Installment IX

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

Installment #8 (The Last Great Installment!)

We would like to thank everyone for bearing with us through this lengthy response to the article published by authors Dale George and Silvio Soto. We conclude this critique regretting that it takes so much space to respond to various charges, assumptions and claims. In this conclusion we establish that the primary issue here is that of HONOR versus COMPROMISE.

We finally arrive at page 44, the page the authors were clearly aiming for when they began their work. It is on this page of their article that they "put it all together" much like this: Since there are no sinful sounds and all words are user defined anyway, and since titles can be translated, this must mean that we can translate "elohim" into "God," or so they proceed to inform their readers!

Let us begin by responding to a false assumption they make in the second sentence of this section:

They wrote: "Perhaps there isn’t a more sensitive issue among Sacred-Name believers than the English words ‘god’ and ‘lord’! Sadly, the traditional rejection of these two words is mostly based on the linguistic misconception of the Hebrew word ‘baal.’"

We reply: This is patently false, at least insofar as we know, for we certainly did not base our rejection of these two words on the above-named premise! "Baal" has absolutely nothing to do with it! Those who have read our critique up to this point are certainly aware of why we outright REJECT the name/title "God" and why we personally reject the title "lord." "God" is/was a Hebrew name. It was never used as a title for anyone, much less for Yahweh, and it so happens to be the name of a false, pagan deity whose worship Yahweh condemns in IsaYah 65:11. Somehow, most likely through this name being handed down and distorted through heathen usage, this word has made its way into the English language, perhaps first as a title, then as both the actual name or title of the Creator.

Let us also insert George Gabler’s reaction to the authors’ claim that our rejection of "God" is based on "the linguistic misconception of the Hebrew word "baal":

"This is absolutely NOT TRUE, as the authors are well aware! If there is anyone rejecting "god" on this basis I’ve never heard of it! A few may have qualms connecting ‘baal’ and ‘lord,’ but that certainly isn’t the majority. And even if it were, what difference would it make? Most do avoid ‘Lord’ because the Lord of the Christians is not YAHWEH and to use the identical terminology gives the false impression that there is no actual difference."

Early on in our critique we mentioned the authors’ reliance on the etymologists’ findings as opposed to the direct Word of Yahweh, and it is on pages 44-45 that they reassert their position:

"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 means, ‘the keeper of the loaf’)."

Aside from our contention that the authors put more faith in modern day etymologists than in Yahweh’s Word, we feel that George Gabler, in his commentary, does a superb job of responding to the above verbiage:

"Here is one ‘pagan connection’ ... Linguists not only trace ‘God’ back to Teutonic (Germanic) roots, but all the way back to ancient Sanskrit, meaning, ‘to invoke by incantation, to conjure, & magic’! [From The Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language]. The authors apparently failed to consult more than a desktop dictionary! Now, do we detect a note of sarcasm in ‘Gawd’? Isn’t this the whole point in separating the meanings from the (identical) phonetic sound, to deny that God has anything to do with God? That is, that the Hebrew and English have totally different linguistic roots so there isn’t really any connection, and is USER DEFINED!"

The authors issue a deluge of generalizations on page 45, apparently content that they are in the process of "wrapping up" their case. Here are a few:

We reply: We’ll just stick to our point about the origin of the word ‘god’ (as opposed to ‘lord’) as we respond to the above. "Pagan?" Well, was it not the name ascribed to the deity whose worship was outlawed and condemned by Yahweh? But now some claim it is "A-OK" to take that same name and apply it as a "perfectly acceptable" TITLE for Him??? As the popular expression goes, "HELLLLO!!" Something seems awfully fishy here! "Unclean"? Even if this word of itself had not been stained by heathen worship, the fact that the majority of the English-speaking world has actually convinced themselves that "God" is the name of the Creator certainly makes it a less-than-honorable term. "Idolatrous"? We’ll let the "Encyclopedia International," vol. 8, article "God," p. 52, answer that one for us:

"The word ‘God’ and its cognates existed in the Germanic family of languages (German ‘Gott,’ Danish ‘Gud’) in pre-Christian times, and referred to that which is worshipped or invoked in sacrificial offerings. With the conversion of the Teutonic peoples to Christianity, its pre-Christian meanings were largely reshaped and absorbed into the Judeo-Christian tradition."

We believe the above definition is sufficient to demonstrate the IDOLATROUS ORIGIN of the word "God." If, after having studied the possible origins of the word "God," combined with the knowledge that it was the name of a false deity long BEFORE the mind of man contrived it as a "perfectly acceptable" title for Yahweh ... if you have studied and understand all the above and are still content that "God" is a perfectly acceptable title for Yahweh, then we maintain, as we maintained early on in this critique, that the line you use to determine right from wrong has become rather fuzzy. In all matters there are bound to be ardent defenders of a strict "protocol" versus those of the "loose interpretation" mentality. We thus feel compelled to make this distinction between those who believe in following a strict code of honor with regard to Yahweh’s name and title versus those who prefer a much looser, "user defined" concept. Yes, we are diametrically opposed to the teaching that the !"user" can define in his or her own heart whether or not it is wrong to refer to Yahweh as "our God." Is this the best title the "user" can come up with?

