SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES PRESENTS
THE TRUTH REGARDING INSPIRED TITLES
By Elders Dale George and Silvio Soto
P.O. Box 1303, St. Thomas, VI 00804-1303
Tel. (340) 775-7949 George and (340) 777-5615 Soto

The following treatise is being written with the deepest concern over religious zeal - which once cemented - is almost impossible to change or to correct, even when it is manifestly obvious that the same is built on absolute falsehood. The reader should at all times bear in mind that our intentions are not to judge anyone or to promote any more divisions within our already fragile and fragmented movement.
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. On the contrary, this treatise represents an honest attempt to handle truth with intellectual integrity, hoping that when all is said and done, the cause of the Sacred-Name Movement would prove to have been further vindicated by our humble endeavor. We are, nevertheless, aware that this exercise is not without its inherent dangers.
This is most certainly an attack! Implying that religious zeal is bad and that the doctrine (unstated) is "built on absolute falsehood" is introduced up front to sway the thinking of the reader. This is not an attempt to lead others to YAHWEH, but to forsake their basic apprehension of using the name "God"! The nature of promoting a different doctrine than what others hold IS divisive! It is not the Sacred Name zealots that are divisive, it is the authors of this article! Accusing others is not sound judgement.
Religious zeal is an unpredictable phenomenon and it is always easier to attack the messenger than to challenge the message, especially when the quality of the evidence presented is overwhelming and irrefutable. As this is often the most common reaction encountered, it would not be surprising to us if we were to lose respect and popularity in the eyes of many. Religious resentment runs deep and most people (including some leaders) are unwilling to publicly admit error. This attitude represents a formidable barrier which truth must somehow overcome.
So far, this entire prologue has been an attack upon the character and integrity of those Sacred Name believers who don't agree with them! Those with firm beliefs are slandered by referring to their unwillingness to yield their beliefs as "Religious resentment", as well as branding them as "unwilling to publicly admit error". What ARROGANCE!
However, while painfully aware of these possible adverse reactions to the conclusions presented in this essay, and given that the authors have been fully cognizant of these facts for some years, we find it difficult - in fact impossible - to continue to turn our eyes away in order to keep protecting the PRIDE AND PRESTIGE OF THE STATUS QUO within the very Movement we so dearly love! As ministers of the Most High, we are commanded and indeed expected to be willing to sacrifice ourselves, even when doing so means the possible loss of human admiration and support. Given the history of human behavior (and Sacred-Name believers are no exception), the reader should not be surprised to learn that we are therefore somewhat apprehensive in sharing this information. This is due to our acute conscious recognition that even the Sacred-Name Movement has some religious beliefs deeply cemented in its traditions, which when challenged, leaves the challenger condemned and looked upon with disfavor.
These very frustrated writers admittedly haven't gained much of a footing for their (yet unstated) doctrine. Because their views are not accepted, every one else is "protecting the PRIDE AND PRESTIGE OF THE STATUS QUO", and seemed oblivious to the fact that they are slandering the leaders of YAHWEH'S Assembly, which is in itself a violation of the scriptures:
Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. (KJV Acts 23:5)
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. (KJV Titus 3:2)
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. (KJV James 4:11)
Might it be their bitterness & harsh condemning attitude which has been keeping others away? Many have different beliefs, but are not looked upon with "disfavor", so what really is the issue? Is it wanting to be well thought of, and accepted as the right authority within the Body of Messiah? After all, they have already stated that others are in "absolute falsehood". Such condemnation demands a replacement, or shift, of leadership from those unworthy ministers in absolute falsehood to the writers of this work! The premise, then, appears to be: They are false ministers. We have the truth. Don't listen to them. Listen to us.
Finally, the authors have concluded that the best possible format to employ for the sharing of this information is that of an outline. This has been done in order to facilitate cross-referencing and scrutiny of all major arguments, evidences, facts, and conclusions presented. The King James Version of the Bible has been used for the sole purpose of facilitating and encouraging linguistic verification with a Strong's Concordance or other similar sources.

OUTLINE OF PART I
I. History of rejected words by the Sacred-Name Movement.
1. Discovery that the original Sacred Names had been hidden.
A. The Father and the Son have personal names.
B. Yahweh and Yahshua are the names.
C. Yahweh's name must be used.
D. Scholars, Christianity, and misguided zeal have obscured the names.
2. Facts about the "common" names.
A. Scripture forbids use of false names.
B. Worship of Baal has been a great stumbling block.
C. Some scholars support use of correct names.
3. Two principles developed to forbid the use of certain words.
A. Pagan Connection.
B. Perverted Substitution.
4. Teaching regarding salvation.
A. Christianity is to be deprecated and vilified.
B. Use of the Names urged.
C. Salvation declared to depend on the Names.

II. Crucial flaws of the two principles (point 3 above).
1. Inconsistency of application.
2. Poor linguistic research.
3. Failure to observe that Scripture doesn't follow these principles.
III. Refutation of the "principles" as applied.
1. baal.
A. baal used as a common noun in the Scriptures.
B. baal applied to Yahweh in the Scriptures.
2. adonay.
A. adonay often applied to Yahweh in the Scriptures.
B. adonay is used in Feast related passages.
C. adonay applied to Yahweh by Hosea.
D. adonay is used in numerous Messianic prophecies.
E. adon is used by NT writers.
3. el and elohim.
A. used in reference to Yahweh in the Scriptures.
IV. Conclusions from the Scriptural use of titles.
1. Using these words as common nouns is acceptable.
2. Using these same words as proper nouns (names) in idolatrous worship is sinful.
3. Whatever men may have done with a word, Yahweh may still choose to use it.
4. These titles must be granted to Yahweh and Yahshua as shown in the Scriptures.

PART I
THE ISSUE REGARDING HEBREW TITLES
I. History of rejected words by the Sacred-Name Movement:
In order for us to better understand the arguments promoted by the Sacred-Name Movement, it is necessary to review its historical and philosophical development and to carefully analyze the various stages of this process. Once this exercise is completed, we will then possess an overview that will enable us to move forward with the rest of this treatise. Overall, most Sacred-Name organizations agree with the following historical sketch as to the movement's theological development:
1. The early Sacred-Name pioneers initially discovered certain facts, which although known to scholars for some time, were not relayed to the masses who were kept ignorant about their existence and of the theological significance of the same. These were:
A. That the Creator indeed has a personal Name (Isa. 42:8, Psa. 83:16-18, John 17:6)
B. That the majority of scholars (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Secular) were essentially in agreement that Yahweh is the personal Name of the Creator and that the Savior's name is Yahshua.
C. That the Bible teaches that Yahweh's Name is a moral issue (Exo. 23:13, Lev. 19:12, Mal. 1:6-8).
D. That scholars, the traditions of Christianity, and Bible Translations have caused the Name of Yahweh to become obscured in our English speaking society.
One can readily sympathize with the holy horror that must have coiled the souls of the early Sacred-Name believers as these facts were unearthed. The realization that for so long an essential biblical doctrine as the Creator's personal Name was kept away from the masses must have been initially overwhelming. Considering these factors, one can easily understand that once the mind of these early Sacred-Name believers were enlightened, it became impossible for those committed to truth to remain where they were.
2. Other crucial observations were made as further Biblical research was conducted:
A. That the Bible forbids any and all associations with the names of false deities (Exo. 23:13, Josh. 23:7, Psa. 16:4).
KJV Exodus 23:13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods [elohim], neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
KJV Joshua 23:7 That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods [elohim], nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them:
KJV Psalm 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god [elohim]: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips
B. That Israel's continuous divine punishments were chiefly the result of her numerous involvements with pagan worship, especially that of BAAL (Num. 25:1-3, Jud. 2:8-13, Jer. 11:9-13, 23:25-27).
C. That Israel's idolatry led to a divine injunction against the very name of BAAL (Hos. 2:16-17).
D. That works of "selected" scholars could be alluded to in support of the above.

3. As a result of all these factors, two Principles were developed by which the usage of certain words were forbidden and discontinued:

A. Principle No. 1: Pagan Connection. Any word demonstrated to have been connected or associated with pagan religious practices or to have been the name of a false deity, must be forbidden and its usage discontinued.
Who said "Any word"? There is only one specific issue: Whether the name of the demon, God, can legitimately be used to refer to YAHWEH. Dumping an entire category of words, i.e. any word with pagan connections, makes the entire issue superfluous.

B. Principle No. 2: Perverted Substitution. Any word used by a people or culture to substitute for Yahweh's Name - causing the same to become obscured, forgotten, or disregarded - must be forbidden and its usage discontinued. By employing these "principles," several words were initially singled out as unsuitable for true worshippers. Their discontinuation was mandated by the early Sacred-Name pioneers:
C. Adonay: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2.
D. Baal: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2.
E. Amen: Rejected for being in violation of principle No. 1.
F. Lord: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2. At one time, it was disallowed by arguing a linguistic pagan connection, but as the necessary etymological evidence for this is not conclusive, this charge has been modified by many Sacred Name organizations.
Lord (lôrd) n. 1. A person having dominion over others; ruler or master. 2. The owner of a feudal estate. 3. Lord. Chiefly Brit. The general masculine title of nobility and other rank. 4. Lord. God. —v. To play the lord; domineer: lording it over the newcomers [<OE hlaford] - The American Heritage Dictionary, Dell Publishing Group, 1983.
- check the Oxford Etymological Dictionnary of the English Language- hlaford means keeper of the loaf. Originally referred to Christian Priests as dispensers of the wafer/bread sacrament, and later applied to the head of feudal manors as dispensers of bread/food to its serfs.
- an aside: serfs gave about 20% of theeir labor and produce to the feudal master. Today we give from 30% to 50%!
Currently, most teach that the pagan connection of the English word Lord consists of the fact that it represents the proper name of the idolatrous Trinitarian deity worshipped by Christianity.
Well, doesn't it? LORD certainly does represent the name of their deity.
Furthermore, it is also argued that Lord is essentially the English equivalent of the Hebrew Baal, and that in like manner, it is unsuitable for true worshippers as it has become a perverted substitution in the English language for the Name of Yahweh.
True, in as much both baal and lord mean "master". Also true that modern religion does use "Lord" as a substitution , i.e. a representation, for both His name and as a title.
G. God: Rejected for being in violation of principles 1 and 2. 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. Others, perhaps realizing the lack of linguistic support for this argument, are satisfied with arguing that God is also part of the proper name of the Christian pagan deity the Lord God, and as such, it must be condemned. In addition, it is argued that the term God has become a perverted substitution in the English language for the Name of Yahweh, making it unacceptable to all true worshippers.
According to modern etymological dictionaries, the English derivation of "God" has its roots in the ancient Hindu Sanskrit, meaning to invoke by incantation, conjure, & magic. It is easy to see why the authors would ignore such solid etymological evidence, while focusing strictly on the weaker link of the Teutonic roots.
Granted, the research has been somewhat superficial, however, the fact that baal-God was a major deity in northern Israel and Samaria is often overlooked. Simon Magus, from Samaria, was a major religious power, becoming the initiator of the Church of Rome. The description of his religious persuasion seems "Pentecostal" and in line with the meaning of both the Sanskrit and Hebrew meanings of "God".
Isn't "God" part of the name Christians call their deity? Of course it is. Yet the writers seem to imply that the Sacred Name people that say so are in the wrong. Ask someone of the Christian faith who they worship and they will nearly always say God, Lord, or the Lord God.

4. Finally, these issues were proclaimed to have an essential bearing on an individual's salvation:
Not exactly true. Idolatry has an essential bearing on an individual's salvation, therefore disobeying the scriptures which admonish to not use the names of other mighty ones in the worship of YAHWEH becomes the issue.
A. Coined phrases were developed and introduced in order to further enhance the persuasiveness of the foregoing arguments. "Baal worship" and "Lord worship" became interchangeable terms. Christianity became "Pagan Christendom," "Mystery Babylon" or "Churchianity". These phrases helped create the current attitudes characteristic of many Sacred-Name organizations and believers.
B. A crusade exclusively emphasizing the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua was launched. An urgent call for the immediate restoration of the Sacred Name was demanded. All titles or words of adoration, however meaningful and well intended, were declared to be unimportant, so that the Sacred Name became the only focus of attention. Choice passages of Scripture where the Name was exclusively used were alluded to as "proof text" (Prov.18:10, Ps.105:1-3, Is.42:8, Prov.30:4).
C. Selected passages of Scripture where the Sacred Name was isolated and directly applied to man's salvation were also extensively cited (Joel 2:32, Acts 4:12, 15:14-18, 1 Jn.2:12, etc.). This, along with the designation of Christianity as "Mystery Babylon," led to all Christian believers being pronounced hopelessly lost if they did not abandon their religious affiliations (Rev.18:1-4).
In ridiculing the sacred name adherents for making a distinction, the author seems to be saying that Christians are saved, and that the names they employ are sufficient unto salvation.
KJV Proverbs 18:10 The name of YAHWEH is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.
KJV Psalm 105:1 O give thanks unto YAHWEH; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people.
2 Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works.
3 Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek YAHWEH.
KJV Isaiah 42:8 I am YAHWEH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
KJV Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of YAHWEH shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as YAHWEH hath said, and in the remnant whom YAHWEH shall call (KJV Joel 2:32)
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.( KJV Acts 4:12)
Simeon hath declared how YAHWEH (Gk. Theos) at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord (kurios), and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord (kurios), who doeth all these things.
Known unto God (Theos-not in text) are all his works from the beginning of the world. (Acts 15:14-18)
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. (KJV 1 John 2:12)
Since when does quoting an abundance of scripture to support your belief become "proof text". Proof Texting is quoting a single verse, or perhaps a few verses, and establishing an entire doctrine when all other references contradict them. This is a blatant attempt to trivialize the scriptures and what they are saying.

II. Crucial flaws regarding the two Sacred-Name principles:
The pagan connection and the perverted substitution principles represent the real issue to be dealt with in this treatise. If a genuine fault can be found with these "principles" (and it is so demonstrated), it would logically follow that any biblical interpretation based on either or both of them would likewise be suspect. Therefore, as truth seekers we are obligated to put these "principles" to a real test. Before beginning to test their validity in a responsible manner, several initial observations are necessary:
Where did the authors come up with these "principles"? What sacred name ministers ever put these "principles" as the standard for interpreting the scriptures? Or, is it possible that this same author has manufactured these principles and superimposed them on the sacred name believers as their principles? Notice that their intent is to show that ANY biblical doctrine using either concept is totally condemned if there is a single flaw. The test is not whether YAHWEH says, but if these man-made principles are totally consistent.
1. Inconsistency of application:
The first observation we can make is that the various Sacred-Name organizations have failed to CONSISTENTLY apply the very "principles" that form the foundation of their entire doctrinal position against certain words and titles. It is this inconsistency which make others view our linguistic statements and teachings as unreliable.
To my knowledge, no sacred name organization that I've encountered since 1978 has ever espoused these concepts as linguistic principles for biblical interpretation. The entire premise seems to be if there is a single inconsistency, the entire doctrine is in error. Since the sacred name adherents failed to consistently apply these principles, which they don't seem to actually have, then their entire position against certain words and titles is invalid.
We have some organizations that reject only a handful of words (anywhere from 6 to 20 in total).
Then you have other organizations whose list of forbidden words actually number in the hundreds. In every organization, leaders employing the two Sacred-Name "principles" pick and choose from the vast pool of corrupted words the ones that they will reject and the ones they will learn to live with. The whole process is based on the personal preference of the leader making the selections (see endnote 1).
The truth of the matter is that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to fully practice the two "principles" promoted by the Sacred-Name Movement against certain words and titles.
Note that these two "principles" are promoted by the Sacred-Name Movement. While it is true that various groups do have a varying degree of aversion to demonic names, as well as other words and titles, there is no clear evidence that these groups purport to adhere to a linguistic interpretation of the bible. The fragmented views of the various groups would suggest that no such set of linguistic interpretation is, or ever has been, universally or even systematically employed. If, in fact, the Sacred Name Movement has never universally adhered to a single set of principles for interpreting the scriptures, then how can they be guilty of violating something they don't employ?
Were we to identify and eliminate EVERY word with an alleged "pagan connection," we would not be left with much of a language, NOR WOULD WE BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE! We can't even solve this problem by suggesting that every believer ought to learn to speak Hebrew, as the very language in which much of the Bible was written has been corrupted and perverted by paganism, idolatry, and humanism (more on this later)! If we are honest and consistent with linguistics facts, WE WILL BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AT PRESENT THERE ISN'T A PURE LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE SACRED NAME MOVEMENT, NOT EVEN HEBREW!
This is not a disputed fact. But the implication is that because these "principles" cannot be one hundred percent infallible, that it doesn't matter what titles or names may be used in worshipping YAHWEH. Note that Hebrew, i.e. even the scriptures fail this stringent test.
This being the case, we find that there is no real consensus as to how to consistently apply these two "principles," making the process by which some organizations argue against certain words an arbitrary and subjective exercise at best.
Why isn't there a consensus? Might it be because there has never been a set of universal linguistic principles in the Sacred Name Movement? This seems to be the case. The authors are the ones that seem to have come up with the concept of these so called universal linguistic principles for the Sacred Name Movement in determining what words, titles, or names may or may not be used. The concept itself is inherently flawed due to the impossibility of creating a pure language, which doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. Do pastors have the authority to guide their respective flocks away from potentially harmful practices, or terms? Wouldn't this be left to the discretion of the individual minister? If pastor "A" teaches his congregation to avoid the word holy due to it's non-biblical origin, while pastor "B" doesn't hold this view, who is right? The question is, does YAHWEH make a statement about it? This may be true for certain words, however is it true for all words? Does YAHWEH have a problem with the word holy? I don't know. YAHWEH inspired the scriptures in Hebrew & its derivatives. However, if you know that using certain words might offend a brother or sister in the faith, why not simply consider their feelings and avoiding them?
But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ [Messiah] died?
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ [Messiah].
Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (1 Cor 8:9-13)

2. Poor Linguistic Research:
Sacred-Name linguistic arguments are usually developed and designed to appeal to the individual's conscience and reasoning ability.
Does that mean that explanations they can't understand, and can't refute, are more desirable? Or perhaps, that explanations that others can understand are undesirable? Wouldn't that mean that all use of linguistics specifically tailored to people rather than attempting to reveal and explain the word of YAHWEH boils down to premeditated deception!
Admittedly, at first glance they are quite impressive and challenging. What is not immediately noted is that most of these consist primarily of half-truths and are often based on unsubstantiated concepts. We are forced to make this statement because only PARTIAL linguistic facts are ever alluded to by Sacred-Name advocates. The traditional Sacred-Name arguments fail to comply with the burden of proof whenever they are fully explored and tested. Although the manner by which these various linguistic claims were developed was indeed clever, we shall soon demonstrate that the same are in error. When a careful and complete investigation is undertaken, the fallacies of these arguments at once become apparent.

