Maybe you have heard there argument, it goes like this...The Greeks were not yashuans, Jesus was Jewish so were all the prophets, therefore we must speak their names in Hebrew.… (yes the Old Testament names are all Hebrew, but not in the New Testament). Since Jesus was Jewish you are not allowed to say His name in another language. Says who? Who made up this rule of language anyway? (they did).

There is no J" in the Greek, Latin, or Hebrew language so his name cannot be Jesus. To sum up the Yaweh/Yashua only arguments - there was no J in the English language until 500 years ago. There is no J or sound of J in either the Hebrew or Greek language, and never was. This is true, I say so what! Were not speaking Hebrew.

They seem to ignore that neither were there vowels to pronounce the Hebrew until about 1,000 years ago. So how can one know the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton? Hebrew scholars admi t that the Hebrew language was all but lost to general use until modern times, which saw a resurgence as part of the rebuilding the Hebrew nation of Israel.

According to sacred name groups unless one uses the Hebrew name and only the Hebrew name for God that person will be eternally damned. It should be noted that not all of the Sacred Name teachers are so dogmatic, but most are. This exclusive view is held by many Sacred Name groups, however they do not know the original pronunciation of the Name, they are in much disarray as well. This is admitted not by their own words but by the variety of different names that are used within their movement. God can be called Yah, Yahweh, Yahvah, Yahveh, Iahueh, and Yaohu. Jesus is agreed upon to be called Yahshua by most SN folks. But some call him Yasha, by others Yeshua, Yahushua, Yaohushua, Iahushua, YAHVAHSHUA, and Yhwhhoshua. Why such Confusion! Remember they teach you must be exact in your pronunciation. So which sacred name group is not going to hell for the correct pronunciation? There are dozens of different spellings and pronunciations of the names used by those who claim to have the correct name. All of them promote their particular name as the only one God approves of. So looking at this carefully one can say they are no better off than Christians who use the name of Jesus as the Messiahs name.

Which name is it? Choose one, but you better be absolutely right. Is it -Yeshua, Yesha, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, YESHUAH, YEHSHUAH, YAHUSUHWA, YAHOOSHUA ,YHWHSOSANA, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Yeshu, Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yehoshua, Yehooshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, or Iahushuah YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua, Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Yahushuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah? Or any other name one might add to the list since this is not current. I ASK you. Y do they all discover different names for the same Elohim of Scripture? And who is right?

The main reason they are wrong is because no one knows how to correctly pronounce his name, this is why sacred name groups come to different conclusions and cannot agree among themselves. So if Jesus name is wrong so is theirs! Remember you have to be exact. Yahweh is from the Hebrew old Testament, the New Testament is in the Greek. Yashua is spelt in English. In the Hebrew there is no English letter Y, it is a yod that is a sound of a Y. If your going to make an issue of pronouncing it right then it needs to be written in Hebrew as well. It should not only be the correct pronunciation but written the way it was given. That is logical end of the correct name. Sacred name adherents must REJECT their English spelling of the SACRED NAME in their own Bibles, since YHWH is NOT in the Hebrew but written in English. The sacred name groups use the prophet's, OT characters and apostles names in Hebrew as well, but they are written in English. Why do they concentrate on only the names pronounced in the Hebrew but not the words they wrote?

Where is the word Yashua in the Greek text or in the English. They claim it was removed! Move over Jehovah's Witnesses you have competition. They do the same that the Jehovah's Witnesses did with their text, which they translated from NO Greek manuscripts. What manuscripts do the Sacred name translators use? They insert what they want. Fact- there are no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that predate the Greek in the New Testament.

The Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament dates back to the end of the first year A.D. The Hebrew language is usually written only in consonant's which consists of 22 letters in the Hebrew Alphabet. The Hebrew Bible was originally a written in consonant's in the Hebrew text. During the early part of the tenth century (895-1000 A.D.) there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jewish scribes as all scribes were meticulous in their copying of the text. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs.

The Masoretic text has a system of dots and dashes called “pointing” (these are vowel pronunciations) which had been added to the consonants in order to aid in the words pronunciation. The Masoretic text is the standard text used today for all Bible translations. Without these aids we would have no idea how to pronounce certain words. For example when we take away the vowels in our English language we may not know how to pronounce a word for example Love- lv, weather-wthr, redemption would look like rdmptn, or Rsrrctn (resurrection). It would be hard to figure out what the word exactly is or how to accurately pronounce it. It is similar in the Hebrew. Even with the aids there is no absolute assurance of certain words spoken correctly the way the originally were, case in point God's name represented without the vowels YHWH .

N L these two Hebrew letters we have a sin and a shin. It is the same letter, but it is the vowel which is a dot placed on the upper left or right of the letter that determines how it will sound. If we were to play sound assimilation like the sacred name groups, every time we used the sin it would be translated from the English pronunciation to this letter in Hebrew. The problem is that it doesn't mean what sin means (going against God). This is an alef Ç this it is to be silent except for the vowel underneath which gives it a sound of aw. The vowels were not written in the original Hebrew so it is an educated guess based on Hebrew knowledge. When it comes to the name, again there are so many variations that if one would make it a matter of salvation for its correct sound they would in all reasonableness condemn “their sacred name brothers” who pronounce it differently. I know they do not want to do that, but it is inevitable.

The sacred name groups use chapter and verses, these were also found in the Masoretic Text later on. This idea came in 1550 from Robert Stephens a printer in Paris. In His Greek Testament he divided the scriptures into chapter and verses and published the first version in the Vulgate in 1555. The first English Bible having these divisions was the Geneva Bible published in 1580 with a completed work of chapter and verses. But these are additions so if one is true and consistent in their argument of the accurate name being removed and replaced, certainly they should feel as uncomfortable with adding to the text chapters and verses.

In Greek Iyo'ous is read Easous (Jesus) IESOU is pronounced IYESOUS (sometimes dropping the end S) in the Greek. Not Iazeus as some sacred name groups claim. What they are doing is trying to make a connection to Zeus a pagan god and make Christians guilty by their own word assimilation. This is called Phonetics, which is not concerned with meaning, but sound. Speech sounds are almost always independent of the meanings that those sounds are used to convey.

All languages have words that combine in syntactic patterns to convey meanings through the use of speech sound.

