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?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

There is no place in the bible that I am aware of in which GOD is named.

There are only titles. Some use those titles as if these were actual names, but they are not.

Even 'GOD' is a title.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

I don't think God needs anything; I believe God to be entirely self sufficient and in need of nothing and noone. Did he have a name before he created? Who knows. What we do know however is that the surviving bible account records God as revealing his name to Moses and stating its import.

• In Hebrew times a name was more than just a "label", it was synonymous with the person, it encompassed what that one represented his or her qualities, purpose, and activities; thus the Creator chose for himself a name that represented his majesty, power and intent.

"God does not call himself 'the One who is' in the abstract. He gives no explanation of his aseity, but he declares very explicitly what he is and what is his character. Now what is he and what is his character? This cannot be expressed in a single word, but 'he will be that he will be.' Everything is included in this expression; to be sure this qualification is general and indefinite, but for that very reason it is so rich and so full of meaning: he will be what he has been for the patriarchs, what he is now, and what he will remain: for his people he will be everything." - Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, p 105

"The notion that God has a proper name and can be differentiated from other deities with proper names is absolutely clear in the Old Testament. Other gods (ELOHIM) lay claims on humanity, but Israel is to have no god (ELOHIM) before or beside YHWH (Ex 20:3). Moreover, the character of the name is itself a matter of reverence, since the name really coheres with the God it names (20:7). One cannot therefore malign the name or substitute for the name another name, and somehow leave untouched the deity with whom the name is attached . . . Not taking the name of YHWH in vain implies, at a minimum, understanding that YHWH is not an 'accident' [non-essential property] detachable from a deeper 'substance,' that is, 'God himself.'" - Christopher Seitz (edited by Alvin F. Kimel, Jr.) This Is My Name Forever: The Trinity & Gender Language for God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p 26:

RELATED POSTS

How many times does the Tetragrammaton appear in the Torah?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 097#903097

Can YHWH be rightly refered to as "The hidden Name of God"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 349#902349

Present day attitudes towards the Divine Name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 215#866215

[Overcomer]

The names of God are significant because each and every one of them reveals his character. And note that he himself shares these names. They are not given to him by humankind. He gives them so that we can know him and have some understanding of who he is and how he acts in our lives.

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".

And some of the names indicate the fact that God is one being who exists in three persons. For example, Elohim is a plural noun that always takes a singular verb.

For more, see here:

https://bible.org/seriespage/8-names-god

[bjs]

Why does God NEED a name?

Why do you?

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.

Is the transforming rod convincing, thousands of years on?

I do not think this accurately reflects the text. The name of God was given as a form self-revelation so that the people would trust in God. The “transforming rod� was meant to be evidence that Moses had spoken with God, but it was not meant to convince anyone of the name.

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

I do not currently see what the account needs to be redeemed from.

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

In terms of the story - if taken literally, there is no mention of the supposed 'name' YHWH or JHVH.

There is only a declaration "I am that I am" which all said amounts to 'I exist as that which I am" - no name given. Quite occulted at that. Lets face it, the supposed GOD hides within a burning bush on the pretense that to reveal himself (not be occulted) this would harm Moses.

Tetragrammaton
ˌtɛtrəˈɡramətɒn/Submit
noun
the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah.

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

or

Yahwah
Yahwih
Yahwoh
Yahwuh

or

Yahwah
Yehwah
Yihwah
Yohwah
Yuhwah

Same with Jehovah

Jehavah
Jehevah
Jehivah
Jehuvah

or

Jahovah
Jihovah
Johovah
Juhovah

or

Jehoveh
Jehovih
Jehovoh
Jehovuh

or

Jahevih
Johuvah
Jehivoh
Juhaveh
Jihovuh

ect.

Also of note is that names are not spelt with caps (such as 'Yahweh' and 'Jehovah' and 'William') - titles can be.

�ני ש�ני is apparently how the statement "I am that I am" is written in Hebrew.

Which is not the same as the Tetragrammaton.

Why Don’t Jews Say G‑d’s Name?

How Many Names Does G‑d have?

It is very obvious that Jews do not regard any of the 'names' of GOD as actual names, but as titles and a kind of short-hand for attributes.

In my own theology the title of GOD overall is simply The First Source, which of itself gives a far better description of position in the scheme of things than the obscure (occulted) expression of 'I am that I am'.

[marco]

I don't think God needs anything; I believe God to be entirely self sufficient and in need of nothing and no one.

That is correct; he needs no name, so why give him one? We need names for identity; God as you say does not need a name.

"God does not call himself 'the One who is' in the abstract. He gives no explanation of his aseity, but he declares very explicitly what he is and what is his character.

Well he wasn't asked about his supposed aseity, which presumably would have stumped Moses. To refer to God as James, or Leonard or Jehovah is bordering on absurdity. It is agreed he doesn't require a name. God will do.

[marco]

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.

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?

The “transforming rod� was meant to be evidence that Moses had spoken with God, but it was not meant to convince anyone of the name.

Or, given the snake, it was evidence Moses had spoken to Satan, as did Eve.

[JehovahsWitness]

"God does not call himself 'the One who is' in the abstract. He gives no explanation of his aseity, but he declares very explicitly what he is and what is his character.

just to clarify, I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear the above was a quotation of Herman Bavinck, from his book "The Doctrine of God" not my own words, I take no credit. I thought Mr Bavinck view was relevant to the topic and so included the quotation.

"God does not call himself 'the One who is' in the abstract. He gives no explanation of his aseity, but he declares very explicitly what he is and what is his character. Now what is he and what is his character? This cannot be expressed in a single word, but 'he will be that he will be.' Everything is included in this expression; to be sure this qualification is general and indefinite, but for that very reason it is so rich and so full of meaning: he will be what he has been for the patriarchs, what he is now, and what he will remain: for his people he will be everything." - Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, p 105

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

Ah, the mystery of God's true name:
It has been revealed to me.

1. That is simply how you spell any name without vowels.
There is nothing special about YHVH, it is just how you spell Yahu in an ancient language. Like Hebrew. Willum in Hebrew would be WLLM.

2. Except. YHVH is a corruption of the true name: Which I will write in numbers so as not to confuse you: 12345

It is written identically in consonants, YHVH (eouay) as it is in vowel, IOUAE, (eouay).

For good reason.

For God's true name is the Alpha and the Omega.
Anything is possible through him.
He is perfection, and the author of evil.
Nothing can withstand him.
He is the path to immortality.
He recorded everything.
He is the ultimate authority.

Rearranging the proper letters of God's true name reveals his power completely:

IOUAE, rearranged properly, by simply placing the last two letters of his name in front of the first, makes obvious just what God is, and reveal the riddle.


Vulgar name,
IOUAE (Yoweh)

Move the "E" to gain a glimpse
--> EIOUA (Jehovah)

then move the "A," to reveal his true name:
--> AEIOU