3. Uninspired approach to Scripture:
Perhaps the most amazing irony in this ordeal is the fact that Yahweh and the inspired writers of the Bible do NOT follow these two "principles". Even when Inspiration is zealously contending against idolatry and paganism, the Bible writers do NOT exhibit the disdain against certain words that Sacred-Name believers are known to reject!
In fact, we shall demonstrate that Yahweh and the inspired writers of the Bible actually conducted themselves in a manner that MUST be recognized as being contrary to the "principles" espoused by Sacred-Name believers.
So you say! There is no evidence that the sacred name groups espoused these principles to begin with!

III. Refutation of the two Sacred-Name linguistic principles:
The "principles" we have thus far alluded to are characterized as being based on LINGUISTIC facts. They are presented as "evidence" by advocates of the Sacred-Name Movement. They are NOT intended to be the subjective opinions of some. We are on record as proclaiming that these principles are based on "hard facts which no one acquainted with truth can dare deny or challenge!" All this being the case, it follows that a LINGUISTIC REVIEW should be all that is needed in order to test the validity of these two linguistic "principles" and the arguments that led to their formulation.
However, when we apply an ACID TEST to the "unquestionable" and supposedly "factual" evidence cited on behalf of these "principles," we quickly find out that what the Sacred-Name Movement has been stating for several decades regarding certain words – which to date has gone basically unchallenged – is actually false! Consider the following:
1. The truth about BAAL:
The classical Sacred-Name argument against the word baal is based on the assumed premise that baal has NEVER been used by Inspiration in a direct reference to Yahweh.
That is an outright lie! The matter is irrelevant!
This concept is intended to be a linguistic fact (that is, no matter how much we search the Bible, we would never find a passage of scripture where the word baal is attributed by Inspiration to Yahweh).
To TEST this line of reasoning, all one has to do is conduct a word-study review of the Hebrew Scriptures with the intention of verifying if it is true that the Bible under Inspiration avoids applying the word baal to Yahweh.
When a proper linguistic research is undertaken to determine how Inspiration dealt with the Israelites within their culture and language, we find that while Baal was indeed the name (i.e. a PROPER NOUN) of a false deity whose worship did anger Yahweh, it is ALSO a fact that baal (as a COMMON NOUN) is applied by Yahweh in the Hebrew Scripture!
A. The very first instance in dialogue that baal is utilized in the Hebrew Scriptures, is by Yahweh himself:
(1) Genesis 20:3
But God [See note] came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife (baal)."
One of the rules governing biblical interpretation is what scholars term the "Law of First Mention." From a linguistic point of view, this means that the first mention or usage of a word in the Bible usually determines its "primary" meaning. Therefore, all Hebrew lexicons and scholars render the PRIMARY meaning of the common noun BAAL as "owner or possessor," with an extended logical SECONDARY meaning being "husband or married (i.e. one who owns or possesses a wife)." These meanings represent the actual linguistic definition of this HEBREW WORD in its common noun usage! As we are about to see, the way the Old Testament employs the word baal clearly validates these definitions.
Is "God" a Hebrew name? Yes. Does it mean "to divide"? yes. Does it connote to conquer through division? Yes. Is it also the name of a demon? Yes! Who says so? YAHWEH identifies a demon by that name in Isaiah 65:11.
Where does YAWHEH ever refer to Himself by that name (in the Hebrew, of course)? Nowhere! Where does YAHWEH ever refer to Himself in description using the generic term "god". Nowhere! What linguistic principle permits the application of the proper name of a demon that YAHWEH says He is against, and never uses either as a name or a description toward Himself, to Himself?

B. While most Sacred Name advocates would like to believe that baal was applied in the Bible only to men and to a false Canaanite deity, the Hebrew Scriptures actually disprove this notion.
That is a sarcastic, catty, and outright stupid remark. Sacred Name advocates don't believe this, and know full well that YAHWEH has used the description Himself. Is YAHWEH calling Himself by the name of a demon, or is the demon appropriating the glory of YAHWEH?

When a full scale investigation is launched, the Hebrew scrolls reveal that Inspiration acknowledged the fact that baal was both a common noun and a proper noun. As a result, the common noun baal IS APPLIED to Yahweh in the following passages:
(1) Nahum 1:2
God (see note on "God") is jealous, and Yahweh revengeth; Yahweh revengeth, and is furious (lit.: the baal of fury); Yahweh will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
It is not always easy to spot the uses of the word baal in the Hebrew Scriptures when reading an English translation. [LIKE BAAL-GOD] Naturally, Israel would not have experienced this problem since they read the Scripture in their own Hebrew language. We, on the other hand, are quite a different story. Because we depend on an English translation of the Bible, we have failed to realize when the word baal is not transliterated phonetically into English as we would expect. [Phonetic transliteration is not applied to common nouns! So why EXPECT IT? In fact, who expects it? Apparently the authors are imputing fictitious motives again!] Yet, the reason for this is understandable. Linguistically, a scholar should ONLY TRANSLITERATE PROPER NOUNS, while COMMON NOUNS are always TRANSLATED (except in cases where the receiving language does not have any words that are equivalent or close enough to the idea being conveyed)! The word baal (as is the case for hundreds of other terms) is BOTH a COMMON NOUN and a PROPER NOUN in Hebrew! For this reason, baal as a Hebrew common noun is usually rendered by English Versions as "husband" or "married" (see the other examples cited in this section) or it is left un-translated (as in the above verse where the Hebrew literally reads "Yahweh ... is the baal of fury ...")!
Admittedly, rendering this verse as "Yahweh ... is the husband or possessor of fury" would have been somewhat unnatural. Thus, the King James Version opted to render the TWO Hebrew words as ONE English word: "furious." We find that this rendering has been maintained by all other popular English translations of the Bible we have consulted. And, while some may argue that it is not essential to translate baal into English in this verse, the LINGUISTIC FACT STILL REMAINS that the prophet Nahum under Inspiration DID APPLY to Yahweh the term baal, an act not easily explained by Sacred-Name believers today! [What's to explain? The implication that it should have been rendered as a proper name, i.e. "not essential to translate baal into English", is ludicrous! Everyone knows it is a common noun and not subject to transliteration!] Furthermore, if chronologists are right, the book of Nahum was written AFTER the prophetic admonition against Baal recorded by Hosea 2:16-17!
If this was the only instance, perhaps one could argue "foul play." However, we are about to see that there are many more verses which show us that Inspiration didn't hesitate to apply baal as a common noun in connection with Yahweh. [Repetition (of stupidity) doesn't add weight to this, except to sink it!]
(2) Is. 62:4
Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah and thy land Beulah (baal): for Yahweh delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married (baal).
Another oddity involving the Hebrew word baal is the choice of rendering it as "Beulah" in this passage. This is a total fabrication by the KJV translators, [At least this isn't being blamed on the sacred name movement!] as the Hebrew text does not contain the word "Beulah." There is NO Hebrew word in this text that phonetically comes close to being pronounced "Beulah," even though one gets the impression that the KJV was attempting to transliterate an actual Hebrew word! Furthermore, by translating that the land "will be called Beulah" the intended inspired message is lost to the English reader who could not possibly have a clue as to what Isaiah really meant with Beulah, unless some scholarly work is consulted. Also notice the translator's inconsistency, as this verse employs the term baal twice and the KJV in the first instance employ a unique English fabricated rendering and in the second it chooses to translates baal as "married." The correct thing would have been for the King James Version to have TRANSLATED both instances of baal into English as married, for it is obvious that in this Scripture the common noun baal is intended.
Notwithstanding this clever manipulation by the KJV [Imputing motives again. The author has no personal knowledge of the translators original intent.], the significance of this verse lies in the fact that it is a prophecy of the future! The time will come (during the millennium) when the land of Israel (under Yahshua's supreme rule) WILL BE CALLED in the Hebrew language: BAAL LAND!
(3) Jer. 3:14 [How did the common noun become a proper name when it is used exactly the same way in the same verse?
KJV Isaiah 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for YAHWEH delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.
Are Forsaken and Desolate proper names? No. And neither are hephzibah or beulah! They are descriptions, therefore the verse should read:
KJV Isaiah 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed desolate: but thou shalt be called my delight is in her, and thy land married: for YAHWEH delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.
The translators could have done a better job, but this isn't a big secret and any 1st year bible novice could look at a concordance and figure it out. Do the authors suppose that every occurrence should be a proper name? Or that YAHWEH is inspiring the writer to apply a demonic name? Obviously not. And neither did the translators, nor the sacred name adherents!
Turn, O backsliding children, saith Yahweh; for I am married (baal) unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.
(4) Jer. 31:31-32
Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband (baal) unto them, saith Yahweh.
Anyone familiar with the Old Testament is acquainted with Yahweh's numerous charges against Israel for playing the harlot by not being faithful to Him. One of the most glorious themes of the Old Testament is how Yahweh continuously refers to himself as Israel's husband. He, therefore, offers Israel divine protection, love, caring, and blessings (as any husband would). What is NOT perceived by Sacred-Name believers is that in MANY of these instances, the Hebrew Scriptures employs the common noun baal in order to describe this HOLY relationship that existed between Yahweh and Israel!
[I've been in the sacred name movement since 1989, that's 21 years, and I was taught and have known about this from the beginning! Everyone I've known for all these years has also known this. So who are all these Sacred-Name believers that seem to be clueless? There may be a few, but to accuse the entire Sacred Name Movement of being so totally inept makes it a total wonder that they ever discovered YAHWEH'S Name, Yah'shua's name, the Sabbath, Holy Days, or any of the truths of the scriptures!]
It is also important to observe that the inspired writer who penned these two verses where the word baal is applied to Yahweh in a most emphatic manner, is the very prophet whom Inspiration moved to write:
How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause My People to forget My name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten My name for BAAL. (Jer.23:26-27)
The impact of this linguistic uncovering is the realization that Jeremiah did NOT know NOR did he ever practice the rejection of words that the Sacred-Name Movement has attributed to him!! Jeremiah's concern about baal's "pagan connection" (principle #1) was not such as to prevent him from employing the word in a POSITIVE sense to Yahweh. Neither did the fact that baal had been used by Israel as a "perverted substitution" (principle #2) of Yahweh's Name prevent the prophet from applying the word to Yahweh when addressing the very Israelites who were practicing idolatry. As far as Jeremiah was concerned (and Inspiration for that matter), Yahweh is the ONE and TRUE BAAL (husband) of Israel.
These textual observations of how Jeremiah employs the Hebrew word baal can only be explained if we accept the fact that Jeremiah intended to condemn the proper noun Baal and NOT the common noun usage of it. It should be obvious that Jeremiah and Inspiration were not engaging in self-contradiction. Jeremiah did NOT reject the idolatry of Baal linguistically, but he did so theologically! It was the CONCEPT of a false deity by the name (proper noun) of Baal that Jeremiah spoke against and condemned. He did NOT intend to condemn the mere articulation of the word when it was used as a common noun.
[Finally, a good point...so what else is new?]
(5) Isaiah 1:3
The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's (baal) crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
(6) Is. 54:5
For thy Maker is thine husband (baal); Yahweh of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God [capitalization denotes a proper noun, i.e. a name - See note on God] of the whole earth shall he be called.
Was Isaiah not aware of the controversy surrounding the word baal in his days? Did he not know that there was a false deity by that name or that Israel had perverted Yahweh's name by substituting it for that of baal? Certainly Isaiah was very much aware of these linguistic facts, but as he intended a common noun application, it did not prevent him from using the word baal to Yahweh!
C. Most Sacred-Name believers argue, "the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek." [Plus a growing number of scholars] We maintain that Yahweh's Name must have been retained by the original inspired writers of the New Testament. [If YAHWEH'S Name wasn't used, then Messiah lied?] To prove this, we allude [allude? Would a believer that is trying to support his stand use such a negative connotation? NOT! This writer is clearly biased against others quoting scriptures in this matter. Methinks there be a hidden agenda] to the Old Testament Scriptures where the Name of Yahweh appears and which are quoted in the New Testament. Our rationale has been that if the Old Testament passage contains the name of Yahweh, then certainly the New Testament writers would have retained the same when they quoted the passage under Inspiration, as they would have done so verbatim. Similarly, Paul must have retained the word baal in the following quotation:
(1) Is. 54:1
Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married (baal) wife, saith Yahweh.
(2) Gal. 4:27
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry aloud, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband (baal).
It is most significant to observe that ALL of these inspired and sanctioned uses of the word baal took place DESPITE the prevalent pagan worship of the time and of Israel's historical idolatry involving a deity by this very name!! [Again, I repeat, this is a non-issue!]
Therefore, although baal as a PROPER NOUN had already become a word with a notorious pagan connection and a history of injury to Yahweh's personal Name by perverted substitution, these facts did not prevent Inspiration from publicly applying the term as a COMMON NOUN directly to Yahweh, while at the same time condemning the use of the PROPER NOUN Baal! [See note above:good point]
Naturally, Israel hearing and reading the Law and the Prophets in their own native Hebrew language was able to discern the intention of Inspiration and therefore understood when baal was being used as a common noun title or was being condemned as a proper noun name. Scholars and English translators of the Bible also understand this, which is why as a proper noun Baal is ALWAYS transliterated for us while as a common noun it is ONLY translated.
This is NOT a mere opinion, but a linguistic fact! There is nothing inherently wrong or sinful about the word baal standing by itself. The taboo that we Sacred-Name believers attribute to it is simply NOT biblical.
[Perhaps not linguistically, but does that mean we can use the proper name of a false deity, Baal, in worshiping our Heavenly Father? Of course not! The common noun was a legitimate Hebrew word with a common meaning which YAHWEH used to apply to Himself. A demonic entity appropriates the word and makes it it's name. That means YAHWEH is baal, not Baal!
2. The truth about ADONAY:
Given the history of the Sacred-Name's early pioneers, perhaps this section of the treatise will be even more difficult to deal with than the previous one on baal. However, if there is error in the camp, we are bound by divine duty to expose it and get rid of it. As people of Yahweh committed to truth, we cannot risk being found guilty of willful inaccuracies [Again imputing motives without any first hand knowledge or the required number of actual witnesses]. Since no one has the right to create his own truth, if the facts do not concur with the claim, then that claim must be rejected. With this motivation in mind, consider the following irrefutable linguistic facts.
A. ADONAY is used in reference to Yahweh on numerous occasions:
(1) Neh. 10:29
They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh our Lord (adon), and his judgment and his statutes.
[I think we are beginning to see a pattern here. Lord God! This entire attack on the sacred name movement appears to be over their rejection of "Lord God"!
First, use of adon has the same rational as previously examined in the term baal. If we were speaking Hebrew we might use the term adon & derivatives. YAHWEH doesn't seem to have a problem with describing Himself as sovereign, i.e. adon, or using it as a title. However, saying we worship "The Lord", with it's ingrained image of worshipping the demon, God, creates confusion. Our sovereign is not their sovereign, so it would be appropriate to make a distinction to avoid confusion. YAHWEH IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION...! Unlike the modern world of today, the Israelites new YAHWEH as their sovereign and had dominance over all else. Today, however, the world is deceived and doesn't know YAHWEH and give His glory to God.
(2) Ps. 8:1
O Yahweh our Lord (adon), how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
(3) Ps. 97:5
The hills melted like wax at the presence of Yahweh, at the presence of the Lord (adon) of the whole earth.
(4) Ps. 114:7
Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord (adon), at the presence of the Elohim of Jacob.
(5) Is. 1:24
Therefore saith the Lord (adon), Yahweh of Host, the mighty One of Israel, "Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies."
(6) Eze.38:14
Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, "Thus saith the Lord (adonay) Yahweh; 'In the that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?'"
(7) Zech. 4:14, 6:5
Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord (adon) of the whole earth.
And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord (adon) of all the earth. [Observe that in this verse an angel is the one that refers to Yahweh by the title ADON!]
(8) Gen. 15:2,8
And Abram said, Lord (Adonay) Yahweh, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this E-li-e-zer of Da-mas'cus? And he said, Lord (Adonay) Yahweh, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
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. [This must be a very limited view with some of the early sacred name adherents, because, nearly all that I'm acquainted with know that Adon(ay) was a descriptive title (of respect, reflecting superiority) in Hebrew that was applied to YAHWEH as well as others.] 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 involving Yahshua).
The early Sacred-Name pioneers were so adamant in their sentiments against this word, that when Elder A. B. Traina's revision of the King James Bible was published, it literally removed adonay wherever it appeared in the Old Testament manuscript, substituting it with "King," "Savior," and in some instances with the expression "Yah-Yahweh." In doing so, 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. [Adonay never appears in the King James, so it wasn't removed or hidden by the anyone in the sacred name movement! This accusation is a bold-faced lie! Traina and others did recognize it as a descriptive title and so rendered it, generally. There was, however, an element of aversion which, on occasion, caused the rendering of Adonay Yahweh (Lord GOD) as Yah-Yahweh, which ought not to have been done.
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. Not only was the inspired word of Yahweh altered, but in so doing it helped to perpetuate a fallacy that would see Yahweh and Yahshua destitute of some of the most significant titles Inspiration ascribes to them. After all, the whole Bible — titles and all — is inspired, not just the name of Yahweh.
Sacrilege? If their zeal is in not wanting what they believed to be a demonic entity 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?
In light of the fact that we in the Sacred-Name Movement take a hard-party line approach against those scholars who have removed the Name of Yahweh from the Bible, by what rationale can we now justify incurring in the same deplorable act? We have charged others for being the "Lying pens of the scribes" who have "falsified the word of Yahweh!" Yet, we act as if it is acceptable to Inspiration if WE remove words from Scripture, but NOT if ANYONE ELSE does so.
We have NOT been granted any special privileges that we should dare to take it upon ourselves to alter and change the actual Hebrew words which Inspiration employed! [Does this include changing the generic terms for Mighty One(s), i.e. El and Elohim into the name of a known demon?] The only way we could ever justify doing so would be if we were to definitely prove that the Hebrew scrolls contain textual corruption. And, although modern liberal scholars (with their obvious humanistic prejudices) have stated and taught that the Hebrew scrolls are full of historical and textual inaccuracies (and tampering), these claims are based on theories and presuppositions designed to deny the Inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, it is understandable when linguists and scholars continuously claim that Israel borrowed or adopted much of their religious beliefs, terminology, and practices from other ancient cultures, as these scholars ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the Egyptian, Babylonian, and Canaanite cultures and languages than to Israel or the Hebrew language!! What else could we then expect them to say? [Why give these scholars the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time ridicule, deride and utterly condemn those in the sacred name movement? There appears to be a different standard in judging where one is being respected and the other condemned.]
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!! [Thou shalt call me Adonay? Not in my bible!] 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!
B. The title adonay plays a role in Yahweh's Feast Days:
(1) Ex. 23:17
Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord (adon) Yahweh.
(2) Neh. 8:10
Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord (adon): neither be ye sorry; for the joy of Yahweh is your strength.
Certainly it can be said that the Sacred-Name Movement enjoys a more profound understanding on the subject of Yahweh's Holy Days than most other religious organizations in Christianity. In this area, we rightly perceive ourselves to be the defenders of the Faith. Yet, as we can see from the preceding verses, there is a crucial linguistic observation which has been overlooked in our traditional analysis of Yahweh's Feast Days. We have failed to see the inspired connection that exists between the Hebrew title adon and Yahweh's appointed Festivals. [Before ALL scripture was inspired and sacrosanct, which would also include ALL titles, but now one term is receiving preferential treatment!
Inspiration explicitly commands that all men are to appear before "adon Yahweh" three times a year (during the Festivals of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost and Tabernacles). These prophetic Festivals are linguistically associated NOT merely to the name of Yahweh, but to the Hebrew title AS WELL: hence, adon Yahweh! This means that these Festivals are intended to remind us of the fact that Yahweh is the ONLY true adon – a common noun meaning Sovereign Ruler – of mankind and earth!
KJV Deuteronomy 16:16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before YAHWEH thy Elohim in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before YAHWEH empty:
Not in this verse!
0113 !Ada' 'adown {aw-done'} or (shortened) !doa' 'adon {aw-done'} • from an unused root (meaning to rule); TWOT - 27b; n m • AV - lord 197, master(s) 105, Lord 31, owner 1, sir 1; 335 • 1) firm, strong, lord, master 1a) lord, master 1a1) reference to men 1a1a) superintendent of household,of affairs 1a1b) master 1a1c) king 1a2) reference to God 1a2a) the Lord God 1a2b) Lord of the whole earth 1b) lords, kings 1b1) reference to men 1b1a) proprietor of hill of Samaria 1b1b) master 1b1c) husband 1b1d) prophet 1b1e) governor 1b1f) prince 1b1g) king 1b2) reference to God 1b2a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh") 1c) my lord, my master 1c1) reference to men 1c1a) master 1c1b) husband 1c1c) prophet 1c1d) prince 1c1e) king 1c1f) father 1c1g) Moses 1c1h) priest 1c1i) theophanic angel 1c1j) captain 1c1k) general recognition of superiority 1c2) reference to God 1c2a) my Lord,my Lord and my God 1c2b) Adonai (parallel with Yahweh)
It might be well to remember that the title was Hebrew because everything was in Hebrew! We can also see that there is no special significance in application of usage as adon is applied to both men and angels.
This explains why in Nehemiah 10:29 (cited earlier), the children of Israel – who are returning from captivity and PAGANISM – are led into pledging a vow of loyalty to Yahweh, "the adon of the earth!" We see that in the first Feast of Tabernacles that Nehemiah celebrated with Israel (8:10), the association between Tabernacles and adon is preserved for us by Inspiration. [As is all the Hebrew scripture!] It also serves to accentuate the fact that the men of Yahweh in antiquity understood the relevance of preserving Yahweh's holy titles. This is NO mere coincidence! During these Festivals, Yahweh was not interested in Israel appearing before him while merely recognizing that his Name is Yahweh. He commanded that his people appear before him recognizing him as adon Yahweh! His divine desire was for Israel to show that they were aware of both the Creator's Name and his SOVEREIGNTY over their lives! [Great! That is exactly why we call Him SOVEREIGH YAHWEH!]
Therefore, the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT [is this a linguistic principle?] conveyed by the Hebrew title adon is essential to Inspiration and faithful Israel certainly understood this to be true. When Inspiration consistently associates a title to Yahweh's Name, we cannot argue that Yahweh's Name is all we need! This is not to imply that Yahweh's Name and his titles are equal, for clearly they are NOT. On the other hand, we must guard ourselves never to take a more puritan approach than Yahweh himself requires. Titles are used for divine purposes and no amount of perversion by men or Satan will ever change this fact! [First it was a perversion to make a change, now it is a perversion to not make a change! We call Him Sovereign, which He is. What change do we make? The implication is that ALL titles are used exclusively for divine purposes. There are several titles YAHWEH uses, but the authors have selectively singled out one while ignoring the rest.] We are not at liberty to rewrite the Bible. Neither are men or devils invested with the power or the authority to rob the Almighty of his language.
C. Hosea himself applied the term adon to Yahweh:
(1) Hos. 12:14 & 13:1
Ephraim provoked him to anger most bitterly: therefore shall he leave his blood upon him, and his reproach shall his Lord (adon) return unto him.
When Ephraim spake trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died.
One of the most frequently quoted verses of Scripture by Sacred-Name believers is Hosea 2:16-17, where Yahweh, angered at Israel's idolatry, proclaims that the time will come when they will no longer call him Baali but will instead call Him Ishi. From this, it has been argued that Baali in this context is generic and it refers to ALL pagan NAMES which have been attributed to Yahweh or have been used to substitute for his Name. The natural extension of this line of reasoning has been that titles and names such as LORD, GOD, and ADONAY (to name a few) are included in this prophecy and form part of what has been designated and condemned as "Baal worship."
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter & the real reason for all the accusations...modern day terminology! First, however, let's look at Baali.
1180 yli[.B; Ba`aliy {bah-al-ee'} • from 01167 with pron. suff.;; n m • AV - Baali 1; 1 • Baali = "my lord" 1) a deity in the northern kingdom, variation of the name 'Baal'
"A deity in the northern kingdom". Interesting, but not actually relevant in this scripture. However, if YAHWEH is redefining Israel's relationship to Himself, how is avoiding the proper name of "a deity in the northern kingdom" also called Baal an affront to YAHWEH? Is a lack of understanding of some reason to condemn all? The common noun, baal, means master, and husband, so I suppose it is permissible to call YAHWEH master and husband. But what need is there to use the proper name Baal, a name clearly identified with another deity? None whatsoever! Wouldn't that create confusion? Indeed it would!
As prominent as this line of argument has been in the history of the Sacred-Name Movement, unfortunately it serves to illustrate how inadequate and incomplete our linguistic research has often been.
That Inspiration did not intend Baali in Hosea 2:16-17 to be understood in a "generic" sense can be demonstrated by Hosea's very use of adon, cited above. No rational linguistic explanation can be given for the prophet's use of adon if the "principles" advocated by the Sacred-Name Movement is what Hosea meant to convey and practice. Had Hosea intended to have his condemnation of Baali interpreted to include adonay, then we ought to expect that he would never have applied the term adon to Yahweh, as he obviously did! 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)!
Ju 2: 13 And they forsook YAHWEH, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
1Ki16:30-33 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of YAHWEH above all that were before him. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke YAHWEH Elohim of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.
The sacred name movement denounces idolatry, including the worship of Baal and any other deity, except YAHWEH. That is not a "generic" condemnation of words, but entities! The author is deliberately confusing the issue.
But, even if we were to grant a generic interpretation of Hosea's use of Baali (unlikely as it is) and agree that the prophet meant a more broader application, it still will follow he did NOT intend to condemn the use of the common noun adon! Observe the contrast of Hosea's POSITIVE use of adon in 12:14 (in reference to Yahweh) with his NEGATIVE use of Baal in 13:1!
Let's distinguish between the common noun, baal, meaning sovereign and master, and the proper name Baal which is that of a false deity. The writer seems to contradict his own supposition by stating that the term employed is a proper name denoted by capitalization!
According to Hosea, it is adon that will punish Ephraim for worshipping Baal!
Hosea says "his adon". Unless we are told which, we can't say for sure. However, in the preceding verse we are told. This adon, i.e. sovereign master, is YAHWEH!
This linguistic reference helps to emphasize the fact that the two Hebrew words (adon & baal) cannot mean the same to Inspiration (as often advocated by Sacred Name believers). For if they meant the same, how can we explain why Yahweh – the adon of Israel according to Hosea – will chastise Ephraim for going after Baal (a word that we argue means the same as adon)? This is why the translators have done the right thing in Hosea 12:14 and 13:1, where they chose to translate adon into English while they transliterate baal instead.
It just might be because in the days of Ahab, Ephriam, went whoring after Baal in a big way!
1 Ki 16:30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of YAHWEH above all that were before him.
31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him.
32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.
33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke YAHWEH Elohim of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.