The use of Iesous (Jesus) for Joshua was common long before the birth of our Savior. It is found in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scripture. The form was identical in the OT Greek Septuagint to that of the New Testament text. The book of Yahoshua (Joshua) in the Greek Septuagint is named Iseous naus- meaning Joshua Son of Nun. So it was the Hebrews themselves that used this name in Greek language before Jesus' time. Certainly they were not calling him Zeus, an enemy of Israel. Iseous is not a pagan name since the name was used to mean salvation. His name Hoshea - salvation was changed to Yehoshua (Yahweh is salvation). The Bible then makes it clear in Greek it is Iseous of Nazareth who is the name one must be saved by. He is the same Iseous christos (Jesus the anointed) that is spoken of in Scripture no matter what language the name is pronounced.

In the first century the Jews spoke the Hebrew language. However Hebrew was not the only language that the Jews spoke. If you lived back then you would have called Jesus the messiah Iesous christos if you were Greek, and Yeshua ha Mashiach if a Hebrew. Would Jesus answer to either of these names or only one? The proof is found in the Scripture, which shows he would answer to both. You would call Him by the name which had the meaning in your language. Did the Romans actually pronounce his Hebrew name or speak their own language when they spoke to Jesus? This we will see is crucial to refuting the arguments sacred name groups present. These are two different languages for the same individual.

Some have said the name Christ is Krishna therefore it could never be the correct word. MESSIAH in Hebrew is Mashiach, in Aramaic meshicha', in Greek- Christos, Christou. The Jews also spoke Aramaic and would call him meshica in that language.

Just as the term Messiah, mashiach is a Hebrew term, (mashach OT:4886, "to smear with oil or paint, anoint.") This verb, which appears 69 times in biblical Hebrew, has equivalents in Ugaritic, Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic.

Mashiach means anointed. In the Old Testament “A king of Israel was described upon occasion as christos tou Kuriou, "the anointed of the Lord," 1 Sam. 2:10,35; 2 Sam 1:14; Ps 2:2; 18:50; Hab. 3:13” (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) mishchah OT:4888, "anointment." This noun occurs 21 times and only in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. It always follows the Hebrew word for oil. The first occurrence is Ex. 25:6: (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

The Greek word “Christos” is derived from the word “Chrio” which means to smear, or anoint. chrioo was used often in the Septuagint as an adjective like "the anointed priest" (I Kings 2:10) and then as a substantive to translate the Hebrew word "Messiah" Messias. (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)

When the Hebrew word “Mashiach” (messias) was translated into the Greek language, it was called Christos and translated in English “Christ.” Jesus Christ in the Greek is pronounced Ieesou Christou (Matt 1:1). There is absolutely no connection to Krishna in Christos and they should find a better lie to spread than this. Ask anyone who speaks Hindi they will tell you the truth on this word, it does not mean Krishna.

In John 1:41 (Andrew) first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (the bible then makes the point “which is translated, the Christ” [this is found in the Greek text- methermeneuo (meth-er-mane-yoo'-o); to explain over, i.e. translate: (by) interpret (-ation). Christos (pronounced- khris-tos']) anointed, i.e. the Messiah.)

John 4:25-26 The woman at the well (a Samaritan) said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ).” The Scriptures make the point of calling him Both in the Hebrew and the Greek Mt.16:16 Peter said thou art the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the living God. It was the apostles who translated this over and wrote us the Scripture.

So it comes down to answering the question why people do not speak “the name” the same way in all languages?” The answer is very simple. It becomes more important to keep the MEANING of the word, when changing from one language to another, than SPEAKING or pronouncing it the same in all languages. All languages have words that combine in syntactic patterns to convey meanings through the use of speech sound. The meaning of a word is expressed through the sound. We use words to communicate meanings, not meanings to communicate words. To give a “NAME” means to describe one's identity their character or nature. That is what it meant to the Hebrews. It's meaningless to pronounce a word that one cannot understand. It is more sensible and biblical to call Him by the word that has an equivalent meaning in your language. An example would be that some words spoken in one language can have a benign in meaning, or can be offensive in another. The intent of languages and especially translating them is to convey meanings of the words and not how they sound.

What this movement is doing is demanding Christianity to adopt a name unfamiliar to their spoken language, and culture. They are denying emphatically that the savior could be known to all by His claims, His person, and His word. But can only be known by a special knowledge -their INSPIRED pronunciation of the name. (Depending whatever group you are in). They are insisting that the person of Jesus we know is false and a myth because of the name not being pronounced in their correct Hebrew language. Imagine you're in a place on far away from civilization or on a deserted Island. All you have is a Bible in your language. But you don't have a sacred name Bible. You can't know Jesus or understand what he is saying because you don't have the correct pronunciation for him, so he cannot answer your call to be saved. So too bad your out of His divine providence to be saved, you can't say the correct name at the time until you know it. The problem is NO matter which name you say you, will be found guilty by some other sacred name group for not using their interpretation of the name. So who is the ultimate representative and judge for them?

It is more crucial to know who Jesus is, for if one denies His deity it matters little how near correct they are on the
pronunciation of His name

The Controversy solved

The name Jesus that ends is with an “SUS” (pronounced soos in Greek), is accused by some sacred name adherents to mean horse in Hebrew. But Greek and Hebrew are two different languages. Some go as far in a mocking way and claim soos is equivalent to “Zeus” because of the similar sound, therefore “JeSUS” is a pagan name. But Zeus is not in the Hebrew and there is no transition from Ie-sous- Iesoun , to Zeus even in the Greek language. As a matter of fact the word Zeus is not even found in the Greek New Testament.

In Greek it is Dia = Zeus (pronounced Dia) if Zeus was pronounced like it is written it would look like this Zeu  neither of these words looks anything like Iseous I h so$

In the Strong's Concordance it is pronounced dios or dzyooce ( for Zeus); named Dis (deece), which is otherwise obsolete; Zeus or Dis (among the Latin's, it is Jupiter or Jove), was the supreme deity of the Greeks:

#1356 diopetes (dee-op-et'-ace); from the alternate of 2203 pronounced dzyooce. In Acts 14 Hermes is pronounced hermace also known as mercury. Hermas which comes from Hermes is amn who worked in the gospel found in Rom.16:14 was hermas a pagan because of his name? There is NO ZEUS in the Greek New Testament Bible. And none of these names are relative to Isoun (Jesus) or Yesous in Greek, they are completely different words with different meanings. But if one has been confused on this issue its not surprising they would spread it to others.

To say JESUS is not calling Zeus. This shows not only immaturity on their part, but repeating something that is so easily proven wrong that it almost endorses them having a cult mind set. (They wear it as a badge of honor). But this shows they know barely a thing about the languages.