Another comment from authors Dale George and Silvio Soto (p. 45):

We reply: This depends on whom you want those titles to refer to! If you want to refer to the deity Nisroch as an Assyrian "god," then this translation is fine by us, for false deities are not worthy of honor anyway! We therefore have no problem with referring to the false Assyrian deity Nisroch as a "god." Yahweh, on the other hand, is worth every ounce of honor we can give Him. With this in mind, we are NOT willing to admit that the Hebrew titles "elohim" and "adonay" can properly be translated into English as "god" and "lord," at least not in reference to YAHWEH!

More of the authors’ rhetoric from page 45:

We reply: First of all, regarding their claim that we must use the same rules to reject "god" and "lord" as some apparently use to reject "elohim" and "adonay," we must refer the reader to our previously-mentioned position that just because man has taken it upon himself to "paganize" Yahweh’s original titles does NOT mean that we can take an already pagan-to-the-core name and apply it to Yahweh as a "perfectly acceptable English translation" of "Elohim"!

Secondly, the authors once again failed to document their "scholarly" references from which they gleaned the above information pertaining to alleged "unclean words." For example, we have a book entitled "Dictionary of Word Origins," by Joseph T. Shipley, Philosophical Library, New York, 1945, and it traces the word "Adam" to the first man. The word "Sabbath," it claims, is derived from the Hebrew word "Shabath,’ to rest. The word "covenant," it reveals, is derived from the Latin "convenire, from ‘venire,’ to come, and "con," together.

Note this book’s item regarding the origin of the word "king," as shown on page 204: "The divine right of kings was worked into the etymology of this word. It is A.S. ‘cyning,’ head (son) of the ‘cyn’ or tribe. But from early times we find forms like A.S. ‘kuning,’ as though from Goth. ‘kunnan,’ A.S. ‘cunnan,’ whence Eng. ‘cunning’ and ‘ken’: king because he has wisdom. Carlyle several times emphasizes this origin. (‘On Heroes and Hero-Worship,’ VI; Sartor Resarius, III, 7)." Note: No mention is made in this reference of the word "king" originally having been the name of a heathen deity.

Regarding the word "judge" (page 377): "’Judge’ is from OFr. ‘jugier,’ from L. ‘judicare’ to proclaim the law: L. ‘jus,’ law; cp. ‘just.’"

By the way, the author of the book just mentioned does not attempt to list every single word in the English language, for as he establishes in his preface, "Of this great gathering of words, I have set down those that have origins at once interesting and enlightening." Thus, not all of the words classified as "pagan" by authors Dale George and Silvio Soto found their way into Joseph T. Shipley’s book. Before we can take their word for it, we need to see their proof.

Furthermore, we cannot refrain from inserting another eloquent response from George Gabler: "Throwing in a proper noun as used in English, an actual name, God, into a stream of common nouns is deceitful and misleading. The false assertion that the English ‘God’ is just a common noun English term for ‘elohim/theos’ is transparently bogus! Remember, having established that ‘The Lord’ is referring to a title, a.k.a. adonay, leaves the second term as the proper name of their deity, God. Therefore, rejecting ‘God’ as a proper noun, as THE NAME of a different deity, whether it is the Babylonian God, or the Trinity of the Christians, also God, is COMMANDED by YAHWEH! While there is nothing intrinsically evil about ‘lord,’ meaning sovereign, using Christian terminology, i.e., ‘Lord,’ implies that the SAME ENTITY is worshipped, and is false."

We comment: Well said. We do not worship "Lord God." We worship Almighty Yahweh!

On page 46, the authors provide commentary that offers insight into what we suspect may be the underlying reason their treatise was written:

"If we honestly evaluate—without prejudice or bias—the growth and development of the Sacred-Name Movement, we would have to admit our erroneous linguistic principles have cost the Movement dearly. Little has been gained by challenging Christianity for employing the terms ‘god’ and ‘lord.’ Instead, our most valiant efforts have only resulted in the fragmentation of our Movement and in the development of some very radical organizations."

