Installment VI

Shalom to all! We trust that everyone enjoyed a meaningful and memorable Yom Kippur yesterday, despite the lack of food and drink! As we begin this seventh installment of our critique of the article written by Dale George and Silvio Soto, let us quickly summarize what we have thus far covered:

One of our opponents has termed our demand for documentation "nit picking" (from an e-mail we received on October 3, 2000). We term our demand "necessary." We are to prove all things, but unless we set out to prove a case armed with documentation, we are willfully denying our reading audience that same opportunity.

The underlying theme of the authors’ "user defined Theological concept" is continued in Part II of Dale George and Silvio Soto’s article, as we are about to see in this installment.

And now, let us proceed with our critique of Part II of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles."

On page 35, authors Dale George and Silvio Soto somewhat flippantly assert, "There aren’t many objections that can be presented against the evidence and conclusions of this treatise. However, there are always those ‘die-hard’ traditionalists who, like a drowning man holding on tightly to a dead floating log, attempt the impossible in order to avoid the inevitable water fall, awaiting immediately ahead of them. In our discussions with many in the Sacred-Name Movement, we have encountered those who, on one hand, find themselves forced to grant that we have presented our case well. But on the other hand, they insist that all we have done is prove that ‘Hebrew words and Hebrew titles’ are acceptable (that is, they are ‘clean’ words).

"As a result some have been willing to adopt a new extreme: That these titles cannot be translated into English but must be retained and used in their original Hebrew forms. ‘After all,’ they argue emphatically, ‘Hebrew is the ORIGINAL PURE language and English isn’t!’ They, therefore, admit that a believer may be taught to use the Hebrew words ‘elohim’ and perhaps even ‘adonay,’ but in light of the fact that these titles are inspired, they ought to be TRANSLITERATED into English just like the Name of Yahweh. Again, we shall appeal to Scripture in order to settle this issue."

The above constitutes Dale George and Silvio Soto’s introduction to Part II of their article. Although they obviously feel they presented their case well, we beg to differ, for all they succeeded in doing in Part I was to come within a hair’s breath of convincing the reader that in order to be saved he or she must call upon Yahweh by His inspired titles, especially "adonay" and "elohim." Just as the reader is about to become fully convinced that he should henceforth refer to the Creator and His Son by these inspired Hebrew titles ONLY, the rug is pulled out from beneath him and he is suddenly informed, "This is not to imply that the English word ‘Sovereign’ cannot be used, for even the authors of this treatise use it." This turnabout posturing on the part of the authors can hardly be construed as indicating they "presented their case well."

In fact, their introduction to Part II serves notice for its overall theme: "Titles can indeed be translated from Hebrew into English!" Part I takes us along one distorted, confusing path and Part II takes us along another. Both paths are the wrong paths, despite the kernels of truth scattered throughout both segments. The one path intimates that salvation is only found in using the Creator and His Son’s ORIGINALLY INSPIRED titles. The other path not only encourages the translation of these Hebrew titles, but it promotes the "anything goes," user defined mentality, specifically designed to influence the reader that there is nothing inherently wrong with referring to Yahweh as "our God."

On pages 36-41, the authors expend a lot of energy to convince the reader of a truth that, while it should be already obvious, is indeed important when considering the origin of all languages. On page 36 they write, "Therefore, while it is true that the other languages which came after Hebrew were not originally spoken in the Garden of Eden, it is no less true that the same divine person who introduced Hebrew to Adam also introduced the other languages to the descendants of Adam. For this reason, no real theological advantage can be gained by labeling these languages as ‘pagan.’"

Our comment: Indeed, since it IS Yahweh who confounded the languages at Babel, all those newly-formed languages came directly from Him. To consequently label them as "pagan" represents a misunderstanding of Who the giver of those languages is! This section (pp. 36-41) dealing with the origin of languages and of how Yahweh was the giver of all languages emanating from Babel, suffices quite well to prove their point that none of those languages can properly be labeled "pagan."