If you speak his name in Spanish you would say HAYSOOS. Because the end sound is the same that does not mean you are calling on pagan God.

The people in Mexico call the Lord Hay-soos in THEIR language and God knows whom they are calling on. To say God will not answer them is to make God to be like a man who does not understand the heart or language which has finite abilities.

When we use a word in the English language that sounds the same it does not mean the same. It depends on how it is spelled and its meaning in the sentence structure. For Example we use the word do and dew , they sound the same but they certainly do not mean the same things. The word time and tyme are two completely different objects. As well as to and two . So if someone came along and said the word “to” which is a preposition meaning toward, near etc. If someone used “to” (which means an action) in a sentence to mean more than one as in the number (two) we would think that person does not have an grasp on the English language. If they insist that they dew (do), we would have to admit that they have been badly educated or deceived by someone's teaching. (There are many other simple examples such as toe, tow or type -meaning a class of and type using a typewrite. etc.) Many of the same words can have more than one meaning and these are examples from within the English language, not one language to another.

It's amazing that a gentile group hasn't come along to insist EE-AY-ZOOS from the Greek, is the true pronunciation, just as the Hebrew groups have. Hopefully I'm not giving inspiration to a new movement.

Another claim is the word Lord is Baal, is used of false God's only . In Unger's Dictionary Baal (Heb. ba`al, "master"), is applied only to heathen deities, or to the man as husband, or to one specially skilled in a trade or profession.” (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary). Look it up in the Hebrew and you will see this is true. So because of this no one is allowed to use the word Lord since there is a word for lord that the pagans used. Something this ridiculous should not need addressing. Would a wife who called her husband Baal mean he is a false God, where is the logic in this position?

The Scriptures have God himself using the word Baal For himself. Certainly to take the position of the Sacred name Movement means one must change what God himself said in his inspired Hebrew writings..
Jer. 31:32: " 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 the LORD"

Isa. 54:5: "For thy Maker is thine husband ; (Baal) the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called."

Here is God, who was a husband to Israel using the name Baal, proving, that even Yahweh had no problem applying this name which means master or husband to himself.  

Some have claimed “YHVH” in Hebrew sounds like “PIPI” when translated in Greek letters. This is just a big fat lie by those who have no background in languages and are repeating a rumor. The P in Greek capitol - ? small- p has a sound of an “R” Which is called RHO”. With regards to YHVH, the Greek language does not have a Vee” sound but does have a Vee' shaped letter. In Uncial form or capitol letter, “N” is pronounced “NU and looks like a ? in Greek. The Y” in Uncial becomes a “ U ” in small form like a” ?” which is called an Upsilon. The “H” in Uncial becomes “?” in small form, pronounced “AETA”. You need Hebrew and Greek Script to see letters correctly.

While it true there is no SH sound in Greek, the result was not “Iesu” but pronounced in the Greek “Yesou.” How the sacred namers render the “s” in Iesu is incorrect, because that form of “s” s is used only in a final sigma. It is never used at the beginning or middle of a word. A capitol “s” would look like this S .

If it was translated the way it sounds it would not have the same meaning, it may have no meaning, but it is suppose to mean God is salvation. (Transliteration Guide Gamma (with a G g sound) looks like a ?. Psi (? )

Iyo'ous Easous (Jesus) IESOU is pronounced phonetically IYESO'US in Greek (sometimes dropping the end S). Where is Zeus? Neither is it pronounced or spelled the same! The early church certainly did not relate the name Iseous to Zeus in any fashion. They often wrote about Zeus as a false God among the pagans and they did not mistake Jesus' name for his. So this is just a smoke screen to bring fear into people.

Scrambling for a name or Reality

How far does this go? Many mock the word “God” and will use (gad) and say it is dog backward. They mock everything they can in the historic Church. So lets do a little scrambling for their namesake, sa c red name with the c moved over really means they are s c ared of the truth. Anyone can play word assimilation and scramble the word's meanings by sound. Which is what they do. Lets continue on and use their own logic in scrambling things up for sounds and meanings.

According to one group “the name Ea is also pagan,” so if they say, “lets go out to ea t” they are now pronouncing the name of a Pagan God (Since it has the letters EA contained in the word). If we take their conclusions of using pagan names then the Hebrew calendar is to be rejected. Tammuz was the 4 th month in the Hebrews sacred calendar. Are the Hebrews now pagans because it is also name of a pagan god? Were they calling on the pagan God? TAM'MUZ (tam'uz) was the name of the fourth Babylonian month and of an ancient Akkadian deity. (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary)

Babylonian names are still in use with the Hebrew calendar The Canaan names were used prior to the Babylonian captivity. We happen to still use pagan derived names for our days of the week. Does this make us pagans? Of course not!

Shua was a Canaanite whose daughter was married to Judah (1 Chron. 2:3). A daughter of Heber the Asherite (1 Chron. 7:32), there was also a Caananite named Shua in Gen.38:2. Can we now say that the name Ya-shua is pagan because it is being used in a pagan land. We can see how ridiculous this can get if their logic is followed through to its end.

Sh is a Hebrew pronunciation but it can be applied to sacred name lobbyists as, sh- meaning keep quiet and stop this nonsense.

Yahoo-shua has yahoo in it, so anytime one uses this word or the search engine on the internet they are taking God's name in vain (something to note: the sacred name groups are on this search engine too) so we can we see how ridiculous this all becomes? They need to take their own plank out of their eyes before they operate on the speck in their brothers.

If someone loves His Word and has respect for it why would they try to change it? How can they respect the Word when they deny it was written in Greek by the apostles! Instead they change it to Hebrew to their own predilection. So what are we seeing here? An intentional slant that may or may not be well meaning, but its end is divisive. Division is fine if it is for pure truth but this is not found in that category.

The first thing we must consider is 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.” Jesus said "thy word is truth” and it is his teaching and understanding of Himself that he wants to convey to the people of the world. This is all done through His word, and through every language. God is not a God of confusion; He makes Himself known by and through His revealed word in the Holy Bible. He has placed His Word above all His name. Those who love his name should not tamper with changing His Word. Sacred name groups put down the word because it is not in the language they consider sacred (Hebrew), so they mock the word and in so doing mock His name. They may not willfully being doing this (although some are), but this certainly becomes the end result from there denial of the language the New Testament was actually written in.

