Installment VIII

A CRITIQUE OF THE ARTICLE "THE TRUTH REGARDING INSPIRED TITLES"
by Larry and June Acheson, with commentary by George Gabler (continued)

THE MISSING SECTION

Shalom to all and greetings in the name of Yahweh!

For those of you who followed along with each numbered section in our critique of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles," you may have noticed that one section is missing: section XXVII! It simply isn't there, obviously due to an oversight on our part. Well, we apologize for the missing section, but hopefully the one we're adding now will make up for it!

REASONABLE DOUBT?

A few responses have trickled in since the release of our final installment, including a response from a longtime member of the Yahwist Movement who wishes to remain anonymous at this time. He wrote, "Thank you for all your time and effort to clarify the most damaging piece of paper the sacred name people have had to deal with in the last twenty years. Just think it came from within the body of MESSIAH."

Other responses have not been as receptive to our critique. One individual wrote, "Is the idol you mention connected to the 'Baal God' of Isaiah 65:11? I don't believe you can make such a connection and successfully prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt."

We respond: We don't NEED to make the connection, sir! YAHWEH makes the connection for us! Do we trust what YAHWEH says or do we trust the etymologists? Obviously, the man quoted above trusts the etymologists more than he trusts Yahweh or he would believe Yahweh when He speaks against those who worship the deity named "God" in IsaYah 65:11 (the word "Baal" does not appear in this verse). We have already quoted and documented references establishing that the etymologists simply DO NOT KNOW for sure "how" and "where" to trace the English word "God." Therefore, by their own admission, it is indeed possible that Yahweh is RIGHT, that this word DOES trace to the Babylonian deity named God! This particular aspect of our discussion, then, boils down to this: Are you going to trust in the questionable possibilities suggested by etymologists OR are you going to simply take Yahweh at His Word -- that GOD is a false deity worshipped by those who FORSAKE YAHWEH? If you can understand THIS etymological explanation given by Yahweh Himself, then certainly you can also understand how we DISHONOR Him when we subsequently refer to Him as "our God." It is the same as saying, "I know Yahweh detests GOD, but Yahweh is my GOD." It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the one "GOD" is completely unrelated to the other "GOD"! As my dad says, "If you can't tell the difference, there AIN'T any!"

Can YOU tell the difference between "God" and "God"?

Furthermore, the gentleman quoted above mentioned that we have not proven our point "beyond a reasonable doubt." This man has things turned around, for the burden of proof is not on US to prove that the English "God" traces to the Hebrew name of a heathen deity! The burden of proof is on HIM to prove it ISN'T! This man is waiting for evidence to surface proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that YAHWEH IS RIGHT, i.e., that the English/German "God" is linked to the name of a heathen Babylonian deity. When he is at length presented with such evidence that meets his personal criteria, THEN he will (apparently) be convinced.

Let's examine both perspectives for a moment: The one party (us) is waiting for evidence to surface that conclusively, positively proves that the one "God" is not related to the other "God." Until such proof is forthcoming, we prefer to "play it safe" and not risk dishonoring Yahweh by referring to Him with a title linked to the name of a false heathen deity.

The other party is waiting for evidence to surface that positively proves that the one "God" is truly linked to the other "God" before they are convinced beyond "a reasonable doubt" that it is a dishonor to refer to Yahweh as their "God." Until that evidence is produced, they are willing to risk dishonoring Him for the sake of bringing in more converts to the Faith.

Which of the two lines of reasoning listed above represents the "sure way" to please and honor Yahweh?

As mentioned in our final installment, this is all about honor versus compromise. No one from the opposing camp has listed a single line of reasoning outlining "how" referring to Yahweh as "our God" honors Him. This is because THEY CAN'T DO IT! The heathen-friendly title "God" is only gaining favor among Yahwist ministers who care more about gaining converts than they do about HONORING Yahweh. If converting someone to Yahweh means "lightening up" on their standards, i.e., COMPROMISING a little here and a little there, then so be it!

This mentality is in fact expressed by the gentleman promoting Yahweh as "God." He wrote, "I still say the whole movement is far too hung up on this topic and expending energy they could better use to tell a lost and dying world about a Saviour named Yahushua the Messiah. This kind of reasoning only leads us to run off otherwise and sincere and seeking individuals."

