Installment IV

As we continue with our review of George and Soto's article, please keep in mind that much of our criticism stems from their 1) Failure to document generalizations made regarding those who make up the Yahwist Movement, 2) Failure to document claims or other general information, 3) Sharing information that is already understood as being true by many in the Yahwist Movement, presenting it as if it is "new light," then doing "Scriptural overkill" to prove the point, 4) Apparently placing more trust in the inconclusive findings of etymologists than in the decisive Word of Yahweh, and 5) Stating that "words can only be pagan if the user intends to convey a pagan idea or concept," by which the authors promote undermining Yahweh's original intent, making any word "user defined."

All of the above are very serious charges (with the possible exception of #3), yet we have shown examples to demonstrate that each of the five claims listed above is valid. Unfortunately, more examples are to follow in Part III. Part II of our critique left off with a commentary from page 13 of the article in question. Let us proceed with an examination of pages 14-44:

VI. MOOT POINTS AND SLAMMING A. B. TRAINA

Authors Dale George and Silvio Soto, on page 14, wrote the following: "The prevailing general belief has been that it was rebellious Israel who adapted the 'heathen' word 'adonay' as a 'perverted substitution' of the Divine Name. With so much emphasis in this area, it is understandable why so many in the Movement are under the impression that the word 'adonay' does not actually appear in the Bible. Therefore, it is disturbing to many to see it demonstrated that on numerous occasions (about 400 times) 'adonay' is used in connection with Yahweh (and more especially, in connection with prophecies of Yahshua)."

We comment: 1) "Prevailing general belief" is too vague. Again, Mr. George and Mr. Soto need to at least provide one source from which they derive their remark. Does the Yahwist Movement "in general" truly believe that rebellious Israel adopted "the 'heathen' word 'adonay'" as a "perverted substitution" of the Divine Name? My wife and I have never shared such a belief. If such a belief exists in the Yahwist Movement, why not document it with evidence? 2) Once we establish our point that we have never believed this in the first place, the remainder of the points presented in George and Soto's paragraph above becomes non sequitur.

George and Soto proceed to slam A. B. Traina for substituting the title "adonay" with "'King,' 'Savior,' and in some instances with the expression 'Yah-Yahweh.'" In doing this, according to the article, "they bestowed upon themselves an authority -- that no man has ever been given -- and proceeded to CHANGE Scripture and to REMOVE from the Bible those words that in 'their personal, subjective judgment' should not be there. Despite the genuine and sincere motives for these changes, in reality no justification could ever be given for what can only be characterized as sacrilege."

First of all, one has to wonder exactly who "they" refers to ("they bestowed upon themselves"), since the only person named is A. B. Traina. Perhaps "they" refers to the people who make up the Scripture Research Association, who published Traina's "HOLY NAME BIBLE" in 1963?

Secondly, the authors' putting quotation marks around the words "their personal, subjective judgment" seems to suggest that perhaps these are the words of Mr. Traina and his associates. If so, from where does the quotation originate? Upon personally examining the preface of Traina's HOLY NAME BIBLE, we conclude the quotation was not taken from this source. The question, then, is why did the authors choose to enclose those words within quotation marks if no one is being quoted? The general impression created by Dale George and Silvio Soto is that these are the words of A. B. Traina. If they were indeed quoted from Mr. Traina, then it behooves the authors to document the source from which they obtained the quotation.

Thirdly, we are puzzled as to how George and Soto are so quick to denounce Traina's actions in translating "adonay" as "king" or "savior," yet they themselves go on to admit, "While proper names should be transliterated, titles can be translated" (from page 41 of their article). If it is wrong to translate "adonay" as "king" or "savior," then it must equally be wrong to translate "elohim" as "almighty." Note, however, that George and Soto's scorching rebuke of Traina's practice does not accuse him of TRANSLATING "adonay" as "king" or "savior." Instead he is portrayed as SUBSTITUTING "adonay" with "king" or "savior," which makes his actions out to be a much more serious offense! It's all a part of an obvious attempt to make Traina out to be a villainous perpetrator bent on subverting Yahweh's Word.