At this point, let us pause for a moment to make another crucial observation. If the Name of Yahweh encompasses everything to Inspiration (as Sacred-Name believers often argue), then why in Hosea 2:16-17 do we have Yahweh eliminating one Hebrew title while feeling compelled to find another title (with the same basic meaning and concept) by which his people are to refer to him? Bear in mind, it is Yahweh who desires and commands to be addressed by a new title. 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!!
[my point: How many times does YAHWEH apply baal as a title to Himself, as in baal YAHWEH? Answer: ZERO! Simply put, "baal" is not a title! Adon (YAHWEH), however, is used as a title 293 times! This is mixing apples and oranges. And since YAHWEH uses baal only as a description and never actually as a title, there isn't any change in using titles. There may be corruption regarding titles. Just be sure where it's coming from!
One more point: whatever interpretation we apply to Hosea 2:16-17, we must take into account that Isaiah 62:4 (cited earlier) has clearly prophesied that Israel will be known as "baal land" during the millennium. Therefore, Hosea's condemnation must be interpreted that Yahweh will no longer ALLOW HIMSELF to be called "my Baal" (Baali), but NOT that the common noun baal - in of itself - will be eliminated. The authors welcome any other suggestions as to how to better harmonize Hosea 2:16-17 with Isaiah 62:4.
This is exactly what the sacred name movement has been advocating all along! When common terms are used as the proper names of demonic entities, such as Baal, Theos (Greek), & God, YAWHEH will not allow anyone to call Him by these names! Hosea 2:17 is explicit in referring to the names of the baals, plural.
KJV Hosea 2:17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name
YAHWEH is eliminating the possibility of confusion and potential idolatry! Again, it should be crystal clear that YAHWEH is changing the relationship from owner/master to that of husband. There were many false deities and each area had it's favorite. There was Baal, of course, and Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Meni, and Milcom. There also was Baal-Zephon (Baal of the north), Baal-Peor (Baal of the Openings), ...and Baal-God (Baal of Fortune).
The reader should be reminded that God was one of the Baalim! To complicate matters, baal may be translated as lord, so Baal Zephon could be rendered as Lord of the North, Baal Peor as Lord Peor, and Baal God as Lord God! Is it any wonder YAHWEH refuses transferring the use of these names to Himself?!
1409 dG" gad {gawd} • from 01464 (in the sense of distributing); TWOT - 313d; n m • AV - troop 2; 2 • 1) fortune, good fortune
There is no doubt whatsoever that "God" is the name of an ancient demonic entity. What is the meaning underlying this Hebrew word?
1407 dG: gad {gad} • from 01413 (in the sense of cutting); TWOT - 313c; n m • AV - coriander 2; 2 • 1) coriander - a plant the seed of which resembles manna
1408 dG" gad {gawd}
1409 dG" gad {gawd} • from 01464 (in the sense of distributing); TWOT - 313d; n m • AV - troop 2; 2 • 1) fortune, good fortune
1410 dG" Gad {gawd} • from 01464;; n pr m • AV - Gad 70; 70 • Gad = "troop" 1) seventh son of Jacob by Zilpah, Leah's handmaid, and full brother of Asher. 2) the tribe descended from Gad 3) a prophet during the time of David; appears to have joined David when in the hold;
reappears in connection with the punishment for taking a census; also assisted in the arrangements for the musical service of the "house of God"

1464 dWG guwd {goode} • a primitive root [akin to 01413]; TWOT - 325; v • AV - overcome 2, invade with troops 1; 3 • 1) to invade, attack 1a) (Qal) to attack

The underlying meaning of the Hebrew "God" means to divide & conquer, to cut apart, attack & invade! This is precisely why YAHWEH would never apply this term to Himself!
Can you see why the sacred name adherents might believe that it might not be a great idea to call YAHWEH "Lord God"?
Christians worship the Lord God. All you have to do is ask! Sacred Name adherents do not worship God, we worship YAHWEH. But was is the effect of a sacred name adherent saying to a Christian, I worship the Lord? The Christian instantly believes they are worshiping the same entity! That is not true.
D. Adon is used in numerous Messianic prophecies:
(1) Ps. 110:1
Yahweh said unto my Lord (adon), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Few brethren realize that this Scripture in the book of Psalms is the Old Testament passage most frequently quoted by the New Testament writers (Mt.22:41-45, Mk.12:35-37, Lk.20:41-44, Acts 2:34-36 and it is also alluded to by Paul in 1 Cor.15:25 and by Hebrews 10:13). Its Messianic character has been recognized by all scholars, as it is obvious that Yahshua is the one referred to in this text as adon! This title is in fact prophetic of the Savior, representing the role that Yahshua is to enjoy in the believer's life. As we are about to demonstrate, we are commanded to recognize and invoke the Son of Yahweh by his titles, just as we are instructed to acknowledge his Name. There is no acceptable excuse we can give to the Father in order to justify the manner how we in the Sacred-Name Movement belittle and often ignore the significance of divine titles.

