Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Although a lot of English language translations use "the LORD" for the
    tetragrammaton, the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible
    actually use Yahweh instead (those are the only two translations that I
    know of that do that.)
    
    -- Mike

re:  .0  John

>Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render
>the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being replaced by J and the sound of W
>by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV
>and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. 

And the Hebrew Ye-shu'a, which was wrtten I-e-sous' in Greek is rendered
Jesus in English.  Why don't you have a problem with that?


>(1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name
>ever used in Hebrew.

And if your name was pronounced in Chinese, Russian, or other foriegn language,
it wouldn't accurately represent your name used in English, would it?


>(2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there
>were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be
>discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for
>the universal faith of the Christian Church.

So the Committee decided it was appropriate to delete the representation of
the personal name of the Divine Author of Holy Scripture; a name that appears
more often than any other name or title (~7,000 times).  The Committee copies
the adherents of Judaism.  Jesus showed their true colors at Matt. 15:6, when
he told them, "You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition."
Also, see the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew for a better view of how Jesus 
felt about those men.


Steve

re .0


>(2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there
>were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be
>discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for
>the universal faith of the Christian Church.

        John, if this statement is true then why do those of Christendom
        refer to Jesus as being the one and only God? Seeing that it 
	would be by this statement inappropriate to do so?

        Phil.

    
     A few of the places God's name, Jehovah, is found in some common
    translations are listed below. 
    King James Version @ Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18 and a few other places.
    The New English Bible @ Exodus 3:15,6:3 and a few other verses as well.
    American Standard Version also uses the name Jehovah in the Hebrew
    Scriptures @ Gen 2:4 on.      
    The Bible in Living English and The Holy Bible by Robert Young both use 
    Jehovah throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
    The Emphatic Diaglott uses Jehovah at Matt 21:9 and numerous other
    places in the Greek Scriptures.
    And of course there is the New World Translation that uses the name
    Jehovah in both the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures; 7,210 times. 
    
    Jehovah is used in several places in the above mentioned translations.
    Doesn't that make you wonder why the Tetragrammaton is not consistantly 
    rendered as Jehovah?
    
                              robin
      robin

I note that you guys are claiming to be more qualified Bible scholars than
the people who wrote what I posted in .0.

/john

.5  John


>I note that you guys are claiming to be more qualified Bible scholars than
>the people who wrote what I posted in .0.

Excuse me, but I don't see where anybody has claimed any kind of superiority,
including the people who wrote what you posted in .0.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329):  "Jehovah, the proper
name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by ex-
cellence, the great name, the only name."


Steve

    Nowadays (I mean in our generation in the 20th century)the name Jehovah
    became very unpopular in Europe.
    This was not the case a couple of centuries ago.The name Jehovah was not 
    only written in the bible,but also written on the Entrances of Catholic
    churches and Cathedrals.Countries like Germany,Holland,France,Austria
    Spain,Italy....etc.Believe it or not,even in countries like Brazil and
    South-Africa.Even in the Vatican where the pope lives.
    In holland (a couple of century ago) they have build a small city and
    called it "The Holy Land Society".They copied the city of Jerusalem.
    The personal name of God was placed on the Entrance.But with time 
    they painted and repainted it over and over again.The name was still there 
    but covered with a lot of paint.A couple of years ago they started to
    restore the whole place and........the name appeared again.
    This made the newspaper headline.But what happened????
    They took the name away. (very funny...so did the early scholars too
    in the early times of the bible). 
    The personal name of God .....JEHOVAH....was very common in Europe 
    a couple of centuries ago.
    Even on graveyards and gravestones and also on money.
    The name was written as well in the tetragrammaton (Hebrew letters)
    as in Latin form (our common alphabeth).
    You do not have to be a bible scholar to know all this. You don't even
    have to travel to europe to see it. You just have to search for the
    right way and everything will be revealed to you...and a lot more that
    you never had thought about or even know the excistance of.
    Why all this ????
    When you hear the name Yehowah...What's the first thing that come up
    in your mind.......??????????????
    
    Yes...You are thinking on the people who every time ,again and again
    ringing at your door.
    That's why the name became unpopular these days.
    There is a lot more to write ....but with time.
    