We respond: What is our number one priority—numbers of converts or TRUTH and HONOR? We feel the authors established their priority in the above paragraph. Is it a coincidence that the word "cost" just happens to appear within its frame? When size of numbers matters more than our dedication to honor Yahweh, the obvious motivation for this entire treatise becomes apparent. The entire article authored by Dale George and Silvio Soto thus has the appearance of being more about people, money, and compromise than about pure, untainted worship of our Heavenly Father and His Son. In fact, this entire issue quite simply "boils down" to a matter of honor versus compromise. We have clearly shown the origin of the word "God" (a word the authors present as an acceptable TITLE for Yahweh, yet our society accepts as a NAME as well). Despite what should be red flags jumping out all over the place over mankind’s decision to employ such a word in reference to our Creator, the authors boldly maintain, "Therefore, if we truly wish to be honest with the facts, admitting that ‘god’ and ‘lord’ are perfectly acceptable English translations is a linguistic necessity." If this is how they choose to "honor" Yahweh, then we want no part of their dubious honor system. Their position does not seek to honor Yahweh. Their position is about compromise.

To underscore this fact, please allow us to display the authors’ commentary as it appears in their "Final Appeal," pp. 46-47, followed by George Gabler’s meticulously accurate interpretation:

"No one will deny that false doctrines are detrimental to truth, as they serve only to prevent real progress and spiritual growth. Because of the enslaving power associated with erroneous doctrinal beliefs, the masses can easily be blinded. Once they have fallen victim to a popular doctrinal perversion, it becomes easy to develop ‘fanatical attitudes’ which in turn promote extremism even among leaders and scholars!"

George Gabler’s response: "Well said! In fact ... just look at that attitude in those so attached to the names of the Christian deities! MILLIONS are dedicated to the name ‘God’! They don’t care what the etymological roots are, and they don’t care if there is a demon by the same name! They have THEIR mighty one and they become bitterly angry at the suggestion that they are not worshipping the True Creator in spirit and in truth and they simply don’t want to give up their cherished idolatry! But it sure would be awesome if they were allowed to keep the name of their mighty one and use YAHWEH’S name too! Perhaps thousands would then use the sacred name. Perhaps they could continue to keep Sunday as an alternative day of worship in addition to the Sabbath! Maybe they could keep their Easter as a special day and observe Passover also! And the list goes on and on! That’s the nature of compromise."

On page 47 the authors take an even bolder stand to defend their position, as they state:

"All things considered, it is high time for us to awake out of our sleep and come to grips with our faults as a people. It is time for a ‘house cleansing.’ There is sin in the camp and we ought to examine ourselves and act immediately to remedy the situation. To succumb to fear would be easy. To carry on, pretending this information was never presented, is also possible."

Comment: We are thus informed that it is sinful to teach against referring to Yahweh as "our God"? Is this the "sin in the camp"? If not, then what exactly IS the sin? Also, to zealously proclaim and defend the position that we must put honor above compromise—is this what the authors mean by "our sleep"? Is this what it is "high time for us to awake out of"?

On pages 47-48, the authors assert that their treatise is the result of Yahweh’s inspiration:

"The authors of this treatise are NOT wiser or more ‘guided’ than their fellow Elders. We are no more gifted with the ability to conduct Bible research than any other servant Yahweh has called into the ministry. It is just that Yahweh has chosen to use us to carry and teach this message."

Upon evaluating the message of compromise carried and taught by Dale George and Silvio Soto, it is our conclusion that they have misunderstood or misappropriated whatever message Yahweh may have given them. Their message invites men everywhere to refer to Yahweh as their "God," which cannot be considered anything less than dishonorable and insulting to Him in light of its origin. Notice George Gabler’s reaction to the message the authors attribute to having been given by Yahweh:

Regarding Dale George and Silvio Soto’s message: "That it doesn’t matter that YAHWEH identifies A DEMON NAMED GOD, and it’s perfectly fine to address YAHWEH by that name as long as you convince yourself in your heart that it’s just a generic popular expression for the mighty one."

Mr. Gabler, we would say that just about sums up their message. Is this a message given by Yahweh? We say, "NOT!"

A major portion of Dale George and Silvio Soto’s article relies on the premise that "God," as used by English-speaking people can only be properly employed as a TITLE. They do make it clear that the word "God" should not replace Yahweh’s name, as found on page 46 of their article:

"All things duly considered, Christianity should only be challenged if it refuses to acknowledge that ‘god’ and ‘lord’ are mere titles and that Christians are morally obligated to use the Names of Yahweh and Yahshua!"

Despite their plea to this effect, the fact remains that "God" in its original form, was a name, and is used as a name in reference to our Creator by our English-speaking society as a whole. Back in 1998 I decided to take a survey of several of my co-workers to see if they knew the Creator’s name. I cunningly asked them to list the Creator’s name in Spanish, French, Polish, Finnish, German, English, Italian, Greek, Chinese, and Arabic. I did not tell them that all I was REALLY interested in was seeing what they put down in the "English" category. Of those ten co-workers, nine of them listed "God" as the Creator’s "English name." The lone dissenter listed His name as "Jesus." I have challenged anyone to go to a shopping mall and try giving this survey to people. The results will be nearly the same, only on a much larger scale, for we have all been taught to call our Creator’s name "God." The sad truth is, if this is what we are taught, then this is what His name IS to those to !