 If the Hebrew was such a sacred language, the Sanhedrin would not have translated it into the Greek almost 400 years before the messiah came. We will see later on that the word was to be proclaimed to all people in all languages (Book of Revelation) which means it was not limited to the Hebrew only. It was the Roman catholic church's teaching that Latin was the sacred language and that the word of God was not to be translated in any other. John Wycliffe wanted the Scriptures translated in the common tongue just as the Greek (koine) was. The sacred name movement is making the same error about the name of God that the Catholic Church did for the words of God.

What name would Yashua be in Chinese or Russian instead of English? What Sacred Namer's do is change the Greek (or English) to Hebrew and then pronounce it in English, instead of in the Greek, the way it was actually written in. They insist that Hebrews only write and spoke Hebrew. Since the Bible is God's word it must be written in the same language as in the Old Testament. But they are wrong. Fact-There are parts that were written in Aramaic, whole portions of Daniel (Dan.2,8) are in Aramaic. And even 250 years before the time of Jesus it was translated to the common language of the day, Greek. Are we to reject parts in Aramaic because it is not written in the Holy language of Hebrew? Then to be  logically consistently  we must do so for the English as well. selah

Pronunciations of the Name

As for the correct pronunciation of Yahweh even the Orthodox Jews are not sure any more how to pronounce it, so how do sacred name groups know what others who speak the language do not know? How could anybody else unequivocally claim the correct pronunciation of His name in the ancient Hebrew or any OTHER language? The only thing you can do is to say the name in your own language. How do you say Yahweh in English? The best we can do is “I Am.” Sacred name groups need to consider that if they are wrong in their pronunciation and they are teaching others a absolute strict way, then they are misrepresenting God's name. They have admittedly done this by changing his name to a more correct pronunciation at times. Yet they all do not agree.

The Germans pronounce a Y with a J sound and it is sounded a “yawt.” If you can teach someone to say the Hawaiian word Ka-pi-o-la-ni, syllable by syllable, that doesn't mean they know what they're saying or that the word “has the same meaning in their language” they are accustom to. Just about all of us can say “ha-lel-lu-jah” and we're saying a real Hebrew word, but the MEANING of that word can be expressed in our own language as well ( Praise to our God ).

Sacred namer's insist that your name will be pronounced the same in every language. Anywhere you go in the world names are the same. I have heard this ignorant statement from the majority. Claiming Yashua and Yahweh are pronounced the same in EVERY language, this is nonsense ! This proves they are listening to a rumor that is circulating that is a complete lie. Its been passed down for so long that the majority actually insists on this as absolutely true. I have asked people who speak these languages to see if this is so, they say it is not. When you go to a Spanish country to say Michael in their language it is Miguel. Michael in Hindi is Mikhael (as it is similar in Russian). In Japanese the name Michael is not the same, it is Michieru. So we can see from this very simple example they are wrong. But they don't accept this.

We can take it and apply it elsewhere. In Hindi Christ (Messiah) is pronounced Mase'( not Krishna as they claim); Jesus is pronounced Yesu and Yahweh is Yehowa. In Japanese Yahweh is pronounced Yaefu; Yashua is Yashia and Jesus is Jisusu.

The Chinese Dictionary and in the Chinese Bible prove they are wrong as well. God is shen /shangdi (two ways of saying it) Lord is shangdi, savior is jiuxing / Yesu jidu, Jesus is Yesu. Ji du is Christ, salvation is Ju en. Yahweh is Ye ho hua. My friend who is Jewish wrote me back on this said ‘I do know that many languages have the similar pronunciations. Like in Hebrew as Y'shua, others like Cantonese, Fukien, Malay, Russian, etc. all sound similar. But similar does not mean the same, especially if the sound is similar and the meanings are different. So they are wrong.

The point that needs to be explained to “sacred namer's” is people do not go around asking for a TRANSLITERATION of Yeshua or Yahweh in other languages. It would be “How do you say 'God is Salvation' in your language?” It is the meaning of a word that counts, not the way it is pronounced in sound. Since they may not have the capability to say the name Yahweh. That is the reason God said he is who I am, stressing Him being the eternal one. If you were to ask how do you say, 'I Am' in your language? Guaranteed, they're not going to answer you with a HEBREW word! You can ask Japanese people how they say the Lord's name. They DON'T say “Yeshua” or Yahweh in Japanese. More importantly neither were the apostles told to teach people the Hebrew language or pronunciation. They were commanded to teach what they were taught about Christ and how to live a life in the Lord obedient to his teachings.

Where's the name?

Finding God's sacred name throughout the Scripture can sometimes be like looking for Waldo in the picture books series. Some Sacred namer's have made the name almost into an idol. Nothing else matters, nothing is more important except, “the name” for without the correct pronunciation one is unable to be saved. This means no one was saved throughout history after the apostles, until their leaders came along and restored the CORRECT name (except for a few that spoke the correct name in Hebrew during this time. This is no different than the cults claim of restoring the Church, which every cult does (some sacred name groups have this as well). The Church was not lost and neither was his NAME! God said he exalted his word even  above his name.

Jordan Maxwell is certainly not a “friend” of the Faith,  he has taught that the name “Israel” was really a combination of three pagan names “Is” it stands for Isis “ra” for Ra, and “el” for El, the Canaanite god! Maxwell's inventive arguments are just as well presented as the sacred name groups. And he is just as wrong.

They want to make an issue out of the name. Saying it is Yahweh (or the Son-Yashua). Then this means until recently no one had ever called God by his true name. God spoke to Abraham and others without them calling on or speaking his Hebrew name. Neither Adam, Enoch, Noah, called God by his true name because they did not speak Hebrew (certainly not the Hebrew of today). Nor did they know the Lord by the name Yahweh until the time of Moses. Exodus 6:3: “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD , (Yahweh) I was not known to them.” This communication of God to Moses is interesting in that the God almighty is called ba El (Baal in the Hebrew) shadday and the Word Lord is Hawyaw (from the root Hahvah) meaning to exist eternally. Out goes the argument of SN that Baal is exclusive to false Gods. Here the true God identifies himself with this name to the early saints.

We find in Genesis that despite not knowing the name Yahweh, people called on the Lord. “And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the LORD, and God answered them. (Gen. 4:26). All without the Hebrew language! Jacob knew God as El Shaddai (“the Almighty” Gen. 17:1) not by his personal name. The books of Esther and Ecclesiastes not once use the name Yahweh, although Ecclesiastes does use the word God (Hebrew, Elohim) some forty-one times. This suggests that use of the name is not essential and the name God- Elohim was not strictly pagan but a biblical one with a wide variety of use. It was used of gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural, especially with the accompanying article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes rulers, judges angels, a god, a goddess and the one true God .