One final point: Mr. George Gabler, in his own critique of Dale George and Silvio Soto's work, made the following astute observation concerning their labeling Traina's actions as being "sacrilege" on page 15:

"Sacrilege? If their zeal is in not wanting what they believed to be a demonic deity to be associated with YAHWEH'S great name is sacrilege, what should we call the deliberate association of a known demonic entity which YAHWEH Himself identifies and condemns (God)?"

Well, Mr. Gabler, words like "deplorable" and "detestable" come to mind.

This having been said, please allow us to state that we do not necessarily agree with everything Traina did in his translation of the Bible. For example, we would agree with Mr. George and Mr. Soto that it was not appropriate to translate "Adonay Yahweh" as "Yah-Yahweh," which Mr. Traina frequently did. At the same time, however, we would stop far short of labeling his mistake as "sacrilege."

VII. BETRAYING A THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT?

The undiscerning reader, upon reaching the end of page 15 of Mr. George and Mr. Soto's article, would conclude that the authors believe that not only should all true believers consistently refer to Yahweh as our Adonay, but that those who do not are risking their very salvation! Note the following commentary:

"As we continue with this review, we shall demonstrate that the title 'adonay' (in its common noun usage) is not only an ACCEPTABLE term to Inspiration, it is in fact a MANDATED term that Scripture commanded Israel to use!! We shall also see that the theological concept conveyed by the manner Inspiration used the word 'adonay' is as VITAL to our salvation as the Name of Yahshua!"

The impression one is immediately left with, upon reading the paragraph above, is that George and Soto believe that we should all be referring to Yahweh as our Adon or our Adonay. However, they left us with a disclaimer of sorts by inserting that it is the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT conveyed by the manner in which "adonay" is used that is vital to our salvation. So what is the "theological concept conveyed by the manner Inspiration used the word 'adonay'"? Upon reading the following page, we were unable to come up with a definitive answer or explanation given by the authors. Obviously, the "theological concept" must be the reverential use and employment of the word "adonay." What else could it be? And how else could a true believer employ ANY title directed towards the Creator? The theological concept behind employing any titles in reference to Yahweh is that they convey the highest level of respect and reverence. This applies not only to "adonay," but also to "baal." It even applies to such titles as "king," "savior," "sovereign," and "almighty." The question is, "When we respectfully refer to Yahweh as our Sovereign, do we betray the theological concept behind the original Hebrew word, "Adonay"? The answer is no. Thus, the authors created a false impression by insinuating that use of "adonay" is "VITAL to our salvation," and as we have repeatedly noted, the authors themselves admit on page 41 of their article that titles such as "adonay" can indeed be translated.

An even weightier question is, "Do we betray the theological concept behind the original Hebrew word "elohim' when we refer to Yahweh as "our God'?" Yes, we do. We do betray the theological concept behind "elohim" when we refer to Yahweh as "our God," especially if we know and recognize who or what "God" really means and where it originated.

Regarding the authors' statement above that "adonay" is a "MANDATED term that Scripture commanded Israel to use," please allow us to quote Mr. George Gabler's response as found in his critique of their article:

"'Thou shalt call Me Adonay'? Not in my bible!"

VIII. HOSEA'S POSITIVE USE OF "ADON" AND NEGATIVE USE OF "BAAL.�

On page 17 the authors successfully demonstrate that Yahweh's negative use of the word "baali" in Hosea 2:16-17 cannot be understood as a generic condemnation of all titles that have a history of pagan connections. For those not aware of this truth, their explanation is enlightening. For many others in the Yahwist Movement who have long understood this to be true, their explanation is "yesterday's news."

Note the following commentary on the same page: "Hosea's unqualified use of the word "adon" in a direct reference to Yahweh must clearly indicate that the prophet did not intend his condemnation of "Baali" to be interpreted generically (as done by the Sacred-Name Movement today)!"