On page 37, the authors return us to the "user defined" concept they contrived on page 32. They write, "Languages, on the other hand, depend on the INTENTION and CONCEPT of the user to make them a moral issue. A word, phrase, dialect, or language can only be ‘pagan’ if the user intends to convey a ‘pagan’ idea or concept! And, even then, it would only be immoral because of the manner the user intended to use it and NOT due to its very existence! Therefore, another individual could employ the same words, phrases, dialect, or language and not suffer any divine condemnation for his actions because his INTENTIONS are more noble!"

They go on to say, in the next paragraph, "There is no such thing as a sinful sound."

To answer this claim, please allow me to share with you my personal experience with "sinful sounds." All my life, dating back to my childhood school days, I have tried to meet and exceed others’ expectations of me. Oh, I admit I often fall far short of meeting those expectations, but Yahweh knows I do my best. At school, many of my classmates were content to simply "get by" with the work expected of them, choosing to rush through their homework so they could watch their favorite TV programs or whatever else it was they could do with their free time. When some of them observed that I was pushing myself to do more than what was expected, they began calling me "brown-noser." I didn’t know what the term meant exactly, but I felt certain it had to do with someone who "busts his tail" to please the teacher. Over time, I ran into other folks who, like me, put forth extra effort to get the job done well, and in imitation of those around me, I would jokingly call them "brown-nosers." The day came, however, when someone educated me as to what the term "brown-noser" REALLY means. Regardless of how our present-day culture may define "brown-noser," when one learns of its origin and how it came to be used, this term must definitely be considered insulting at best and at worst a "sinful sound." Had I understood what this term means when I first heard it used so many years ago, I would never have joined with others in uttering it. Regardless of how innocent my use of the idiom was, this did not in any way detract from its being a "sinful," vulgar expression.

Years later, I became a teacher who had to lay down some parameters for acceptable versus unacceptable conduct among my students. Among the "no-no’s" was the use of inappropriate language. In a culture run by "user defined" rules (as laid down by Dale George and Silvio Soto), the rule I laid down poses a problem. You see, certain words may be offensive to some while perfectly acceptable to others, and this is what I personally experienced. One of my students definitely promoted the "user defined" rule, as she demonstrated a proclivity for exclaiming, "That sucks!" whenever something was said or done that conflicted with her desires. Despite repeated warnings, both during class and afterwards, she adamantly proclaimed and maintained that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the expression. At length, I decided to involve the girl’s mother and the school principal in our squabble. Unfortunately, I knew this might be difficult, as the principal himself was rather proficient in the use of four-letter words! Nevertheless, he did take it upon himself to contact the mother in an attempt to resolve things. The end result, which he announced to me privately, was that he and the girl’s mother had reached an agreement that the expression "That sucks" is not in and of itself inappropriate, but that her mother would talk with her and encourage her to comply with my wishes in the classroom.

In the "user defined" culture promoted by Dale George and Silvio Soto, the girl in my class had every right to blurt out, "That sucks!" whenever she was displeased because by her "intention and concept" of the phrase, nothing immoral or sinful was expressed!

The Apostle Paul recognized that there are ACCEPTABLE and UNACCEPTABLE words employed in any language, and encouraged the believers to avoid the unacceptable ones. In so doing, he acknowledged that, indeed, we are capable of uttering sinful sounds, whether on purpose or inadvertently. Paul did not encourage them to explore their "inner self" to come up with their own definitions or "concepts" of acceptable versus unacceptable words. Instead, we need to become "aware of our surroundings," training ourselves to be keenly aware of what is proper and what is improper. This is what "discernment" is all about! Let’s read what the Apostle Paul wrote on the subject of "sinful sounds":

"But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips." (Colossians 3:8, NIV)

In admonishing his Colossian brethren to rid themselves of "filthy language," Paul was telling them to avoid uttering sinful sounds! Paul did not stand for the mentality represented by an "anything goes," user defined culture.

And now that you have been educated about mankind’s inclination towards referring to Yahweh by a name/title that matches the pronunciation of the name of a deity whose worship He condemned, a Hebrew name that He NEVER applied to Himself, how will you respond? Is this how you would honor Yahweh? Or do you excuse yourself by virtue of your own personal soul-searching and self-examination, convincing yourself that referring to Yahweh as "your God" actually HONORS Him?