(2) Is. 25:6-8
And in this mountain shall Yahweh of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory [Not according to the authors or other sacred name believers who insist it isn't true for the majority that are held captive to eternal death. Not such a great victory, I think, if you listen to their version!]; and the Lord (adonay) Yahweh will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for Yahweh hath spoken it.
Given the language of this passage, this prophecy is to be fulfilled by Yahshua during his future reign of one thousand years on earth. Therefore, the "adonay Yahweh" referred to in verse eight (8) is Yahweh acting through his Son, Yahshua!
Isn't this a little late to make a distinction? Messiah said no man has ever seen or heard the Father. But the YAHWEH of the Hebrew Scriptures was both seen and heard! That would indicate more than the Father simply using a human vessel as a conduit. In fact, all prophecy points to two YAHWEH'S, one being unseen, and the other acting as a spokesman, intermediary and intercessor. As the One Who was married to Israel came to redeem Israel with His own blood according to the law of redemption, He was inherently worthy of any title! Hebrew prophecy points to YAHWEH personally coming to rule the earth, which we know to be Messiah. And when He returns, He will be known as YAHWEH our Righteousness!
The title in this instance is essential in order to differentiate the Son from the Father! We may ask, "Who are we then to dare remove this title from this passage or to change it for another title which Inspiration did not use?"
Therefore giving Messiah a title is no mere differentiation, it is WHO HE IS! Possessor and Ruler of the Earth!
(3) Is. 40:10-11
Behold, the Lord (adonay) Yahweh will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
Note that "YAHWEH will come...", and is the "shepherd". There is only One Shepherd - Messiah! Therefore, Messiah is YAHWEH our Savior!
(4) Is. 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord (adonay) Yahweh is upon me; because Yahweh hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.
(5) Mal.3:1
"Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord (adon), whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith Yahweh of Hosts."
Who is the messenger of the covenant? Isn't this the One who made it? And isn't this YAHWEH? What Temple? Isn't this the Temple of Believers and isn't the One coming to His Temple the Messiah, YAHWEH-Shua, YAHWEH OUR SAVIOR?
Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of YAHWEH, make his paths straight. & Mat 11:10; Mar 1:2-3; Lu3:4; 7:27
all quote Isa 40:3 in identifying the One, the Adon or Sovereign One, as YAHWEH! And at His resurrection we are told that He "inherited a more excellent name", the full sacred name, YAHWEH! He was looking forward to the restoration of that glorious name. Take a look!
John 17:1 These words spake Yah'shua, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true Mighty One, and Yah'shua Messiah, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Not only was this referring to the power, but also to His Name! There are well over twenty references to the glory of YAHWEH'S name!
1 Chr. 16:10,29,35;Ps. 8:1;29:2;72:19; 79:9;96:8;102:15;105:3;115:1; 148:13;Isa. 42:8;43:7;48:11;59:19; 62:2;Jer. 13:11;Mal. 2:2;Lk. 19:38;1 Pet. 4:14;Rev. 16:9

The more one looks into the importance of these Hebrew titles, the greater their significance appears to be.
Now we have made a transition from Divine Titles to common nouns to Hebrew Titles! Now common nouns are raised to the status of proper nouns, Hebrew words above English. While there is nothing wrong with choosing Hebrew words and titles over the English, and in many instances I so choose, there no linguistic principle dictating that all foreign language titles be transliterated into other languages the way proper names are transliterated. Personally, where a change would avoid confusion, I deem it necessary.
However, is it significant that we use all Hebrew terms? No. Is there a unique or special category pertaining only to YAHWEH? Not that I'm aware of Should we call YAHWEH melek instead of King? YAHWEH uses terms which are also used of men, angels and even demons which don't seem to hold any special significance, linguistically.

There is a unique and obvious association that exists between the title adonay and the very person of YAHSHUA. The many passages of Scripture which attest to this fact cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence or incidental. Inspiration is absolute in its resolve to assure that Yahshua's divinely appointed titles be recognized by all. The adonayship of Yahshua is a critical teaching of biblical prophecy. There is an appointed time that the Father has determined when the SOVEREIGNTY of his Son will be established and fulfilled! This fact becomes more abundantly clear in the New Testament.
E. Adonay is used of Yahshua in the New Testament:
As noted earlier, it is the belief of most Sacred-Name organizations that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and not in Greek. Therefore, it is argued that the Greek manuscripts that are available to scholars today are translations of an original Hebrew. This being the case, it is often possible to reverse the process and partially reconstruct what the original Hebrew wording would have looked like. This process is especially simple when it comes to merely converting coined words (i.e. theos into Yahweh or Elohim, christos into Messiah or Anointed, etc.).
This process is not nearly as simple as the authors believe. Theo(-n,-s), for example is used for both YAHWEH, Elohim and possibly El, as well as angels, men and demons. How, then can a simple substitution be done. It can't. There is a way to be reasonably certain which is meant, but suffice it to say that a simple substitution is not an equitable solution. The same holds true for kurios, that when referring to The Father, could mean adonay, adon, adoni, or YAHWEH.
By following established linguistic rules of interpretation, one can easily verify through a lexicon (or other similar source) that the Greek word kurios is essentially the equivalent of the Hebrew word adonay. For example, the New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines these two words as:
2962 kurios, from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by impl. Mr. (as a respectful title):—God, Lord, master, Sir.
113 adon; from an unused root (mean to rule); sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine):—lord, master, owner.
By keeping this linguistic fact in mind, carefully observe the impactive significance that the following passages of Scripture apply to titles which Inspiration has permanently attached and associated to the Savior's personal Name.
(1) Jn. 13:13-14
Ye call me Master and Lord (kurious-adonay): and ye say well; for so I am. Now if I, your Lord (kurious-adonay) and Master have washed your feet you also should wash one another's feet.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about this verse is the fact that adonay had already become an injurious word which the Jews were using to "substitute" for Yahweh's Name during the lifetime of the Savior. Yet, Yahshua does not rebuke those who recognize him by calling him adonay. On the contrary, he ENCOURAGES those who do so to continue, by acknowledging that HE IS in fact adonay! Why didn't the Savior emphasize the importance of his personal Name instead? Why was not the Savior's reaction something like, "You call me Master and adonay, but you are wrong. I am to be known only as Yahshua?" [Was Messiah demanding to be called adonay, or simply admitting He is? There was no demand, or command, but rather a humble acknowledgement of the truth. Note also that they also used another term, (dida,skaloj) didaskalos, but this is being completely ignored because it simply doesn't adhere to the rules. " Why didn't the Savior emphasize the importance of his personal Name instead? " Because only the name YAHWEH can be given that honor! To replace the sacred name, YAHWEH, with the name of a man would have been blasphemy!] If divine titles are not essential (as it is usually argued by Sacred-Name believers), then why does the Savior vindicate the use of the same, even when these are words that as proper nouns are guilty of a pagan connection?
As was pointed out, this was an acknowledgement, not a "vindication" Perhaps a scripture or two will help clarify:
Leviticus 22:32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am YAHWEH which hallow you,
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (c.f. Luke 11:2)
John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Psalm 8:1 {To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David.} O YAHWEH our Sovereign, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Psalm 34:3 O magnify YAHWEH with me, and let us exalt his name together.
Isaiah 25:1 O YAHWEH, thou art my Elohim; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.
Psalm 148:13 Let them praise the name of YAHWEH: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
-The Hebrew syntax places the word order as "magnify they name above thy word-
2 Samuel 7:26 And let thy name be magnified for ever, saying,YAHWEH of hosts is the Elohim over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee.
1 Chronicles 17:24 Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified for ever, saying, YAHWEH of hosts is the Elohim of Israel, even a Elohim to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee.
Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is YAHWEH, art the most high over all the earth.
Psalm 148:13 Let them praise the name of YAHWEH: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.
Rabbi Yah'shua laid no claim of authority per his prophetic human name, rather, He deferred totally to the authority of the Father's great name!
Observe also that this passage of Scripture is the text that all Bible students and scholars quote in order to teach the institution of the feet washing ceremony! This new commandment (which was not taught in the Law of Moses) gets ADDED by virtue of the fact that Yahshua as adonay is Sovereign and he is endowed with the necessary authority to amend the Law, even the Passover ceremony!!
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?
What is this implying...that titles are equivalent to the status of His name? Everyone in the sacred name movement DOES recognize Messiah as Sovereign, Master, King, and Savior! Aren't these true titles? Or is there some special magic in the use of Hebrew terminology? (pun intended!)
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!
To acknowledge Messiah as Sovereign is heresy because Hebrew isn't used? What rubbish! As I said before, there is nothing wrong with using Adonay, or other Hebrew titles, but it certainly isn't denying His true name! Perhaps the authors ought to consider Matthew 7:2 -
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

(2) Jn. 20:20, 28
And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord (kurious-adonay).
And Thomas answered and said unto Him. My Lord (kurious-adonay) and my God .
One needs to be careful with pronouns as well, particularly in the Koine Greek. Here in Jn 20 the definite article voice, masculine singular is used and this is never first person singular possessive, i.e. my or mine!
o` def art voc masc sing , from o`, h`, to, pl. oi`, ai`, ta, the; this, that; he, she, it; tou/ with inf. in order that, so that, with the result that, that
Therefore, Thomas' reaction is much more emphatic; (the) SOVEREIGN! (the)YAHWEH!
Don't you find it just a little interesting, even strange, that with all the emphasis on transliterating words and names that "God" continues to go untouched? Specially since we are told it is so easy to simply plug in another word...?
(3) Acts 2:34-36
For David is not ascended into heaven: but he saith himself. Yahweh said unto my Lord (adon), Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that Yahweh hath made that same Yahshua, whom ye have impaled, BOTH LORD (kurious-adonay) and MESSIAH.
The power and divine authority invested in the titles messiah and adonay are best illustrated in these passages of the New Testament. It clearly shows that it was NOT sufficient for the Israelites listening to Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost to accept the Name of Yahshua. [IF that was indeed the name under question, which it wasn't!] It was also required that they recognize that this man Yahshua — who they had executed — had been declared to be both "ADONAY and MESSIAH".

(4) Acts 11:17
For as much then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believe on the Lord (kurious-adonay) Yahshua Messiah; what was I that I could withstand God. [Why doesn't the author use Theos if that's what's in the text? Or perhaps YAHWEH? Or Elohim? Why push the English terminology when failure to use the Hebrew is heretical? Again, the Greek uses definite articles to indicate the use of the proper name, YAHWEH!]
(5) Acts 28:30-31
And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord (kurious-adonay) Yahshua Messiah, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
OOPPS...that's "Kingdom of YAHWEH"...there's that pesky definite article again!
Therefore, the salvation formula involves more than just accepting and invoking the divinely given Name of the Savior. We are compelled to accept and recognize that his divinely appointed titles are also essential for our salvation! Which one of us is going to DARE to challenge the Father for bestowing on his Son a title that by OUR standards is unacceptable? Who are we to refuse to obey Yahweh's clear directives on this matter, and yet, proclaim ourselves children of the Most High?
So which do we choose...kurious or adonay? Where did we come up with a "salvation formula" after being told "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Does that mean Peter was in error? YAHWEH forbid! Salvation is NOT in a title, but in His Name..., now is that his prophetic human name or His name of inheritance and glory? There is only one letter difference. And the penalty for blasphemy was the erasure of your name which would deny any family inheritance in Israel, or the coming kingdom. And the Priesthood definitely wanted to exclude this imposter from any inheritance, or so they thought. What name did Messiah say He came in? His own? No! His Father's...YAHWEH! What name was the name of glory He received by inheritance? YAHWEH! What name was altered according to the law, and prophecy? It wasn't His personal name, it was the name of inheritance...YAHWEH. Erasing a single letter changed the name of salvation YahwehShua, to Yah'shua, which is identical to His personal human name!

(6) Rom. 10:9
That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord (kurious-adonay) Yahshua, and shalt believe in thine heart that Yahweh hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Peter was not the only one who understood the importance of attributing the title adonay to Yahshua. Paul too recognized its significance and the divine mandate that we are to invoke the Son of Yahweh by his titles in order to be saved! In fact, the Greek text of Roman 10:9 has been mistranslated by the KJV. Scholars and modern Bible translations point out that the literal Greek text of Romans 10:9 is best rendered as:
"... if you confess with your mouth Yahshua as Lord (adonay)!"
Or as:
"... if you confess with your mouth Yahshua is Lord (adonay)!"
The only problem with that is that it puts a man above YAHWEH, and that would be blasphemy because only YAHWEH is sovereign! Or have we forgotten Ex 20:3
Thou shalt have no other elohim before me.
However, as YAHWEH He is worthy of such sovereignty.
If, however, His name of inheritance is used, the problem is solved, because YahwehShua is the name which is above all the name of men and angels
In order to be saved, Paul here argues that one must confess (i.e. publicly proclaim) that Yahshua - the only begotten Son of Yahweh - is adonay! Herein lies a Pandora's box that challenges the very foundations of the Sacred-Name Movement.
The paradox seems to be that if this is a requirement that there seems to be little evidence that this was required for the first 27 years after Messiah's resurrection (Romans wasn't written until about 58CE). Does this mean that no one was actually "saved" for the first 27 years until Paul came along and straightened things out? Obviously not. In fact, just four verses later, Paul affirms the importance of the name of salvation by quoting Joel 2:32 without any mention of any title!
For whosoever shall call upon the name of YAHWEH shall be saved. (Rom 10:13)

(7) 1 Cor.12:2-3
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of Yahweh calleth Yahshua accursed: and that no man can say that Yahshua is the Lord (kurious-adonay), but by the Holy Spirit. [Since Christians call the savior Lord, does that mean they are in the spirit? ]
An interesting observation about the Apostle's statement in this passage is the fact that he acknowledges the pagan history of the Corinthian members. [BS...Before Synagogue! These believers didn't wander in off the street. They were already a part of Israel.] If there were ever a time when concern for a confused body of believers with a strong pagan background would influence Paul's selection of words, it certainly would be the writing of this Epistle. However, if the Sacred-Name Movement is right about their rejection of the word adonay, it is obvious Paul never got the message! While at the same time condemning the former pagan practices of the Corinthians, Paul is not deterred from applying to Yahshua a title with a KNOWN PAGAN CONNECTION both in Hebrew and Greek!![Paul didn't use both languages in this passage.] Furthermore, not only does verse three emphatically state that "no one speaking by the Spirit of Yahweh calls Yahshua accursed," it also teaches THAT THOSE TRULY LED BY THE SPIRIT OF YAHWEH WILL IN FACT BE LED TO PROCLAIM HIM AS ADONAY YAHSHUA!! [Picky point...is "Yahshua" in the Greek? Don't be too sure you know!] In light of this fact, we are most assured that claiming that Yahshua is adonay could NEVER constitute sin!!!
Frankly this is getting old.... Scripture is inspired by YAHWEH. YAHWEH uses adonay, meaning Sovereign, as a descriptive title. Believers acknowledge YAHWEH & Messiah as Sovereign, i.e. adonay. So what is the problem?

(8) 2 Cor. 4:5
For we PREACH not ourselves, but Messiah Yahshua the Lord (kurious-adonay); and ourselves as servants for Yahshua's sake.
Again, just like in Rom.10:9, Greek scholars do not follow the KJV, but maintain that the Greek text is best rendered as:
"...For we do not preach ourselves, but Yahshua Messiah as Lord (kurious-adonay)…"
"...For we do not preach ourselves, but Yahshua Messiah is Lord (kurious-adonay)…"
Therefore, the message that the apostle Paul claims to have been PREACHING to the gentiles was the recognition of Messiah Yahshua as adonay!
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 through out the book of Acts follows this same proclamation!
2 Cor, written in the fall of 57CE, also points to a later addition to the authors "salvation formula".

While it is true that the Father has bestowed upon his Son a unique special Name,[Yahshua was a common popular name and had been so for centuries - what is this "unique special Name" "bestowed" upon Messiah? It is the name of inheritance, Yahweh-Shua] it is no less true that Yahweh has also chosen to appoint some very unique honorary titles upon his beloved Son! Ask yourself: Given the language of these verses, if a Jew were to have accepted the Name of Yahshua, but refused to recognize him as Messiah or as adonay, would he have been saved? Would Paul have stretched his hand of fellowship to that Jew? Obviously NOT! Yet, given OUR standards, we in the Sacred-Name Movement today would not only extend a hand of fellowship, but would go to great length to rejoice, failing to realize that the refusal of Yahshua's divinely appointed titles is in itself an act of rebellion against Inspiration!
What "very unique honorary titles"? Adonay is not unique! Messiah is not unique! By the way, an "honorary" title is a title not earned. To say that any title is unearned, i.e. "honorary", is an affront to Messiah!

(9) 1Cor. 1:3
Grace be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Lord (kurious-adonay) Yahshua Messiah.
Paul's consistency is compelling and conclusive. Over and over again we see how he greets the Brethren (NOT just in the Name of Yahshua) but in the Name of ADONAY YAHSHUA MESSIAH (see Rom.1:7, 2 Cor.1:2, Gal.1:3, Eph.1:2, Phil.1:2, Col.1:2-3, 1 Th.1:1, 2 Th.1:2, 1 Tim.1:2, 2 Tim.1:2).
Again...sacred name believers DO believe that Messiah is Sovereign! We often greet each other using various titles of respect and adoration. The entire premise that the sacred name movement objects to this is a lie! What the sacred name movement is being derided for is that they don't see any magical quality to generic Hebrew terminology that would make usage a matter of salvation.
Despite all these irrefutable linguistic facts, there are those who still want to hold on to the errors of the past. In the same manner that Sunday-keepers have been arguing that "... names are not that important," we have been arguing that "... titles are not that important!"
[Don't know who has been saying that titles are not important, unless the author is totally dismissing common language titles as unimportant.] To a Sunday-keeper, it is absurd to make the "divine names" of Yahweh and Yahshua a salvation issue. On the other hand, to us it is equally absurd to make "divine titles" a salvation issue. However, to Inspiration - ah - that's a whole different story!! For unless we willfully wish to claim blindness, it is obvious from the many passages of Scripture already quoted that DIVINE NAMES and DIVINE TITLES DO MATTER TO YAHWEH!! The question is, "WHO ARE WE TO SAY DIFFERENTLY?"
Negative assumptions based on the views of unbelievers prove what, that one must be right because the other is wrong? What if YAHWEH had been speaking Chinese?! The point is this: Names are transliterated, titles are translated.

For those who wish to argue that titles (even divine ones) are not specific and unique enough to warrant such treatment, consider Paul's statements which follows.
(10) 1 Cor. 8:5-6
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords (kurious-adonim) many,
But to us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and ONE Lord (kurious-adonay) Yahshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Paul did not say "gods", as he was speaking/writing Hebrew. The Hebrew term would have been elohim, the plural of el, meaning mighty one(s) [..theos in this case is in the nominative masculine singular without the definite article] . This is consistent with Old Testament usage of elohim. "God", however, is a legitimate Hebrew word, but Paul did not choose to use it either as a name or for any part of its generic meaning (to divide, attack invade). [1 Cor 8:5-6 does not presume that The Father is not sovereign over Messiah, but that Messiah is sovereign under the authority of The Father. - "My Father is greater than I."]
(11) Eph. 4:4-5
There is one body, and one spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; ONE Lord (kurious-adonay), one faith, one baptism, ONE God [theos...without the definite article. Should be rendered mighty One, El or Elohim. Again, The Hebrew word "God" is in appropriate and would not have been used.] and Father of all, who is above all, and through all , and in you all.