We use many titles such as “Father, Creator, the everlasting God, I AM, Savior, Redeemer, deliverer, Son, the Almighty, mighty God” these are all English translations of Hebrew titles or names of Yahweh. Why are these not pronounced by them in the Hebrew and used for his name, instead only certain particular names are?

Even Moses did not call him Yahweh but I Am by the instruction from God himself, when God said my name is I AM who I AM - EhYeh asher EhYeh. This is not the exact same as Yahweh no matter how you cut it. Both eyeh and YHWH (Yahweh) are of the root meaning, the word Haya. But are not the same exact pronunciation or in writing. Even the Father does not use the name Yashua (Jesus) to communicate to his Son, but calls him Son, as he had before he was incarnated, showing their previous relationship continuing from eternity. We find God is called numerous names in the Old Testament, none of which is Yashua specifically.

GOD is INFINITE in his nature , HE unable to be FULLY COMPREHENDED or explained by any single name or description. (This what the name wonderful means in Isa.9:6- unable to comprehend). The Old Testament uses numerous names as God reveals himself to man. The closest summation of Who He is eyeh asher eyeh- “I Am who I Am.” Each name expresses a certain attribute or characteristic of His nature.

Some say the name El is Not God's name nor should it be used. Others such as Jacob Meyer say “These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of El (Jacob O. Meyer, “Trinity, Duality, or Oneness,” Monograph). Meyer says God and Lord are pagan names and must not be used. Yet he will use the word El to refer to the Creator (rightly so) to the dismay of other sacred name groups.

El is used for God and attached to names and attributes of Himself, this doesn't make him a pagan God.

Sacred name adherents need to look carefully before they smear certain names. The word El the singular part of Elohim is used for God and it is used for both false gods and the true one, as is Elohim.

God says his name is not only Yahweh (Lord). Scripture records his name as El in Job.21:14, Ps.31:5,22:10. El is also combine with other attributes El Olam (Everlasting) is your name (Isa.63:16). El Eyon- the most high God Ex.15:26. (Deut.32:8). El Shaddai - God Almighty (all sufficient one) (Gen.17:1). So we can see that God is not strict about a single name.

His other names are Yahweh- Rapha The Lord that heals . The man whose name is the Branch Zech.6:12, 3:8 Which is attributed to Jesus. Yahweh-Tsidkenu- his name (a man) will be called the Lord our righteousness (Jer.23:6), which is attributed to Jesus. Just as El was attached to a description for his name so is Yahweh. Ex.15:3. My name is Quanna (Jealous) Ex.34:14. Here God himself says a different name than Yahweh. If sacred name groups are going to continue to argue the point of calling on Yahweh only than they now have to argue against Yahweh Himself. Isa.9:6 “ His name will be called wonderful , counselor, mighty God, Father of eternity, prince of peace.” There are numerous names God used to describe himself in this passage and others. (Wonderful means unable to comprehend, in other words no name or speech can fully describe Him). His name is Wonderful- But Sacred name groups say it has become corrupted. The New Testament says his name will be called Jesus ( in certain languages ).

Name in the Strong's Concordance is defined as shem- a name 8034, a reputation, fame, glory. the Name (as a designation for God, a memorial, monument. 3068 Yehovah (yeh-ho-vaw'); from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God.

In Ex. 33:18-23 Moses said, “Please, show me Your glory. “Then He (Yahweh) said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and “I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you.” Read this carefully, Yahweh did not speak His name out loud, Moses was allowed to see His passing glory, by this His name was proclaimed . His nature was made known and explained who He is.

The Hebrew word for his name is translated “Yahvah” only in Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4, and in other compound names. This name is never used in the Septuagint (LXX.), the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Apocrypha, or in the New Testament. Did they intentionally leave it out as some conspiracy? Did they forget how to pronounce it? No, the answer is simply they transferred it to another language. In most versions of the LXX which have come down to us through ancient manuscript copies by the Hebrew scribes, the word Lord (Greek, kurios) is used in place of the divine name, and this practice is also followed in all of the thousands of ancient New Testament Greek manuscripts that have survived.

The Tetragrammaton YHWH is not found in the oldest New Testament manuscripts that were written by those who were probably under apostolic instruction (certainly Christians). We find the name for Jesus (Isous, Isoun), is used over 900 times to proclaim the Son of God.

In the New Testament- Matt.1:23: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son , and shall call “ his name will be called Immanuel ( with us is God), a fulfillment of Isa.7:14. The Greek quotes the Hebrew name to get the point accross that He is God, but again notice it calls Immanuel his name , not Yahweh. Lk.1:30,35 The angel Gabriel announced to Mary “that Holy one which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God . ” V.32 he is called “the Son of the highest. ” Again referring to His name other than Yashua. Rev.19:13: His name is called “the word of God.” where is the name Yashua for all these? 1 Jn.5:13: “that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” From this we can see the Son's name is not the same one as the Father, but a derivative of it.

Jn.1:34 John said, “And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God .” (also Jn. 3:16-17, 18) Jn.1:49: “ Nathanael answered Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Jn.11:27 Mary said he was the Christ, the Son of God.” We don't find anyone having to declare His exact name Yahsua as Sacred name groups present so arduously.

In John 11:25-27 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.” And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord (kurios), I believe that “You” are the messiah, the Son of God , who is to come into the world.” No name said here!

1 Jn.5:10-12: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son . He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life .”

Mk.15:39 the centurion said , “truly this man was the Son of god .” Acts 8:37 The eunuch said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the S on of God .” He didn't pronounce God's name, but confessed who he actually is. In Acts 9:20 after the resurrection Paul preached Christ in the Synagogues saying, “He is the Son of God.” Jn.9:35 He (Yeshua) said unto him, Do you believe on the Son of God ? (Jn.10:36). Are we told to only believe on a correct name to call on, or the person it represents. The fact is that if one does not understand who the Son is it will not matter what name they use, even if they pronounce it correctly in the Hebrew. We are to Believe on the name of his Son (1 Jn.3:23). That name is Jesus (in English) meaning Yahweh is savior. 1 Jn.4:15: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God , God abides with him.” Jn:20:31: “But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing you might have life through his name .” The requirement that he is the Son meaning he is God. The name represents his person. Just as when Jesus asked who do you say I am? Peter confesses “thou are the Christ the Son of the living God.”(Mt.16) So if one does not believe the Son is God then why try to pursue a correct name, they have missed the whole point of the Scripture. As Jesus said in Jn.5:39 to the Pharisees “you search the Scripture for in them you think you have eternal life but these testify of Me.”

