Does God need a name?

[marco]

God told Moses He was best described by the verb to be but did not dwell on the phonetics of the tetragrammaton. Before Moses rushed off to tell people he'd been talking to YooHWhoo, or whatever vowels should be divinely inserted, he had just a tiny fear folk would say he was lying. So God allowed his rod to turn into a snake, which is apparently the standard proof of a divine appearance.

Why does God NEED a name?

Is the transforming rod convincing, thousands of years on?

Can the tale be redeemed by finding a figurative meaning in it?

[marco]

Is there a reason why those particular vowels were inserted into the word and in that, one would suppose the word is not the word anymore but a different word.

Yahweh is different from YHWH as is Jehovah from JHVH.

With different vowels using the same principle we can have words like;

Yehweh
Yihweh
Yohweh
Yuhweh

If we are restricted to five vowel sounds then we can give YHWH 25 different names. After all, Tom is not Tim. God playfully says this will be his name for ever - but doesn't say which one.

[marco]

For example, there are a number of names formed with Yahweh, names such as Yahweh Jireh (the God who provides) and Yahweh Rapha (the God who heals). There is El Shaddai which means God Almighty. Emmanuel means "God with us".

Yes, this is all very well. We can attribute names to God to say he is shiny, clean, big, mighty, muscular, handsome or whatever praise comes to mind. I think Allah has acquired 100 names through the centuries, all complimentary. Given that Yahweh has done some bad things (from our point of view) it is surpriing that among his titles there are no negatives. This is possibly through fear or a wish to appease through flattery. The Greeks called the Furies the Pleasant Ones, when they were anything but.

Anyway, the question was, why do we need to call God a name. We don't. God doesn't need anything. Even Jesus refrained from calling God James or John, simply suggesting we call him Father, metaphorically.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco!

God told Moses He was best described by the verb to be but did not dwell on the phonetics of the tetragrammaton.

Just because people forgot the phonetics does not mean God or Moses (or others) did not pronounce them. And God did say that this is His name forever. So regardless of whether God needs a name or not, God has one and He gave us that name to call Him.

"This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation." Exodus 3:15


Some people (such as the prophets and certainly His Son) are named for Him. Such as EliJAH (meaning, my God is JAH). And of course HalleluJAH (Praise JAH).

Or names that end in IAH (but are pronounced YAH, same as HalleluJAH), like:

JeremIAH
ZekarIAH


Also the name of Christ:

Jaheshua (JAH saves/savior of JAH... also phonetically pronounced Yah)


Names are important. Didn't Christ also say to His people that we would receive new names? If names were not so important, then why would we receive new ones?


Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

History, grammar, science and so on, is catching up the mainstream.

But is DI and I the only folks who find "I am that I am," beneath notice?

History Lesson...!

[marco]

Just because people forgot the phonetics does not mean God or Moses (or others) did not pronounce them. And God did say that this is His name forever. So regardless of whether God needs a name or not, God has one and He gave us that name to call Him.

It's not a question of forgetting the vowels, Tam.
God didn't tell humanity his name; we have a report from somebody that God introduced himself somewhere. Because this meeting allegedly took place millennia ago does not make it any more credible than a report from someone in Brazil or Burundi saying much the same thing. The suggestion that "this is my name for ever" sounds more human than divine. Occasionally God is painted as a rather dim nomad.

Names are important. Didn't Christ also say to His people that we would receive new names? If names were not so important, then why would we receive new ones?

I assume you're referring to that awful Revelation thing, and thankfully Jesus never spoke in the oracular, occult, overpowering style of the revealer:


'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.'

The first few words put me off. It's like being addressed by the Ancient Mariner about the albatross. I'm afraid I regard Revelation as rubbish. Jesus would too.


For humans, names are important.
But when we call Yahweh Allah there is just, probably irrationally, a slight tremor as we look around fearfully. Calling him Father, as Jesus suggested, makes him more acceptable. Attaching a name to God is a human need, not a divine one. Is he better off as Jehovah rather than Jupiter? My warm greetings to you, Tam.

[marco]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

History, grammar, science and so on, is catching up the mainstream.

But is DI and I the only folks who find "I am that I am," beneath notice?

History Lesson...!

Greetings, Willum. I have no idea what you mean but I suspect I have been negligent somewhere.

The expression "I am who I am" might have been better put on the pen of Shakespeare: "To be or not to be." Macbeth's comment that it is a tale told by an idiot, suignifying nothing, is perhaps relevant.

Your interesting vowel arrangement that spells out Iove, is fascinating and may hold a lot of truth. If one looks at it quickly, it also spells LOVE. It would be funny if Zeus had the last word over the petulant Jehovah. And why not?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

Ah, no, perhaps I elaborated too much on the 'name,' and expanded to Exodus 3:14.

The Tetragrammaton is just a slight of hand and a word-game relying on ignorance, I am afraid.
Imagine you are translating the Canaan God Yahu (YHVH) to Greek, and you want to add some mystery and flair.
Just leave it in its original sounds. It adds ambiguity, allows it to be identified with Jove, and so on.
No downside.

Yes, that Yahweh can be spelled in consonants and vowels strikes me as yet another word game, speaking to the culture, and not the reality of a being.

That it is easily transformed to AEIOU tells me that I am right about God's mystery, andI have indeed revealed God's true name.

How does one attain immortality? Through writing, or being written about.
The alpha and omega,the 'a' to 'z.'

Through writing all things are possible, it is called fiction.

It does add something to the expression, AEIOU and sometimes Y, as well. Interesting, no?

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by Willum]

It does add something to the expression, AEIOU and sometimes Y, as well. Interesting, no?

Aeiouy

Yaeiou

IATIA

I still hold the opinion that anything can be idolized.

M stll hld th pnn tht anthng cn b dlzd.

Including the bible and 'names' of GOD.

"

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

History, grammar, science and so on, is catching up the mainstream.

But is DI and I the only folks who find "I am that I am," beneath notice?

History Lesson...!

What is special about 'I am that I am'?

If I asked you what you had for breakfast yesterday, and you replied, I ate what I ate. It would seem to me that what you ate was not important.

[bjs]

Why does God NEED a name?

Why do you?

It is flattering to think my requirements are God's. I need to eat because I am human. The question is about God being God.

It is also about the nature of names. As far as I can tell, no one (including God) needs a name. However, we might make use of a names for various purposes.

In the context of Exodus, God gave the Tetragrammaton as a form of self-revelation. He did not NEED a name, but he chose to reveal something about himself to Moses and his people.

Why would God speak in conundrums?

To paraphrase Socrates, whats wrong with a conundrum?