Let us analyze the overwhelming ramifications of these two passages of Scripture. Here Paul willingly acknowledges and recognizes that there are in fact MANY mighty ones and MANY sovereign rulers! He does NOT deny this to be true. BUT, as far as Inspiration [?] is concerned, there is but ONE (and only ONE) true mighty-one, Yahweh! And, ONE (yes, only ONE) adonay – Yahshua the Messiah!! [Is Messiah the same adonay YAHWEH of the Hebrew scriptures? Yes! But if there is "only ONE", what about the Father? Isn't the Father Sovereign?] Note that Paul was not content with merely stating there is but ONE Yahweh and ONE Yahshua! Inspiration wants to assure we go further than just recognizing the SACRED Names of the Creator and His Son. It also makes sure that WE RECOGNIZE THE SACRED TITLES of Yahweh and Yahshua!!! Do we need a verse clearer than this?
In addition to Sovereign, he is also The Rock, Savior, King, Shepherd, & High Priest. Are these "sacred" as well? If not, why not? If they are, then why are they ignored? What about El, and Elyone from the Hebrew scriptures? Aren't these important?
(12) Phil. 2:10-11
That at the Name of Yahshua every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Yahshua Messiah is Lord (kurious-adonay), to the glory of Yahweh the Father.
Did Paul quote scripture, or change it? If Paul quoted scripture he was referring to Isaiah45:21:
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I YAHWEH? and there is no mighty one(s) else beside me; a just mighty one [el] and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am a mighty one [el], and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
This says that it is unto YAHWEH that every knee shall bow...! Which is right...Paul or Isaiah? If Paul, however, was using the Messiah's higher name bestowed by inheritance, the name which is higher than the angels...then that name is YAHWEH-Shua! There is no contradiction in the scriptures!
Note that "at the name" as expressed in the English doesn't quite do the Greek justice:
GNT Philippians 2:10 i[na evn tw/| ovno,mati VIhsou/ pa/n go,nu ka,myh| evpourani,wn kai. evpigei,wn kai. katacqoni,wn
evn prep dat , from evn prep. with dat. in, on, at; near, by, before; among, within; by, with; into (= ei,j); to, for (rarely); evn tw/| with inf. during, while, as; evn ovno,mati o[ti because (Mk 9.41)
evn (without the infinitive) actually has the deeper significance of belonging within, particularly when considering the relationship to sovereignty. So rather than "at the name", Phil 2:10 ought to more correctly reflect "into the name".
Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that YahwehShua Messiah is sovereign, to the glory of Elohim the Father.
GNT Philippians 2:11 kai. pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,shtai o[ti ku,rioj VIhsou/j Cristo.j eivj do,xan qeou/ patro,jÅ
Two other renderings might also help shed some additional light. Confess also carries a stronger connotation of positive acknowledgement as indicated by also being rendered praise & thank.
Evxomologh,shtai verb subj aor mid 3rd per sing , from evxomologe,w agree, consent; midd. confess, admit; acknowledge; praise; thank
Nor should we overlook the inconspicuous. The coordinate conjunction preceding the object (Messiah), that, relays a sense of condition - because & since.
o[ti conj coord , from o[ti conj. that ( ti, o[ti why? w`j o[ti that generally introducing the subjective opinion of the writer, e.g. 2 Cor 5.19; 11.21; 2 Th 2.2); because, for, since; may mark the beginning of direct discourse
Expanding our understanding to enhance Phil 2:10 we would note the increased force as:
And that every tongue thankfully acknowledges The Sovereign YahwehShua Messiah because of the glory of [Elohim*] the Father.
Take note that the conditional "should" is not in the Greek and that omitting it intensifies the completeness of ALL being subject to Messiah's sovereignty.
*The Greek Theou is not set apart by the definite article which would ordinarily indicate the proper name, YAHWEH, so is more reflective of the generic Elohim, even though YAHWEH Elohim is implied.
Yes, you read that right! The time WILL COME when ALL will bow their knees and every tongue SHALL CONFESS (i.e. publicly proclaim) – NOT that the Name of the Son is Yahshua – BUT that Yahshua is adonay!!!
Yes, every tongue will positively & thankfully acknowledge that the Son is Sovereign, but this is The Son in Power Who bears the true name of salvation, YAHWEH, not the son of the flesh which only bears a common human name. Again, I point out that it is salvation in & by His name, not His title.
This is a passage of Scripture that every Sacred-Name believer quotes frequently. We have always loved it because verse 9 reads: "Wherefore Yahweh also has highly exalted Him, and given Him A NAME which is above every name." ABSOLUTELY! It is the name of inheritance! And yet, this passage not only exalts the Name of Yahshua, it also exalts his title adonay!! It has been there all this time, we simply have been too biased in our reasoning to see it!!! What is exalted? Isn't it the Name of Salvation which is exalted by the position of importance designated by the title, and not the title itself?
To further accent the divine importance of Yahshua's titles, observe what Yahshua at his second coming will be displaying ACROSS his CHEST and along his THIGH (just to make sure that EVERYONE will notice):
(13) Rev. 19:16
And he (Yahshua) hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord (kurious-adon) of lords (kurious-adonim).
Imagine the holy OBSESSION the Father feels towards the titles He has given to his beloved Son! Observe that in this passage the Savior does NOT wear his NAME on this insignia! All he wears are his TITLES! Do you get the impact of this?
"Name" is used for more than simply designating one's name, but may also be used for everything that The Name represents, as Strong's points out.
3686 o;noma onoma {on'-om-ah} • from a presumed derivative of the base of 1097 (cf 3685); TDNT - 5:242,694; n n • AV - name 194, named 28, called 4, surname + 2007 2, named + 2564 1, not tr 1; 230 • 1) name: univ. of proper names 2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc. 3) persons reckoned up by name 4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason

o;noma noun acc neut sing , from o;noma, toj n name ( kat/ o;Å by name); title; person; authority, power; status, category (e. g. eivj o;Å profh,tou because he is a prophet; evn ovÅ o[ti Cristou/ evste because you are followers of Christ Mk 9.41); reputation (Mk 6.14; Re 3.1)
Nor must we loose sight of the fact that he isn't going to be speaking English! It would be only natural to express His Sovereignty and Kingship in His own language, Hebrew. If He were Latin, we might be saying hail Caesar instead! Let us understand that it would be virtually worthless to acknowledge Him as Sovereign and King if those terms had no meaning in the native language of the user, so for the majority of humanity that don't have an inkling that adonay means sovereign, saying adonay would not be acknowledging His sovereignty over them!
Here we have the Savior returning to earth for the first time in approximately TWO thousand years. During his absence, men and Satan have so corrupted the precious Name of the Son of Yahweh that today only an insignificant number of people actually know and use the true Name Yahshua. If it were left to OUR manner of thinking, the most important thing would be to immediately restore the Savior's holy Name at his second coming, right? Yet, Inspiration [?] is more concerned with displaying Yahshua's titles than with displaying his Name!!!
This is bunk! This puts a title ABOVE His name, thus degrading the importance of His Name, relegating His name to second position! Remember, the scriptures clearly say we are to humble ourselves and bow TO HIS NAME in acknowledgement of His Sovereignty!
Now, isn't this contrary to OUR rationale? Obviously, Yahweh is not too impressed by our methods which are "designed to protect and promote" his cause ... OUR WAY. The irony is that if a Sacred-Name believer today was to be given the honor of designing this decorative ribbon to be worn by Yahshua at his appearance, because of our misconceptions, it would be made bearing only the Name of Yahshua!!
[What if...again? This conclusion is drawn from the author's own misconceptions and prejudices! The scriptures are clear: YAHWEH will come to rule as King, and that same entity is also the Redeemer of Israel, The Messiah! (Zech 14:1-9)]
Zech 14:9 And YAHWEH shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one YAHWEH, and his name one.
Clearly, He is not returning as a man, Yah'shua, but He is definitely returning as YAHWEH, Sovereign, King, Messiah and Savior! HALLELUYAH!

These are inspired linguistic facts against which the modern Sacred-Name Movement has no possible defense.
Not according to the scriptures, only this author's opinion!
We must ask ourselves: With all the details involved in the long awaited return of Yahshua and the establishment of his kingdom on earth, why is the Father so adamant about displaying to the whole world titles that we in the Sacred-Name Movement have termed to be pagan, evil, unacceptable, or at the very least, unimportant?
So this author says, but no others have been cited! The author also had denounced English titles!
To add insult to injury, we have developed such animosity against the word adonay, that the English word Sovereign has become more HOLY to us THAN THE ORIGINAL HEBREW WORD THAT INSPIRATION USES.
Sovereign and Adonay are common nouns meaning the same thing. The word of YAHWEH was inspired in Hebrew, but does that mean we must always use Hebrew terms for every appellate applied to the Father or the Son? Should we call YAHWEH Abba rather than Father? Do we call Messiah ben instead of Son? Why is the author so willing to accept English terminology as it suits him, but condemns others for doing the same? This is hypocrisy!
Again, we ask: When the kingdom of Yahweh is finally established on earth and the "pure" language is restored, WHO WILL BE CALLING YAHSHUA BY THE ENGLISH WORD SOVEREIGN?
NOTICE THAT IT TAKES AN ACT OF YAHWEH TO RESTORE A PURE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE, AND WITH IT - UNDERSTANDING! Then, and only then will the world use Adonay with the full understanding of what that term means. Perhaps we should understand the importance of interpretation upon understanding. Here is a biblical "principle" we should all pay attention to!
1 Cor 14:
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown language speaketh not unto men, but unto Elohim: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown language edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with languages, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with languages, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with languages, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the language words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. 11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. 12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the assembly.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. 16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the assembly; and let him speak to himself, and to YAHWEH. 29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For YAHWEH is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all assemlies of the saints.

My dear friend, if the word of YAHWEH means anything to you, take a moment and offer YAHWEH a short prayer and re-read 1 Corinthians 14:2-33 again and understand that languages, with the exception of proper names, are translated into understandable terms! Proper names, however, are phonetically verbalized the same from language to language!

What other possible Hebrew word could we be using then than adonay? [If you are English speaking...Sovereign!] By Yahweh's decree, which word will appear engraved in Yahshua's vest at his Second coming: Sovereign or adonay? [Because He is Hebrew!]
This is not to imply that the English word Sovereign cannot be used, for even the authors of this treatise use it. [Here is the admitted hypocrisy, after condemning others, calling it a sacrilege and heresy, they now admit it is okay to use because THEY 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!
Now it is a matter of the heart? Who is rejecting His Sovereignty in their heart? NO ONE! This is a total fabrication, an outright LIE based on their misinterpretation of the scriptures.
I am also wondering, who is "Inspiration". This is not an inspired title, so capitalization indicates that it must be a proper name! Perhaps another deity that is leading the authors to this ridiculous conclusion? Actually, I doubt it, but the author doesn't seem to understand the importance of the language he is using!

It should be clear and understood that it is illogical to reject the Hebrew word adonay and at the same time promote its concept through a translation. If it were true that Inspiration [the unknown deity!] did not want us to use the Hebrew adonay, [this clearly points to Inspiration having independent thought and action.] how can we defend using the technicality of an English translation as a means of avoiding the biblical command? The consistent thing would be to completely eliminate the concept (a thing we are not willing to do either), as an English translation still implicitly recognizes and acknowledges the existence of the Hebrew word!
The "biblical command", as I have shown, is to translate common words so they can be understood!]
(14) Rev. 17:14
These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord (kurious-adon) of lords (kurious-adonim), and King of kings: and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Naturally, we all realize that Yahshua's name means Yahweh-saves. [saves=shua, as in Yahweh-Shua] However, it is not Yahshua the Savior that conquers the enemy at his Second Coming. Rather, it is Yahshua adonay - the King of kings - that defeats all opposing forces. These titles are essential to the true idea intended by Rev.17:14 above. They help put into perspective the honor and glory of the authority that Yahweh has bestowed upon Yahshua.
Forgive my skepticism, but unless He has cloned Himself to such minute separations, He is the embodiment of all those attributes just as He was as when He led Israel. He was their Savior, Healer, Provider, Mighty One, Captain & King depending on the action He took. There is no question that when He returns He will be recognized as Sovereign and King of the Earth, but now we thankfully acknowledge and praise Him as our submission to Him dictates and as the circumstances warrant. Right now He is our Savior, and by our voluntary submission, He is Sovereign, but only to us, not the world. When He returns, however, He is coming primarily as Conqueror and King! That may also account for the descriptive banner as Adon Adonim - Melek Melekim!
( aY"k;l.m; %l,m, ~ynIdoa]h' ynEdoa]l ) -as used in the Hebrew Scriptures!

As in the case of baal, all of these inspired uses of the common noun adonay took place despite the fact that the proper noun Adonay had already become the name of a false deity and that at the time of Yahshua and the Apostles, the Jews were already causing the Name of Yahweh to become obscured by their constant substitution of adonay for the Holy Name (a practice they have continued to this date!).
That's exactly right! They also concluded that since titles were as important to salvation as the name itself that blasphemy could be avoided by simply using the title instead. This ought to show us that there is no substitute or equivalence for His name.
Again, we are forced to acknowledge that the two "principles" advocated by the Sacred-Name Movement today [not so!] are contrary to the practice sanctioned by Inspiration [...where does this deity come from?] and as recorded by Scripture. [Apparently these inspired linguistic facts of theirs are on a par with scripture!] In 1 Cor. 1:2 Paul literally states regarding Yahshua and the Sacred-Name believers of his days:
"... that in every place call upon the name of Yahshua Messiah our Lord (kurious-adonay), BOTH THEIRS and OURS."
He is Sovereign, but we call upon His Name...not His title!
Is Yahshua your adonay? Like it or not, HE HAD BETTER BE!
Presumably, the author means "Sovereign", but what is this sarcasm...like it or not? We love it! And so will all humanity when they receive His mercy and reconciliation!

