Changing the Scripture?

 

8. Changing the Scripture? If scripture doesn't support your opinion, just change the scripture, or write your own version? Some pro-names authors use a different punctuation of a key scripture which reverses the meaning of the statement.

In 6:2 we have a contrast of knowledge, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah (yhvh) was I not known to them." This clearly says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew God as God Almighty. It says they did not know Him by the name Jehovah (yhvh, or Yahweh). One author, on page 23 of his book and in a public post to an Internet forum, inserted a bracketed question mark "[?]" after the word "them." so that it reads, "..by my name Jehovah (yhvh) was I not known to them [?]." This changes the statement into a declarative question, "Wasn't I known to them by this name?".

This change disregards the translators' punctuation, which was carefully chosen to accurately reflect the meaning of the statement in Hebrew. Arbitrarily changing punctuation to completely reverse the meaning of the statement is dishonest scholarship. If not on the part of this author, then on the part of his source, if he used one.

This change in punctuation was inserted without any explanation or source which would cause or allow the reader to research further the matter of punctuation. Used repeatedly, without furnishing comment or explanation, it would appear to be a device of subtly, to influence the reader to the wrong interpretation of the statement, an interpretation which would support the pro-names arguments.

This is a key scripture, since, in it's preserved form, it shows that all the Patriarchs living before Moses did not know the name "yhvh". The Abrahamic covenant which concerns blessings and salvation was made between one who called himself "God Almighty", and Abraham. Abraham lived his entire life and never heard the name "yhvh" and therefore, he could never use it. Yet he is called "righteous", "faithful", "the father of the faithful" and "friend of God (Gal. 3:9, 2 Chr. 20:7, Rom. 4:3, 5).

According to another pro-names individual, "The best translations put this verse in a question format rather than a statement. The statement format of this verse can be found in other poorer translations."(Source: http://www.teshuvah.com/yati/articles/third_commandment.htm).
No "best translations" are identified. There was no punctuation in the Hebrew. This grouping of words, read without any punctuation is a statement. Punctuation was added by the translators. One can make a question out of any statement by adding a question mark, in lieu of a period. However, changing this statement to a question creates a problem in that it would then not be in the same linguistic style of the rest of the book. It would appear to be something which was changed by editing.

When writers fail to acknowledge the source of their material, it can be difficult to apply the instruction "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.", to their work (1 Ths. 5:21). Sometimes a source may be omitted by oversight. Other times it may be omitted because the source is questionable or unreliable. The only version we have found, in which Ex. 6:3 is punctuated with a question mark, is The Restored Name King James Version of the Scriptures, a Hebrew names electronic bible, and a recent World Wide Web publication. It can be found on a pro-names web site at < http://eliyah.com >. A "search" for Ex. 6:3 produced the following results.
"RNKJV Search results

Result of search for "Ex. 6:3":

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El-Shaddai, but by my name was I not known to them?"
(Source:http://eliyah.com/cgi-bin/htgrep.cgi?file=%2Fhtdocs%2Feliyah%2FScripture%2Fbooks%2Fsearch.htm&isindex=Ex.+6%3A3)

It would appear that the "best translations", and the un-named source of the writers above, are the new "names" version(s) of the Bible. To say that the "best sources" prove the doctrine when the doctrine was used to produce these "best translations" is circular reasoning. Dishonest scholarship not only brings all the other arguments into question, but brings up the matter of being a "false witness" and breaking the Ninth Commandment (Ex. 20:16). Consider the following statement: "For the sake of a doctrine shall you not ignore truth." Although it is awkward in the style of 17th century English, its meaning is clearly, "You shall not ignore truth for the sake of doctrine."
Now, change the period to a question mark, "For the sake of doctrine shall you not ignore truth?". In modern English it now says, "You shall ignore truth for the sake of doctrine.". It would appear that, for some, the "best translations' are those which change the punctuation to agree with one's doctrine.

One other possible source of this alternate punctuation is the argument of higher critics over the alleged multiple authorship of OT books, particularly those of Moses. In other words, a few critics theorize that the book of Exodus was written by a writer or multiple writers, from the 8th century to the 2nd century BC, which would exclude Moses (c.1571-1451 BC) as having written any of it. These higher critics point to Ex. 6:3 as a contradiction of earlier references to "yhwh", and therefore constitutes proof of more than one author.