    Have a nice day        
    
    
    alex odor
    
    
     
                                               
                                           

    "Jehovah" is a lingustic issue, not a doctrinal one.
    
    Is there a conspiracy here?
    
    No, knowledge of Ancient Hebrew increased in the 20th Century and the
    assignment of vowels and the usage of "Y" rather "J" as the first
    consonant seems to be a more accurate rendering of the four characters
    of the Hebrew alphabet that don't have a direct map into the Latin
    alphabet used by English-speaking people (YHWH or JHVH).
    
    Most contemporary Roman Catholic biblical commentary (ie not 1913)
    written in English use Yahweh to refer to the name of God.

    re:.8
    
    Hallo Patrick,
    
    The name "Jehovah" is indeed a linguistic issue.
    Linguistic in the form of deep insight.
    
    This very sacred name
    written as YHWH with the vowels [colon;right under the Yod and T;right 
    under the Waw] e and a in my hebrew bible ,to be compared with the NWT
    because the sacred name is all in there,is pronounced as JEH-WAH.
    
    But when a Hebrew or Jew met this name while reading his bible,he will
    not pronounced the name or even try.Instead he shall read Elohim or Adonai
    or read the eternal one.
    
    
    I mentioned the word "deep insight" because the name is YEHoWAH is a
    verb. and a causative one in the imperfect state.
    
    The hebrew verb HAWAH means"TO BECOME" so,a causative form.
    The imperfect state....this means his fullfillment is still going on.
    
    That's the name the only true God gave to Moshe (Moses) on
    the mountain Horeb in the wildernis of sinai.Look for it if you wish in
    your bible .  2nd biblebook called Exodus (the departing) chapter 3.
    
    So the name Jehovah or YEHOWAH means "the Fullfiller of promises"
    So,there is no conspiracy here,but only the revelation of his name.
                                                       
    And, it is not wrong to call Him JAH-WEH,as long as the tetragrammaton
    is in there.It is wrong NOT to pronounce his name.The catholic bible
    does.My copy printed in 1950 uses the name JAH-WEH.
    He gave Moshe this name so that every knee will bow and give Him the 
    honour and worship He deserves.
    
    Of course we do not know exactly how the name was pronounced,but this
    do not give us any reason not to use it.
    
    The same thing is with the illustration of the writer of a bestseller.
    After a while people start to take away the name of the writer.
    After let us say a generation,everybody in found of the book but 
    do not know the name of the writer.How can they discus the book and
    what most important of all,give the writer the honour he deserves.
    
    And the writer himself.I think he will be very sad and disapointed
    isn't it ?
    
    So what about our creator who still mantain and support us with life ??
    
    PS: names like God,god,Adonai.Elohim,Lord,....etc are only titles like
        president,excellence,Lord,Sir....etc.
    All of those persons have personal names. So the personal name of
    the only true and living God is Jehovah or Jahweh.
    
    Have a nice day,
    
                              alex
    
    

   His name has been revealed...


   It contains 4 letters; Its in the NT four times, transliterated from 
   the Hebrew name which Jesus Christ revealed to His disciples.
   


   And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that
   the love may be in them and I in them.




                         ABBA, FATHER!

    re .0 (COVERT::COVERT)
    
>To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as
>too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in
>its place should be read the Hebrew word "Adonai" meaning "Lord" (or
>"Elohim" meaning "God").  Ancient Greek translators employed the word
>"Kyrios" ("Lord") for the Name.  The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word
>"Dominus" ("Lord").
    
    	By "ancient Greek translators," the author may mean the original
    pre-Christian translators; but if so, this is now known to be untrue.
    Many Greek OT manuscript fragments (big and small) have been found
    which pre-date Christianity and post-date it that contain the Divine
    Name (and not the substitute Kyrios).
    
    	Interestingly, the Divine Name appears in the Greek text written,
    not it Greek characters, but in ancient Hebrew characters.  What this
    indicates is that the original translators actually employed the Hebrew
    Tetragrammaton in the Greek.  One theological dictionary I have says
    that it was probably the Christian scribes which removed the Divine
    Name, and used Kyrios instead.
    
>(2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there
>were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be
>discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for
>the universal faith of the Christian Church.
    