3. The truth regarding EL:
A. El was the name of a pagan deity in Abraham's days. Consider some of the facts that Unger's Bible Dictionary (pg. 293-4) states regarding the word El.
In Canaanite paganism as reflected in the Phoenician historian Philo of Byblos, c. 100 A.D., and particularly in the epic religious literature unearthed at Ras Shamra, ancient Ugarit in North Syria, 1929-1937, El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon.
Unger's Bible Dictionary continues by stating:
Like Homer's Zeus, El was the father of men and gods. The utter moral abandon of El, as well as that of his son, Baal, and his three sister-wives, who were patronesses of sex and war, point to the degrading effects of Canaanite religion and offer adequate moral explanation for the inflexibly stern attitude of the Old Testament toward the religion of the Canaanites themselves ... El rapidly declined, however, and was largely supplanted by the worship of Baal, which was equally demoralizing.
What is amazing about this reference is the fact that Unger's Bible Dictionary is one of the Sacred-Name Movement's most often quoted books. The linguistic arguments which we have advanced against the titles baal and adonay have relied heavily on the scholarship of this and other similar reference material. The irony is that the Bible dictionary that was employed by the early pioneers of the Sacred-Name Movement (in order to prove that adonay and baal were words guilty of a "pagan connection") also proves that el and elohim ARE LIKEWISE ASSOCIATED WITH PAGANISM AND FALSE WORSHIP! However, although the full impact of this fact has only of late been realized by some Sacred-Name organizations, it is rather amusing to observe that our pioneers "chose" to conveniently ignore the above reference. So, while on one hand baal and adonay were condemned and labeled unacceptable because of their "pagan connection," el and elohim were retained despite having the same "pagan connection"!
YAHWEH came first and the common nouns He employs for description are valid regardless of what others may do to them. It would be wise, however, to employ different terminology where there might be confusion due to cultural bias. We have an example in eating things sacrificed to idols. While eating lamb may be perfectly acceptable, if the lamb has been offered to demons and a person has conscience toward the demon, then avoiding the lamb for this person's conscience sake, i.e. their emotional well being, might be deemed appropriate. Using or not using El, Elohim, Adonay, or another term may be seen the same way. In the early years of the sacred name movement there were heavy reactions to anything "pagan", and it is true their research left room for improvement, but given where they were in their spiritual growth and their zeal for obeying YAHWEH, we cannot condemn them for not having the same truth we now hold some 50 years later. This revisionist thinking judges the past by the life settings of the present and is taken out of context. Moreover, the initial premise that there was "linguistic principle" that universally applied to the sacred name movement as a whole is totally bogus!
Within the last 15 years or so, the realization that el and elohim were associated with paganism has finally begun to cause havoc, as it has become one of the principal reasons why some Sacred-Name Assemblies have split or are on the verge of so doing.
Sadly, the very misconceptions (the two Sacred-Name "principles") that so helped us to grow and develop into a recognized movement, are reflected in the reasons why so many Assemblies today have become fragmented, to the point where shameful and senseless rivalry has caused even Elders and leaders to permanently disassociate and disfellowship one another!
Going back to the unsupported sacred name principles only indicates the authors failure to produce any tangible evidence of any universality. Personal differences have existed since Messiah's resurrection... Paul and John Mark had a disagreement and split up, so this is nothing new. It is natural for those with similar views to congregate together, and fragmentation over any belief is possible. It was, in fact, a fragmentation which began the modern sacred name movement in the mid 1930's to begin with! To portray or to lead others to believe that the modern sacred name movement was at anytime a unified cohesive structure guided by anything other than a search for more truth would be misleading of itself.
Yet, this sad state of affairs should NOT surprise us in the least, since the same is the product of decades of accumulated faulty reasoning.
The only way out of this dilemma is to go back to the beginning and start casting our foundation anew. EITHER WE ACCEPT THE IRREFUTABLE FACT THAT OUR TWO BASIC PRINCIPLES ARE CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE or WE WILL BE FORCED - in order to be consistent with the "principles" we argue and defend - TO CONDEMN, ELIMINATE, and ERADICATE any and ALL words (both Hebrew and English) that can be demonstrated to have a pagan connection!! All things considered, there is no room for middle ground.
As we have already done with baal and adonay, let us now analyze how Inspiration employs the Hebrew words el and elohim, despite the well documented pagan connection associated with these.
B. Abraham applied the word to Yahweh:
(1) Gen. 14:18-20, 22
And Mel-chize-dek king of Sa'lem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the Most High God (el elyon). [Since "God" is a legitimate Hebrew word, and the authors consistently refuse to render it either in the original Hebrew or an understandable English translation, i.e. mighty one(s), it would seem that we are moving closer to the heart of the agenda for this article. ] And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God (el elyon), possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the Most High God (el elyon), which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up mine hand unto Yahweh, the Most High God (el elyon), the possessor of heaven and earth.
The fascination that scholars have displayed over the quest to find out who Mel-chize-dek was is legendary. His identity has been the subject of many doctoral theses, publications and books. Yet, the one thing that Scripture makes clear is the high regard that Inspiration (?) gave to this king, as the Savior's priesthood is named after him! Obviously, whoever Mel-chize-dek was, HE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PAGAN WORSHIPER by Inspiration[?]! [I seriously doubt whether "Inspiration", as a separate deity, has anything to do with this.] Nonetheless, he refers to Yahweh by the very name that other nations OF HIS TIME WERE USING TO WORSHIP A FALSE DEITY!! [What nations or pagan kings were using Elyowne? The exchange between Melchizedek, The King of Righteousness/Peace indicates He was without genealogy (a requirement for the priesthood) and abides continually, i.e. eternally, as High Priest. Since Melchizedek has never stepped down as High Priest, and Messiah occupies that position, it would seem that Messiah, before His human existence, occupied the position of High Priest as Melchizedek, and was restored to that position at His resurrection!
We can't even argue that Mel-chize-dek was simply ignorant, for Abraham himself takes a cue from this king and refers to Yahweh by the same supposedly pagan name and appellants (verse 22)!!!
To imply that Melchizedek, the High Priest of YAHWEH, was referring to Almighty YAHWEH as the name of a pagan deity defies comprehension! Such convoluted logic turns the scripture inside out, making the pagan deity of primary stature as having come first and that YAHWEH was borrowing the term for Himself!
C. Even Yahweh applies the word el to himself:
(1) Gen. 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said unto him, "I am Almighty God (el shaddai); walk before Me, and be thou perfect."
(2) Gen. 35:7,11
And he (Jacob) built there an altar, and called the place El-Beth-El: because there God (elohim) appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
And God (elohim) said unto him, "I am God Almighty (el shaddai): be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins."
Just like we observed with the words baal and adonay, Yahweh freely refers to himself by the common noun titles el and elohim, unconcerned by the fact that in Abraham's days the proper noun El was the name of a pagan deity that was even worshipped by the people of Ur, the very place where Abraham was born and grew up (consider Joshua 24:2)!!
Josh 24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the YAHWEH Elohim of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.
Where is the evidence presented for the name of the deity of Ur? It may or may not have been "El", but regardless, YAHWEH came First!
Yahweh is not alarmed by the supposed possibility that Abraham may get the wrong impression or become confused as to who is the true "Mighty One." Those who now wish to contend against the use of the word elohim must face up to these linguistic facts. If Inspiration [?] can make use of a term - although corrupted by some - WHO ARE WE TO CHALLENGE YAHWEH?! [Actually there are no facts presented that elohim is a corrupted name. And even if men had corrupted el/elohim into a false deity, the presumption that Abraham would be confused would have been eliminated through the personal revelations and meetings with YAHWEH Himself. So it wasn't as if Abraham was reading an encyclopedia and trying to figure out which one was the right one!]
(3) Ex. 20:2-3
I am Yahweh thy God (elohim), which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shall have no gods (elohim) before Me."
Paganism does not stop Yahweh. Devils and rebellious men may corrupt every word in the Bible; this will not prevent Yahweh FROM RETAINING HIS OWN LANGUAGE! [Just what language would that be? Modern Hebrew? Ancient Hebrew? Or perhaps a Proto-Hebrew?]
Yet the authors conveniently and consistently forget that "God" is also a Hebrew name inspired by YAHWEH and is applied to man and demon, but never ever to YAHWEH!
In fact, a coin has already been discovered by archeologists where the short poetic form YAH appears engraved in an obvious tribute to Zeus! Would any of us argue based on this fact that the Name of Yahweh has been corrupted and that due to this "pagan connection" it is no longer acceptable? OF COURSE NOT! Then why the "hang-up"? The same rationale applies to ALL other words which Inspiration has employed in the Bible!!!
(4) Ps. 84:11
For Yahweh God (elohim) is a sun and shield: Yahweh will give grace and glory: No good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly.
(5) Mal. 4:2
But unto you that fear My Name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
Here is another fine example that paganism will NOT deter Yahweh from applying to himself those titles and literary designations that are rightfully his! One of the very first objects of pagan worship was the Sun. In fact, it seems that in every ancient culture and civilization, the Sun was the favorite symbol or personification of the deity being worshipped. Sun worship is attributed to Nimrod and the first Babylon he created, as every novice Sacred-Name believer already knows. Yet, Yahweh employs both the word and the object worshipped by pagan nations in reference to himself!! Again, it did not concern Yahweh that at the time, Sun worship was a prevalent pagan practice!!
That does not mean, however, that it is okay for men to continue their paganism simply because there might be a vague parallel to truth. We would hardly continue "sun worship" in YAHWEH'S name, would we?
(6) Dt. 10:17
For Yahweh your God (elohim) is God (elohe) of gods (elohim), and Lord (adonay) of lords (adonim), a great God (el), a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.
Here Moses, who wrote the often quoted admonition against invoking the names of false deities (Ex.23:13, Dt.12:3,18:20), applies the alleged "pagan" words elohim, el and adonay directly to Yahweh!
Since all scripture is YAHWEH breathed, it would appear that the author is taking the stand that His words are pagan, but He doesn't seem to mind. I think not! I think that men corrupt His words for their own purposes!
Are we to believe that Moses did not understand what he wrote? Or, could it be THAT WE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD MOSES? Obviously, we are the ones who have erred, even if driven by good intentions. The obvious reason that Moses was able to apply ALL these Hebrew words directly to Yahweh is because he meant to convey the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS [Calling YAHWEH what He was, was not a "theological concept", but a practical conveyance of Himself, and His attributes.] represented by the meanings of these words when employed as mere common nouns! Naturally, Moses was NOT attributing to Yahweh the pagan concepts or worship associated with these very words when rebellious men used them as the names (proper nouns) of their false deities!! Needless to say, the Israelites who heard Moses and the future generations who later read his Book of the Law understood the difference. [Finally, another good point]
(7) Ps. 136:1-3
O give thanks unto Yahweh; for He is good: For his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks unto the God (elohim) of gods (elohim): For his mercy endureth for ever.
O give thanks to the Lord (adonay) of lords (adonim): For his mercy endureth for ever.
Beloved reader, could you with a clear conscience make these same public proclamations to a Jewish audience today? [Absolutely! A Jewish audience would probably understand the meanings of these words!] Could you invite all those around you to give thanks unto Yahweh, the ELOHIM of elohim and the ADONAY of adonim? [Absolutely, if they understood the meanings of those words! And presumably Jews would.] Could you do so while rejoicing in your heart with the realization that Yahweh is indeed the elohim and adonay par excellence? [As long as the Jewish audience understood!] Could you with total freedom of expression invoke the Name of Yahweh along with the titles elohim and adonay?[Yes, of course...!!! As long as the audience understood Hebrew! If, however, they were Hungarian, Chinese, or Swahili, I would certainly interpret the titles for their understanding!] If you couldn't or if you were hesitant to do so, THE PROBLEM WOULD BE WITH YOU AND NOT WITH THE WORD OF YAHWEH!
(8) Is.26:13
O Yahweh our God (elohim), other lords (adon) beside Thee had dominion (baal) over us: but by Thee only will we make mention of Thy Name.
(9) Is.46:9
Remember the former things of old; I am God (el), there is none else; I am God (elohim), and there is none like me.
In Isaiah 26:13, the prophet employs all three supposedly "unclean pagan words." There is not even the least trace of concern by Isaiah that doing this may "send" the wrong message to Israel, a people already plagued with a rebellious history of idolatry and paganism, which Isaiah himself had been battling against.
Our second example is a direct quotation, where Isaiah records Yahweh as directly stating that He is el and elohim! Instead of saying, "I am Yahweh ..." as in previous occasions, in Isaiah 46:9 Yahweh declares, "I am elohim." And, why shouldn't Yahweh make such a statement? After all, Yahweh is the ONLY TRUE elohim, par excellence, in the whole universe!!
Perhaps, no other passage of Scripture can better illustrate the way Yahweh feels about his title elohim than Ezekiel 28:1-10, where Yahweh sentences the "prince of Tyre" to death for believing in his heart and claiming he was elohim! In His judgment of the prince of Tyre, Yahweh emphasized the prince was but a man.
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.
If we apply the biblically inspired rationale which we have discovered in our careful analysis of the numerous passages of Scripture cited throughout this treatise, one is COMPELLED to REVISE the Sacred-Name "principles" as follows:
Fact #1: Had an Israelite employed the words baal, adonay or elohim meaning nothing more than "husband, sovereign, or mighty-one," he will NOT had been guilty of sin if he applied these words to Yahweh or to other men, as he would have been employing them as mere common nouns.
Fact #2: On the other hand, had the same Israelite employed the words baal, adonay or elohim as proper nouns intending a dignified and reverent reference to a false deity or had he attempted to substitute the name of Yahweh while attributing to Him the characteristics or worship meant to a false deity, then that Israelite would have been guilty of sin and idolatry.
Fact #3: Irrespective of all the perversion men and devils may perpetuate against the righteous character of Yahweh, this will never prevent the Almighty from retaining and applying to himself those words and titles that in the judgment of divinity rightfully belong to Yahweh and Yahshua. This is especially important to remember when we are dealing with the linguistic realization that elohim and adonay, were not merely sanctioned by Inspiration [?], but were also required and mandated to Israel!
I learned these concepts in the sacred name movement more than 21 years ago! They aren't exactly new ideas! However, as for the "Required and mandated....(in Hebrew, except it's okay to use the English)", that does seem to be relatively recent!

Given the irrefutable nature of the linguistic evidence we have thus far previewed, there is ONLY one possible conclusion: The sin does not lie on the mere use of the words adonay or elohim, but on the INTENTION of the individual who employs the same! [That also applies to the other language equivalents as well!]
What makes a word clean or unclean is NOT the mere existence of the word itself, but the THEOLOGICAL CONCEPT intended by the individual speaking. [Note the diminishing of biblical authority! It is not whether YAHWEH says so, but whether the individual feels justified in its use. This effectively opens the door to a reverse process where known pagan names can be applied to YAHWEH based on popular familiarity, i.e. if YAHWEH accepts the Hebrew common noun descriptions which are also pagan names, then it must be equally allowable to use any pagan name outside of Hebrew!] The Bible CONDEMNS the CONCEPT of IDOLATRY, but it does NOT do so on a LINGUISTIC BASIS!
The error of the early Sacred-Name leaders was their failure to see the distinction between a Hebrew word used as a mere common noun and the same word used as a proper noun! As a result, they interpreted the Bible's admonition against "invoking the names (proper nouns)" of false deities as an all inclusive linguistic mandate instead of a theological mandate. [This is partially true. Some, but not all, and certainly not universally as common to the entire sacred name movement, have not grown to this level of understanding.]
The consequences of this error, however well intended, has caused the Sacred-Name Movement to develop fanatical and extreme positions which have only served to hinder its otherwise noble calling. In the process, we have developed a doctrinal practice where we belittle, deny, or refuse to acknowledge the importance Inspiration[?] gives to the divinely appointed titles of Yahweh and Yahshua. In short, we have stripped the Father and the Son of the glory and honor, that the titles elohim and adonay are intended to convey! This is nothing short of heresy!!
The authors have consistently read into scripture a greater importance attributed to sacred titles than actually exists. Many titles are ignored, showing the gross inconsistency of their theory. And the admission that English may be used undercuts the hypocrisy of the entire premise.
We must reconsider our positions anew. We should never forget that while it was NOT a sin for Israel to refer to Yahweh and Yahshua by their divinely appointed Hebrew titles, IT WAS CERTAINLY A SIN TO REFUSE TO ADDRESS THEM BY THEIR TITLES!
While certain titles are used, some profusely, there is no condemnation for not using a "title". However, if using were a requirement, then refusing would be explained as a punishable offense. It isn't!
Inspiration[?] did NOT grant Israel the personal choice of determining if they were going to acknowledge these divine titles. It was NOT a matter of liberty, but one of moral obligation, as it was their solemn duty to accept, promote, and proclaim the divine titles which Inspiration[?] had revealed had been appointed to both Yahweh and Yahshua! Anything short of this could only constitute willful rebellion and sin!! [As I just explained, there is a difference between being morally obligated and a matter of law. Since by their own admission it is not a matter of law, it could not be a sin, because sin is lawbreaking. Without a law, there is no sin.] The Bible leaves no room to doubt this was most certainly the case.

OUTLINE OF PART II
I. Non-Hebrew 'Pagan' languages.
1 The origin of languages
A. Yahweh originated the other languages at Babel.
B. We continue to use a language we call 'pagan,' making no attempt to learn Hebrew.
C. Yahweh has used and still uses all languages.
2 If the concept of 'pagan languages' is taken to its logical conclusion
A. Yahweh's name should not even be transliterated into any other alphabet.
B. Hebrew should be only Paleo-Hebrew.
3 Although Aramaic is not Hebrew
A. It is used for scripture
B. It was used by Yahshua.
II. Divine titles in common languages.
1 Titles can be translated.
A. Daniel translated titles into Aramaic.
(1) Elohim into Elah.
(2) Adon into Mare.
B. Paul translated titles into Aramaic and Greek.
(1) Elohim into Theos.
(2) Adon into Mare in 'Maranatha'.
2 The translations 'lord and god'.
A No pagan connection can be proven.
B Hebrew titles were 'paganized' but still used.
C These can be used but a translation is all that is required.
3 Challenging Christianity on 'god' and 'lord'.
A We appear inconsistent to our members and to prospects.
B We should continue to defend the names as given to us.
(1) God and lord are mere titles and
(2) God and lord must not be substituted for the names.
C This argument detracts from other important errors Christianity has.
III. Call to action.
1 A fanatical attitude blinds misplaced zeal.
2 We need to display the dedication to truth we demand from others.
3 True disciples know that only the TRUTH can set us free.
4 Time for change?
A Must not tolerate sin in our camp.
B Face the truth - do not fear!
C Consider the consequences of ignoring the truth.
(1) Compromise of evangelistic efforts.
(2) Judgment of Adon Yahshua.
PART II
THE ISSUE INVOLVING ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
OF THE HEBREW TITLES
There aren't that 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.
The contempt for others is blatant. This sneering sarcasm openly ridicules others. Perhaps the reader would do well to do a prayerful study on hate & murder to comprehend the insidiousness of such attitudes.

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.
When the antagonist describes the reactions and/or thoughts of an opponent, beware! If you have ever had someone put words in your mouth, you will understand the danger.