If one looks carefully they find the people called him by what we would identify as 'his titles' such as the Son of David , and he still answered them, he still healed them. He did not correct them by saying you must say my official name or I will not answer or deliver you. Examples are numerous such as the blind man in Mark 10:47 Who cried out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Mt. 15:22: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! Mt. 9:27: two blind men followed Him, crying out and saying, “Son of David, have mercy on us!” Mt. 21:9 Even “the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David! 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' Hosanna in the highest!” No rebukes came forth.

Did Jesus require people to pronounce the name Yashua? No, not at all! We see over and over again he called himself the Son (of man and God) and we are told to believe on the Son. Rev 19:13: “and his name is called the Word of God ,” who is God. So we see the bible does not support the Sacred Name Movement's legalism. Even when he returns he is not called Yashua. In the book of Revelation Jesus said he has a name that no one knows. Not even the sacred name groups. Clearly God does not have one name.

His name is called the word of God, but he is not a word. The word is a person, this same person is the Son of God in Rev.2:18, and Heb.1:2,The WORD OF GOD is not a single word (name) nor just a phrase. The WORD OF GOD is everything God is, it is the sum totality of God communicated to man. It encompasses all attributes and characteristics of his DIVINITY. As God revealed his nature by his names in the Old Testament, Jesus revealed his nature and mission by his names in the New Testament. (salvation). The person of God is not known in a single sound of a name, but he is understood by what is written in all His Word. Therefore Jesus is called “the word of God” revealing God's invisible attributes and nature to us.

Lets pause for some reflection. Can you know somebody without using their name? Can you know them intimately and know their character. Can they react or acknowledge you by not using their proper name?

When I introduce my wife I do not always use her name but say here is my wife. Is she still the same person as when I use her name?

My child calls me dad, not by my proper name, he knows me personally. He doesn't have to say my name, I know when he's calling me, so how much more with God when we call upon him.

Yeshua DID NOT Instruct us to Say God's name

Three times in Scripture we Father mentioned as Abba, in the language of the Jews, Aramaic. (Mark 14:36)

 Paul writes “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”(Romans 8:15) “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!” (Galatians 4:6). Can you say Father?

Jesus said in Matt 6:6-7 “ pray to your Father... your Father “Over and over again Jesus calls Yahweh “FATHER” Jesus said to pray “In this manner, therefore, pray: our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name”(v:9). Why do sacred namers not obey this simple command and twist with their legalism to say you must say Yahweh (or some other derivative). Because they don't want to believe it.

Abba is an Aramaic word for “father.” It was the customary title used of God in prayer by Jesus when he taught the disciples to pray (Mt 11:25-26; 26:39,42; Lk. 10:21; 22:42; 23:34; Jn. 11:41; 12:27; 17:24-25). Whenever it occurs in the New Testament it has the Greek interpretation joined to it (ho pater), that is apparently to be explained by the fact that the Chaldee (Aramaic) “ABBA” through frequent use in prayer, gradually acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek-speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue.

It was in common use in the mixed Aram dialect of Palestine and was used by children in addressing their father. It answers to our “papa.” The right to call God “Father” in a special and appropriative sense pertains to all who have received the testimony of the Spirit to their forgiveness. (New Unger's Bible Dictionary)

In the Gemara (a Rabbinical commentary on the Mishna, the traditional teaching of the Jews) it is stated that slaves were forbidden to address the head of the family by this title. It approximates to a personal name, in contrast to “Father,” with which it is always joined in the NT. This is probably due to the fact that, abba having practically become a proper name, Greek-speaking Jews added the Greek word pater, “father,” from the language they used. Abba is the word framed by the lips of infants, and betokens unreasoning trust; “father” expresses an intelligent apprehension of the relationship. The two together express the love and intelligent confidence of the child. (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)

For instance, in Jesus' own prayers, he gave us the example of addressing God as “Our Father” (Abba). Not once did Jesus say the name of God, but said instead “Father.” He was bringing the people from a legalistic relationship under the law into a personal relationship with their God. But the legalists say, “unless you say the name this way” or “unless you keep the 10 commandments”, unless you do this or that you cannot be saved! They would just as well keep the thief on the cross out of the kingdom because of all the things he did not do according to their teaching.  

Yeshua never called His Father Yahweh in his ministry and sacred name adherents have absolutely no proof from the Scripture that would show otherwise. Of course the easiest way to deal with all this is to dismiss it all by saying that's the Greek, and it is unacceptable or corrupted. (The only exception- when Jesus was being judged in our place for our sins- his relationship became a legal one and he called out “my God, my God.”) Even if there were found an instance or two where he did call God Yahweh, the overwhelming majority of the Scripture does not teach this as obligatory.

How many children do you know address their father by their given name (as “Mr. legalism”) instead of just father, or daddy? (Which is what the term Abba means). Paul wrote in this respect Rom. 8:15: “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” Paul in addressing the Galatians legalism wrote in Gal 4:6: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” An adopted son cries Abba not an official name as if you don't know the person or are not on good terms with him.

Even Jesus spoke and said Mark 14:36 And He (Yeshua) said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You.” Not once in Jesus' prayer found in John 17 does he address God as Yahweh, but always as Father (John 17:1, 11, 21, 24, 25). In these passages God's name obviously stands for his character and reputation; there is no concern expressed that Christians are to use any of the divine name(s) when addressing their maker. Jesus used “Our Father” or “Holy Father”, if Jesus did not use the Fathers name should we? Certainly one is free to do so as long as they do not make an issue out of it, saying everyone MUST do so or they do not have salvation.

The Father calls Jesus his Son Mt.3:17, Jn.3:16,17. Heb.1:5 “I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son.” He never mentions his name (Yashua) when speaking to him. If it is as critical to call on His exact name as some say, then He certainly would identify him as Yashua, and not as His Son. Even Peter when he received a revelation of who the Son is in Mt.16 proclaims Him as the Son of the living God, he does not say His name. He speaks who he actually is. Jesus responds by saying the Father revealed this to him (not his official name Yahweh). So knowing He is the Son of (the living) God is enough to know He is deity, and ample for Christ to build his church on this proclamation.

If the apostles used the name of God (Yahweh) for Jesus he would not have had to spell it out to the people who he was claiming to be. So many times they asked him but he would instead speak in the manner of “my father and I are one,” not I am Yahweh. It is for this very reason we have cult groups who deny his deity and are confused on the person of the Son.