"A key passage as the justification of documentary fragmentation (multiple authors) is Ex. 6:3, where, it is claimed, the introduction of the name YHWH is stated to be an innovation. . . . The application of the dissecting criteria to documents of indisputable unitary authorship shows them to be worthless. The selection of criteria was arbitrary, and other possible selections would give radically different results. . . . 'Name' here can refer not to an appellation, but can stand for 'honour' and 'character', as it often does in Semitics generally. . . . All work like theirs is purely conjectural, so long as it is based upon the subjective literary criticism described above, and doctrinaire views of Israelite religious history."
(Source. "Exodus, Book of, Authorship", Tyndale's, Vol. 1, pp.489-491).

If we accept this argument about the alternative punctuation, we can find ourselves in the anti-scriptural position of agreeing with those who say that Moses didn't write the book of Exodus.

Even some pro-names groups acknowledge that some among the names movement have attempted to rewrite the Bible:
"The early Sacred-Name pioneers were so adamant in their sentiments against this word,[Lord] 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." (Source: http://www.r-v.net/search-the-scriptures/titles.html)
The scriptures have come to us through the ages by translation from several languages and by numerous recopying. Experienced linguists, scholars and historians conduct honest scholarship when they evaluate all the versions available, and acknowledge not only those versions which support but also those which contradict whatever point is under consideration. Others, who are less experienced, or less knowledgeable of resources or acceptable research methods sometimes are quick to seize upon only those sources which support their current argument.
An example from a pro-names website is the following version of Ex. 6:3.

"Reference: THE INTERPRETER'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, by
Abingdon Press, Nashville, Tennessee, page 408.
"AND I (YAHWEH) APPEARED UNTO ABRAHAM, UNTO ISAAC, AND
UNTO JACOB, BY THE NAME OF (YAHWEH) GOD ALMIGHTY, BUT
BY MY NAME JEHOVAH WAS I NOT KNOWN TO THEM" (Exodus 6:3). ""

Note that "Yahweh" has been added in two places where it is not found in other versions. Note also that "yhwh" (which occurs in the original and often appears as "Jehovah") is left remaining as "JEHOVAH". The effect is to say something that is not said in most if not all other versions. Actually it now contradicts what the other versions say. At least this version uses parentheses around the added words, which signifies that they have been added to the text. But the casual or uninformed reader could easily be misled.

9. Some equate using the "Hebrew names" with "worshiping in truth"(Jn. 4:24, Josh. 24:14) and add that the "love of truth" is necessary for salvation. They equate refusal to use "Hebrew names" with "not loving the truth" (2 Ths. 2:10). [ Note that this verse also speaks of being "saved."] This is sometimes given in lieu of directly answering the question, "Are you teaching that the use of "Hebrew names" is a requirement for salvation?". They offer 1 Kings 18:24 as proof.
Truth is defined by scripture as God's "law" (Psa. 119:142), God's "commandments" (Psa. 119:151), God's "works" (Dan. 4:37), God's Son (Jn. 14:6), God's "word" (Jn. 17:17), and as God's "Spirit" (1 Jn. 5:6) which "dwelleth in us" (2 Jn. 2). It is not defined as his "name" or the exclusive use of certain "names".

10. Some say that failure or refusal to use the "Hebrew names" is "sin". Scriptures offered as proof include only Rom. 14:23, 2 Cor. 5:10, Mat. 10:16-33, 1 K. 18:21-24. (These are the actual scriptures given, they are not typographical errors.) There is no commandment to speak Hebrew. If calling on God by his other "names" is a sin, then nearly every significant individual named in scripture has sinned, including Christ, since they used other "names". The Greek converts of the New Testament era would have all sinned, in that they spoke Greek, which is the language in which the New Testament has been preserved, by God, for our benefit.

11. Some say that one must be baptized in a "Hebrew name" for the baptism to be valid, or for it to somehow be "pleasing" or "more acceptable" to God.
There are no direct quotes of what was said at any of the baptisms mentioned in scripture. There is no indirect account of what words, if any, were said. There is no recorded "dialogue" or "monologue" given as an example litany or liturgy required at baptism. John could not baptize anyone "in the name of Christ" because he didn't know who the Christ was until he came to John for baptism (Jn. 1:19-34). There is no mention of Christ's having been baptized "in the name of the Father", or of the "Holy Spirit". Christ's words with the Pharisees help us understand the significance of the phrase, "in the name of".
"And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, by what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
But if we say, of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Mat. 21:23-27).
The phrase "in the name of", refers to "authority" when used in the context of baptism. In Mat. 21, the word authority is translated from the Greek, "exousia" (Strong's 1849), "(from 1832 in the sense of ability), privilege,... capacity,... freedom... delegated influence, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength." All of these meanings have significance for us. We could just as correctly refer to baptism "in the freedom of", "in the influence of", "in the jurisdiction of", in the strength of", or "in the liberty of Jesus Christ".
The word "name" is from the Greek "onoma", (Strong's 3686) "a 'name' (lit. or fig.) [authority, character]; called, surnamed, named, name".
(See also, article, "Baptism", section, "Should you be re-baptized?" at the Changes website.)