We respond: We agree, but please keep in mind that during Hosea's day "adonay" had not yet been used as a substitute for Yahweh's name, as is the case today. It was clearly an acceptable title used by Yahweh's own servants. Those servants had nothing to do with the despicable practice later employed in which "adonay" is now commonly used in place of Yahweh's name. Can the same be said for the title "Baal"? No, for this title was indeed transformed into a name for a false deity long before Hosea's day. "Adonay" was truly an acceptable title for Yahweh during Hosea's day, and one can argue that "adonay" is still acceptable, as it is a title that Yahweh gave to Himself. Nevertheless, circumstances have certainly changed since Hosea's day. June and I avoid referring to Yahweh as our "adonai" out of protest over the Jewish custom of substituting this title for His name. Does this mean we believe it is wrong to refer to Yahweh as our "adonai"? No, but this is our own personal decision which we have no intention of dogmatically promoting or otherwise inflicting upon others!

Authors George and Soto further state on page 27 that "the proper noun ‘Adonay' had already become the name of a false deity" long before the New Testament was written. Of course, documentation to validate this claim would have been wonderful, but none was forthcoming; nevertheless, there is no question that a deity named "Adonis" was indeed worshipped in Canaan, and this deity is/was the equivalent of "adonay." This information is found in the encyclopedia "Encyclopedia International," volume 1, Grolier Incorporated, New York, 1972, article "Adonis," page 75. According to this encyclopedia, Adonis was the Semitic god of vegetation, and "his name is the Canaanite title adon, ‘Lord.'" Curiously, however, no date is assigned to let the reader know when this deity first came "on the scene." The reason for our curiosity is: Scripture does not recognize any deity possessing the name "Adonay," "Adonis," or "Adon." Although we do not doubt the fact that a culture at one time worshipped a deity they named "Adonis," it is puzzling that this deity is never mentioned in Scripture, with the possible exception of I Kings 22:6. "Adonay" is only used in Scripture as a title or common noun (again with the possible exception of I Kings 22:6). Although Baal worship was soundly condemned by Yahweh, not once do we read a scathing rebuke directed at anyone for worshipping a deity named Adonay. Could it be because no such worship was in existence? Well, even if a deity named Adonis was worshipped during the days mentioned in Scripture, it apparently didn't pose the same magnitude of a problem as did the worship of Baal, or at least it wasn't deemed worthy of mention. Furthermore, as in the worship of Baal, the fact remains that the "name" Adonay was a "title" first, a title properly belonging to Yahweh. Again, as the authors rightly pointed out on page 30, "Paganism does not stop Yahweh."

IX. WHY DID YAHWEH REJECT "BAALI"?

Authors Dale George and Silvio Soto asked a question on page 18 that deserves an answer: "In light of all the corruption involving titles and the all-sufficiency of his divine Name, why the need to select yet another title? Why does not Yahweh settle for His Name only? Obviously, titles are far more meaningful to Yahweh than we have realized!!"

We agree that titles are very important and meaningful to Yahweh. We believe that Yahweh rejected the title "Baali" in favor of "Ishi" because Ishi represents a title that has never been used in association with pagan idols. Both terms can be translated "husband," but "baali" had come to be identified as the name of a pagan deity. The title "baal" had been changed into a name and applied to a false form of worship. We can understand why Yahweh would no longer desire for mankind to associate Him with that title. Our conclusion has the support of Adam Clarke (c. 1762-1832), who wrote the following in his "Commentary on the Holy Bible," Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1985, page 709:

"'Thou shalt call me Ishi.' That is, 'My Man,' or, 'My Husband,' a title of love and affection; and not Baali, 'My master,' a title exciting fear and apprehension; which, howsoever good in itself, was now rendered improper to be applied to [Yahweh], having been prostituted to false gods."

End of Installment #4

Topics covered in our upcoming installments:

"The Significance of Titles"

"Were Jews Practicing Substitution of "Adonay" For Yahweh's Name in Messiah's

Day?"

"Refusing to Recognize the Savior's True Titles ..."

"The Salvation Formula?"

"Can a Salvation Issue Be Considered 'Minor'?"