    	This is merely one of many human viewpoints, and not the one
    expressed in the Bible itself.  The original Bible text makes it clear
    that God wanted to be known by the proper name which is represented by
    the Tetragrammaton.  According to one Bible translation (not the NWT),
    God said to Moses:
    
                  'You must tell the Israelites this, that it
                  is JEHOVAH [YHWH] the God of their forefathers, the
                  God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of
                  Jacob, who has sent you to them.  This is my
                  name for ever; this is my title in every
                  generation.  Go and assemble the elders of Israel
                  and tell them that JEHOVAH [YHWH] the God of their
                  forefathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
                  has appeared to you ...' (Ex 3:15,16 NEB)
    
    According to the Bible itself, it is hardly "inappropriate" for God's
    people to continue using his name which God himself declared to be "my
    title for every generation."  
    
    	Its use among Jews in the first century of the Common Era may have
    waned; but the fact that Greek manuscripts with the Tetragrammaton
    exist which date into Common Era (or so-called Christian Era) prove
    that in reality, the use of God's name wasn't discontinued entirely.

  Hi Mark,
  
   Do you think the presidents children call him  "Mister Bush",
   "Mister President" or "daddy"?
  
   Just curious.   
                    Hank

    re .12 (IMTDEV::DALELIO)
    
>  Hi Mark,
>  
>   Do you think the presidents children call him  "Mister Bush",
>   "Mister President" or "daddy"?
>  
>   Just curious.
    
    Hank,
    
    	Human customs regarding how children address their parents (whether
    'high titled' or not) are somewhat off the point.
    
    	God has revealed his personal name to the human family, and has
    made it plain that he wants us to know him by that name and address him
    by that name.  The original-language Bible text makes that clear.  In
    fact, human salvation is inextricably linked to that name, for Joel
    wrote that 'everyone who calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved.'  
    Human tradition and customs have been responsible for the loss of
    certainty as to how that name should be pronounced, but as far as I can
    tell, there's no evidence that God himself has expressed displeasure
    with humans using his name in an honorable way.  (The only rules in the
    Bible about not using it have to do with using his name in a
    blasphemous way.)  Again, it's only human tradition that dictates that
    man NOT use God's name.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
    Is it the quality of the relationship that matters or the name we
    choose to use?  Didn't Jesus use the name Abba that translates to
    Daddy?
    
    
    just my 2 pennies worth
    
    Patricia

    re .14 (AKOCOA::FLANAGAN)
    
>    Is it the quality of the relationship that matters or the name we
>    choose to use?  Didn't Jesus use the name Abba that translates to
>    Daddy?
    
    	The Bible records that Jesus called his Father "Abba" to express
    his own close relationship with him; but "Father" isn't a name; it's a
    title.  [Note: as I recall, the Tetragrammaton appears in the OT nearly
    7000 times, and exceeds in absolute number the combined use of all
    other titles (though I'll have to dig out my Strong's or my Young's 
    concordance and recount, just to be sure).]
    
    	Since Jehovah has plainly expressed his desire to have us use his
    name and make it known and glorify it (and what it stands for), things
    which develop that relationship and keep it strong INCLUDE making use
    of that name.  Using God's name as he has directed us shows that we are
    doing *our* part to make our relationship with him sound.  
    
    	People who make excuses for NOT using God's name harm their own
    relationship with God, because those excuses make manifest a flaw of
    human thinking, which puts human tradition above the will of God.  One
    Jewish writer (in a book I have, but don't have handy at the moment)
    observed that in ancient times, when the Israelite people as a whole
    had a good relationship with Jehovah, they used his name all the time,
    even in everyday conversation (i.e., not just in sacred settings). 
    When the people as a whole suffered a moral decline, the use of God's
    name dropped off.
    
    	Although many things contribute to a "quality relationship" with
    God, the free (but respectful) use of his name in particular indicates
    that "quality" is there.  The converse is true as well.  When the use
    of God's name disappears, the quality of one's relationship with God
    has evidently taken a drop.  As God expressed to Jeremiah, he doesn't
    think kindly toward his people when they "forget his name" (Jer 23:27).
    
    
    								-mark.