ARAMAIC

After the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures were made, called Targums. The major Targum of the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, is by Onkelos. A literal translation of the Hebrew that was edited in Babylonia between the second and fifth centuries AD. The Targums consist of all the Old Testament books except Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The major Targum of the books of the prophets is known as the Targum of Jonathan.

Aramaic is a Semitic language, originally used by the Aramaeans of Syria, which became widespread throughout the Near East as an international language. Because its alphabet was easier to use than the cumbersome cuneiform scripts used by the Assyrians and the Persians, it was adopted for diplomacy and commerce.

PROOF'S OF HEBREWISM IN THE GREEK

There is an underlying Hebraic thought pattern found in the Greek texts. To question the reliability of the Greek manuscripts as being accurate is completely unfounded and can bring one to reject the innerancy and authenticity of the New Testament. Reading the Greek text one cannot determine linguistically if the manuscripts are translations from the Aramaic or from Hebrew; both are similar Semitic languages. Even the Qumran literature (apart from Biblical manuscripts) are in Aramaic, some are Hebrew and one Nabatean. This shows that they were writing the Scriptures in other languages. The early fragments and scrolls found in the Qumran caves date mostly around 100-150 B.C some as far back to as 250 B.C. Some date as late as 70 A.D. which is the same time period that the New Testament was being written, and there is no conflict. The earliest extant Targums are from Qumran on the Dead Sea. An extensive Targum containing portions of Job came from one of the caves dating from 150-100 BC. All of the findings in Cave 4 are 1,000 years older than the oldest copy of Isaiah in Hebrew. There are Hebrew versions which more closely match the Greek and Samaritan translations. Included in Cave 4 was almost a complete copy of the Greek translation of the twelve Minor Prophets. These Greek texts used the Tetragrammaton in its Paleo-Hebrew form. These are the oldest manuscripts of Septuagint sources in existence giving us insight into how the Hebrew culture translated their Scriptures.

Multi- lingual Jews

There are a lot of indications that Jesus and the disciples were tri-lingual even quoting the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew at times. It was quoted from by many of the New Testament writers including Jesus. The oldest portions were found in the DSS discovery (Book of Deuteronomy). Copies exist from first century onward. The New Testament normally quotes from the Septuagint over the Masoretic text (with the possible exception of Matthew). Here are only a few examples of New Testament quotes from the Septuagint Old Testament translation instead of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Heb.1:6 Let worship ( proskuneôsatoôsan ). This quotation is only found in the LXX Septuagint of Deut. 32:41-43, this quotation is not found in the Masoretic text, but the Septuagint has it. A discovery of this verse on a Deuteronomy scroll in Hebrew confirms the LXX reading. Heb 1:6-It appears substantially in Ps 96:7. To the writer of Hebrews, the Septuagint was Scripture, and is quoted throughout without regard to its correspondence with the Hebrew” (From Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament).

Exodus 1:5 reads “seventy-souls” in the Masoretic text, Stephen quoted this verse in Acts 7:14 and said “seventy-five souls “as LXX also has this reading. A fragment of Exodus 1:5 from the Qumran scrolls reads “seventy-five souls” in agreement with the LXX.

In Romans 3 there is a large quotation from Ps. 14, where there are six whole verses in the apostle's quotation which are not found in the present Hebrew text, but are preserved in the Septuagint! (from Adam Clarke's Commentary)

Isaiah 7:14 in the Masoretic text reads, “she shall call His name” whereas the LXX and the DSS read “His name shall be called.” All this is a matter of one less letter in the Hebrew language. And the text still says the same thing.

We have at least two good Hebrew translations of the New Testament. Based on any linguistics neither of them presents any need to question the traditional Christian understanding of the gospels. We also have the Epistles, written to both Hebrew and Greek believers and communities of believers, which are inspired apostolic commentary on the gospels.

The HEBREW LANGUAGE

The language of the Hebrews and the Old Testament Scriptures, with the exception of a few chapters are written in Aram. It is not called Hebrew anywhere in Scripture, but this is not surprising when we remember how rarely that name is employed to designate the Israelites. It is called “the language of Canaan” Isa. 19:18, as distinguished from that of Egypt; and “Judean” 2 Kings 18:26,28, as distinguished from Aramaean. Hebrew belongs to the Semitic or Shemitic group of languages (New Unger's Bible Dictionary).

Hebrew was identified with the people of Israel Jonah 1:9 And he (Jonah) said to them, “I am a Hebrew.” And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women.” (Exod. 1:19)

It was also a language spoken by Jews but not the only one. II Kings 18:26-28 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah said to the Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; and do not speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” But the Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?” Then the Rabshakeh stood and called out with a loud voice in Hebrew, and spoke, saying, “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria!”

Notice the Hebrews said that they understand Aramaic and wanted it said in this language so the others would not understand the message, which proves they were multilingual even in the far distant past. They asked for it to be spoken in Aramaic, which means the others understood Hebrew.

Its Origin - Hebrew originated from the old Phoenician alphabet from which all alphabets in current use, Semitic and non-Semitic, were ultimately derived. The origin of this proto-Semitic alphabet is still unclear, although an early example of the rude script was discovered at Serabit el Khadem in the Sinaitic Peninsula in 1904-5. Albright dates this script in the early fifteenth century (Bulletin of the Am. Schools of Oriental Research 110 [April 1948]: 22). (New Unger's Bible Dictionary)

The Hebrew Text

There are in existence roughly over 12,000 plus Hebrew Manuscripts excluding ancient translations. These include the following:

Nash Papyrus (2nd century B.C. and 1st century A.D.) It contains Deut. 6:4-9 and some fragments from the Decaloge (Exod.20:2, Deut. 5:6). This text is 1000 years older than the Hebrew Masoretic text which our Old Testament is based on. There are very few differences between the reading of this text and that of 1000 years later. Orientales 4445 (Circa 820-850 A.D.) This contains Genesis 39:20-Deuteronomy 1:33 (excludes Num. 7:47-73 and Num. 9:12-10:18).

Codex Cairensis (895 A.D.). A codex is a manuscript in book form having pages. This codex contains Joshua, Judges, 1and 2 Samuel, 1and 2 Kings and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve [Joel through Malachi]). It was written with vowels [the original Hebrew did not have vowel points until the eight century] by

Dead sea scrolls- of the older scrolls, the Isaiah A Scroll (IQIsa) is the oldest known copy of any complete book of the Bible dating around 125-130 B.C. (possibly older). The Isaiah B scroll (IQIsb) dates close to the same time period (about 125 B.C.). Both texts bear close resemblance (up to 98%) to the Masoretic text ( from 895-1000 A.D.) which is the standard text used today for all Bible translations.