The man quoted above seems to exude a genuine concern for the people in this "lost and dying world." If he is so concerned about people being lost and dying without knowing the Messiah, should he not likewise be concerned about the "message" he gives them in his attempt to reach them? June and I stumbled across Yahwist literature back in 1986. As we were seeking truth even back then, we read and studied that literature and realized that the message contained in that literature was RIGHT! We weren't "offended," even though the "God" we had been worshipping was portrayed for what it is: the name of a false deity. We didn't start making unreasonable demands at that point, such as insisting that we at LEAST be allowed to refer to Him as "our God." No, once we learned the sordid TRUTH about the origin of this word, we were ALL TOO WILLING to dump it altogether! Are we THAT different from others who may find their way into the Yahwist Movement? Must we cater to the possibility that some newcomer to the Movement might be offended, and then be "run off," and on that basis promote the freedom to refer to Yahweh as "our God" to avert this FEAR we have?! Yahweh forbid we do anything for the sake of pleasing new converts that simultaneously risks dishonoring Him! We're all for bringing a lost and dying world to the Messiah, but LET'S NOT TEACH THEM TO DISHONOR YAHWEH in the process!! Let's not even RISK dishonoring Yahweh!

George Gabler adequately summed up the above man's "philosophy": "Why is the clear and presentable evidence being ignored? Because the protagonists are using 'reasonable doubt' in the sense of being absolutely conclusive in the context that they are the arbiters of truth and that the Word of YAHWEH is insufficient!"

WHEN YAHWEH CONFOUNDED THE LANGUAGES AT BABEL, DID HE SUBSEQUENTLY INSPIRE THE GERMANIC TITLE "GOTT"?

Another gentleman, in his rebuttal of our critique, proposes that Yahweh inspired "God" to be an acceptable, generic title when the languages were given at Babel. Since Yahweh inspired each new language given there, and since "God" was a part of that inspired language, this must mean that Yahweh approves of this generic title. This man wrote, "Who, when the languages were confounded at Babel, gave the Hebrews 'Adonai' and 'Elohim,' the Arameans 'Mare' and 'Alaha,' the Greeks 'Kurios' and 'Theos,' and the Germans 'Herr' and 'Gott' to use as terms of deity? The answer ... is that Yahweh was the one who confounded the languages at Babel as He saw fit. God is not the only word that is used in modern English worship that sounds like the name of a pagan deity in another language."

We respond: This man's logic, of course, is that since Yahweh confounded the languages, and SINCE He inspired "God" to be the word employed in reference to Germanic deities, THEREFORE, He approves of our referring to Him as "our God" in English or in German. His logic stops dead in its tracks, however, as this man is unable to trace the Germanic language all the way to Babel! Consider for a moment the evolutionary nature of languages. The English we speak today, for example, would have been virtually unrecognizable to the English people of, say, 500 years ago. According to our encyclopedia, Encyclopedia International, Volume 7, 1972, by Grolier Incorporated, New York, p. 555, the "Germanic languages (formerly called the Teutonic languages), are a subgroup of the Indo-European language family. Germanic languages are usually divided into East Germanic, North Germanic, and West Germanic languages. The most important East Germanic language was Gothic, which is now extinct; no living languages belong to this sub-branch."

This encyclopedia adds, "The oldest Germanic forms attested are names in the writings of Latin and Greek authors."

We thus see that even the network of Germanic languages has experienced a substantial evolutionary process, with its Gothic base having been pronounced "extinct." With this knowledge in mind, does it seem likely or even remotely POSSIBLE that Yahweh ordained the Germanic language at Babel along with its generic title for deity, GOD/GOTT? The answer is NO.

But let's go back to the dead Gothic language, from which the Germanic languages hail. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, Online Edition, 1999, item "Etymology of the Word 'God," this word is derived from the Gothic root "gheu." This being the case, we can safely conclude that Yahweh definitely DID NOT inspire "God" or even "Gott" as a generic title for any language when He confounded the languages at Babel. The closest one can possibly come in their etymological search is "gheu," which doesn't even sound like "God." This is information that comes from the etymologists, no less! Even THEY would have to admit that it is "reaching" to find a pronunciation match between the words "God" and "gheu"! With the understanding that there really isn't much of a match between those two words, one should be able to safely conclude that, indeed, YAHWEH is RIGHT! You see, there IS a match between the English name/title "God" and the Hebrew name "God"! Yahweh identifies "God" as a false deity worshipped by those who FORSAKE Him. None of the ancients ever applied this term to Yahweh. Much later, though, a group of heathen Germanic people known as the Druids are found worshipping their many deities, referring to them as "gods" and invoking them by incantation. Either way you "link" this title, it is stained with the impurity of heathen worship. Anyone wishing to apply such a term to Yahweh, knowing what we have just shown to be true about the word, must simultaneously embrace this title's former association. Thus we distinguish between those who embrace compromise and those who strive to honor Yahweh in word and in deed. Let's not speculate about the etymology of the word "God." Trust in Yahweh, who uses this word to identify a FALSE DEITY.

We have received word from Mario Soto that he will issue a response to what he feels are misrepresentations on our part with regard to our critique of the article he and Dale George co-authored. We anxiously await the explanations he will give, as the authors definitely have a lot of explaining to do, chief of which must be, "How do we honor Yahweh by referring to Him as 'our God'?"

May Yahweh's blessings be with you all and thank you once again for considering our perspective!

Yours in Messiah,

Larry Acheson