While you are at it, could you provide a translation for
	Bar Abbis?
As I recall Bar means `the son of or house of'
	now what does Abbis mean?
Best wishes,
Rollyn

   Oh, I agree Mark, the servants of Jehovah are required to use the
   proper name of God when addressing or speaking with Him, but not
   His sons. We cry abba (Lit..daddy).


                                     Hank

    re .17 (IMTDEV::DALELIO)
    
>   Oh, I agree Mark, the servants of Jehovah are required to use the
>   proper name of God when addressing or speaking with Him, but not
>   His sons. We cry abba (Lit..daddy).
    
    	The point isn't whether God's sons are *required* to call him
    "Jehovah" every time they address him (and *not* use the more intimate
    form of address, which Paul wrote was "abba" -- the Aramaic word which
    meant, as you say, "daddy" or "papa") -- but whether they AS his sons
    ought not be all the more zealous in publishing his proper name to the
    world, and setting the right example by frequently using it themselves.
    
    	Although those blessed with the 'heavenly calling' as adopted
    "sons" possess a relationship with God that only they, of all creation,
    share, becoming a "son of God" does not grant them a right of
    familiarity with God that allows them to overstep the proper reverence
    for God that they ought to possess, which would overshadow their
    obligation to make Jehovah's name a natural element of their speech.  If
    any should use Jehovah's name so freely, it should be His sons, who
    also call him "abba".
    
    
    								-mark.

  No contest Mark, 

  in spite of the limitations that men would put on the number of the
  "sons of God", Our Father still invites the spirits of men (in the
  servitude of sin) to be born into His family...as many as received
  Him to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to
  them that believe on His name (I AM). 

  For the sons of God their is no such thing as "proper reverence"
  the reciprocating love of their Father eclipses every relationship
  both heavenly and earthly. Yes the true sons of God understand when
  and where to use the agape name of God. It is private, used in 
  privacy, but sometimes (rarely) publicly to provoke the servants
  of God to a kind of "spiritual jealousy", that "His house may be full".

                 Hank

    re .19 (IMTDEV::DALELIO)
    
>  in spite of the limitations that men would put on the number of the
>  "sons of God", Our Father still invites the spirits of men (in the
>  servitude of sin) to be born into His family...as many as received
>  Him to them gave He the power to become the sons of God, even to
>  them that believe on His name (I AM).
    
    	God's name *isn't* "I am" (although it's based on a root of the
    Hebrew verb "to be").  In English it's Jehovah (or Yahweh).
    
>  For the sons of God their is no such thing as "proper reverence"
>  the reciprocating love of their Father eclipses every relationship
>  both heavenly and earthly. Yes the true sons of God understand when
>  and where to use the agape name of God. It is private, used in 
>  privacy, but sometimes (rarely) publicly to provoke the servants
>  of God to a kind of "spiritual jealousy", that "His house may be full".
    
    	For the sons of God there is no such thing as "proper reverence"?
    That sounds mighty arrogant, especially since the "only begotten" Son
    of God himself showed "godly fear" (Heb 5:7 RSV) -- which is a form of
    reverence -- to the one whom *you* call "abba".  
    
    	In John's vision of Revelation, he heard a "voice" from the
    "throne" cry out:
    
    		"Praise our God, all you his servants, you who
    		fear him, small and great." (Rev 19:5 RSV)
    
    This fear is, of course, not a dreading fear, but rather a reverential
    fear, out of proper respect for his Majesty and Almightiness.
    
    	Prior to that, he saw:
    
    		"Another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal
    		gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, in 
    		every nation and tribe and tongue and people; and
    		he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him
    		glory, for the hour of his judgment has come; and 
    		worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and 
    		the fountains of water."  (Rev 14:6,7 RSV)
    
    Are you telling me that the "sons of God" are exempt from the angel's
    proclamation for all to "fear God and give him glory," and are NOT
    among the "servants" of God, from the "small" to the "great," who are
    to both "fear" him and "praise" him?
    
    	Show me where it says that the love of the Father eclipses the
    "fear" that is rightfully due to Him from his "sons" who worship him.
    
    								-mark.