There is also The Midrash (100 B.C. -300 A.D.). Doctrinal studies made of quotations from the scriptures. The Mishna (A.D. 200). An exposition of Jewish Law using quotations from the Scriptures. The Gemaras (Palestinean, 200 A.D.; Babylonian, 500 A.D.). These were commentaries written in “Aramaic” which quote from the Scriptures.

After the Jews were taken into captivity by the Chaldeans, they needed a version in that language (since the Chaldean language took over the Hebrew). The oldest of the two date to 30 B.C. and 60 B.C. (Targums). We see Daniel was given a non Hebrew equivalent to his name (pagan) and he did not reject this, Belteshazzar (Dan.1:7). Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are not Hebrew names but Chaldean(Dan.1:7). So we find Hebrew is not considered a holy language even by the Jew's who translated it. The practice of adopting and accepting Gentile names can be traced through the periods of the Hebrews history. Hadasa-Esther; Saul-called himself Paul (Paulus) are only a few. The Jews had no problem in changing the names to different languages, even pagan ones.

The translations of the Greek New Testament were made so people could read God's Word in their own tongue: Syriac, Latin, Coptic (a late form of Egyptian). The early church writings all show they quoted from the Greek, not just any Greek but mostly from a certain Greek family of manuscripts. Uncials were manuscripts written in capital letters so there was no distinguishing of capital letters for their names.

The GREEK TEXT

They (SNM) deliberately discredit the Greek New Testament Bible. They purposely attempt to lead Bible believing Christians out of Christianity by castigating it as pagan. This is no different than those who accuse Christians who believe in a triune nature of the One God as three separate Gods as in paganism. They too fail to understand the MEANING behind the Scriptures.

The sacred name groups (more generally identified or included in the Hebrew roots movement) has been convinced to stay away from the New Testament written in Greek (the universal language of the apostles day) and by God's providence translated into English (the universal language for us today). The New Testament was first written in Greek to a predominantly Greek speaking Church and world.

The sacred name Movement has had some success in discrediting the Greek New Testament to those who are naïve about history and the manuscript evidence. They replace the Greek with Hebrew (not Aramaic) “originals.” But this is all fantasy - there are none (although some have surmised that the gospel of Matthew is a possibility). Nonetheless if we grant this as true the majority is written in Greek. This place's the final authority of interpreting the scripture with their self appointed teachers, who claim to be restoring what the apostles did not. Where are the “original” Hebrew texts? Where are the ancient parchments of the Hebrew New Testament that these men use? They make themselves the Higher Critics without any or little knowledge of history and the parchments. What form did the Gospels first appeared in is still debatable but what we do have for evidence is in the Greek MSS. (the Gospels as well as the epistles).

Jacob O. Meyer speaking for the majority of the sacred name Movement states, “there is no such thing as an INSPIRED TRANSLATION. Therefore ...we must base all doctrine on the Old Testament. We should...always allow the Old Testament to interpret the New. Yes, we believe that every word of the New Testament was Yahweh breathed in its original Hebrew or Aramaic purity... any faith based on the so-called 'inspired Greek New Testament' is a faith not founded upon a solid rock. (Meyer publishes his own Sacred Name Scriptures. (Jacob O. Meyer, Exploding the Inspired Greek New Testament Myth, pp. 2-3.)

That to me ignores what the New Testament writers all said, 1 Tim.3:16 that all Scripture is inspired given by God. So there is none that are MORE inspired than others, it is a collection united together, 66 books. Meyers mistake is if he erases the Greek New Testament parchments we have from past history and what we possess today, he wouldn't even know anything about the Messiah's coming, and what he taught. To question the validity of the Greek manuscripts is also to question its Archaeological and historical accuracy as well. Since nothing has shown it to be inaccurate we can assume in the very least, that they wrote the name correctly as well

Their argument goes like this; the original Gospels were written in Hebrew (and parts in Aramaic), later translated into Greek. These become unreliable, because they passed through successive translations and had removed the true name of God. Does anyone possess the ancient Hebrew translations of the New Testament. No! they have never found these to prove this theory, so their point is mute. They are arguing from silence and presumption. Even if one ancient parchment in Hebrew turned up, how do we know that it is the original and not a copy of the Greek? Up until recently all the oldest manuscripts, go back to even 85 or even 65 A.D. which are in Greek. The scraps are from a page of what was once a papyrus copy of the Gospel of Matthew chpt.26, and they are currently in the Magdalen College's library at Oxford University. They were given to the library in 1909 by a former student of the college who acquired them in Upper Egypt near Luxor. German papyrologist Carsten Thiede an expert in Greek palaeography, maintains that his dating is correct and dates these three small fragments at 75-100 AD. Thiede goes on to say that the dating of these three small fragments to 75-100 A.D. “would mean that the original Gospel would be earlier still, since these are copies. This gives us proof of the ancient language the New Testament was written in was in fact Greek.

There is no ancient New Testament letters (prior to 400 A.D.) written in Hebrew, ALL are in the Greek. There may be some, but no one has found it. An original document or a translation from an earlier Aramaic writing could be possible, but it is not found, despite Eusebius' claim that Matthew was originally Hebrew, which he traced back to the time of Heggisipus. Modern scholarship believes the Matthews gospel is not a translation, but written in Greek by Matthew himself, this founded upon the collection of discourses, from Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, and Jerome, all testify of this. Papias (70-155 A.D.) was a pupil of John, he wrote “An Explanation of the Lord's Discourses,” in which he quotes from John, and records traditions about the origin of Matthew and Mark in the Greek . So Sacred name arguments go against the historical records. It doesn't matter what history actually says, but only what their teacher says it says.

While there are arguments for a Hebrew Matthew original, it has not been found. Even if one is found it does not prove the other gospels or letters were written in the same language. Because Matthew probably did target a Jewish audience with his gospel, the others did not. Neither has the theory of Q promoted by liberal scholars? (An abbreviation for Quelle a common “source” the gospels shared in). There are in existence around 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 8,000 Latin, and 1,000 versions from other languages, making 14,000 manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament. What is missing is the Hebrew translation in any kind of a similar amount. The evidence simply does not support their theory.

Back To Good News Post       Read GOD's Word