12. Some say that Classical/Biblical Hebrew is "the language of heaven". They offer the account of Paul's conversion as proof (Acts 26:14). This event does not take place in heaven, nor does it discuss any language that may be spoken there, but simply says that Paul, on the road to Damascus in Syria, was spoken to, in "the Hebrew tongue". The "Hebrew tongue" or speech of the Jews in Palestine in the first century AD was Western Aramaic. The "tongue" or language of Syria at that time was Hatrene. This language was used from the first century until about the third century when Syriac replaced it. (See "Language of the NT Jews" elsewhere in this article.)
Paul's statement shows a contrast between the language of those around him, and the language of the "voice" he heard after being blinded by the light. The significance of the "Hebrew"(Aramaic) is that it was not someone on the road who was speaking to him.
There are two other accounts of this same event. The first is Luke's narrative (Acts 9:1-9) and in the second, Paul is addressing the Jewish "multitude" (Acts 22:4-11). The language is not mentioned in either of these other two accounts, apparently because it is not a significant element.
In Acts 26, Paul is relating the story to King Agrippa. The Herodian Kings were fervent Hellenists, enamored of anything Greek, partly to curry favor with the foreign rulers who put them on the Jewish throne, but also to conform to the culture of the court society of other nations, the society in which they wanted to be accepted. Having only contempt for things "Jewish", they levied heavy taxes on Palestine to pay for their attempts to impress other Hellenists. This is only two of the reasons the Herodians were hated by the Jewish population.

That Agrippa was familiar with Greek culture is attested to by Josephus.
"9. As for myself, I have composed a true history of that whole war, and of all the particulars that occurred therein, as having been concerned in all its transactions; ... At the first I was put into bonds, but was set at liberty afterward, and sent to accompany Titus when he came from Alexandria to the siege of Jerusalem; during which time there was nothing done which escaped my knowledge; for what happened in the Roman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; .... Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions. And I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witnesses for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans who had been in the war. I also sold them to many of our own men who understood the Greek philosophy; among whom were Julius Archelaus, Herod [king of Chalcis], a person of great gravity, and king Agrippa himself ..." (Against Apion, 1:9.)

Paul, who advocated being "all things to all men", (1 Cor. 9:22; 10:32-33) would have had an advantage in addressing Agrippa in the Greek language. Speaking with Agrippa in Greek could also account for Paul's making a point of hearing the voice speak in "the Hebrew tongue". If he had been speaking to Agrippa in "Hebrew" or Aramaic, there would have been no point to saying the voice was heard in "Hebrew".

Some point out that Hebrew is called "the set-apart tongue" by the Jews. This doesn't prove anything, as all languages are named after the people who speak them. No human language ever existed prior to those who spoke it. The "Hebrews" named in scripture were only a single family line until Jacob's (Israel's) sons settled in Egypt (c.1706 BC) where they multiplied into a nation of millions. According to one author, "some commentators" (unidentified) say "a clean lip" is an idiom meaning the Hebrew language. The prophecy of a "pure" language being a future event, contradicts that opinion.

Is Hebrew spoken in heaven?

Hebrew is a human language. "Language" (from Latin, lingua, the tongue) is defined as "a system of communication between humans through written and vocal symbols; by extension, the articulate or inarticulate expression of thought and feeling by living creatures..."

"Communication" is defined as "the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions or information by speech, writing or signs;"

"Speech" is defined as "the faculty or power of expressing thoughts and emotions by articulated sounds and words."

Human "speech" and "hearing" are dependent upon "sound" which is defined as, "the sensations produced in the organs of hearing by certain vibrations or sound waves conveyed by the atmosphere, water, or other elastic medium;". (See also, "Definitions" elsewhere in this article.)