	Mark,

	Do you have any children? If so, what do they call you? If it's, Daddy
	or something like that, do you concider that a sign that they do not
	respect you or your authority? I don't see how calling God Father is
	a sign of disrespect.

	I haven't been following this before so I went back and read some old
	notes.

	RE: .13
>    	God has revealed his personal name to the human family, and has
>    made it plain that he wants us to know him by that name and address him
>    by that name. 

	Can you give me pointers to where God revealed His personal name and
	also where He wants us to address Him by that name so I can read them
	in context. Thanks. The most I've found is Exodus 3:14 where God says,
	"Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto 
	you." Elsewhere, later in the same chapter for example, God identifies
	Himself as "God of your Fathers" and other title like ways. I have 
	always tended believe that the "names of God" were strictly for human
	use to make it easy for us. I doubt that God cares much what we call
	Him as long as we call Him and honor Him. Pointers to notes that say
	otherwise I welcome.

> The original-language Bible text makes that clear.  In
>    fact, human salvation is inextricably linked to that name, for Joel
>    wrote that 'everyone who calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved.'

	I need a pointer to this. I just read the whole book of Joel and the
	closest think I found was Joel 2:32 where it says "...whosoever shall call
	on the name of the Lord shall be delivered..." This doesn't read to me
	as though a particular name of the Lord was required but that He must
	be called. This was KJV BTW. It's what I have at work. The word Jehovah,
	FWIW, is only found 4 times in my concordance. 

			Alfred

	


	

  Re 495.20

  Mark, we have a basic disagreement as I am a Trinitarian...

  before Abraham was I AM...(Jesus claim to deity/divinity) No need to discuss 
  this, we both know where we stand.

  Those who believe in his deity/divinity (I believe either one suffices) 
  can become the "sons of God". I AM-THE EXISTING ONE is the translation
  of the LXX name of God - Jehovah is the accepted English transliteration
  of the proper Hebrew name of God, and we agree on this. I AM who I AM is
  the translation of the Hebrew, the subjective meaning of God's name is 
  probably, I AM whoever or whatever I wish to be. Jesus claimed this
  name to himself "I AM".
  
    >Are you telling me that the "sons of God" are exempt from the angel's
    >proclamation for all to "fear God and give him glory," and are NOT
    >among the "servants" of God, from the "small" to the "great," who are
    >to both "fear" him and "praise" him?

  Yes.
    
    >Show me where it says that the love of the Father eclipses the
    >"fear" that is rightfully due to Him from his "sons" who worship him.


   There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear; because
   fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We 
   love Him because He first loved us.  I John 4:18-19.

  The sons of God have no fear of their Father only Agape-love.
  Even when He Child-trains them. (Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me).

  Mark, could you possibly willingly hurt someone you truly love (humanly 
  speaking)?

  How much less the sons of God (after their heavenly birth)?

  "we do always those things which please Him".


                  Peace
                  Hank

    re .21 (CVG::THOMPSON)/Alfred
    
>	Do you have any children? If so, what do they call you? If it's, Daddy
>	or something like that, do you concider that a sign that they do not
>	respect you or your authority? I don't see how calling God Father is
>	a sign of disrespect.
    
    	Yes I do have children (2 boys).  However, I don't believe that the
    relationship between human children and their parents is the exact
    equivalent of the relationship between individual humans and our
    Creator.
    
    	I don't think calling God "Father" is a sign of disrespect, either. 
    My point is that although it's right for humans to call God "Father",
    "God", "Lord", and many other titles, it's even more right, and really
    more important, to call God by his proper name, Jehovah (or Yahweh, or
    however it best translates into any target language).
    
> Can you give me pointers to where God revealed His personal name and
> also where He wants us to address Him by that name so I can read them
> in context. Thanks. The most I've found is Exodus 3:14 where God says,
> "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto 
> you." Elsewhere, later in the same chapter for example, God identifies
> Himself as "God of your Fathers" and other title like ways. I have 
> always tended believe that the "names of God" were strictly for human
> use to make it easy for us. I doubt that God cares much what we call
> Him as long as we call Him and honor Him. Pointers to notes that say
> otherwise I welcome.
    