Before moving on to our next topic, please allow us to insert George Gabler’s brief response to the authors’ assertion that "a word, phrase, dialect, or language can only be ‘pagan’ if the user intends to convey a ‘pagan’ idea or concept":

"This totally divorces the original meaning from the word! If the user wants to call our heavenly Father ‘Abaddon’ (destroyer), ‘Zeus’ (Lightening), ‘Heylel’ (light-bringer), or any other name, then it’s okay because the user’s intentions are okay ... despite what the scripture actually says?"

This is just a brief commentary, but it needs to be inserted because we do believe in giving credit where it is due. The authors do an excellent job of demonstrating the differences between the Hebrew and Aramaic languages on pages 39-44 of their article. There exists a preconceived notion that the two languages are virtually identical, but George and Soto adeptly dispel it in their article. First, they display the text of II Kings 18:26-28, which immediately precedes the story of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s attempted invasion of Judah. In this account, the Rabshakeh (commander of the Assyrian army) issues his warning to the inhabitants of Judah that they may as well surrender, since no nation had been able to withstand them to that point, and neither would Judah, etc., etc. At length, King Hezekiah’s representatives, Eliakim, Shebnah and Joah, spoke the following words to the Rabshakeh:

"Please speak to your servants in the Aramaic language, for we understand it; do not speak to us in the language of Judah (Hebrew) within the hearing of the people who are on the wall" (II Kings 18:26).

The nature of this request should be obvious. King Hezekiah’s representatives did not want the general populace to hear the Rabshakeh’s words of doom pronounced upon their city. Since the king’s representatives understood the Aramaic language and the general populace did not, this indeed demonstrates the fact that there are more than just subtle differences between the two languages.

On page 40, the authors provide examples of where the Messiah Himself is recorded as having spoken in Aramaic, and on page 41 they provide their reading audience with their reason for inserting this section into their article:

"The object of this whole reasoning exercise (if it isn’t already obvious) is to demonstrate that while there is such a thing as an ‘original’ (Garden of Eden) language that came first, and there are many languages (including Aramaic) which came afterwards, ‘coming afterwards’ does NOT automatically mean it must be ‘pagan’ or a bad thing!"

On pages 41-42, the authors even list Scriptural examples of Hebrew titles and their Aramaic translations, such as "elohim" vs. "elah" and "adon" vs. "mare," effectively sealing an airtight case establishing their point that titles can be translated.

They left no room to doubt the fact that Scripture alone allows the translation of titles from one language to another, a point which we have maintained for as long as we have been involved in the Yahwist Movement. Certainly, if the Yahwist Movement has ever taught that titles should not be translated, such articles or tracts never made their way into our home.

On pages 42-43 of their article, authors Dale George and Silvio Soto issue yet another comment for which they leave the reader without documentation to support their claim. This centers around Paul’s famous sermon on Mars’ Hill in Athens, as recorded in Acts 17:16-31. Shown below is Acts 17:22-23:

"Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, ‘Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god (theos).’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you!" (New Revised Standard Version)

In the authors’ commentary on this passage (page 42), they astutely wrote, "This would mean that Paul was not troubled by an inscription that employed the Greek word ‘theos,’ a translation of the Hebrew title ‘elohim.’ Since it is only logical that as he proceeded to preach the message of salvation to the people of Athens he must have continued to employ the term ‘theos’ (a necessity, as he was speaking Greek). Who else was the Apostle referring to by this Greek title other than to Yahweh? This fact demonstrates that as far as Paul was concerned, the Greek word ‘theos’ (as a common noun) was equivalent in meaning and CONCEPT to the Hebrew word ‘elohim’ (also a common noun), proving once again that titles can be translated from one language to another."