Despite the obvious, many individuals nevertheless insist that "God" is NOT a name, but a title. According the reference "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," edited by F.L. Cross; 3^rd ed. edited by E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1997, item "God," p. 685, GOD is both a name and a title:

"God. The Greek word for God (Theos) is used both as a common noun, as in polytheism, where a number of supposed existences claim belief, worship, and service, and as a proper name, e.g. in monotheism, where there is and can be but one such existence."

We thus see that it isn’t necessarily a word’s origin that dictates how it is used by later society. Even "Theos," a Greek title with no history of having ever been a name associated with a Greek deity, is today employed as a name as well as a title. The same goes for "Adonay." This Hebrew title was first used to replace Yahweh’s name in Scripture by Jewry. Presently, however, it has been elevated to "name" status by these Jews, and in fact has nearly become "too sacred to pronounce," just like Yahweh’s name! Note the following, as taken from the book "To Be a Jew," by Hayim Halevy Donin, Basic Books, 1991, p. 174:

"So that God’s name is not used in vain, it is customary to refrain from saying ‘Adonai’ (the Lord) except in prayer and during the actual recitation of the blessings. When reference is made to God in the course of conversation, even when quoting passages, the term ‘HaShem’ (The Name) is used instead."

Note: We DO NOT recommend following this modern Jewish practice! Nevertheless, this should give us some insight into the fact that any word or title can be transformed into a name if society (or the user) so dictates! Knowing that "God" is indeed the name recognized by the majority of the English-speaking world, see if you can picture Elijah the Prophet posing you the following question: "If YAHWEH is God, then serve Him! But if God is God, then serve Him!" NO, we do not believe that Elijah would refer to Yahweh as "God," but especially ridiculous is the concept that "God is God." We hope this will allow you to see and understand the inordinate reasoning behind the belief that we can properly and honorably refer to Yahweh as "our God." Whether you like the term because it’s the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, or whether it’s because it’s the name of the Babylonian deity of fortune, or even if it’s because it’s the term the Druids used in reference to their deit!

ies, there is no escaping the fa

ct that all three are pronounced the same, and at least two of those references are dishonorable. Not only this, but there are no Scriptural precedents for taking a man’s name and then applying that name as a title for Yahweh. Why start a precedent such as this when that name also happens to square with the name of a heathen deity whose worship was condemned by Yahweh?

As we conclude this critique/rebuttal of the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles," we can only attempt to summarize our response by admonishing everyone to diligently examine any teaching before "just accepting" it. It has been said that it is immensely more difficult to "unlearn" a false teaching than it is to accept and grasp the truth when it first comes around. With this in mind, we recognize that those who are already promoting the belief that it is "perfectly acceptable" to refer to Yahweh as "our God" will most likely fight "tooth and nail" to justify their position. So be it.

We maintain now as we did before that this issue is a matter of honor versus compromise. It escapes us as to how an individual earnestly desiring to serve, worship and honor Yahweh would subsequently decide to refer to Him with a title that originally was the name of a lifeless heathen deity worshipped by those who FORSAKE Yahweh. Our opposition has to somehow explain how referring to the Creator with such a title honors Him.

Our opposition has to somehow explain how it is acceptable to refer to Yahweh as "our God," yet unacceptable to refer to Him as "our Zeus" or "our Apollo." Can’t we come up with something better to apply as a title of Yahweh than a word pronounced exactly the same as the deity of fortune’s name?

Our opposition has to somehow explain how the act of man "paganizing" Yahweh’s Hebrew titles gives us a license to take an ALREADY pagan-to-the-core name of a Babylonian deity and apply it is a "perfectly acceptable English translation" of Elohim.

Our opposition, in defense of their position that "God" is an acceptable title for Yahweh due to its being a name for one of the twelve tribes of Israel, needs to somehow explain how they came to settle for this one title from the tribe of "God" out of ALL those other twelve tribes! I personally think I would have settled for "Dan," which means "judge" (#1835 in Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary), for Yahweh is my Judge! Yahweh is my Dan!

Our opposition needs to somehow explain how their "user defined" concept of words will prevent people from contriving their own notions of what seems right to them without regard for the rest of society, much less for Yahweh. Indeed, if my intentions are good and I feel the best title for Yahweh is "Sweetie-Pie," then no one should criticize me for referring to Him with such a title, at least this is how we interpret their "user defined" concept!

We need to cautiously approach this and other areas, not from the perspective of what seems right to us, but proceeding in manner that we KNOW is honorable to Yahweh, for as we are told in Proverbs 3:7, "Be not wise in thine own eyes: Reverence YAHWEH, and depart from evil!" With this in mind, let us all proceed determined to seek ways to improve our worship and reverence we show for Yahweh and His Word.