    	In 495.11, I quoted Ex 3:15,16 from the NEB, which uses the name
    Jehovah in the text (instead of the traditional "LORD").  It so happens
    that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) appears in the underlying Hebrew text at
    these places.
    
> I need a pointer to this. I just read the whole book of Joel and the
> closest think I found was Joel 2:32 where it says "...whosoever shall call
> on the name of the Lord shall be delivered..." This doesn't read to me
> as though a particular name of the Lord was required but that He must
> be called. This was KJV BTW. It's what I have at work. The word Jehovah,
> FWIW, is only found 4 times in my concordance.
    
    	That's because the KJV and many other translations that followed
    use a *convention* of using the word "LORD"[/"Lord"] or "GOD"[/"God"]
    in many or all of the places that God's name appears in the Hebrew
    text.  You either need to read a translation that uses a form of God's
    proper name (Jehovah or Yahweh) to get the point, or at least use a
    concordance that is tied to the underlying Hebrew (like Strong's
    concordance).  If you do, you'll see that the Tetragrammaton actually
    appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew text.
    
    	If you're suspicious of the NWT, look at the American Standard
    Version (1901), which uses "Jehovah" throughout the OT, or the JB or
    NJB which uses "Yahweh".
    
    								-mark.

    re .22 (IMTDEV::DALELIO)/Hank
    
>  Mark, we have a basic disagreement as I am a Trinitarian...
    
    Yes, I know.

>  before Abraham was I AM...(Jesus claim to deity/divinity) No need to discuss 
>  this, we both know where we stand.
    
    I don't mind avoiding a long debate about this, but "before Abraham was
    I AM" isn't the ONLY way to translate Jesus' words.  A footnote in one
    edition of the NASB that I have points out that this really means,
    "before Abraham was, I have been."  There are quite a few other
    translations that render it this way, or similarly.
    
>  Those who believe in his deity/divinity (I believe either one suffices) 
>  can become the "sons of God". I AM-THE EXISTING ONE is the translation
>  of the LXX name of God - Jehovah is the accepted English transliteration
>  of the proper Hebrew name of God, and we agree on this. I AM who I AM is
>  the translation of the Hebrew, the subjective meaning of God's name is 
>  probably, I AM whoever or whatever I wish to be. Jesus claimed this
>  name to himself "I AM".
    
    	The often rendered "I AM who I AM" (RSV) at Ex 3:14 is NOT just
    another translation of the Tetragrammaton; a complete Hebrew phrase is
    used here (which is obviously related to the verb "to be", which,
    again, is the root of the Tetragrammaton).
    
    	"I AM - THE EXISTING ONE" is, as you say, an English translation of
    the Greek in the LXX; but it's NOT really the best translation (into
    English) of the Hebrew itself.  Actually (as I understand it), Hebrew
    verbs don't HAVE a first person, singular tense, so the translation "I
    AM who I AM" is NOT really accurate.  Many scholars point out that it
    may more properly be rendered "I will be what I will be," which is
    FUTURE.  According to the footnote in the Oxford Annotated RSV, 
    
    		YHWH is a third person form and may mean
    		"He causes to be".  The name does not indicate
    		God's eternal being but his action and presence
    		in historical affairs.
    
>    >Are you telling me that the "sons of God" are exempt from the angel's
>    >proclamation for all to "fear God and give him glory," and are NOT
>    >among the "servants" of God, from the "small" to the "great," who are
>    >to both "fear" him and "praise" him?
>
>  Yes.
    
    	Actually, I figured this much.  Show me in scripture where it says
    that God's sons are exempt from fearing him.
    
>    >Show me where it says that the love of the Father eclipses the
>    >"fear" that is rightfully due to Him from his "sons" who worship him.
>
>   There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear; because
>   fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We 
>   love Him because He first loved us.  I John 4:18-19.
    
    	Hank, the fear that I'm talking about ISN'T fear of torment or
    punishment; it's a reverential fear of God's Majesty and Power because
    of it's truly awesome nature.
    
    	Paul wrote, "knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men..."
    (2Cor 5:11 RSV); and "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your
    earthly masters ... fearing the Lord" (Col 3:22 RSV).  Peter wrote,
    "... live as servants of God ... Fear God. ..." (1Peter 2:16,17 RSV).
    
