apollo," this would be entirely acceptable. In fact, since a word pronounced and understood in a certain language as being the name of a deity can (by the authors’ implication) be considered as an "acceptable English translation of elohim," then what would be wrong with referring to Yahweh as our Zeus? Perhaps we can also refer to Him as our Gamesh (elephant-faced deity worshipped in India). The word "Satan" can also be used as a title.

Would these people offer any criticism of those who might choose to refer to Yahweh as "our Satan"? One would hope so, especially in view of the fact that "satan" means "adversary." Yet, when it comes down to acceptable titles for Yahweh, if we can’t draw the line with words that are pronounced exactly the same as names originally ascribed to pagan deities, then where exactly DO we draw the line? Authors George and Soto do not address this question in their article. Their approach comes across more as an "anything goes" mentality, apparently out of a desire to bring in more people (see their commentary on page 46).

As noted earlier, we do not support trusting the etymologists over the Word of Yahweh.

Even the etymologists themselves admit to the uncertainty of the origin of the word "god."

Please note the following, as taken from The New Dictionary of Theology, published by Michael Glazier, Inc., Wilmington, DE, 1988, p. 423, item "God":

"The etymology of the English word ‘God,’ as well as of the equivalent words in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, is much disputed. The English word seems to come by way of Old Teutonic from an Aryan root gheu—meaning either ‘to invoke’ or ‘to pour out in sacrifice.’ Thus ‘God’ means ‘the object of worship.’"

As noted from their own admissions, even the etymologists cannot agree on the origin of the "English word" GOD. It is "much disputed." In their own words, it "SEEMS to come by way of Old Teutonic ...." In other words, they really don’t know for sure WHERE it came from! If, based upon the (non) conclusions of the etymologists, you feel comfortable employing the word "God" as an honorable title for our Creator, then we are left to contend that you have a very liberal "comfort zone." The bottom line question that each individual must ask himself or herself is, "Does referring to Yahweh as our ‘God’ properly honor Him?"

Our answer is an emphatic, "NO!"

The authors of "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" do one more thing that I feel detracts from the credibility of their treatise:

• In Part I, they convey the impression that we should all be referring to the Creator and His Son by their originally inspired, Hebrew titles (adonay, elohim, etc.). Then in Part II it is clearly established that these Hebrew titles can indeed be translated. Note the contrasting commentaries presented in their article:

Part One: "Isn’t it ironic that if Yahshua were to visit a Synagogue today and while there proclaim he is ‘adonay,’ he would immediately be denied and rejected! However, it is even more sad to realize that because of our misconceptions, if Yahshua were to do the same in a Sacred-Name assembly, his proclamation would take everyone by as much surprise and would cause him to be denied and rejected also by the very brethren that call upon his Name! We are quick to condemn Christians for not being willing to recognize the Savior’s true Name. How then should our Heavenly Father deal with us who likewise refuse to recognize the Savior’s true titles?

"This is the gravity of our error. Not only have we denied the Savior the very titles that Inspiration has appointed unto him, we have also developed a doctrinal application that is so inconsistent and contrary to Scripture, that it cannot be labeled anything short of heresy!" (From pages 20-21)

Now by reading these two paragraphs, one definitely comes away with the impression that the authors clearly and adamantly maintain that we should be referring to the Father and His Son by their original Hebrew titles only. No translations allowed.

Note how the authors expound on this thought. The following paragraph is found on page 23:

"No matter how we turn this one around, the evidence forces us to recognize the linguistic fact that salvation is NOT found in the mere Name of Yahshua, but in the full expression of ‘adonay Yahshua messiah.’ Historical and linguistic research has even concluded that the original baptismal formula found throughout the book of Acts follows this same proclamation!"

Again, by reading the authors’ treatise to this point, one is left with the definite impression that George and Soto are insisting that it is not enough to refer to the Messiah by name; we must also refer to Him by the Hebrew title "adonay" or else we are in rebellion.