I. Non-Hebrew languages:
1. The concept of a pagan language:
One of the pivotal arguments of the Sacred-Name Movement is the contention that non-Hebrew languages are actually pagan.
I have heard this by some, but it has been my experience that most believe that there was a proto-Hebrew and that the biblical language grew out of it. As for other languages, most also believe that YAHWEH divided the languages at Babal, therefore, all languages are extra-biblical but still of YAHWEH. Those that term extra-biblical languages "pagan" generally know this, but do have an aversion to certain borrowed words.
From this premise, various theological applications have been espoused and developed by the Movement. In fact, perhaps the main — if not the sole — motivation behind the Movement's promotion of the idea that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (and not in Greek) is our argument that Greek is a pagan language.
[I've never heard that the NT was pagan before! I have heard scholars and linguists discussing the Hebrew origins of the Greek NT, and even some that support their contention that several of the evangels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The sacred name movement, to my knowledge, has always been inclined to believe that Jewish authors writing to an originally Jewish audience, in a Jewish country where sacred writings were required to be kept in Hebrew, would be using their native language, presumably Hebrew, and that the NT was a translation of those original writings. The argument that "Greek is a pagan language" is an invalid argument! Frankly, the authors seem to be well adept at imputing motives and beliefs, but without any concrete proof. And as a long time member of the sacred name movement I don't think I like someone telling me what I believe, particularly when I don't believe it!]
It is this very concept that has some now willing to promote that Hebrew titles ought to be transliterated instead of translated. We now give ourselves to the task of addressing this issue.
A. The origin of languages:
When Sacred-Name believers begin to make their traditional emphasis on Hebrew being the "original pure tongue of the Garden of Eden" and all other languages being pagan, they often end up adopting extremes that are quite contrary to Scripture. For this reason, we feel compelled to mention the following facts which seem always to be overlooked:
(1) Before anyone begins to emphasize how Hebrew is the original heavenly language that was spoken in Eden, we ought never to forget who is the originator of most other languages.
Gen.11:6-9
And Yahweh said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So Yahweh scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because Yahweh did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did Yahweh scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
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. [Well said!] [Non-Biblical languages are extra-biblical. The use of the term pagan, however, is a theological concept that is not correctly applied to languages. But...was Hebrew the language of Eden? Was the language of Abram, from Ur of the Chaldees, the same as Moses the Egyptian Hebrew? We might ponder language variances, which may occur over a 400 year span, by asking if we would really understand English of the 14th & 15th centuries? How much of our own language seems alien may also be seen in subculture language structure and alteration, like inner city street lingo. Give it just a hundred years and who knows what it would appear to be!]
Some realizing this, have argued that the other languages introduced by Yahweh in Genesis 11 were "initially clean and pure" and that it was sinful rebellious men who later "corrupted" these languages to the point of making it necessary today to labeled them as pagan. The problem with this admirable attempt is the fact that Israel has also corrupted the original Hebrew language considerably, but no one wants to label it as pagan (more on this later). Here again, we are not willing to be consistent with our principles or arguments. If we were consistent, we would have to conclude that ALL languages in the world today – including Hebrew – are pagan, which would bring us back to our initial inquiry, where is the theological advantage gained?
If we considered this subject logically, we cannot but conclude that languages, alphabets, and phonetic sounds are neutral things. Languages are neither moral nor immoral any more than a knife of itself can have any moral qualities (that is, a knife used to commit murder does not automatically become a sinful thing, but the individual who committed the act is guilty of sin). Only Free Moral Agents have moral qualities and are therefore accountable by their very existence.
Languages, on the other hand, depend on the INTENTION and CONCEPT of the user to make them a moral issue.
[It also ignores YAHWEH'S word. YAHWEH defines what is moral, not man. ]
[WARNING! Taking an offensive word (or name) and modifying or changing its meaning for the benefit of the user undermines the stability of language itself. The opposite is also true, taking a non-offensive word and/or name and altering the meaning also undermines language stability!]
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! [It is not whether something is pagan, i.e. extra-biblical, or not, but whether it is idolatrous or not. Words convey concepts and when YAHWEH designates something as idolatrous it IS NOT up to any other individual to redefine it! If YAHWEH has defined it, it's existence is idolatrous! This is exactly what Aaron did! In Exo 32:-1-8, Aaron dedicated a Feast to YAHWEH and it was idolatrous! The concept of idolatry is not in the physical creation, but in the rebellious heart and the disobedient actions which ensue. Aaron re-created an image they were familiar with and joined that image to YAHWEH. The image certainly was user defined, and it was intended to represent YAHWEH, and was dedicated to YAHWEH. But utilizing an image that YAHWEH condemned, regardless of the good intentions of their heart, was still idolatry! Today, there is an image in the hearts and minds of Christians regarding their "God", but that image is no more accurate than Aaron's molten calf, and that image also bears the same name as a demon which is identified by YAHWEH Himself! Yet some would do exactly what Aaron attempted to do, which was to join an idolatrous image and known demon, in this case, God, to YAHWEH. This is not simply a linguistic principle, it is a fact! YAHWEH and God are two separate entities! It is not semantics. It isn't linguistics. And it isn't user defined...It is YAHWEH defined! The problem with user defined can be seen in this:
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to Eloah (The Mighty One); to Elohim (mighty ones) whom they knew not, to new (elohim) that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

1 Cor 10: 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Sovereign, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Sovereign's table, and of the table of devils
Those who are bowing their head to a demon or demons don't realize they are doing so, because they are not listening to the Word of YAHWEH! They think they are worshipping YAHWEH, but they aren't!
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! [This totally divorces the original meaning from the word! If the user wants to call our heavenly Father, Abaddon (destroyer), Zeus (Thunder - some Greeks may have attributed YAHWEH'S speech to Zeus-Jn 12:20-29), Heylel (light-bringer), or any other name, then it's okay because the user's intentions are okay?...despite what the scripture actually says?] [What are the noble intentions of connecting the name of a known demon, which YAHWEH says He is opposed to, to YAHWEH?]
This is why we have seen that an Israelite prophet could employ and attribute to Yahweh words, which in a different context (as proper nouns) were unacceptable, but as titles (common nouns) recognizing Yahweh's glory and honor they were praise worthy! Hence, the expression "pagan words" when used linguistically should properly be understood as referring to the user's INTENTION and CONCEPT and NOT merely to his PHONETIC ARTICULATION!
[Note the subtle change from what may be true in Hebrew as regarding the Hebrew text to a generalization for all languages! Why? Because this would effectively separate the Hebrew proper noun and name, GOD, from the articulation of the English proper noun and name, GOD, based on the user's intention rather than the Word of YAHWEH! The subtlety is to first divorce the Hebrew term, GOD, from the English, then reintroduce the English term as a generic substitute for the Hebrew term El/Elohim! However, note that both are used as proper names of a deity or deities, making it more than a matter of "phonetic articulation" or a mere substitution for common nouns, because the end result is to overlay the name of another deity onto YAHWEH. GOD, in the English, is normally used as a proper name, particularly since the phrase, The Lord, is normally used as a descriptive title, as has already been discussed. Both cannot be titles! The English term, GOD, must be a proper name!]
There is no such thing as a sinful sound. What the individual is trying to convey by vocalizing the sound (the concept intended) is what may constitute sin!
[Is the Hebrew common noun, god ever applied to YAHWEH? Where does any prophet use the term god in addressing YAHWEH, or describing an attribute of YAHWEH, or in any way honoring YAHWEH? ]
(2) For all the talk we do about how that language or this word is pagan or corrupted, at times, we give the impression to have forgotten that WE OURSELVES SPEAK A NON-HEBREW LANGUAGE! By our rationale, English ought also to be considered a pagan language (and is in fact so considered by most Sacred-Name advocates). Yet, we are willing to live with and use many English titles to refer directly to Yahweh and Yahshua! "Father, Creator, Savior, Redeemer, Son," and "Almighty" are all English translations of Hebrew titles and yet no Sacred-Name believer argues we should be using the original Hebrew titles instead.
If non-Hebrew languages are to be considered pagan by definition, shouldn't our disposition be one of learning and promoting the Hebrew language? After all, if our children can learn French and Spanish in school, why don't we see to it that they also learn Hebrew. Yet, we do not raise our children to speak and read Hebrew, as the primary language to be used in order to read or study the Bible. We are all very much content with waiting for that day when Yahweh will restore "the pure language."
(3) Yahweh respects every language and will - if necessary - converse in any one, through his inspired prophets or Apostles, as we shall soon demonstrate. The reality of this necessity is still evident today, as Sacred-Name believers of all nations are forced to commune and preach the evangel in the language of the various cultures and nations. As long as we continue to do so, the phrase "pagan languages" (with its obvious negative connotation) has little practical meaning or theological application. It serves only to imply a deplorable state of sin, which even the best and most dedicated Sacred-Name believer can NEVER overcome as long as he or she continues to use a non-Hebrew form of communication!
B. However, let us for argument sake grant for a moment that all languages outside of Hebrew are pagan. What would be the consistent application of this statement, were it to be an inspired fact?
(1) If we were to follow the logical extension of this position, we would be
forced to REJECT the current English spelling of the SACRED NAME, since Y-a-H-W-e-H is definitely NOT Hebrew!
The sheer ridiculousness of rejecting non-Hebraic languages & their alphabets as a basis for rejecting a transliteration of His Name is clearly shown. On the day of Pentecost, each person heard the wonderful works of YAHWEH in their own language. If they heard the speech, they could also transcribe it, and transliteration of proper nouns, i.e. names, would necessarily occur. Since transliteration IS a matter of phonetics, the corresponding sounds would necessarily be reproduced in the native alphabet. English transliterates the Hebrew tetragrammaton [yothe hey waw hey] as YaHWeH.
After all, what could be more injurious to the precious Name of the Father than to have it represented and spelled in a heathen pagan alphabet? [The nonsense continues...!] Remember, we always argue that anyone (irrespective of their native tongue) can be taught to pronounce the Name of Yahweh. [Because transliteration of proper nouns, i.e. names, does exactly that!] In like manner, one could just as easily argue that anyone can be taught to spell the Name of the Creator in its Hebrew form (most of us already do)! How hard could it be to learn four little Hebrew letters? [Yes, that could be done, but is it necessary?]
Besides, we have an example of this in history. The most novice of Sacred-Name believers already knows that archeologists have uncovered portions of the Septuagint which contain the name of Yahweh written with Hebrew letters in an otherwise Greek text! Given this historical fact, why don't we argue that the name of Yahweh ought to be written in its Hebrew characters even in an English text, so as not to pollute it by spelling the name with pagan characters? After all, it must be logically admitted that if a language is considered pagan, the alphabet of that language must also be considered pagan! [What happened to the "concepts" not the language, reasoning? This whole pagan thing is being taken to such an unbelievable extreme that we ought to wonder...why?!]
(2) Furthermore, since it is also a historical fact that the present Hebrew alphabet, consisting of "square-like" letters, was developed during the Babylonian captivity and that the same is totally different from the original "paleo" Hebrew alphabet that Moses used, shouldn't we reject the current modern (shall we say pagan?) Hebrew rendering of the tetragrammaton? What could be more pagan than to have the original Hebrew alphabet of the heavenly language altered and changed in order to make it resemble more the alphabet of Babylon? In the restoration of the "original pure" language, will Yahweh continue to use the current "Babylonian" Hebrew alphabet (which is not what Adam knew) or would he restore the original (paleo) alphabet He initially gave to mankind prior to sin?
Lastly, given the fact that Sacred-Name believers are aware of the original paleo Hebrew, why aren't we condemning the present Hebrew language as pagan? Honestly, how much of all this are you willing to stomach? ALL OF IT, if you truly wish to practice this illogical position CONSISTENTLY!! That's why we must insist in maintaining that all things considered, there is no real theological advantage gained by labeling non-Hebrew languages as pagan.
C. It is accepted by most Sacred-Name believers that Aramaic and Hebrew are basically similar languages, since Aramaic is a dialect derived from Hebrew. Because of this, many are under the impression that these two languages have so much in common, that an individual in Bible days could just as well speak Aramaic to an Israelite (who spoke only Hebrew) and still expect to be somewhat understood. However, this belief is not entirely true. The differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are far more extensive than many Sacred-Name believers are aware of. [This would be similar to the Spanish of Spain and the Spanish of Brazil, and it is difficult to understand eachother!]
Admittedly, there are numerous words in Aramaic which are either identical or extremely similar to those in Hebrew (a natural thing to be expected since one was derived from the other). Despite this, Aramaic differs so much from Hebrew that even the alphabet of these languages is different. Rather than extensively quoting linguistic scholars to prove this fact (a very easy thing to do), consider the following passage of Scripture:
(1) 2 Kg.18:26-28
Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rab-shakeh, "Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian (Aramaic) language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jew's (Hebrew) language in the ears of the people that are on the wall." But Rab-shakeh said unto them, "Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" Then Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jew's (Hebrew) language, and spake saying, "Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria:"
This passage should be enough to convince anyone that Aramaic must be a significantly different language to that of Hebrew. If this is not so, then why did the servants of Hezekiah beg the Syrian commander NOT to speak in Hebrew (a language understood by the men on the wall) but to speak to them in Aramaic? And, why did the Syrian commander refuse to speak in his own native language if the men on the wall could be expected to understand Aramaic, even though they spoke only Hebrew? To contend that Aramaic and Hebrew are "almost identical" languages - on the ground that some words are similar - is simply being naive. Think about this the next time you read a reference where a scholar is quoted as stating that the New Testament (or parts of it) was "originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic."
The point is this. If we insist on teaching that ALL languages outside of Hebrew are pagan by virtue of the argument that Hebrew is the one and true ORIGINAL heavenly language, then we must also condemn Aramaic as a pagan language - as surely it was NOT the original language spoken in Eden!! In addition, if it is true that Yahweh feels the same degree of animosity towards all non-Hebrew languages as we in the Sacred-Name Movement seem to express, then we should find Inspiration unwilling to use any other language to communicate with man other than the "pure language" of Hebrew. Yet, this is not so!
Does YAHWEH make any condemnations for any languages in the scriptures? No! Therefore this argument was DOA! Of course we could have missed a lot of dialog, but it was necessary to see why this line of thought was pursued.
Observe how, in the following verses, we find the Savior speaking in Aramaic. Remember, these verses are the very ones used by Sacred-Name advocates in an effort to prove that the New Testament was initially written in Hebrew!
(1) Mt. 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [an Aramaic word], shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, 'Thou fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire.
(2) Mt.10:25
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub [the Aramaic form of Baal-zebub], how much more shall they call them of his household?
(3) Mk.5:41
And He took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, "Talitha cumi; [Aramaic]" which is, being interpreted, "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise."
(4) Mk.14:36 (see also: Rom.8:15 & Gal.4:6)
And He said, "Abba [Aramaic for father], Father, all things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from Me: nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt."
(5) Mt. 27:46
And about the ninth hour Yahshua cried with a loud voice, saying [in Aramaic], "Eli, Eli lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
The last two verses are interesting, as the Savior is recorded praying in Aramaic to his Father, and this, during the darkest hour of his life! Could it be that his prayer was not heard because Yahshua used Aramaic words and did not limit himself to using the "original pure language" of Hebrew? It is noteworthy to observe that Mt.27:36 is an Old Testament quotation of Psalms 22:1 which the Savior opted to speak in Aramaic rather than in its original Hebrew! How does one explain the Savior's personal preference for a language that was less pure, perhaps even pagan, and certainly not the original heavenly language of Hebrew?

One more point. We ought to remember that on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts 2:7-11), it was Yahweh who "empowered" his disciples to speak in LANGUAGES OTHER THAN HEBREW!! These languages that the Spirit placed upon them were none other than the alleged "impure pagan" languages of the time!
If the various people identified by Luke were to understand the message being shared with them, it would be necessary for the miraculous power of Yahweh's Spirit to enable the disciples to speak and translate the full inspired message of the evangel (including titles). Again, if these different languages were considered pagan by Inspiration, then we are at a loss to explain why Yahweh chose this method to propagate his revelation. Besides, how do we explain the "gift of tongues" discussed by Paul in 1st. Corinthians, chapters 12-14 (which even required an "interpreter") if the tongues spoken were pagan?
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!
To simply acknowledge that modern languages are extra-biblical would have sufficed. Rather, this entire attack has been against some unknown person or persons, but portrayed as the embodiment of the entire sacred name movement.
Finally, let us remember that when the original pure language is restored, the "impure" Aramaic language will be removed along with all other languages (i.e. Greek, English, Latin, German, Spanish, etc.). This fact alone should be enough to deter us from falling in love with Aramaic!

II. Divine Titles in the Language of the Masses:
1. While proper names should be transliterated, titles can be translated:
A. Having established that linguistically Hebrew and Aramaic are distinctively different languages, observe how Inspiration leads Daniel into TRANSLATING TITLES of the original "pure language" of Hebrew into the Chaldean (less than pure - allegedly pagan) language of Aramaic:
(1) Elohim into the Aramaic Elah: Dan. 2:20, 23, 28,
Daniel answered and said, "Blessed be the name of God (elah) for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are His:
I thank Thee, and praise Thee, O Thou God (elah) of my fathers, Who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of Thee: for Thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter"
But there is a God (elah) in heaven That revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these:
(2) Adon into the Aramaic Mare: Dan. 2:47, 4:24, 5:23,
The king answered unto Daniel, and said, "Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord (mare) of kings, and a Revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret."
This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord (mare) the king.
But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord (mare) of Heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them.
B. Paul too employs Greek & Aramaic translations:
(1) In Acts 17:16-31 we have the recording of an event involving the Apostle Paul and the inhabitants of Athens, the capital of Greece. We know from Scripture that the Apostle knew how to speak Greek (Acts 21:37). In fact, in the narrative of Acts 17, we are told that Paul availed himself of an "inscription" that must have been written in the language of the people of Athens. Therefore, if he read the same and spoke to the people about it, the Apostle must have done so in Greek!
This would mean that Paul was not troubled by an inscription that employed the Greek word theos, a translation of the Hebrew title elohim.
If theo(s,-n) is equivalent to the Hebrew elohim then they could be treated the same. Both mean "mighty one(s), so why not translate them that way? This should show that theos is not a name, because, "to the unknown" presumes that there is no name.
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 as a common noun), proving once again that titles can be translated from one language to another. [Which is what I've been saying all along! Yet is contrary to the author's first assertion that only Hebrew titles must be used or you couldn't be saved!]
The Apostle's choice of words become 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? [There were many deities in the Greek Pantheon, but "Theos" wasn't one of them. ] Obviously, Paul did not think so!
Some have attempted to minimize the impact of this passage by arguing that while "Paul may have used the Greek word theos in this ONE instance, he did not use it in worship nor among the brethren." This sort of rationale would be amusing, if the matter was not so serious. Besides the fact this objection is based on pure conjecture, it is also a speculation resulting from the many decades that the Sacred-Name Movement has been indoctrinating its members with linguistic fallacies! [This is also a presumption on the author's part, namely that the language of the Hebrew/Jewish synagogues was not officially Hebrew. History, however, reveals that the official language of the synagogue was Hebrew. Why is this important? Because, where ever the apostle Paul went, with the exception of chance encounters, he always went directly to the Jewish synagogues which is where he found the Messianic believers - including the Greeks! Therefore, in the synagogues, Paul would have been using the Hebrew terms like elohim as the generic title of preference. Outside the synagogue, Paul may have used the local vernacular, as in the incidence mentioned. This doesn't presume, however, that it was standard practice as the authors suggest. Another important point - 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?] It is still an attempt to hold on to the old school, despite the fact that the evidence has proven it wrong.
Therefore, we ask: Is this passage of Scripture less inspired than the rest of the book of Acts? What is the difference between the spiritual act of attempting to evangelize the Athenians and the spiritual act of worshipping Yahweh? Are we to believe that a different standard of truth applies when it comes to evangelism than when it comes to worship? Does our calling to be the "salt of the earth" make us less accountable to Yahweh than when we engage in direct worship? Is it possible that we are allowed to live one form of life as evangelist (being able to speak and use pagan unclean words more freely), that as worshippers we are literally denied? When the Bible states in John 4:23 that the Father is looking for those who will worship him in spirit and in truth, did it mean to exclude evangelists? Shall we continue? Obviously, an argument that proves too much, proves nothing! [Does a staccato of questions enhance the authors' presumption a few may believe that non-biblical languages are unclean? Not really. We know that languages are neutral, and that titles are neutral. All this is, is an exasperated effort in an attempt to prove that if the name of a demon which YAHWEH identifies, is used in a generic sense (because it is user defined), then it's alright to call YAHWEH by the name of a demon! The rationale presented is: Everyone does it, everyone just sees the common noun as a title, so it doesn't matter that YAHWEH has identified this demon by name because we don't see it that way! Dear friend, I urge you by the mercies of YAHWEH our Savior, seek the wisdom from above, pray for guidance, and let YAHWEH'S spirit of sanctification enlighten and lead your way! Clever arguments notwithstanding, let YAHWEH be your guide!]