    	Clearly the inspired Bible writers, who were themselves "sons of
    God," feared God.  It's amazing that you don't.
    
>  The sons of God have no fear of their Father only Agape-love.
>  Even when He Child-trains them. (Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me).
>
>  Mark, could you possibly willingly hurt someone you truly love (humanly 
>  speaking)?
>
>  How much less the sons of God (after their heavenly birth)?
>
>  "we do always those things which please Him".
    
    	I have small children whom I love very much; and I have no desire
    to hurt them, either.  But I DO exercise authority over them, and I
    certain DO expect them (at this point in their lives) to have a
    respectful "fear" of me.  It's my hope that they would fear to
    displease me and instead seek to please me.  It's this same sort of
    fear that God's own sons ought to have for their Father.
    
    								-mark.

 RE : 495.24  Mark,

>    	"I AM - THE EXISTING ONE" is, as you say, an English translation of
>    the Greek in the LXX; but it's NOT really the best translation (into
>    English) of the Hebrew itself.  Actually (as I understand it), Hebrew
>    verbs don't HAVE a first person, singular tense, so the translation "I
>    AM who I AM" is NOT really accurate.  Many scholars point out that it
>    may more properly be rendered "I will be what I will be," which is
>    FUTURE.  According to the footnote in the Oxford Annotated RSV, 
    
>    		YHWH is a third person form and may mean
>    		"He causes to be".  The name does not indicate
>    		God's eternal being but his action and presence
>    		in historical affairs.


 the EX passage dosn't use the 1st person singular pronoun : "ani" I believe
 it is. Both 1st and 3rd person verbs can have the same form, in either case 
 the LXX uses "ego" (greek 1st person singular) also the Massora notes and 
 every rabbinical commentator (that I have seen) affirms 1st person singular.
 Hebrew has no past or future only perfect and imperfect tenses. Being 
 imperfect would mean (as you alluded to) that Jehovah is in the state of 
 "becoming" or "progressing" to His ultimate being. We both know this would 
 be a difficult meaning (unless it pleased Him by so doing) and doubtful 
 interpretation. More acceptable would be that Jehovah is "becoming"  or
 "progressing" from a human standpoint of revelation as to His essential
 nature. This is supported by Hebrews 1:1-2 in that Jesus Christ gave us
 the final revelation concerning Jehovah. God is love and we can become
 His children through a heavenly birth. And perhaps, in a sense, God Himself
 will be made complete when all of His children sit at supper with Him and
 His Firstborn in our heavenly home.
 
 
>    	Hank, the fear that I'm talking about ISN'T fear of torment or
>    punishment; it's a reverential fear of God's Majesty and Power because
>    of it's truly awesome nature.
>    
>    	Paul wrote, "knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men..."
>    (2Cor 5:11 RSV); and "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your
>    earthly masters ... fearing the Lord" (Col 3:22 RSV).  Peter wrote,
>    "... live as servants of God ... Fear God. ..." (1Peter 2:16,17 RSV).
>    
>    	Clearly the inspired Bible writers, who were themselves "sons of
>    God," feared God.  It's amazing that you don't.

 Well, I can't say that I never have feared, and this is John's point, that 
 while we are in the state of fear, we are not yet perfected (matured) in love.
 Fear is a normal state of being for servants and young "new borns". Servants
 and young chidren of the Hebrew household had the same apparent rank "until
 the time appointed by the Father". And yes, I have matured, or better, my
 Father has matured me out of servant-hood where in is fear.

 I also suspect that if I committed some major infraction such as adultery, 
 then I would probably fall back into a state of fear until My Father and I 
 straightened things out. If that's what you mean by "reverential fear" then 
 I know full well what Jehovah can and does do to his children, but I draw 
 comfort from this, knowing that there wont be any surprises, that even if 
 my flesh gains dominion over my spirit (unlikely but entirely possible) 
 my Father has a rod of correction and a staff to pull me back from 
 destruction. I say unlikely because what does this earth and my flesh have 
 to offer me better than to "dwell in the house of the Lord (my Heavenly 
 Father) forever". Entirely possible because "in my flesh dwelleth no good 
 thing". 

                                   Hank