They continue:

"... the refusal of Yahshua’s divinely appointed titles is in itself an act of rebellion against Inspiration!" (page 23)

Despite infusing their readers with such pedantry, the authors later proceed to posture, admitting that, indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with translating titles. For example, note how they seem to "back down" on page 26:

"This is not to imply that the English word ‘Sovereign’ cannot be used, for even the authors of this treatise use it. However, to employ ‘Sovereign,’ while rejecting in our hearts the Hebrew ‘adonay,’ is a slap in the face of Inspiration—as we show by this act our willingness to nullify the word of Yahweh in favor of our man-made traditions!"

Thus we now learn that, whereas we THOUGHT the authors were setting out to prove that true believers will employ purely Hebrew titles such as "adonay" and "elohim" in reference to Yahweh and His Son, instead they are trying to get the reader to understand that "we cannot reject the Hebrew word ‘adonay’ and at the same time promote its concept through a translation" (page 26). Yes, we would concur with this belief! How could a true believer in his or her right mind willfully reject a title that Yahweh gave to Himself?

It should be a "given" that any title assigned by Yahweh to Himself is rightfully His, since He is the Creator of all things. He is the Giver of all life, so how can anyone in his right mind reject as "pagan" a title originally attributed to Yahweh—in fact, a title that Yahweh gave to Himself? This would be ridiculous, yet this is the angle from which Mr. George and Mr. Soto approach their apology of the "inspired titles" in Part I. They approach things in Part I as though the Yahwist Movement stands (or once stood) opposed to referring to Yahweh as an "Elohim," "Adonai" or "Baal." To the best of my knowledge, this is not true, but even if it was once true, it sure isn’t prevalent any more, at least not since my wife and I became a part of the Yahwist Movement.

Once the reader finishes scratching his head over what in tarnation the authors are trying to actually impress upon their audience, he comes to Part II (page 35), wherein Mr.

George and Mr. Soto establish their position that titles such as "elohim," "baal" and "adonay" may indeed be translated. In fact, on page 41, they "point blank" state, "While proper names should be transliterated, titles can be translated."

The question then becomes, "What are acceptable translations of the Hebrew titles and what are UNACCEPTABLE translations of those Hebrew titles?" This, indeed, is the crux of the entire issue at hand, and this is what we will deal with later as we proceed with our critique of their article.

For those who want a "cut and dried" summary/evaluation of Mr. George and Mr. Soto’s article, here is what it essentially boils down to: Since apostate men "paganized" Yahweh’s Hebrew titles, naming deities after "elohim," "baal" and "adonay," etc., this means that man can take any pagan-to-the-core name or title and simply apply it to Yahweh as a "perfectly acceptable translation" of the original Hebrew title. If you think the wrongful "paganizing" of the titles that Yahweh gave to Himself gives mankind a license to apply "just any old pagan name or title" to the Creator, then we suggest that your "line between wrong and right" has grown rather fuzzy. We believe the expression "Two wrongs don’t make a right" is applicable in the course of evaluating the authors’ conclusion.

This, then, summarizes the problems we have with the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles." Does the article contain truth? Yes, but it is also laced with enough error to throw off a lot of people. As with this critique, we encourage you to read every persuasive or otherwise biased article or argument with great care, and we thank you for considering our perspective. In our forthcoming segments we will focus more in-depth on what we feel are faulty rationalizations, combined with sloppy journalism as evidenced in the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles."

We will also address such arguments as this common one: "Since one of the 12 tribes of Israel was named ‘God," doesn’t this prove that the Almighty doesn’t mind being referred to as our ‘God’?" Also of interest is our contention that Dale George and Silvio Soto’s basic argument is that the use of language is "user defined." As fellow corroborator George Gabler explains, "This presents a problem in interpreting the Scriptures because it undermines Yahweh’s original intent. If the user, or present day terminology, has redefined any portion of the Hebrew language (in this case the name "God"), the original intent becomes obscured or lost. These and other "side issues" are all important, but cannot be addressed in the small space necessary for an introduction such as this. We will therefore approach this subject carefully, addressing these points and others made by the authors as we read through their "Truth Regarding Inspired Titles."

To be continued ...