(2) In 1 Cor.16:22, Paul uses the Aramaic expression "Maran-atha". The same means according to Strong's:
3134 maran atha, of Chaldean origin (meaning our Lord has come); maranatha, i.e. an exclamation of the approaching divine judgment:
The first part (maran) of this compound word is the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew adonay (as we already saw in Dan. 2:47, 4:24, 5:23,). The expression is one and the same as if Paul would have said, "adonay may come. That this expression has been preserved in the actual Greek manuscript speaks to its authenticity. [It also makes you wonder why it wasn't translated into Greek. Perhaps because even though the language was being written into Greek, the audience was not Greek? Presumably, a Greek audience would not understand Aramaic, but a Hebrew/Aramaic audience would! Therefore, retaining the native tongue emphasized the point and made it easier for them to grasp. A Greek audience simply wouldn't have needed it! Or, perhaps, there were a few Aramaic speaking believes that were rusty in their Greek] It also serves to illustrate that the Apostle did not see anything wrong with translating the Hebrew title (adonay) into another language (Aramaic). [Assuming, of course, that it was originally written in Hebrew, and not Aramaic.]
Therefore, when all things are duly considered, we find that Inspiration [?] does not hesitate to render and translate divine Hebrew titles into various other languages. The argument that these must be transliterated because of the moral nature that Scripture ascribes to them is NOT biblical.

We are NOT obligated to use the Hebrew titles to refer to Yahweh or Yahshua. And, even though we are free to learn and use the divine titles in their Hebrew forms, we cannot mandate and force others to do so.
[Okay, now what?]
Our duty consists of transmitting from Hebrew into English the intended divine CONCEPT that these Hebrew titles conveyed to Israel, so as to make the English speaking world appreciative of the full glory of Yahweh! For if the Hebrew elohim can be rendered by Inspiration [?] into the Aramaic elah (or the Greek theos) and if the Hebrew adonay can be rendered by Inspiration [?] into the Aramaic mare (or the Greek kurious), – despite the obvious fact that all of these words as proper nouns can be objected to on the grounds of paganism or perverted substitution – then on what basis could we argue that these Hebrew titles cannot be rendered and translated into English? The question should not be whether these can be translated (for obviously they can), but rather, what words would be best suited to translate and carry over into English the CONCEPT intended by the Hebrew titles elohim and adonay?

2. The translations god and lord:
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.
This 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.
As we stated in Part I of this treatise, the early Sacred-Name pioneers failed to see the distinction Inspiration [?] recognized existed between a proper noun and a common noun application of the same one Hebrew word. They interpreted Moses' admonition against "invoking the names" of false deities to refer to a linguistic prohibition instead of a theological mandate. As a result, they became convinced that some words — in and of themselves — could not be used because a pagan connection or a practice of perverted substitution could be demonstrated.
Despite their lack of consistency, these principles were extended into English and the words god and lord were immediately rejected and their discontinuation mandated.
This is the key issue, and the whole reason for this paper. Remember, however, that there never were any universal linguistic principles guiding the sacred name movement, therefore, the accusation of inconsistency is bogus. Let's note that the authors see "god" simply as an English generic common noun without reference to the Word of YAHWEH.
As time went by and new generations of converts and leaders were adopted into the faith, the old school teachings were expanded and formulated into the backbone of the Movement's doctrinal foundation, without much of a serious challenge.
In light of the linguistic evidence presented in this treatise, [What is referred to as "linguistic evidence" is not much more than a bellicose condemnation based on their own imagination.] it is felt that if the Sacred-Name Movement is going to continue rejecting the words god and lord, it must develop new arguments and reasons for doing so, as the old school obviously can no longer be used.

A. Linguistically speaking, it should be noted that we cannot definitely PROVE a pagan connection for either word. That has been tried and it has failed, as linguistic authorities which exist do not agree with our traditional contention [Remember, it is the authors' own false assertion that this is based on a connection to baal] (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").
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! [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 where 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!
But, even if we could prove that linguists are wrong, we have already demonstrated that Inspiration [?] does not reject nor does it abstain from using certain words on the mere basis of a pagan connection!
But the Word of YAHWEH certainly makes a rather large distinction regarding a Babylonian deity named God! Here is another "pagan connection".
Isaiah 65:11 But ye are they that forsake YAHWEH, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for GOD, and that furnish the drink offering unto MENI.
So we have a pagan connection in the Hebrew, and we have a pagan connection from the Sanskrit which is carried straight through to the English...except now it's user defined! As far as an absolute provable linguistic connection between the Sanskrit conjuring, incantation and magic...and the Babylonian deity of fortune, who divides and conquers...there may not be, but the similarities are astounding! Meni is the deity of Numbering/Counting, and not totally insignificant, as will be seen.
We could argue perverted substitution, but again we have seen that this principle is likewise contrary to the practice of Scripture! Therefore, whatever explanation we adopt in order to rationally justify our rejection of the words god and lord, must NOT continue to promote the old school argument that these words in of themselves are pagan, unclean, or idolatrous. As sincere as this attempt was, the facts prove it is not a valid argument Inspiration [?] would recognize. [It would appear, however, that the authors have pushed aside real facts to create their own.]
B. We ought to be willing to admit that the Hebrew titles elohim and adonay can be translated into English as god and lord.
Always have!
The fact that Christianity has named their Trinity as the Lord God, is no different to the situation we have with Hebrew titles, where both elohim and adonay were also the names given to false pagan deities!
[Except for the fact that YAHWEH never calls Himself God! Except for the fact that YAHWEH explicitly names God as an opposing deity! Except for the fact that YAHWEH never even applies the generic Hebrew word god to Himself! Except for the fact that "their Trinity" is not the same as YAHWEH! So, no, this is not the same as YAHWEH using elohim or adonay! Except for the fact that YAHWEH says:
Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their elohim, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images
But the authors of this article are intent on causing YAHWEH'S people to accept the names and titles of other (Christian) deities!
Any argument of the old school that is used to reject god and lord as English common nouns, can also be used to reject elohim and adonay, along with a host of other Hebrew words, such as Adam, Eden, Sabbath, Father, Ancient of Days, Most High, Everlasting One, Covenant, Rock, Fish, Brother, Kinsman, King, Judge, Shepherd, and many more that scholars maintain were borrowed by Israel from the Canaanite's religion! [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.
However, we have presented conclusive proof that Inspiration [?] does not treat words and languages in the manner that the Sacred-Name Movement has been advocating for several decades. [No, there hasn't been any conclusive proof! FACT: The Word of YAHWEH has never used the Hebrew God or god in connection to YAHWEH (in the same way elohim and other titles have been used). FACT: There is a linguistic connection to the satanic practices of conjuring and incantation. FACT: The English usage is that of a proper name. FACT: The initial premise that the sacred name movement utilized a linguistic principle for interpreting the word of YAHWEH is groundless. ] 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. [A linguistic necessity for what? The sacred name movement, though not entirely correct about everything, has managed successfully for the last 50 years.]
Some have expressed the concern that such an admission would risk confusing the flock. Obviously, no true loving minister of Yahweh wants to confuse his flock. However, a true loving minister of Yahweh would NOT want his flock to remain in error either! [It is not an error to call YAHWEH by the name of a false deity, whether ancient or modern?] We have a responsibility to Yahweh to teach the truth to those who have been entrusted to our care. The logistics as to how this must be done, is obviously a wisdom issue that must first be addressed by every leader and every organization. But, that it has to be done, is a fact none can deny! [The wisdom of teaching YAHWEH'S people to use the names of other deities escapes me!]
C. To be sure we are not misunderstood, our contention is NOT that god or lord must be used, but that linguistically, they CAN be used as English translations of elohim and adonay.
[GOD IS NOT A TRANSLATION OF ELOHIM, IT IS NOT GENERIC, IT IS A PROPER NAME OF A FALSE DEITY & CANNOT BE USED! Linguistically, lord means sovereign and could be employed, however, as the chief appellation of the false deity Lord God, we would have to wonder why it would even be appropriate to use.]

However, while we do NOT have the liberty to refuse to acknowledge and proclaim the divinely appointed titles revealed to us by Scripture, we DO have the liberty to determine how to best translate these titles from Hebrew to English. There is no mandate that we must use god or lord, especially when there are other English alternatives (like Sovereign or Master instead of lord; Deity or Divinity instead of god) that can convey the Hebrew concept intended by Scripture. All we must assure is that whatever renderings we determine to be the best English translations, we must consistently apply so as to insure that the intended inspired concepts conveyed by the Hebrew titles is always maintained.
How about the divinely inspired concept of not calling YAHWEH by the name of another deity?

3. Challenging Christianity on a Moot Point: 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. [This is about size? If so, then people are being convinced rather than called! This really explains the motivation for this attack on the sacred name movement and those who reject God. ]

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.
The inconsistency of applying our own principles [the non existent linguistic principles] is an observation which has been made on numerous occasions about the Sacred-Name Movement (even by our own brethren). The result has been that the more radical and extremist groups among our Movement are the ones experiencing the fastest growth, as they tend to be more consistent with the linguistic principles advocated by the Sacred-Name Movement! [numbers are not an indication of spirituality, after all, Christianity is the largest religion on earth!] Needless to say, this represents a very sad state of affairs. And, while it is true that our past linguistic issues are not the sole reasons why we are currently where we are, it has certainly played a major role in preventing the unification of the Movement we so much love and support.
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!
Why does Christianity need to be challenged? Believers are morally obligated to use the sacred names because of the covenant relationship. Christians are not a part of YAHWEH'S covenant relationship, therefore not under any obligation. The assumption that Christianity is under a moral obligation relies on the assumption that Christian belief system is a covenant relationship with YAHWEH and affords salvation. If Christianity affords salvation, then there is no need to alter their salvation formula by requiring changes in the name or other matters of the Torah.
If they insist on referring to Yahweh constantly and exclusively by these (or for that matter, by any other) English titles and are determined to continue using the pagan name that has shamefully supplanted the true blessed name of the Savior, [The assumption that they are calling on YAHWEH, only by a different name, is a false one, for they are calling on an entity whose trademark is deception and division. This admission that the name they call on is not a generic title, but actually a name, ought to shed light on this entire discourse. We might also ask, what is the "pagan" name they are using to refer to the savior?] then on that ground – and that ground only – we ought to condemn their use of god and lord. This distinction is critical, as it is the only venue the evidence will allow us if we wish to be honest with the facts. [This distinction is critically in error. It relies on the fact that YAHWEH uses Hebrew words with meanings, ignores the fact that YAHWEH not only does not apply the Hebrew term or name God to Himself, but openly identifies God as a distinct deity, then attempts to re-introduce the same name apart from all scriptural instruction.]
Besides, there are far more worthy points of contentions that we would do better in our challenge against Christianity (such as: The Trinity, Yahweh's Holy Days, The Law, Prophecy, Covenant Living, The Harmony of the New and the Old Testaments, etc.).
[Far more important points? There is nothing more important than YAHWEH'S great name of sanctification! By elevating all these other points above Hid name, it denigrates Him!
As a Movement, we must learn to concentrate our efforts on major subjects instead of just trying to win minor battles at the expense of losing the war. [It is YAHWEH'S battle and YAHWEH'S war, and to imply that He can't win without compromising His name certainly leaves YAHWEH in something less than an Almighty situation.] We are spending too much precious resources defending and propagating ideas and concepts which unfortunately are not supported by Inspiration [Who is Inspiration?]. We must end this destructive behavior that has succeeded in keeping our Movement apart, fragmented, and weak. [The attacking and belittling of other elders, calling their efforts heresy, and imputing motives are the most destructive behaviors engaged, and certainly far more devastating than acknowledging the superiority of His Name.]
Final Appeal
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! [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 Easter as a special day and observe Passover also! And the list goes on and on! That's the nature of compromise. ]
Unless there is a genuine commitment to being a truth seeker, often the doctrinal error is almost impossible to correct or retract. This is exactly what every Sacred-Name believer has been battling with when attempting to share his faith with others in the Christian world! It is readily recognized that most Christian believers refuse the message of the Sacred-Name Movement only because its acceptance would require radical changes in their doctrinal beliefs and worship practices.
[So why not let them keep what they have and join us? Note that the author considers Christians as "believers", i.e. in the bond of the covenant. This lack of understanding of what it takes to be in YAHWEH'S covenant is understandable since YAHWEH'S name is secondary!
Yet, we in the Sacred-Name Movement are UNWILLING to show any sympathy, as we are convinced that truth can NEVER be compromised. Yes, we RIGHTFULLY insist that Christians be willing to change their beliefs, practices, and even their affiliations in order to conform to truth. We demand that they be willing to SLAUGHTER THEIR RELIGIOUS COWS, HOWEVER, SACRED! Should we, then, do any less ourselves? Will we lack the courage and moral commitment that we so adamantly demand from others? If we refuse to drink our own medicine, are we any better than the Pharisees Yahshua condemned? [All the so called linguistic arguments for the use of God as a title are made on a false premise because God is used as a proper name both in Hebrew and English, distorted analogies which assume what holds true for Hebrew usage also applies to other languages, and the fact that YAHWEH Himself identifies God as a separate entity!]
The problems that plague our beloved Sacred-Name Movement are difficult and numerous. However, as varied as these may be, they all have one common denominator: radical human behavior. At its best, human nature is a powerful tool which Yahweh can use in order to promote divine revelation and knowledge. At its worse, it is a stumbling block, as it succumbs to the sinful dictates of PRIDE and our UNWILLINGNESS to accept change - despite the facts.
These so-called facts were little more than ranting and name calling. First Hebrew titles must be acknowledged or it is heresy, then translations are equally valid. Supposedly, God is an English common noun, but everyone uses it as a proper name. But this God is different than the one YAHWEH identifies as God because one means to conjure and the other divide and conquer, and the Conjurer is okay if you acknowledge in your heart that it is a title, but the Conqueror isn't. Their confusion is obvious!
Like all other Bible subjects, the information presented in this treatise requires a commitment to learning and a willingness to apply the knowledge gained. For while Scripture assures us that knowing the truth can set us free, it is our practice of the same that distinguishes us as Yahshua's true disciples! As we look not at others but at ourselves, we pray we retrace our steps and do NOT that which Christendom does to maintain their tradition, image and prestige.
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. [Indeed! You are the ones who are forsaking YAHWEH and preparing offerings for GOD in seeking greater Numbers of followers.] To succumb to fear would be easy. To carry on, pretending this information was never presented, is also possible.
However, what would be our defense when we stand before the judgment seat of the Sovereign Yahshua Messiah? Either we face up to the facts now, OR WE WILL DO SO LATER ON JUDGMENT DAY! The decision is ours.
Since there is no command from YAHWEH to use the title or name God, there can be no condemnation for not doing so. YAHWEH has many titles, but only one name, which is above all. Since titles are translated into all languages, Hebrew titles are optional and may be used to differentiate YAHWEH from other mighty ones. Again, there can be no condemnation for understanding and acknowledging YAHWEH'S titles in any language.
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. [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 mighty one.]
We, therefore, thank Yahweh for entrusting to us the propagation of these truths. We hope that just like Peter cried out, "Now I know that Yahweh is no respecter of persons ..." that even so all will finally say, "Who am I that I should fight against the Spirit of truth!" For, if we cannot change because of all the ramifications involved (be it pride, ego, prestige, fear, etc.), then the authors can better understand and empathize with Christianity and why they cannot but defend their empire, proving once again that we build our castles and then call them truth!
May the blessings of Yahweh Elohim and the enlightenment that comes through Adonay Yahshua Messiah be with you.