AN ANSWER TO TEN 
REASONS FOR REJECTING
THE YAHWEH DOCTRINE

The Apostolic Standard, a magazine that is the official organ of Apostolic Ministries Fellowship of Bristol, Tennessee, has recently published an article entitled 10 Reasons Why Thoughtful and Discerning People Must Reject the "YAHWEH" Doctrine written by Elder Tim D. Cromier. This article was sent to me by a brother in the faith, who requested that I give an answer to it. I am more than happy to do so. I will give an excerpt from the article and then insert my comments to what has been stated concerning viability.

Now, before I get into the article and comments, I must make a most important point which I certainly hope that this elder, those of his staff and the people of their congregation will be able to receive and abide by. You see, they are Pentecostal and support the "speaking in other tongues doctrine" which we have no problem with if such is performed according to the Scriptural dictates. Yahshua told His disciples, "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the FATHER, even the Spirit of truth, Which proceedeth from the FATHER, He shall testify of Me," Jn. 15:26-27. Again He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come," Jn. 16:12-13.

The reason that I point this out is that these people have charged that the "YAHWEH doctrine" is a false doctrine and is a doctrine of demons (page 10, col. 3, par. 1, 2). Now, if these people truly have the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit, being the Spirit of truth, will lead them into the real truth when their points are refuted. However, if they continue in their false misconceptions and errors which I am going to point out, then their charge will turn back upon their own heads. In other words, they are the ones being led by a false demonic spirit.

The article begins: "The ‘YAHWEH’ Doctrine asserts that the name of the Messiah, the Son of God, is YAHWEH, instead of JESUS, and according to this doctrine, every place in the New Testament where the Greek word IESOUS (JESUS) appears originally had the Hebrew word YAHWEH. This doctrine further claims that the Greek word IESOUS from which the English word JESUS is derived is a corruption of the name of a pagan deity, thus insinuating that those who use the English word JESUS to refer to the Messiah (Christ) instead of the Hebrew word YAHWEH are in reality praying to and worshiping a pagan deity. That these teachings are not only absurd but patently false may be clearly seen in the following analysis." (page 7, col. 1, par. 1)

COMMENT: The book of Proverbs states, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him," 18:13. This proverb certainly applies to the very opening statements of this elder. It is obvious that he has answered the matter before he has heard the real truth concerning it. There are several "Sacred Name Bibles" available on the market today. The ones that I personally know of are The Holy Name Bible (no longer available), The Rotherham Edition, The Scriptures and The Word of YAHWEH. Not one of them has replaced the Savior's name with the name YAHWEH! The Holy Name Bible, The Rotherham Edition and The word of YAHWEH all present the Savior's name in its true form YAHshua (equivalent to the modern day Joshua), while The Scriptures have presented His name with the original Hebrew form [vwhy (pronounced YAHshua). While there may be some small, off the wall Sacred Name groups that have attempted to change the Savior's name to YAHWEH, the truth of the matter is found in the Sacred Name Bibles themselves. The great overall preponderance of people in the Sacred Name movement utilize YAHshua (Hebrew equivalent to the modern day English Joshua) as the name of the Savior. Thus, this elder’s article already has gotten off on the wrong foot, presenting a falsehood rather than the truth. If one begins with falsehood, then how can his other points and final deductions result in anything other than falsehood? If he and his people are being guided by the Spirit of truth, then may the Spirit of truth guide him to renounce this opening statement. If he refuses to do so, then he can only continue on the pathway of falsehood, lies and deceit.

Continuing with the article: 1. God did not invest the Hebrew language with a mystical quality that made it superior to any other language. When the Hebrew scriptures (what we know as the Old Testament) were translated into common (koine) Greek (the LXX, or the Septuagint) in the third century before the birth of Christ, the Sacred Ineffable Name of God - YAHWEH, or YHWH - was not given any special treatment. It was translated into the Greek word for Lord - KURIOS. In our English Bibles it is generally given as LORD (Jehovah). (page 7, col. 1)

COMMENT: I must answer this statement in four parts.

Point #1 has to do with the first sentence wherein the statement is made that there was no mystical quality to the Hebrew language. In the first place, the Jewish Rabbis will disagree with this man completely as do we. YAHWEH'S word and the Hebrew alphabet has always had a "mystic" quality about it. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul wrote, "But we speak the wisdom of YAHWEH in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which YAHWEH ordained before the world unto our glory," 1 Cor. 2:7. In the book of Proverbs the statement is made, "It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a [the] matter," 25:2.

Several books have been written lately concerning the "Bible Codes" which were inscribed into the Hebrew language and letters. As a matter of fact, this same magazine (Apostolic Standard) also advertised the book entitled His Name is Jesus by Yacov Rambsel which reveals "The Mysterious Yeshua codes." Of course, they want to circulate this book in accordance with their own words, "This book is "death" to the YAHWEH doctrine!

Now let’s take the Hebrew word for truth which is pronounced as "emet" in the English, and is written as tma in the modern day Hebrew language. YAHshua declared that He was the Truth (Jn. 14:6). The interesting thing is that Hebrew word for truth begins with the very first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the Aleph (a), and ends with the very last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the Tau (t). Furthermore, the Hebrew word for "faith" or "faithfulness" is tnwma (pronounced emunat). When YAHshua revealed Himself to the Apostle Paul He spoke the heavenly language which is Hebrew (Acts 26:14). Why would He change and proclaim to the Apostle John (a Hebrew) that He was the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8)? The Greek word for truth is "alethia" which, true enough, begins with the first word of the Greek alphabet (alpha), but also ends with the same letter (alpha). The Greek word for "faith" is pistis.

Here is what Rabbi Michael L. Munk writes about the Aleph (a) and Tau (t) in His book entitled The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, "In the popular idiom, something that is expressed or analyzed in its entirety is said to be covered wyT d[w plam, from aleph to tav...The definite article is expressed in Hebrew by prefixing the letter t to a word. Often, for extra emphasis, the word ta, (or tae) is employed in addition to the prefix. Comprising the first and last letter of the Aleph Beis, ta,, alludes to completion and perfection." (p. 34).

Thus the Hebrew word for truth (tma) which begins with the aleph and ends with the tau has to do with the complete and perfect truth from aleph to tau, and is imputed to be covered in its entirety from Aleph (a) to Tau (t). This is an idea that the Greek simply does not and cannot convey. YAHshua told the disciples that He was the Truth. He told the Apostle John that He was the Aleph and Tau in Rev. 1:8 so that the meaning is conveyed that not only is He complete and perfect, but we also can become complete and perfect in Him!

Also, the Hebrew word for faith (emunat/tnwma) has to do with the complete and perfect faith that is found in YAHshua and His believers which the Greek word for faith does not and cannot imply. Thus, herein is revealed true mystical qualities in the Hebrew language which this elder, in his statement, admits that he is completely ignorant of.

Point #2 - Is it true that the Septuagint and the original New Testament documents gave no special respect to the Sacred Name? The following is taken from the FOREWARD of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, which presents a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in "The New Testament in the original Greek¾The text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D." (1948 Reprint) together with the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Revised Edition, ¾1969 C.E.

THE DIVINE NAME: One of the remarkable facts, not only about the extant manuscripts of the original Greek text, but of many versions, ancient and modern, is the absence of the divine name. In the ancient Hebrew Scriptures that name was represented by the four letters hwhy, generally called the "Tetragrammaton" and represented by the English letters JHVH (or YHWH). In the Hebrew Scriptures the name, represented by this Tetragrammaton, occurs 6,823 times. The exact pronunciation of the name is not known today, but the most popular way of rendering it is "Jehovah." The abbreviation for this name is "Jah" (or "Yah"), and it occurs in many of the names found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Also in the exclamation Alleluia! or, Hallelujah! found four times, at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, and meaning "Praise Jah!"

As the Christian Greek Scriptures were an inspired addition and supplement to the sacred Hebrew Scriptures, this sudden disappearance from the Greek text seems inconsistent, especially when James said to the apostles and older disciples at Jerusalem about the middle of the first century: "Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name." (Acts 15:14) Then in support James made a quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name occurs twice. If Christians are to be a people for God’s name, why should his name, represented by the Tetragrammaton, be abolished from the Christian Greek Scriptures? The usual traditional explanation for this no longer holds. It was long thought that the basis for such failure of the divine name in our extant manuscripts was the absence of the name in the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX), the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which began to be made in the third century B.C. This thought was based upon the copies of LXX as found in the great manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D.: the Vatican No. 1209, the Sinaitic, the Alexandrine, and the Ambrosianus. In these the distinctive name of God was rendered by the Greek words Ku,rioj (ky’ri×os) with or without the definite article and Qeo,j (the×os‘). This namelessness was viewed as an aid to teaching monotheism.

This popular theory has now been flatly disproved by the recently found remains of a papyrus roll of LXX. This contains the second half of the book of Deuteronomy. Not one of these fragments shows an example of Ku,rioj or Qeo,j used instead of the divine name, but in each instance the Tetragrammaton is written in Aramaic characters. By permission of its owners we have reproduced photographs of fragments of the papyrus roll that our readers may examine these occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in such an early copy of LXX. (Not available for this article) Authorities fix the date for this papyrus at the 2d or 1st century B.C. This means about a century or two after the LXX was begun. It proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original. Considering it a sacrilege to use some substitute as ky’ri×os or the×os’, the scribes inserted the Tetragrammaton (hwhy) at its proper place in the Greek version text.

Did Jesus Christ and his disciples who wrote the Christian Greek Scriptures have copies at hand of the Greek Septuagint with the divine name appearing therein in the form of the Tetragrammaton? Yes! The Tetragrammaton persisted in copies of LXX for centuries after Christ and his apostles. About A.D. 128 Aquila’s Greek version had the Tetragrammaton in archaic Hebrew letters. About A.D. 245 Origen produced his famous Hexapla, this being a six-column reproduction of the inspired ancient Scriptures, (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and the Greek versions by (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the seventy (LXX), and (6) Theodotion. In the second column of the Hexapla, in the transliteration into Greek, the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters, whereas in columns 3, 4, 5 the Greek versions of Aquila. Symmachus and LXX all represented the Tetragrammaton by the similar Greek characters. Origen, in a statement on Psalm 2:2, said that "in the most faithful manuscripts THE NAME is written in Hebrew characters, that is, not in modern, but in archaic Hebrew."

A papyrus fragment of that same 3d century A.D., namely, P. Oxyrhynchus vii. 1007, is a fragment of Genesis of the LXX, and it abbreviates the Tetragrammaton by its first letter doubled, a doubled Yod (yy), the initial letter being written in the shape of a z with a horizontal stroke through the middle, the stroke being carried unbroken through both such Yod’s

In the suceeding century Jermome says that ignorant readers of the LXX imagines the Tetragrammaton to be a Greek word and actually pronounced it "Pipi." In his Prologus Galeatus prefacing the books of Samuel and Malachi he says: "We find the four-lettered name of God (i.e., hwhy) in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in the ancient letters." And in his 25th letter to Marcella, written at Rome, A.D. 384, he treats of the ten names of God and says: "The ninth [name of God] is a tetragrammaton, which they considered avnecfw,nhton [an×ek×pho’ne×ton], that is, unspeakable, which is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Which certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find them in Greek books, were accustomed to pronounce Pi Pi."

Thus down to the time of Jerome, the translator who produced the Latin Vulgate, there were Greek manuscripts of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures which still contained the divine name in its four Hebrew characters.

One thing is now certain. Whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in their Hebrew (Aramaic) original or in the Greek Septuagint Version, they would come across the divine name in its Tetragrammaton form. Did Jesus follow the traditional Jewish custom of the day and read A×do×nai’ at such places out of fear of profaning the name and violating the Third Commandment (Exodus 20:7? In the synagogue at Nazareth, when he rose and accepted the book of Isaiah and read those verses of Isaiah (61:1, 2) where the Tetragrammaton occurs twice, did he refuse to pronounce the divine name correctly? Not if Jesus followed his usual disregard for the unscriptural traditions followed by the Jewish scribes. Matthew 7:29 tells us: "He was teaching them as a person having authority, and not as their scribes." In the hearing of his faithful apostles Jesus prayed to Jehovah God, saying: "I HAVE MADE YOUR NAME MANIFEST to the men you gave me out of the world....I HAVE MADE YOUR NAME KNOWN TO THEM AND WILL MAKE IT KNOWN." (John 17:6, 26) The Jewish Talmud accuses Jesus of having performed his miracles by the pronouncing of the divine name; which is an indirect admission on the part of his enemies that he did use the name.

The question now before us is: Did Jesus’ inspired disciples use the divine name in their writings? That is, Did God’s name appear in the original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures? We have basis for answering Yes. In recent years some have claimed that Matthew’s gospel account was at first written in Hebrew rather than in its kindred language, the Aramaic. It is contended that Matthew and the early Christians produced this account to become the last book of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures as, till then, the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures had not been contemplated. There is evidence that various recensions of the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of Matthew’s account persisted for centuries among the early Jewish Christian communities of Palestine and Syria. Early writers, such as Pa’pias, Hegesippus, Jus’tin Martyr, Ta’tian, Sym’ma×chus, I×re×nae’us, Panteanus, Clem’ent of Alexandria, Or’i×gen, Pam’phi×lus, Eu×se’bi×us, Ep×i×pha’ni×us and Je×rome’, give evidence that they either possessed or had access to Hebrew and Aramaic writings of Matthew. Je×rome, of the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., had this to say:"Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an Aposlte, first of all the Evangelists, composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it. In which it is to be remarked that, wherever the Evangelist makes use of the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but of the Hebrew."¾Catal. Script. Eccl.

Matthew made more than a hundred quotations from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. So where these quotations included the divine name, he would be obliged faithfully to include the Tetragrammaton in his Hebrew gospel account. His Hebrew account would correspond closely with the Hebrew version of the 19th century by F. Delitzsch, in which Matthew contains the name "Jehovah" eighteen times. It is now believed Matthew himself translated his gospel account into the Greek. If he did, then he had available copies of the LXX containing the divine name. But, though Matthew preferred to quote direct from the Hebrew Scriptures rather than from the LXX, he could follow the LXX practice and incorporate the divine name at its proper place in the Greek text.

But all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX at verses where the Name appears, and they could follow the style then true of copies of the LXX by using the Tetragrammaton in their Greek writings.

The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX has been. And, at least from the 3d century A.D. onward, the divine name in Tetragrammaton form has been eliminated from the text by copyist who did not understand or appreciate the divine name or who developed and aversion to it, possibly under the influence of anti-Semitism. In place of it they substituted the words ky’ri×os (usually translated "the Lord") and the×os’, meaning "God."

RESTORING THE NAME: What is the modern translator to do? Is he justified, yes, authorized, to enter the divine name into a translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Every Greek reader must confess that in the LXX the Greek words ky’ri××os and the×os’ have been used to crowd out the distinctive name of the Supreme Deity. Every comprehensive Greek-English dictionary states that these two Greek words have been used as equivalents of the divine name. Hence the modern translator is warranted in using the divine name as an equivalent of those two Greek words, that is, at places where Matthew, etc., quote verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the LXX where the divine name occurs.

From the 14th century A.D. forward, translations of parts or of all the Christian Greek Scriptures have been made into the ancient classical Hebrew. The Shem Tob version of Matthew into Hebrew was made about A.D. 1385. When coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures where the Name appeared, the translators into Hebrew had no other recourse than to render Ky’ri×os or the×os’ back into its original Tetragrammaton form hwhy. Thus in that early Shem Tob version of Matthew the Tetragrammaton occurs 16 times. All together, the appearances of the sacred Tetragrammaton in the 19 Hebrew versions to which we have had access total up to 307 distinct occurrences. These have thus restored the divine name to the inspired Christian Scriptures.

How is a modern translator to know or determine when to render the Greek words Ku,rioj and qeo,j into the divine name in his version? By determining where the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. Then he must refer back to the original to locate whether the divine name appears there. This way he can determine the identity to give to ky’ri×os and the×os’ and he can then clothe them with personality.

Realizing that this is the time and place for it, we have followed this course in rendering our version of the Christian Greek Scriptures. To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have tried to be most cautious about rendering the divine name, always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures. We have looked for some agreement with us by the Hebrew versions we consulted to confirm our own rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our version, there are only two instances where we have no support or agreement from any of the Hebrew versions. But in these two instances, namely, Ephesians 6:8 and Colossians 3:13, we feel strongly supported by the context and by related texts in rendering the divine name. The notes in our lower margin show the support we have for our renderings from the Hebrew versions and other authorities.

Not in all cases where the divine name is shown in the lower margin have we rendered it in the main body of our version. Thus there are 72 instances where the divine name is shown in the margin alone, but not incorporated into the text, the warrant not being strong enough.

On pages 26 to 31 we give the list of Hebrew versions as well as other publications to which we have resorted for support of our renderings, not only of the divine name but also of other valuable features. Because the letter J corresponds with the first letter of the Tetragrammaton, we have designated them all under the letter J, but have added a superior number after in order to differentiate them. See pages 20, 21 for a photographic reproduction of the title page and of a sample page of one such Hebrew version by a Roman Catholic translator in 1668^a, whom we have listed as J⁹.

Doubtless for many of our readers a support for our rendering of the divine name comes from an unexpected source. We do not claim ours to be the first version to introduce it into the English translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Our list on page 22 shows that an American version of 1864 preceded us, but only on a limited scale; it rendered the name "Jehovah" 18 times from Matthew to Acts. We have listed this as J²¹, and our footnotes show where its renderings occur and agree with outs. But we may be the first to render the name consistently throughout the 237 times in the main body of our text. However, many English readers will be surprised to learn that further support of our rendering of the Name comes from many non-Hebrew missionary sources.*

Parts of the Holy Bible have already been translated into more than 1,100 languages and dialects. From the 18th century forward the non-Hebrew translators have in many cases found no proper equivalent in the languages into which they were translating the Christian Greek Scriptures, and hence they have used the divine name in suitable native spelling. That our readers may appreciate something of the extent to which the divine name is published in missionary versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures, we print on the preceding page a chart. It shows 20 vernacular forms of "Jehovah" used in 38 versions, and the languages in which each form is used respectively. On pages 24, 25 we are pleased to reproduce photographically parts of pages of several such versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures using the divine name in the text. There can be no real objection for these translations to do so provided they reproduce the divine name at places where the Hebrew Scriptures show the background and validity for it. For corresponding reasons no reasonable mind can find Scriptural objection to our doing so in this English version. Rather, as our readers familiarize themselves with this version, they will rejoice over the added clearness it imparts to many scriptures not distinctly discerned before.

