The Names of Jehovah God

[Josh]

One name the Bible uses for God is “ba’al”. Don’t hear anyone use that one too often.

Another one means, literally, “god of gods”.

God is not God because his name has some specific pronunciation in some language.

[gcdonner]

One name the Bible uses for God is “ba’al”. Don’t hear anyone use that one too often.

Another one means, literally, “god of gods”.

God is not God because his name has some specific pronunciation in some language.

However, God is not our Father's name. All of those you have mentioned are generic terms for our Divine One's title. Jehovah, or the myriad of other spellings/pronunciations is His name. Unfortunately, many people, Christians included think we serve the same god as the Muslims and the "name" that they attribute to him of allah is just an Aramaic term for "god", not a name, just a title. The god of Islam has never revealed himself to his followers by name.

[KingdomBuilder]

Christians included think we serve the same god as the Muslims and the "name" that they attribute to him of allah is just an Aramaic term for "god", not a name, just a title. The god of Islam has never revealed himself to his followers by name.

This is true. Muslims acknowledge this.. They claim to have the same Jesus and the same "God". Ask a muslim if they believe in [God's name]; it's a "no" everytime.

[KingdomBuilder]

One name the Bible uses for God is “ba’al”. Don’t hear anyone use that one too often.

That is not a proper noun.. it can be translated.. Simply means "Lord", just like Adonai.

God is not God because his name has some specific pronunciation in some language.

I know of no one who claims this.. if they do, I assure you I'm not of the same mind as they! And I'll go out on a limb and say GC isn't, either.

I guess it boils down to how people look at what God meant..HE gave Himself his name. It's not translatable, it's not improper, and it's not just another title. If it weren't important, why would He do it?
Jehovah gave his name to his people to use, and they did use it- right up to the very last verse of the OT. It was legalistic interpretation by religious leaders that took the Name out of the peoples mouths. Since when did we let Pharisees decide what's proper for us?? It's baffles me!

Why are people so against it? I thought Anabaptists especially were known for simplistic Biblical interpretation and application? Why over complicate a simple matter?

I realize the "cause" has been tainted for a lot of people by groups like JW's, by legalistic "Holy Name"-ers, and by hyper-Zionist Christians, etc... But we cannot let those who skew and misrepresent things guide our practice. If we did, we wouldn't have a chance with pursuing Christianity!!

[KingdomBuilder]

Jehovah... hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations

Ex. 3:15

It's pretty straightforward and simple. Instead of seeing a point to try and show disapproval towards the Biblical convictions of other believers, I wish we could all see the intentionality, the care, and the beauty of the fact that our Father gave us a beautiful memorial to be known by- forever.
God's name is Biblical. The discontinuation of it is societal. I know which side I'd choose. I won't try and convince everyone to do the same, as I realize it could bring pride/ legalism to some, but I would ask others to not try and demean the reverence some have in the matter. That, to me, is unbiblical.

[Josh]

The term “I am that I am” is hardly a name either. I’d call it a pronoun.

[gcdonner]

The term “I am that I am” is hardly a name either. I’d call it a pronoun.

God called it HIS name. You want to contradict HIM?
There are meanings behind every name, even yours, Josh. We don't go around calling you "man" in substitution for your name do we. Man is what you are but not your name.

[KingdomBuilder]

The term “I am that I am” is hardly a name either. I’d call it a pronoun.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're trying to say that Jehovah is just "I AM THAT I AM"... so it's no jump, based on your statement, to conclude that Jehovah is a pronoun, too.

Every bit of historical, linguistic, and grammatical evidence shows that Jehovah is used as a proper noun and a formal name. So, even if Jehovah simply means "I AM THAT I AM", you are incorrect in claiming that it is merely a pronoun.

Let's think about why Jews stopped saying YHWH-- because of a draconian interpretation of the following commandment

Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

ASV

So.. they interpret "name" to be synonymous with Jehovah. What other evidence is needed to prove it was and is a proper noun; a formal name?

[RZehr]

Most Mennonites I know have no problem with Jehovah being the name of God. It's simply not a discussion point. We accept it, and make no issue of it. However, we don't commonly use His name Jehovah in the course of the day, that is not our habit. We just say God.

[KingdomBuilder]

Most Mennonites I know have no problem with Jehovah being the name of God. It's simply not a discussion point. We accept it, and make no issue of it. However, we don't commonly use His name Jehovah in the course of the day, that is not our habit. We just say God.

That's fine. Most make no issues of it, but some do. I'm not in the business of trying to convince everyone else to do as I and others do in regards to the Name. I will admit, though, that I can't understand the apprehension towards it that many hold. I do not, however, have any appreciation for attitudes that seek to disqualify the validity of completely Biblical convictions/ ways Believers seek to revere our Father.
If KJV hadn't used "the LORD" in place of God's name, me thinks most Mennonites would be using God's name to this day...