It is quite apparent that "human language" cannot be of use outside of the earth's atmosphere, (except in a temporary, artificial situation such as a spacecraft). Scripture also tells us that a physical language dependent upon a physical setting cannot be of use in "heaven", a spiritual dimension, or in the "Kingdom of God", a spiritual kingdom. "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;..." (1 Cor. 15:50).
Do spirit beings require a physical language in order to communicate? How do spirits communicate? Christ explained to Peter, the source of Peter's understanding of truth, "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven." (Mat. 16:17). How was it revealed? Again Christ explains, "Howbeit when (it), the Spirit of truth, is come, (it) will guide you into all truth: for (it) shall not speak of (it)self; but whatsoever (it) shall hear, that shall (it) speak: and (it) will shew you things to come." (Jn. 16:13). God communicates directly to our minds through his Holy Spirit, if we allow it, and sometimes whether we want to hear it or not.

The prophets related communication from God by various means including dreams and visions. Spirit beings can communicate by thought, directly with the mind in man, whether man is awake or asleep. Vocalization is not necessary. This is illustrated by God's commanding the "fish" which swallowed Jonah, and the ass which spoke to Baalim. Fish and donkeys can hear physical sounds, but unless we wish to believe that God spent a great amount of time "training" the fish and Baalim's ass to "do tricks", then we must acknowledge that God can communicate to the brain of a living creature without vocalization.

Some will point out that human thought still requires symbols and this is true. People most often "think" using the language symbols of their native language. Even if they learn another language or several other languages, they often will continue to think in their native language. This is sometimes apparent when conversing with someone of a different language as they will take time to translate thoughts into their native language before responding aloud.

Can God's Spirit work with any person regardless of his native language? If His Spirit can work with a fish and a donkey, then language would not be a barrier. And it shouldn't be, since God is the Originator of multiple languages (Gen. 11:1-9). If His Spirit works directly with the mind in men, then it can work in any language and is not limited to Hebrew. If His Spirit communicated to all men, but only in the Hebrew language, then most of the people of the world, including many thousands who have demonstrated the fruits of the Holy Spirit, could not understand what the Holy Spirit was saying to them. The point of communication is the transfer of ideas and the point of sending the Holy Spirit was to "guide (us) into all truth". It guides us in our primary or native language. Paul was from Tarsus, but grew up in and was educated in Palestine. His primary language was Aramaic and that is why the voice spoke to him in "the Hebrew tongue" which in the first century was Aramaic, not Classical Hebrew. [Note, the translators of King James' era did not know the difference. Modern archaeology has established that the language of the first century was Aramaic.]

The handwriting on the wall of Daniel 5 was a message from "the most high God". It was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Finally, since the prophecy of a future "pure language" was made in the Classical/Biblical Hebrew, it's apparent that Hebrew is not a "pure" language (Zeph. 3:9), and would therefore not be the official language of heaven.
Is Biblical Hebrew spoken in Heaven? Not unless God the Father is a Jew. But then, some think of him that way. To say that Hebrew is the "language of heaven" uses the same logic by which, if Christ had been born of American Indians, we would wear feathers in our hair, and study native American culture in an attempt to understand Christ's gospel, which was actually a message from the Father, and not from Christ's culture of birth.

13. Some say that "translating" the names of God is a "gross insult" to God. No scriptures are offered as proof. The argument relies mostly on the "human" custom or tradition of transliterating names in lieu of translating them. The (human) reasoning is that God, like man, would be insulted if we fail to use the proposed Hebrew pronunciation of "yhvh".
Since God created many languages at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9), there can be no sin in the use of a language, otherwise God would be forcing men to sin.

God does mention giving man a "pure" language in the future, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent." (Zeph.3:9). If this means a "new" language, then it wouldn't be Hebrew, as that was the "contemporary" language of the people spoken to and about, in the Book of Zephaniah.

If it means a "purifying" of an existing language, it could be any or all of man's languages, as man already "calls" on God in all languages, either by translation or transliteration or both. By "purifying" an existing language, we mean the disuse of words such as "god" to mean anything other than the Great God, and the removal of words such as "idol", since there will be no idols in the Kingdom. "Purification" could indicate the absence of sexual innuendo for non-sexual words such as "doing it", and the absence of a meaning of profanity or swearing for words such as "damn".

There is no scripture indicating that it is an insult to translate or transliterate any name. There is no scripture indicating that translating anything is a sin, not even the translation of God's name. God used Daniel and the translation of the handwriting to deliver prophecy about world kingdoms (Dan 5:1-31). The gift of tongues was a prominent part of the first Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon all the disciples gathered together (Acts 1:15, 2:1-11).

The examples of the "righteous" people throughout the Bible show God's accepting their use of all of his names (shem). (See "Examples in the Old Testament" elsewhere in this article.)

Names Index / Next