While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yah×weh’" as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton JHVH.

We count ourselves happy to be privileged to present this New World translation in the interest of Bible education, at the time when that righteous world is dawning, where the name of the Author of the Holy Scriptures will be known and honored by all who live. We shall be grateful if it guides many into right Scriptural understanding and action at this critical time when "anyone that calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved."¾Acts 2:21.

New World Bible Translation Committee. February 9, 1950, New York, N.Y. (pp. 10-22)

I have emboldened and underlined certain important points expressed here, but especially note (1) the original Septuagint (LXX) contained the Divine Name. (2) To replace the words Kurios and Theos with the Divine Name renders "personality." (3) To restore the Divine Name where it belongs adds clearness and imparts to many scriptures not distinctly discerned before. (4) The more correct pronunciation is YAHWEH. (5) The righteous age is dawning when the name of the Author of the Holy Scriptures will be known and honored by all who live. (6) The Scriptures have been tampered with crowding the true name of the Creator out with the replacements of Kurios and Theos. (7) The Savior, Apostles and disciples knew and spoke the divine name. (8) The modern day translator (and believer) is justified and authorized to place the divine name where it belongs in the Scriptures. (9) Those who resist the replacement of the divine name to its rightful place do not understand nor have any appreciation for it, and exhibit an aversion to it. Now the real question is, If one is in possession of the Holy Spirit (which seals and imparts the name of the FATHER to the believer) would he exhibit an aversion to it? If one truly has the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, would he not rather rejoice at the declaration of the true name to the world? Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to the believer? When the truth comes won’t he rejoice at that truth, accept and declare it? If one cannot recognize the truth, then does he have the Spirit of truth? Important questions to ask are they not?

Point #3 - The author utilized the term "ineffable name" while the scholars, in their discourse, utilized the term "unspeakable." We must note that the term "ineffable name" is not found in the whole of Scripture. While the term "unspeakable" is utilized in the New Testament, it is not found in association with the true name of the Creator. YAHWEH had Moses declare to Pharaoh, "And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee My power; and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth," Ex. 9:16. The Apostle Paul repeated this declaration in Ro. 9:17. The doctrine of the "ineffable name" is found in modern-day misguided Judaism, Freemasonry and Christianity, but it is not found in the Scriptures which must be the foundation and basis of the true faith.

Point #4 - Elder Cormier utilized the name "Jehovah" as also did the scholars, however, notice that the scholars admitted that the more correct pronunciation is YAHWEH and not Jehovah. Jehovah is proven through many scholarly works to be an erroneous rendering of the Tetragrammaton which originated in Middle Ages by Christians who were ignorant of the Hebrew. The scholars justify their use of the erroneous rendering (Jehovah) because people are more familiar with it. However, when the better and more right and truthful way is revealed, are we not supposed to follow that? To remain in error is to remain in that which is wrong. The Holy Spirit leads us into that which is right and true, causing us to prefer the better way. At any rate, I have only covered the first paragraph and first point in Elder Cormier’s article and he is found to be in error in both. What spirit is truly leading him?

Continuing with the article: 2. When the New Testament was written, it was written (with a few exceptions) in the same language as the Greek Old Testament¾the common (koine) Greek. (This is remarkable indeed when it is considered that most of the dialogs (actual conversations) recorded in the New Testament were not spoken in Greek, but in Hebrew/Aramaic.) This facilitated the spread of the Gospel to more than just those who knew the Hebrew language, as the Greek language was known to a far greater percentage of the world’s population than was the Hebrew language. Although some Hebrew and Aramaic words were preserved in the Greek New Testament (e.g. Cephas, Alleluia, and some words that Jesus said that were given verbatim and then immediately translated into Greek by the author), they were given in the alphabet of the Greek language, not Hebrew characters! It is ridiculous to assert that Hebrew writing (everywhere the name of Christ appeared) was in the "earliest" (read "best") manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. (p. 7, col. 1, 2)

COMMENT: This author says that it is REMARKABLE that the New Testament is written in Greek, but all of the conversations are in Hebrew/Aramaic! Indeed, it would be remarkable if such truly were the case, but it isn’t! When YAHshua sent His disciples out, He told them, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Mt. 10:5-6. Again He said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Mt. 15:24. The Apostle Paul wrote concerning the wrath and blessings to be poured out, "Who shall render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with YAHWEH," Ro 2:6-11.

Notice it! Even though there is no respect of persons, YAHWEH always deals with the Jew, the Hebrew, first and then with the Gentiles. Here is what E. W. Bullinger admitted in Appendix 94 of The Companion Bible concerning the Greek text of the New Testament, "The writers were Hebrews; and thus, while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew. These idioms or Hebraisms are generally pointed out in the notes of The Companion Bible. If the Greek of the N.T. be regarded as an inspired translation of the Hebrew or Aramaic originals, most of the various readings would be accounted for and understood." (p. 134)

Most people who supposedly trust in the New Testament (covenant) don’t even understand what the New Covenant or Testament is all about. The reality of the New Testament is revealed in the book of Hebrews, "For finding fault with them, He saith, ‘Behold, the days come, saith YAHWEH, when I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My Covenant, and I regarded them not, saith YAHWEH. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith YAHWEH; I will put My laws into their minds and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a Elohim, and they shall be to Me a People...," Heb. 8:8-10.

Herein is the reality of the New Covenant! It is primarily made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah! Notice the name of the book that I have quoted from. Isn’t it the book of HEBREWS? Would YAHWEH inspire this book, written to Hebrews, to be recorded initially in Greek? Remember that the deliverance from Egypt had to do primarily with the house of Israel, but a mixed multitude went out with them. According to the New Testament writings, YAHWEH hasn’t changed. He is still primarily concerned with making His New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, but He is also going to have mercy upon many of the Gentiles.

Now notice the writings of Paul again, "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, ‘The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.’ Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if YAHWEH spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of YAHWEH: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for YAHWEH is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" Ro. 11:17-24.

Much of the scholarly world has been taught and has taught that the original New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek. What has been available to the world has seemed to support their teachings. This has been utilized against the Sacred Name believers as evidence that there is nothing special concerning the Creator's name. The Sacred Name believers have been scoffed at and ridiculed for believing and teaching that the New Testament Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew because the evidence seems to be stacked against them (us). However, the Scriptural evidence reveals otherwise. This same scenario fits concerning the flood, the Assyrian Empire and its great city Nineveh. The scholarly world scoffed and ridiculed the Biblical account of the flood along with the Assyrian Empire with its great city Nineveh. They scoffed, that is, until archeologists discovered the ruins of the ancient city of Nineveh and also evidence of the flood has also been discovered. For one to teach the world’s view (which is usually anti-Scripture) in lieu of what the Scriptures reveal will ultimately end in shame.

As to his statement concerning it being ridiculous to assert that everywhere the name of the Messiah appeared in the Greek New Testament would have been in the Hebrew, see my comment concerning the name of the Heavenly FATHER.

Continuing with the article: 3. Nowhere in the Greek New Testament does the tetragrammaton (YHWH) appear! Invariably, the New Testament follows the Greek Old Testament (LXX) in using KURIOS for YAHWEH (YHWH). Now remember: even though we have no reason to claim divine inspiration for the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language, we do know that the production of the New Testament was under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost, just as was the writing of the Old Testament in its original form. And by the direction of the Holy Ghost, the authors of the New Testament used the language and syntax of the Greek Old Testament¾indeed, there are whole portions of the Old Testament included in the New Testament that are quoted out of the Greek Old Testament. (Both Christ and the Apostles have quotations from the LXX attributed to them.) This is irrefutable proof that there is no superiority in the Hebrew tongue over the Greek or any other tongue. (p. 7, col. 2)

COMMENT: See the previous comments which will give explanation to the erroneous statements made under this point. This man is simply following the nature of the Gentile Greek mind which does not appreciate nor understand the true value and importance of the name of the Creator YAHWEH nor the Hebrew language.

Continuing with the article: 4. When God revealed his Glory to Moses, he apparently showed him the structure of the Church Age ("the pattern that was showed thee in the mount"). Subsequently, we observe in scripture that Moses calls his successor YESHUA (the Hebrew word for the English word JOSHUA). According to language scholars, the Hebrew word YESHUA is a contraction of the Hebrew name YAHWEH (LORD) and the Hebrew word SHUA (salvation/savior/saves). In the Greek Old Testament (LXX) the Hebrew name YESHUA was consistently transliterated (letter for letter translation instead of translating the entire word) into the Greek name IESOUS (pronounced YAY-SOOS). In fact, readers of the LXX will find an entire book in the Old Testament bearing the name of IESOUS. Those who have studied the language of TYPES in the scripture readily agree that Moses stood for and represented the LAW, and Joshua (YESHUA/IESOUS) stood for and represented CHRIST.) "The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.") It should come as no surprise to find that the names JOSHUA and JESUS are both derivations of the same Hebrew word, with one coming straight into English from Hebrew, and the other coming from Hebrew through Greek into English. Thus we have an Old Testament YESHUA/IESOUS who was Joshua, the son of Nun, who stood for and represented the New Testament YESHUA/IESOUS who was Jesus, the son of God! (p. 7, col. 2, 3)

COMMENT: Now let me get this straight, the name JOSHUA comes directly from the Hebrew word YESHUA? How do we transliterate the name YESHUA into the English word JOSHUA? The direct transliteration of the Hebrew YESHUA would be YESHUA in English. However, go to any Hebrew-English lexicon and one will find that the direct transliteration of the Hebrew name for the son of Nun ([vwhy) is Joshua. This must mean that the actual Hebrew pronunciation of this name is YAHSHUA, not YESHUA. The contraction form for the name YAHWEH is YAH. Add YAH to SHUA and one will get YAHSHUA, not YESHUA!

Notice also that he pointed out that the Greek pronunciation of IESOUS would be YAY-SOOS. The much more correct transliteration of this into modern day English would be JAY-ZOOS, not GEE-ZUS. The actual fact of the matter is that the Hebrew [vwhy is transliterated into the Greek Ihsouvj, which was transliterated into the Latin Iesus, which was transliterated in turn, into the English Jesus.

Now we know the games that we played when we were children. We would get a group of children to form a circle. One would whisper into another’s ear a certain sentence which would be whispered into the next child’s ear. This process would be repeated until it came back to the one who originated the sentence. What came back to the originator would be nothing like that which he/she had begun. The same is accomplished in seeking to transliterate the Savior's name from Hebrew into several successive languages (e.g. Hebrew to Greek, Greek to Latin, Latin to English), the end result is corruption.

As this minister points out, the more correct transliteration of the Savior's name into English is Joshua. The pronunciation from the Greek, to the Latin, to the English is Jesus. Now compare the names Joshua and Jesus. There is hardly any similarity between the two. We prefer to utilize the more appropriate transliterated pronunciation of YAHshua. You see, the letter "J" did not originally exist in the English language. Any good encyclopedia or dictionary will reveal that the "J" was added about the 16th century. Originally it was a long "I". We can understand this by looking at the word Hallelujah (pronounced Hallelu-YAH). Notice that the "J" is pronounced like the long "I". Another example is the English name "Ian" which is actually equivalent to the name "John." Ian (Ee×yan) was the original pronunciation but when the "I" is replaced with the "J", the modern day world pronounces it as Gee×yan.

One more thing to point out is what the elder said about the pattern shown to Moses in the mount. The pattern was that of the tabernacle, its appurtenances, and the priesthood, not the church age. The Law came through Moses while grace and truth came through YAHshua the Messiah. But YAHshua said that Moses wrote of Him (Jn. 5:46), so that pattern was a pattern of the Messiah, the Anointed One (which most of this world calls Christ but doesn‘t understand).

Continuing with the article: 5. When the angel appeared to Joseph (Matthew 1:21) and gave him the name of the Christ child, we have every reason to believe that this conversation occurred in the Hebrew/Aramaic tongue, and not in the Greek tongue. Yet our original text is in Greek, and the conversation is recorded using the Greek language. Simple logic tells us that if Matthew wrote the Greek word IESOUS as the name, we have only to go back to the LXX (Greek Old Testament) and see what that name was in Hebrew. As we have seen above, the Greek word IESOUS is a direct transliteration of the Hebrew word YESHUA (English: JOSHUA). Thus we see that in the language of Joseph and Mary and their contemporaries, Christ’s name was YESHUA; the English form of the Greek word IESOUS is JESUS (another transliteration)! (p. 7, col. 3)

COMMENT: E. W. Bullinger make the following comment concerning Mat. 1:21 in The Companion Bible: JESUS. For this type see Ap. 48. The same as the Heb. Hoshea (Num. 13:16) with Jah prefixed=God [our] Saviour, or God Who [is] salvation.

Notice that he admits that the Savior's name is Hoshea with Jah (Yah) prefixed. If Yah is prefixed then the pronunciation could not be Jesus nor Yeshua. See also my comment on #6.

One other error that we must correct in this man’s statement is the fact that there are no originals of either Hebrew or Greek available to us today of either the Old or New Testament. Everything that we have available to us, even of the most ancient manuscripts, are copies of copies. It is obvious that as copies have been made down through the centuries and millennia man has corrupted that which was originally and purely inspired. As we discovered in previous comments made, the true name of the Creator has certainly been replaced as scribes (especially the Greeks and other Gentiles) who were ignorant and non-caring concerning the true names have made their copies.

Continuing with the article: 6. The angel that appeared to Joseph gave the reason for the name YESHUA¾He shall save His people from their sins. We have seen that the Hebrew name YESHUA is a contraction of the Hebrew name YAHWEH and the Hebrew word SHUA (salvation). Thus, YESHUA means YAHWEH HAS BROUGHT SALVATION. It is rather illogical to suggest that the angel said "You shall call his name YAHWEH for he shall save his people from their sins." The Hebrew name YESHUA (JESUS in English) literally means that YAHWEH HAS COME AS THE SAVIOR FROM SIN. It is inconceivable that rational minds would be inclined to believe that simply the Hebrew name YAHWEH would be in any way superior to the Hebrew name YESHUA, which not only has YAHWEH in it, but also contains the revelation of His redemptive purpose in bringing salvation to the world. (p. 10, col. 1)

COMMENT: Again, I must reiterate that we do not seek to replace the name of the Savior with the name YAHWEH. But we do seek to grant to the Savior His true and much more preferred name which is YAHSHUA rather than JESUS or YESHUA. However, that being said, we must call into question the statement "It is inconceivable that rational minds would be inclined to believe that simply the Hebrew name YAHWEH would be in any way superior to the Hebrew name YESHUA." YAHshua said that the FATHER was greater than He. He proclaimed the name of the FATHER to His disciples. Scripture records in both Old and New Testaments that whoever calls upon the name YAHWEH shall be saved (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Ro. 10:13). A study of Scripture reveals that men have borne a portion of the name YAHWEH, but not its entirety. For example, the prophet Isaiah is actually rendered as IsaYah in English, but in Hebrew it would be YeshaYahu (Why"[.v;y>). Notice the Yod, He, waw (Why") on the end of the name. This is the fullest extent of the Sacred Name that a man can bear (the Sacred Name being Yod, He, Waw, He [hwhy]). Even the Savior YAHshua only had the YHW (why) incorporated into His name. Thus, the name YAHWEH truly is superior. Had this man studied the Scriptural facts out, he would have known such.

Continuing with the article: 7. Pilate, at the crucifixion of Christ, put a superscription on the cross: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews. In order that all those passing by might be able to understand what he had written, he ordered that it would be written in Greek (the language of the scholars of that day), Hebrew (the language of Christ and his fellow countrymen), and Latin (the language of Rome, the then ascendant world power). If the UNTRANSLATED Hebrew characters for the Hebrew name YAHWEH were used for the name of Christ in the Greek and Latin portions of the writing, how would anyone except those who understood Hebrew have understood who it was that was on the cross? (p. 10, col. 1)

COMMENT: Again and again he rails about an erroneous thing. The name of the Savior was YAHshua. Pilate would have transliterated the Savior's name into the other languages just as we transliterate His name into the English as YAHshua. There is no difficulty concerning that.

Continuing with the article: 8. The Sacred Name of God to the Hebrews was YAHWEH. According to Hebrew customs, it was not to be pronounced except by certain ones, and could not even be written without a ceremonial cleansing of the hands by the scribe who was to write it. Eventually, it came to be written in Hebrew as YHWH, without any vowel points, lest the person writing or reading it would accidentally say it and thus profane it. Because of this, the actual pronunciation of the word was eventually lost. Later, the vowels from the Hebrew word ADONAI (Lord) were inserted to make it somewhat pronounceable; hence the modernized version of the word: YAHWEH. How likely is it that Christ grew up in a society with a personal name that anyone who pronounced it would be guilty of "taking the name of YAHWEH in vain?" Indeed, if we understand the teachings of the Apostles, this name of Christ is to be invoked at water baptism, in prayer for the sick, and in worship. How are we supposed to comply with these Apostolic teachings if the true pronunciation of this name has been forever lost¾as would be the case if the name of Christ were YAHWEH instead of JESUS?

COMMENT: Why doesn’t this man do some in-depth research before he responds to the matter? We are now on point eight and haven’t found any worthwhile truth to his reasonings yet. His reasonings only get worse! When he says, "According to Hebrew customs...," shouldn’t this alert him to the Savior's own words? "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of YAHWEH, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.’ And He said unto them, ‘Full well ye reject the commandment of YAHWEH, that ye may keep your own tradition.’ For Moses said, ‘Homour thy father and thy mother;’ and, ‘Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:’ But ye say, ‘If a man shall say to his father or mother, ‘It is Corban, (that is to say, a gift), by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;’ he shall be free.’ And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of YAHWEH of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do," Mk. 7:6-13.

If one will only do some in-depth study concerning the Sacred Name, he will find that the Name of the Creator was very well known and spoken before the Jews went into captivity to Babylon. When they returned to the land, the Name was once again freely spoken and known, but about 200 years before the appearing of the Savior, the doctrine of the "Ineffable Name" began to take hold and the forbidding of the pronunciation of it was enforced. While the Name of the Creator and its pronunciation may have been forgotten by most of the people (as is the condition of the majority of today’s world) YAHshua declared the Name to His disciples, "And now, O FATHER, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was. I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me; and they have kept Thy word....And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy FATHER, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me that they may be one, as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled," Jn. 17:5-6, 11-12.

"Since the Name was so important to YAHshua, and it is the Spirit of truth that guides His people, don’t you think that it will lead one into the true Name of the Creator? Especially since the true followers, the true disciples, the true believers are to be kept in that Name? Isn’t the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth supposed to lead us into ALL TRUTH? "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. And when He is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on Me; of righteousness, because I go to My FATHER, and ye see Me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you onto all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the FATHER hath are Mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of Mine, and shall shew it unto you," Jn. 16:7-15.

Notice that closely, "All things that the FATHER hath are Mine." The name of the FATHER is also a possession of the Son. Yes, in his heavenly glorified state, the Savior can be called YAHWEH, but on earth (which is under heaven) there is none other name given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12) and that name is YAHSHUA, not the corrupted JESUS!

When this man says, "Eventually, it came to be written in Hebrew as YHWH, without any vowel points, lest the person writing or reading it would accidentally say it and thus profane it," this is a completely untrue statement! None of the Hebrew language was originally written with vowel points. After the destruction of the second temple, the knowledge of the Hebrew language was beginning to be lost so the scribes added the vowel points for the purpose of aiding in pronunciation. However, by this time the tradition was fully established against speaking the Name so there were no vowel points added in order to keep the pronunciation hidden. When one came to the Sacred Name, the word Adonai was to be spoken as a replacement. In order to remind the scribe to speak the word "ADONAI" they added the vowel points of that word to the name. When the Christians of the Middle Ages began to study into the Hebrew language, they saw the vowel points of ADONAI and introduced the erroneous pronunciation of YEHOWAH which has become the modern day JEHOVAH.

Look at the opening and closing statements of this point. He declares that the Sacred Name to the Hebrews was YAHWEH, but he closes by saying that the pronunciation was forever lost. How is it that he feels that the Heavenly FATHER YAHWEH, YAHSHUA the Messiah and the Holy Spirit are so helpless that we can never know the name nor its pronunciation? Especially when we see that Joel, Peter and Paul agree in that "Whoever shall call upon the name YAHWEH shall be saved?" I thought that the spirit that this man has and exhibits is a spirit of power. He (probably) can and (probably) has spoken in unknown tongues, but declares that he can’t even know the true name of the Heavenly FATHER. What kind of spirit is that?

Yes, we do baptize in the name of the Savior YAHSHUA (the only name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved [Acts 4:12]), but we also call upon the name YAHWEH for salvation. After all, YAHshua asked the FATHER to keep us in His own name (YAHWEH) [Jn. 17:11]) and He instructed His followers to ask of the FATHER in His name (YAHSHUA [Jn. 15:16]).

Continuing with the article: 9. Saul, on the road to Damascus, was arrested by God with a brilliant light from heaven. Saul, looking heavenward, cried (in the Hebrew tongue): "Who art thou, Lord?" The Greek word used to translate his Hebrew word for "Lord" is KURIOS. This is the word used in the Greek Old Testament to translate YAHWEH. Thus, it is very likely that Saul actually said, "Who art thou, YAHWEH?") We have every reason to believe that the answer came back in the same language as the question¾i.e., Hebrew. Thus, "I am IESOUS" (Greek for JESUS) would actually have been "I am YESHUA" (Hebrew for IESOUS). But to assert that the answer came back "I am YAHWEH" leaves us feeling like Saul didn’t get an answer, and makes his conversion unnecessary, as he was already serving YAHWEH as far as he knew. (p. 10, col. 2)

COMMENT: What great fallacious reasoning that is utilized here! Saul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees forbade the speaking of the Sacred Name. It was and still is an abomination to them. Saul would have asked "Who are Thou, ADONAI?" (The Hebrew word for Lord, but which they also substituted for YAHWEH) The Savior responded in the Hebrew tongue, "I am YAHSHUA..." ([vwhy yna). If Saul had responded, "Who art thou, YAHWEH?" then he would have already identified the One Who was speaking to him with the personal name YAHWEH. This would have been a very ridiculous and stupid question. If he already knew that it was YAHWEH, then he wouldn’t have had to ask the question. This man’s own actions reveal that he is only on a vendetta to resist and overthrow the knowledge of the name of the Heavenly FATHER and the true name of the Son. To assert that Saul asked "Who art Thou, YAHWEH?" leaves us with the understanding that this man doesn’t know what he is talking about, and that he is willing to mislead the sheep in his care, keeping them blinded to the real truth.

Continuing with the article: 10. To believe that the name of Christ is indeed YAHWEH instead of YESHUA/IESOUS/JESUS, we must first believe that everywhere in the Greek New Testament that the word IESOUS occurs someone has tampered with the original text and replaced YAHWEH (the untranslated Hebrew characters) with the Greek name IESOUS. The early writers after the death of the Apostles, such as Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus, apparently had very primitive Greek texts of the New Testaments, and it is common knowledge that they (writing in Greek) knew Christ’s name to be IESOUS (JESUS), and they very plainly attested to the deity of Jesus Christ. (p. 10. col. 2-3)

COMMENT: The truth of the matter is that the New Testament Scriptures have been tampered with! By taking the name of the Heavenly FATHER YAHWEH out of the place wherein it is supposed to appear, especially out of the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament Scriptures, substituting in its place the common Greek terms kurios and theos. In actuality, the Savior's name YAHSHUA has also been tampered with. The fragments of many documents preceding the modern day Greek and Aramaic Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, contained the true name of the Heavenly FATHER in archaic Hebrew (hwhy), Modern day Hebrew script (hwhy), and even Greek script (Iaw) whether they are written in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. This proves that the name of the Heavenly FATHER was greatly honored and respected by the original adherents to the truth, but somewhere along the line (by about the third or fourth century) the knowledge of the name of the Heavenly FATHER and its importance was lost. It is a fact that the original Assembly and its leadership was composed of Hebrews. Jerusalem was the headquarters for the New Testament believers because that is where the house was (the Temple) which was built in honor of the Heavenly FATHER'S name. Even though the Jewish (Hebrew) peoples had been scattered throughout the then known world, many, many of them would make a pilgrimage back to Jerusalem during the times of the Feasts of YAHWEH (Passover & Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks [spring feasts], and the fall festival season which included Trumpets, Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great Day). This gave the New Testament Assembly and its leaders a wonderful opportunity to witness to the house of Israel concerning the truth about YAHSHUA.

The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 69-70 C.E. when the Jewish people revolted against the Roman yoke. Then in 132 C.E. there was another revolt by Ben-Kosebah and his followers who proclaimed him as the Messiah. This was known as the Bar-kokhba rebellion. The Romans again destroyed Jerusalem, conquered the rebels and sold the survivors into slavery, dispersing them throughout the empire. They renamed the city Aetolia Capitolina and forbade Jewish entrance to its environs. This also marked the end of Jewish leadership over the known assembly. Gentile converts took over its leadership and became the great overall majority of its visible membership. It was this situation which helped to bring about the removal of the true names from knowledge and also the Scriptures.

Professor George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote an article entitled The Name of God in the New Testament in Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978. He gives sufficient evidence in this article that the name of the Heavenly FATHER did appear in all early manuscripts of Scripture whether Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek or whether so-called pre-Christian or New Testament writings themselves. Here is what he confesses, "These examples are sufficient to suggest that the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible to tell which one was meant. This is supported by the fact that in a number of places where Old Testament quotations are cited, there is a confusion in the manuscript tradition whether to read God or Christ in the discussion surrounding the quotation. Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate "Lord", scribes were unsure whether "Lord" meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries.

We certainly agree with Professor Howard. The removal of the name of the Creator, in effect, also removed His personality from the Scriptures. Under the yoke of the Roman Caesars, Christianity was forced to accept the doctrine of many foreign pagan gods which the Romans worshipped. Today, Christianity continues the promotion of this syncretized religion by naming the FATHER "God", a term which is not only the name of the chief deity of the Teutonic peoples, but is also traced back to Taurus the Bull in the origins of the English language. Christianity promotes the chief holy day of the sun-god (Sunday), the birthday of the sun-god Mithras (Dec. 25th), and the resurrection of the sun-god Tammuz along with his mother-wife-sister Ishtar (Easter). They follow a false savior whom they falsely proclaim has "done away with the law" and who has a false erroneous name, to wit: JESUS. The simple truth of the matter is that the Savior was NEVER called JESUS during His whole life among mankind. Nor was He referred to as JESUS by the Apostles and disciples of the earliest history of the assembly.

That removing the name not only created confusion, but also aided in blending paganism with the true faith is realized in certain statements made by Prof. Howard and the New World Translation Committee, to wit; "This namelessness was viewed as an aid to teaching monotheism"..."Rather, as our readers familiarize themselves with this version, they will rejoice over the added clearness it imparts to many scriptures not distinctly discerned before." And "The Jewish God who had always been carefully distinguished from all others by the use of His Hebrew name lost some of His distinctiveness with the passing of the Tetragrammaton." The "monotheism" comment alludes to the attempt by the Caesars to introduce a "one world religion" based upon the conglomeration of the worship of all of the deities of the world. If monotheism has been the desire, then the true name should have been left intact in order for the people to understand and know just Who the true Elohim of heaven was. This would have added clarity to the Scriptures as has been stated by Prof. Howard and the Committee.

Continuing with the article: The YAHWEH Doctrine is a false doctrine. We reject and repudiate it on the grounds that it has no scriptural basis, but is the fanciful flight of imagination of someone who is grossly deceived. According to Philippians 2:9-11, the name of Jesus is a name above every name, and at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the FATHER. Ephesians 1:21 further reveals that the name of Jesus is above every name that is named in this world (age) and that which is to come. Acts 4:12 asserts that there is salvation in no other than JESUS; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Thomas said of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Peter said that God hath made that same Jesus whom the Jews had crucified "both Lord and Christ." Paul said that no man speaking by the Spirit calleth Jesus accursed; and no man can say Jesus is Lord (or, Lord Jesus!) but by the Holy Ghost. (p. 10, col. 3)

COMMENT: This man has already revealed to us that he believes the Hebrew name of the Savior is YESHUA. As I pointed out, the transliteration of the term YESHUA into the English language would be YESHUA, not JESUS. But he has also already admitted, according to his own belief, that the English name Joshua is the transliteration of the Hebrew YESHUA. Names are transliterated from one language to the next. When we spoke of the former prime minister of Israel, Benyamin Natanyahu, neither we nor the news media, nor anyone else that I know of, changed his name to our English version Benjamin. Neither did we change Mikhail Gorbachev to Michael, nor Francois Mitterand to Frank. Thus, for this man to admit that the name is YESHUA (Heb.)/JOSHUA (Eng.) and not change to the better, more truthful form reveals that he is willing to remain steeped in error even when the truth comes from his own hand and smacks him right between the eyes.

The interesting thing is that this man has ventured to write this article of rejection and repudiation without consulting scholarly works, nor looking into the truth of the matter. He is the one has made so many false statements and false accusations which cannot stand up when scrutinized by the light of truth. For him to reject and repudiate the "YAHWEH DOCTRINE" is for him to reject and repudiate the truth.

Continuing with the article: Let the YAHWEH camp receive an old-fashioned baptism of the Holy Ghost and they will most assuredly renounce this doctrine of demons that attempts to denigrate the lovely name of our lord and savior, Jesus Christ.

COMMENT: Since when is the truth the "doctrine of demons?" The truth of the matter is that the name Jesus Christ DENIGRATES the true name of the Savior YAHSHUA because it is not the true transliteration according to this man’s own words. He states that JOSHUA is the English transliteration! Now, do demons love the truth or do they revel in lies, deceit and falsehood? Why would anyone want an old-fashioned baptism of a spirit that does not lead one into truth, but rather, gives excuses to remain in lies? This man has had very little truth expounded in this article. Of course, Satan is the one who takes a little bit of truth, surrounds it with lies, and pawns it off on everyone as gospel.

Even the title of his article is so misleading, "10 Reasons Why THOUGHTFUL and DISCERNING PEOPLE Must Reject the ‘YAHWEH’ Doctrine." Actually, THOUGHTFUL and DISCERNING PEOPLE must reject the falsehood that has been preposterously presented here in his article because it has no scriptural basis, but is the fanciful flight of imagination of all who are grossly deceived by that old serpent called the Devil and Satan (Rev. 12:9).

If any of the YAHWEH People are encouraging others to replace the name of the Savior YAHSHUA with the name YAHWEH, I also will have to respond with an article denouncing such practice. The name of the FATHER (YAHWEH) distinguishes Who He is and the name of the Son (YAHSHUA) distinguishes Who He is.

Therefore, we encourage this elder to confess his errors expounded here, to repent and repudiate and reject the writing of his own hand. We encourage him to receive the Comforter, the Spirit of truth (the Holy Spirit) and to encourage others to walk in and live according to the TRUTH. YAHWEH AND YAHSHUA BE PRAISED!!!