Our comment: We totally agree with the above commentary, for the authors at that point are correctly operating from the perspective that "theos" is nothing more than a Greek title. Unfortunately, however, Dale George and Silvio Soto proceed to make reference to the word "theos" also being a PROPER NOUN, which so far as we have ever known, is simply not the case. Shown below is their commentary as it appears on pages 42-43:

"The Apostle’s choice of words becomes even more revealing when one considers that in verse 16 we are told that Paul was distressed because the city was full of idols. Shouldn’t this fact have caused the Apostle to become even more determined not to employ the Greek term ‘theos’? Was Paul compromising the integrity of the evangel or the reputation of Yahweh by referring to Him by the Greek title ‘theos’? Hardly! Was he then taking a big gamble and risking the possibility of being misunderstood and of having Yahweh confused with ‘Theos,’ the name (proper noun) of an idol that some of these people served? Obviously, Paul did not think so!"

We respond: Authors Dale George and Silvio Soto mention a Greek idol by the name of Theos "that some of these people served." From which resource did they glean this information? None is listed. It is true that for years we, too, tried and tried to prove that there was a Greek deity named "Theos." Unfortunately, however, we always came up empty-handed! The closest we ever came to proving "Theos" as having originally been the name of a Greek deity came from the book "The Final Reformation," by C. J. Koster, 1986, Institute For Scripture Research, Republic of South Africa, which was republished in 1996 under the title "Come Out of Her My People." On page 50 of this book (page 45 of the new edition), we read the following:

"And the word ‘Theos’? Donaldson in his ‘New Cratylus’ points out that ‘Th’ is frequently pronounced as ‘Dh’ in Greek, thus ‘Theos’ and ‘Dheos’ could be the same, if only in pronunciation. Further, B.C. Dietrich, ‘The Origin of Greek Religion,’ p. 288, reveals to us a pair of deities, ‘Theos’ and ‘Thea.’ This proves that ‘Theos’ is not only a title, but also the name of a Greek idol."

And there you have it! Proof that "Theos" was originally a name transformed into a title, just like "God"! Upon reading this information back in 1986, we were very excited, for we knew that we would be able to show our friends and families that our decision to call upon Yahweh was indeed wise insofar as it had to be a far cry better than the Greek "Theos," which, as we informed them, was the name of a pagan deity. Years later, in our drive to personally examine the resource used by C.J. Koster, we visited the library and checked out a copy of the book "The Origin of Greek Religion" by B.C. Dietrich. To our amazement, we discovered that C.J. Koster extrapolated from page 288 that which he wanted to use in order to justify what he wanted to prove, despite the fact that the book in NO WAY infers that "Theos" and "Thea" were the names of two idols! Let’s read the actual quotation from the book, and YOU decide if it reveals a deity by the name of "Theos":

"In Eleusinian myth, which one may assume to reflect Bronze Age belief, beside the Two Goddesses another pair ‘Theos’ and ‘Thea,’ that is Pluton and Persephone, enjoyed equal prominence."

As you should be able to discern from the above quotation, "Theos" and "Thea" are listed NOT as names, but as TITLES for Pluton and Persephone. We have yet to see any solid evidence that "Theos" was ever (in its original form) anything more than a generic title for any deity, much like the Hebrew "Elohim." Thus, any attempt to infuse anyone with the idea that Paul may have been confusing Yahweh with a pagan deity’s name in Acts 17 is not only unsubstantiated, but unfounded. As George Gabler added in his own commentary, "There were many deities in the Greek Pantheon, but ‘Theos’ wasn’t one of them." Mr. Gabler later adds, "Let’s also ask this: Was this generic Greek term, ‘theo,’ also a Hebrew one? The answer, of course, is no. The Greeks worshipped Zeus and a pantheon of deities, but ‘theo’ was a generic term. However, what if ‘theo’ had been the proper name of a popular deity like Apollyon, which YAHWEH directly points out? Would that make a difference? Wouldn’t that be like calling YAHWEH, Almighty Apollyon!? How would that be glorifying Yahweh?"

We answer: Such an appellation most certainly would NOT honor Yahweh! Neither does calling Him "Almighty God"!

End of Installment Seven

Coming up in Installment Eight: