For most of the world, today is March 14th, or 3/14. To most, that date doesn’t have any special meaning. But to us math nerds, it means only one thing: today is Pi Day! 

Thankfully, it looks like Google has no shortage of number nerds, because the search giant is marking the occasion with a spiffy new logo filled with some of choice geometry formulas.

? (Pi) is the mathematical constant that has helped school children and mathematics professors determine the circumference of a circle based on its diameter for centuries. The constant starts with 3.14 and continues forever (as it is an irrational number). Many math geeks celebrate the famous math constant (and mathematics in general) on every 14th of March because that date represents the first three digits of Pi.

Google’s () new logo, which you can see on the top right, contains not only the famous ?r₂ formula, but five other uses of ?: measuring the volume of a sphere (V = 4?3 ?r₃), computing the circumference of a circle (C = 2?r), measuring the volume of a cylinder (V = ?r₂h), Archimedes’ calculation of Pi (223/71 < ? < 22/7), and the periodic function of sin(x).

 

The Number Pi

Pi represents the relationship between a circle’s diameter (its width) and its circumference (the distance around the circle).

Equations that use Pi

The area of a circle is calculated using Pi and the radius of the circle. This formula inspired the joke "Pies aren't square, they're round!"

To find the volume of a rectangular prisim you calculate length × width × height. In that case, length × width is the area of one side, which is then multiplied by the height of the prism. Similarly, to find the volume of a cylinder, you muliply the area of the base (the area of the circle, which is pi × r²), then multiply that by the height of the cylinder.

Today is International Pi Day

 

Math enthusiasts and assorted geeks around the world are celebrating today as International Pi Day. Not your mom’s apple pie, but the famous constant, ?, equal to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

The reason Pi Day is celebrated on March 14 is because its first 3 digits are 3.14 (Pi = 3.1415926535...) March 14 also happens to be Albert Einstein's birthday. Pi is an irrational number, meaning that the sequence of its decimal digits continues to infinity without repeating itself. The favorite way of celebrating Pi Day among geeks are eating a pie while reciting the first hundred digits of Pi.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 224, designating March 14 “National Pi Day.” (Fun fact: The bill number for the recognition of Pi Day is the square-rootable 224 (2*2=4)) Among the numerous “whereas” clauses in HR 224 are the following:

Whereas the Greek letter (Pi) is the symbol for the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter;
Whereas the ratio Pi is an irrational number, which will continue infinitely without repeating, and has been calculated to over one trillion digits;
Whereas, according to the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) survey done by the National Center for Education Statistics, American children in the 4th and 8th grade were outperformed by students in other countries including Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, England, South Korea, Latvia, and Japan;
Whereas by the 8th grade, American males outperform females on the science portion of the TIMSS survey, especially in Biology, Physics, and Earth Science, and the lowest American scores in math and science are found in minority and impoverished school districts;
Whereas mathematics and science can be a fun and interesting part of a child's education, and learning about Pi can be an engaging way to teach children about geometry and attract them to study science and mathematics; and
Whereas Pi can be approximated as 3.14, and thus March 14, 2009, is an appropriate day for 'National Pi Day':
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the designation of a 'Pi Day' and its celebration around the world;
(2) recognizes the continuing importance of National Science Foundation's math and science education programs; and
(3) encourages schools and educators to observe the day with appropriate activities that teach students about Pi and engage them about the study of mathematics.

 

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

The block letters of Hebrew look very similar to the Karyotypes of human chromosomes. Specifically, chromosome pair 22 and 23.  (22, x, and y).

Is this what Greg redicecreations.com has translated YHWH as Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen (HNON) in his book THE GOD CODE? Where GOD's name YHWH is literally translated in our DNA as: "God eternal within the body" stated over and over...?

The God Code: The Secret of Our Past, The Promise of Our Future

Chromosomes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author and computer systems designer Gregg Braden wrapped this book around the premise that God's name is literally encoded into every human body. According to Braden's logic, the basic elements of DNA--hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon--directly translate into specific letters of the Hebrew alphabets (YHVA), which then translate into the original name of God. Braden's hope is that knowing that God's signature is carried within each cell of the estimated six billion humans on earth will give humankind the evidence we need to overcome our differences and renew our faith:

 

Beyond Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Native, Aboriginal, white, black, red, or yellow; man, woman, or child, the message reminds us that we are human. As humans, we share the same ancestors and exist as the children of the same Creator. In the moments that we doubt this one immutable truth, we need look no further than the cells of our body to be reminded. This is the power of the message within our cells.

 

From Publishers Weekly

In this dense, tangent-filled book, bestselling author Braden (The Isaiah Effect) argues that every human being has the name of God literally embedded in his or her DNA. Braden's research relies heavily on the kabalistic technique of assigning numerical values to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. He begins by correlating the essential elements of the human body (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon) to their Hebrew equivalents, then he calculates their alpha/numeric values and finds that these elements spell out the Hebrew letters for God-YHVH. Braden attempts to make his explanations of this complicated process clear and free of scientific jargon. Despite his efforts, however, the chapters tend to drag, and the book contains many unnecessary digressions. He actually spends the first half of the volume discussing the theories of creationism and evolutionism, so that he doesn't reach his God-DNA arguments until midway through the book. After he does explain his finding, Braden spends the last section of the book ruminating on its possible implications. He speculates that "through the primal act of creating human life, God shared a part of himself as he 'breathed his breath' into our species." He wonders if "we will allow...the diversity within Christian, Hebrew, and Muslim values" to divide the world irrevocably. He speaks of scientists who believe it is possible for humans to one day live in a perfect world, free from disease, decay and war, should man truly understand that every person, no matter what race or religion, is made of the same stuff, and made by the same creator. Braden's message of unity is an appealing one, but this book's rambling style makes for a laborious read.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Looking for the book PDF

The Sacred name Volume I

A scriptural Study by Qadesh La Yahweh Press and R. Clover

Woe to you, experts in the Torah (Scriptures), for you took away the key of knowledge; yourselves did not enter, and those who were entering you hindered. Luke 11:52 

This "key," as our investigation shall demonstrate, was the knowledge and use of the Creator's personal name--the sacred name YHWH. 

 Filed Under: General
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Great Post from Ask The Blind Pastor:

I am talking about the story where God comes close to rescue the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. God reveals his name for the first time…

The context comes when Moses is hanging out in the desert watching sheep. God finds him through the burning bush. A bush on fire but not burning up would catch anyone’s attention. Moses has despaired for his people and their plight. The Israelites are crying out under oppression from Pharaoh.

God comes close and shares his heart through these four chapters of Exodus, 3-6.

First, God is a personal and present God. Jeremiah 33:3 says we can call on him and he will answer. God tells Moses at the burning bush he has heard the cry of his people and has come down to rescue them through Moses. Moses begins a conversation with God on how and looking for credibility. God says he will be with him, but Moses says, what if I tell them, the God of your fathers has sent me to rescue you, and they ask for your name?

For the first time in redemptive history, God gives us his personal name. We know it simply as YHWH or I am who I am. Exodus 3:14-15. God is close to us, knowing where we are in pain and misery. He wants to know us and for us to then know him.

The response to God coming close and rescuing us should always be worship. Exodus, 4:29-31, the Israelites bowed down and worshipped YHWH.

However, knowing God comes with a cost. We need to count the cost of what God is asking before we take it so easily. Sometimes we do people a disservice by telling them how great and wonderful Christianity is without giving the full picture. Jesus told us to count the cost of following him in Luke 14:27-28. Moses felt this pressure when he went to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh rejected God straight away. Exodus 5:2 gives us a great picture of relationship and obedience. Pharaoh says, I don’t know your God, why do I have to obey him. God wants to be known in the world, this is the heart of all he does. This is why he sent Jesus, but he wanted to be known from the beginning. He acts through the mighty exodus and says all nations know me, because of what I have done. In Deuteronomy 4, he says who is like me. Throughout the plagues, God tells Moses that Pharaoh will know I am the Lord, or all Egypt will know I am the Lord, and even at one point that his name would be proclaimed among all the earth, Exodus 7:5, 8:10, 9:13-16. God’s heart is that all nations would know him, and he acts in such a way to make his name known. The obvious outcome of knowing God is following him and obeying him. Pharaoh doesn’t know YHWH and therefore doesn’t obey him. Obedience flows out of knowledge, and we who know God need to obey him fully. T

Here are several things that make following God difficult.

1. We make poor choices and don’t live fully as he would want us to and thus pay the consequences.
2. Satan makes things difficult.
3. Others who do not know God make things difficult in this world.

Pharaoh then made life even more miserable. As if being a slave could get more miserable, Pharaoh increased the hardship and expected the same results. He claimed the people were lazy and coming up with ideas of needing a festival to worship their God. The people could not bear this burden and went to Moses, saying he made life worse not better, Exodus 5:21.

In Exodus 5:22-23, Moses goes to God thinking he must have missed the real reason God sent him. He couldn’t have been to rescue the people. There was a sick ironic reason to send Moses back to Egypt, and he accused God of sending him to make the Israelite people a stench in Pharaoh’s nose. God you haven’t rescued the people at all.

When we have problems and trials of life, we need to be intentional to remember God’s promises. It is too easy to be myopic and only see the calamity. God knew this and came close to Moses again. In a beautiful text of Exodus 6:2-8, he reminds us who he is, YHWH and that before now, we did not know him in such a way. He starts the monologue off with I am YHWH and concludes with I am YHWH. He says, I will rescue with a strong right arm. I will be your God, and you will be my special people.

2 God also said to Moses, “I am the LORD. 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them. 4 I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they lived as aliens. 5 Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites,

whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant.

6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. 7 I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you to the land I swore with upliftedhand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD.’ “

To conclude, God knows us and wants to be known by us. Obedience flows out of relationship, and God will make us his special people in the midst of difficult times.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

http://i.imgur.com/NwLMf.jpg

Chalk Board Jesus Christ

 

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Some say the Talmudic Jewish priests decided it wasn't fitting for ordinary people to utter the most holy name of GOD | YHWH. Talmudic priests campaigned to obliterate use of the Divine Name. The Talmud forbade on penalty of death the uttering of this Name HaShem. This prohibition was in effect at the time of Jesus' advent.

The Pharisees were the Talmud-enforcers attacking Jesus because He used the Name!
There is evidence that Jesus was killed to a large extent for using the Hidden Name.
In John chapter 8 they wanted to stone Him because He said "Before Abraham was, I AM". Was this a clear reference to the Divine Name?

It has been pointed out that the trial of Jesus closely resembled the format of a blasphemy trial, for use of the Hidden Name. In Mark's Gospel Jesus answered " I AM" when asked if He was the Son of the Blessed.

It is recorded that the High Priest then rent his clothes.
This was the prescribed ceremony for a "forbidden" utterance of the Tetragrammaton.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Look at Yud–Hay–Vov-Hay, the ineffable Name of God.
Known as the Tetragrammaton, the Name was permitted for everyday greetings until at least 586 B.C.E., when the First Temple was destroyed (Mishnah Berakhot 9:5).

In time its pronunciation was permitted only to the priests (Mishnah Sotah 7:6), who would pronounce it in their public blessing of the people. After the death of the High Priest Shimon HaTzaddik around 300 B.C.E. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma 39b) the name was pronounced only by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (Mishnah Sotah 7:6; Mishnah Tamid 7:2).

The sages then passed on the pronunciation of the Name to their disciples only once (some say twice) every seven years (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin 71a).

Finally, upon the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., the Name was no longer pronounced at all.

 

Later, some speculated that the Name had been pronounced ...possibly “Yahweh,” but scholars did not agree. No one knew for a certainty how to pronounce the ineffable Name of God.

 

But what if Yud–Hay–Vov–Hay has long been unpronounceable for the simple reason that it is written in reverse?

 

Reversed, the Name of God becomes Hay Vov Hay Yud. And these two syllables, Hay Vov and Hay Yud, can be vocalized as the sound equivalents of the Hebrew pronouns hu and hi, which are rendered in English as he and she respectively. Combining them together, Hay Vov and Hay Yud become He-She.

 

He-She, I believe, is the long-unpronounceable Name of God! This secret has been hiding in plain sight for all these years, for it explicitly states in the Torah: God created the earth-creature in God’s own image, male and female.

 

Needless to say, the notion of an androgynous God creating essentially androgynous human beings has profound implications. Long ago the Zohar, the book of Jewish mysticism par excellence, declared, “It is incumbent on a man to ever be male and female”—a strange statement especially in the 13th century. But recently our society has begun to show signs of being able to understand, and willing to accept, this message.

The Complete Source Article: http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1433

 Filed Under: Leans Academic
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Just read an interesting blog post. I wonder what others will think...

How to Translate the Name

Introduction

The translation of biblical divine names, especially the tetragrammaton YHWH, is such a complex matter that it is impossible to make universally applicable recommendations.

The difficulties include the following:

1. In a small number of key passages, notably Exodus 3,14-15, the meaning of YHWH is stated, though scholars differ about its exact interpretation. In the vast majority of occurrences, however, YHWH functions as a name referring to God, not as a title having meaning.
2. Choice of a name or names for God raises in acute form the whole problem of the introduction of Christianity into a previously non-Christian culture. For example, the translation of YHWH by the name of a divinity from another religion might imply characteristics alien to the Bible, thus obscuring communication of the biblical message.
3. Receptor cultures and languages differ according to whether they have one standard name for God, many such names, or no name at all.
4. Receptor languages also differ according to whether names normally have meaning, or function purely for purposes of identification.
5. Many translations are made in languages which already have a widely accepted equivalent for YHWH, and this tradition may have to be respected.
6. Often Protestants and Roman Catholics have different traditions.
7. Often a language has a name for God, but not a class-word.

Options

1. Transliterate

1. The normal practice when transliterating Old Testament names is to remain as close as possible to the Hebrew. In the case of the divine name, the preferred form would be Yahweh, adapted as necessary to the phonology of the receptor language. Scholars generally believe that the original pronunciation is best represented by „Yahweh“.
2. The form „Jehovah“ should normally be avoided, but in some areas where it has been traditionally used it may not be possible to make a change.
3. Where the intended readership includes a significant number of Jews, consultation with Jewish Leaders is advisable before adopting this option. In some cases it may be appropriate to include in a preface advice on how Jews might pronounce the name when reading the translation aloud.

2. Translate as „Lord“ [404]

This widespread tradition, represented by a large number of current translations, has its origin in the Septuagint’s use of kurios for YHWH, This is not strictly a translation, but rather follows the Jewish tradition of substituting Adonai for the divine name.

1. This raises the question of whether YHWH and Adonai should be distinguished in translation. In some languages, it may be possible to use two different words, both meaning „Lord“.
2. In many translations the terms are distinguished typographically, for example as „LORD“ (or „Lord“) and „Lord“. The disadvantage of this approach is that the two forms cannot be distinguished orally.
3. If translators feel that there will be no semantic difference between their equivalent of „LORD“ and „Lord“ they may decide that this distinction need not be preserved.

3. Translate the meaning of YHWH

1. Especially in languages in which names have meaning, it may be appropriate to create or adopt a name which suggests the meaning of YHWH.
2. In cases where such a name cannot readily be found, another possibility is to use instead a title approximating to the presumed meaning of YHWH, for example, „the Eternal One“ or „the Ever-Present One“.

4. Use a name from the culture

1. In some languages it may be acceptable to use a ward having appropriate meaning/connotations and which is already recognized as a name of God.
2. Where a recognized name for God exists, translators could consider using this name to translate YHWH, and a more general class-word to translate Elohim.

5. Translate YHWH and Elohim in the same way

In the canonical text, YHWH always functions as a name rather than a title, and Elohim often functions in the same way. In languages which have a single name for God, translators may therefore choose to use this name to translate both YHWH and Elohim. However, in many cases this option will conflict with established tradition.

6. Use a combination of the above options

It has been suggested that it is not always necessary to follow only one of the above options. For example, though YHWH could be translated as „Lord” or „LORD“ in most passages, it could be transliterated in key passages where the fact that YHWH is a name is in focus.

Arguments related to translating YHWH

1. When trying to decide how YHWH should be handled in a translation, the first possibility usually considered is to transliterate. Many would argue that this is the right option, for various reasons:

1. YHWH is a personal name, and should be treated as such in the translation. [405]
2. Personal names should not usually be translated.
3. Only very rarely in the Old Testament does the apparent meaning of YHWH seem to be in focus.
4. To the people of Israel, it seems that the connotations of the name far outweighed any etymological meaning it may have had.
5. If not transliterated, the connection with the root YH used in many other names is lost.

Some would also feel that one other argument is of considerable importance:

1. Exodus 6.3 implies that it is important for everyone to use the actual name YHWH.

2. However there are others who feel that transliteration is not the right solution, and that it is important to find some other way of handling YHWH. There are exegetical, theological, and anthropological (receptor language oriented.) reasons which stem important for this perspective:

1. The significance of the revelation in Exodus 3 is not a set of consonant and vowels, but rather an aspect of the nature of God, so our translation must be meaningful.
2. The meaning of YHWH is an important component of the name, so it should be given meaning in a translation.
3. The Septuagint translated YHWH as „Lord,“ setting an example we should follow,
4. Using YHWH in the Old Testament prevents readers from recognizing the connection with references to „the Lord“ in the New Testament.
5. It is often suggested that we should translate the canonical text rather than the earlier stages of this text. By the time that the text reached the canonical stage, YHWH, though written, was already read as Adonai.
6. Jewish communities today still avoid pronouncing the name, and we should respect their feelings and not transliterate.
7. If we introduce a name like Yahweh, it may carry the wrong implications for readers in many languages, suggesting that „Yahweh“ is a foreign God, or a new and unknown God, different from the God they already know, or just one more God among many.

There is also another point which concerns translators in a few languages:

1. A transliteration of Yahweh may sound too much like another word in the language.

3. Translators who are convinced by the arguments listed under 2 above must then decide which of the various approaches (listed in Options 2, 3, 4 and 5) they will follow. There are certain considerations that might lead them to prefer one of these options over others:

1. Points (c), (d) and (e), listed under 2 above are arguments for using a word meaning „Lord“ (Option 2). [406]
2. However, in almost all translations which use „Lord“ for YHWH, it is not possible to distinguish this from cases where „Lord“ translates Adonai, especially when hearing the Bible being read. This has led some translators to consider other options,
3. In some languages, it is expected that names will have meaning. This may lead translators to consider Options 3 or 4.
4. However if a name from the traditional culture is used, there are potential problems that must be carefully considered:

(1)   There may be a danger of syncretism.

(2)   The fact that a name is recognized to be from traditional culture may undermine the historical context of the Bible, in which YHWH is first revealed to the people of Israel.

(3)   Praise names may be used only in poetry, not in prose.

4. Under certain circumstances it may seem good to combine the options, as mentioned Option 6.

1. Some may feel that the arguments in favor of a transliteration are especially persuasive in cases where the biblical context draws special attention to the fact that YHWH is a name, but that in other contexts a more familiar translation is better.
2. Same may feel that a transliteration may be good for scholarly purposes, but that using an unknown name is not appropriate when the translation is being used for other purposes, such as in liturgy or in evangelism.

Statement by the „Names of God“ Study Group UBS Triennial Translation Workshop Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 8-21 May 1991.

Source: The Bible Translator, Vol. 43, No. 4 (October 1992), 403-406.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Calling on the Name

 Filed Under: BIBLE STUDIES
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Interesting what this person listed online for sale. See the ad below. The idea of polluting the holy name of GOD to yhshvh.... ouch! 

Tetragrammaton Silver pendant. 1 Inch in diameter.

The Tetragrammaton is the holy "four-lettered name" of God.
Transliterated as YHVH, but sometimes as YHWH (Yahweh) or JHVH (Jehovah), the name is considered so sacred in Judaism that it is never spoken aloud. The Tetragrammaton is often used in ceremonial magic, and each of the letters can be considered as corresponding to one of the Four Worlds of the Kabbalah. Thus, each of the four letters making the name of God are associated with one of the stars of the pentagram, with the exception of the top star, which is named shin. The pentagram thus forms a new name for God: YHShVH Pendant

Traditionally, each of the five points has been attributed to the five elements of the ancients:
Earth – represents stability and physical endurance
Fire – represents courage and daring
Water – represents emotions and intuition
Air – represents intelligence and the arts
Spirit – represents the All and the Divine

 Filed Under: Leans Academic
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

The Sepher Toldoth Yeshu literature places Jesus as living in the time of Alexander Jannaeus, who ruled from 103 to 76 B.C. Long-suppressed by the church and at other times used to scapegoat the Jews, this anti-gospel was wide circulated in the 800’s A.D.

 

Fascinating to find this story pointing to the name of GOD hidden in the Sepher Toldoth Yeshu:

Yeshu challenges his teachers, similar to a description of Jesus’ childhood in Luke. He is able to perform miracles, but only by stealing the name of God from the Temple.

Judas learns the divine name as well in order to fight in aerial combat, another theme found in apocrypha and probably origin of the “falling“ death of Judas in Acts of the Apostles.

 Even then anti gospel talks of GODs name and it's power.
 

 

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Honi HaM'agel

Circle
He prayed, but the rain did not fall. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and said before God, "O Lord of the world, your children have turned their faces to me, for I am like a son of the house before you. I swear by your great name that I will not stir from here until you have pity on your children."

Honi HaM'agel (???? ????? Khoni, or Choni, HaMe'agel, Hebrew for Honi the Circle-drawer) (First century BCE) was a Jewish scholar prior to the age of the Tannaim, the scholars from whose teachings the Mishnah (the first part of the Talmud) was derived.

During the first century BCE, a variety of religious movements and splinter groups developed amongst the Jews in Judea. A number of individuals claimed to be miracle workers in the tradition of Elijah and Elisha, the ancient Jewish prophets.

The Talmud provides some examples of such Jewish miracle workers. Mishnah Ta'anit 3:8 tells of Honi HaM'agel' ("Honi the Circle-drawer") who was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain. On one occasion when God did not send rain well into the winter (in the geographic regions of Israel, it rains mainly in the winter), he drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until it rained. When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected more rain; it then began to pour. He explained that he wanted a calm rain, at which point the rain calmed to a normal rain.

He was almost put into cherem (excommunucation) for the above incident in which he showed "dishonor" to God. However, Shimon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen Shlomtzion, excused him, saying that he was Honi and had a special relationship with God.

The circumstances of Honi's death are described in the Talmud (Taanit 23a): He fell asleep and awoke after 70 years, and when nobody would believe him that he was indeed Honi the Circle-drawer, he prayed to God and God took him from this world.

Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, relates Honi's end in the context of conflict between the Hasmonean brothers Hyrcanus II, backed by the Pharisees and advised by Antipater the Idumaean, and Aristobulus II, backed by the Sadducees. Around 63 BCE, Honi was captured by the followers of Hyrcanus besieging Jerusalem and was asked to pray for the demise of their opponents. Honi, however, prayed: "Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Your people, I beseech You not to answer the evil prayers of either." After this, the followers of Hyrcanus stoned him to death.

The Maharsha (Ta'anit ad loc.) answers the discrepancy between the Talmud and Josephus by stating that Honi was "presumed" killed by Hyrcanus II's men, but in reality was put into a deep sleep for 70 years.

Honi's grave is found near the town of Hatzor HaGlilit in northern Israel.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Karen Armstrong says we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence

A WSJ article

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

But Darwin may have done religion—and God—a favor by revealing a flaw in modern Western faith. Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our understanding of God is often remarkably undeveloped—even primitive. In the past, many of the most influential Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers understood that what we call "God" is merely a symbol that points beyond itself to an indescribable transcendence, whose existence cannot be proved but is only intuited by means of spiritual exercises and a compassionate lifestyle that enable us to cultivate new capacities of mind and heart.

But by the end of the 17th century, instead of looking through the symbol to "the God beyond God," Christians were transforming it into hard fact. Sir Isaac Newton had claimed that his cosmic system proved beyond doubt the existence of an intelligent, omniscient and omnipotent creator, who was obviously "very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry." Enthralled by the prospect of such cast-iron certainty, churchmen started to develop a scientifically-based theology that eventually made Newton's Mechanick and, later, William Paley's Intelligent Designer essential to Western Christianity.

But the Great Mechanick was little more than an idol, the kind of human projection that theology, at its best, was supposed to avoid. God had been essential to Newtonian physics but it was not long before other scientists were able to dispense with the God-hypothesis and, finally, Darwin showed that there could be no proof for God's existence. This would not have been a disaster had not Christians become so dependent upon their scientific religion that they had lost the older habits of thought and were left without other resource.

Most cultures believed that there were two recognized ways of arriving at truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and neither was superior to the other; they were not in conflict but complementary, each with its own sphere of competence. Logos ("reason") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world and had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. But it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life's struggle. For that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology; if translated into ritual or ethical action, a good myth showed you how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity.

In the ancient world, a cosmology was not regarded as factual but was primarily therapeutic; it was recited when people needed an infusion of that mysterious power that had—somehow—brought something out of primal nothingness: at a sickbed, a coronation or during a political crisis. Some cosmologies taught people how to unlock their own creativity, others made them aware of the struggle required to maintain social and political order. The Genesis creation hymn, written during the Israelites' exile in Babylonia in the 6th century BC, was a gentle polemic against Babylonian religion. Its vision of an ordered universe where everything had its place was probably consoling to a displaced people, though—as we can see in the Bible—some of the exiles preferred a more aggressive cosmology.

There can never be a definitive version of a myth, because it refers to the more imponderable aspects of life. To remain effective, it must respond to contemporary circumstance. In the 16th century, when Jews were being expelled from one region of Europe after another, the mystic Isaac Luria constructed an entirely new creation myth that bore no resemblance to the Genesis story. But instead of being reviled for contradicting the Bible, it inspired a mass-movement among Jews, because it was such a telling description of the arbitrary world they now lived in; backed up with special rituals, it also helped them face up to their pain and discover a source of strength.

Religion was not supposed to provide explanations that lay within the competence of reason but to help us live creatively with realities for which there are no easy solutions and find an interior haven of peace; today, however, many have opted for unsustainable certainty instead. But can we respond religiously to evolutionary theory? Can we use it to recover a more authentic notion of God?

Darwin made it clear once again that—as Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Eckhart had already pointed out—we cannot regard God simply as a divine personality, who single-handedly created the world. This could direct our attention away from the idols of certainty and back to the "God beyond God." The best theology is a spiritual exercise, akin to poetry. Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form that, like music or painting, introduces us to a mode of knowledge that is different from the purely rational and which cannot easily be put into words. At its best, it holds us in an attitude of wonder, which is, perhaps, not unlike the awe that Mr. Dawkins experiences—and has helped me to appreciate —when he contemplates the marvels of natural selection.

But what of the pain and waste that Darwin unveiled? All the major traditions insist that the faithful meditate on the ubiquitous suffering that is an inescapable part of life; because, if we do not acknowledge this uncomfortable fact, the compassion that lies at the heart of faith is impossible. The almost unbearable spectacle of the myriad species passing painfully into oblivion is not unlike some classic Buddhist meditations on the First Noble Truth ("Existence is suffering"), the indispensable prerequisite for the transcendent enlightenment that some call Nirvana—and others call God.

—Ms. Armstrong is the author of numerous books on theology and religious affairs. The latest, "The Case for God," will be published by Knopf later this month.

Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to do

Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in "Natural Theology," that the creation of life was God's greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we'd amend the statement: Evolution is the universe's greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.

Indeed, evolution is probably the greatest show in the entire universe. Most scientists' hunch is that there are independently evolved life forms dotted around planetary islands throughout the universe—though sadly too thinly scattered to encounter one another. And if there is life elsewhere, it is something stronger than a hunch to say that it will turn out to be Darwinian life. The argument in favor of alien life's existing at all is weaker than the argument that—if it exists at all—it will be Darwinian life. But it is also possible that we really are alone in the universe, in which case Earth, with its greatest show, is the most remarkable planet in the universe.

What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics. Nothing does (if anything did, physicists would just have to formulate new laws—it's happened often enough in the history of science). But although life never violates the laws of physics, it pushes them into unexpected avenues that stagger the imagination. If we didn't know about life we wouldn't believe it was possible—except, of course, that there'd then be nobody around to do the disbelieving!

The laws of physics, before Darwinian evolution bursts out from their midst, can make rocks and sand, gas clouds and stars, whirlpools and waves, whirlpool-shaped galaxies and light that travels as waves while behaving like particles. It is an interesting, fascinating and, in many ways, deeply mysterious universe. But now, enter life. Look, through the eyes of a physicist, at a bounding kangaroo, a swooping bat, a leaping dolphin, a soaring Coast Redwood. There never was a rock that bounded like a kangaroo, never a pebble that crawled like a beetle seeking a mate, never a sand grain that swam like a water flea. Not once do any of these creatures disobey one jot or tittle of the laws of physics. Far from violating the laws of thermodynamics (as is often ignorantly alleged) they are relentlessly driven by them. Far from violating the laws of motion, animals exploit them to their advantage as they walk, run, dodge and jink, leap and fly, pounce on prey or spring to safety.

Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges into uncharted territory. And how is the trick done? The answer is a process that, although variable in its wondrous detail, is sufficiently uniform to deserve one single name: Darwinian evolution, the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information. We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this is the process that has generated life on our own planet. And my bet, as I said, is that the same process is in operation wherever life may be found, anywhere in the universe.

To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution. It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity: seemingly limitless complexity—certainly up to our human level of complexity and very probably way beyond. There may be worlds on which superhuman life thrives, superhuman to a level that our imaginations cannot grasp. But superhuman does not mean supernatural. Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences. Once it has done so, of course, those intelligences can create other complex things: works of art and music, advanced technology, computers, the Internet and who knows what in the future? Darwinian evolution may not be the only such generative process in the universe. There may be other "cranes" (Daniel Dennett's term, which he opposes to "skyhooks") that we have not yet discovered or imagined. But, however wonderful and however different from Darwinian evolution those putative cranes may be, they cannot be magic. They will share with Darwinian evolution the facility to raise up complexity, as an emergent property, out of simplicity, while never violating natural law.

Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

See the attached book chapter 9.

 

YHWH BOOK

Chapter 9 Is the Correct Pronunciation Known?

 

 

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

The “Essential” Name

SOURCE:
HaShem is a Hebrew noun that means “The Name”. Ha- is the Hebrew prefix that means “the”, while Shem is the Hebrew word that means “name”, any name or noun. When Jews speak of HaShem, they are talking about THE Name – which they also call the “essential” name of God (SHEM HA-ETZEM), which appears throughout the original Hebrew scriptures, the Torah.

 

The actual Hebrew name to which HaShem refers is a name consisting of the four Hebrew letters Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh. However, Jewish tradition holds that because of the supreme holiness of this Name, it is forbidden to utter or pronounce it. Thus it is sometimes called the “ineffable” (=unsayable) name of God. Because it has four letters, many scholars refer to it as the Tetragrammaton (in Greek, Tetra is 4 and gramma means a letter). Sometimes Jews rearrange the order of the four constituent letters of the Hebrew name and refer to this name as HAVAYAH. This rearrangement of the letters is allowed to be uttered. (The old biblical English transcription of the Tetragrammaton which used j for the Hebrew letter yod is Jehovah, but pious Jews will not say this word.)

 

The reason why the Jews call this the essential name of God is because although a variety of names and descriptions are used in the Hebrew scriptures to refer to different aspects of God, the name of Havayah – HASHEM — is considered the root of all those names and descriptions – the complete and perfect unity that underlies all plurality.

 

For example, in different places in the Hebrew scriptures God may be referred to as EIL (= “The Power”) or ELOHIM (”Powers”, a plural form used with a singular verb when referring to God, and also used with a plural verb of angels and judges); YAH (the first two letters of the Tetragrammaton), sometimes translated as “Eternal” for want of a better word); HASHEM TZEVA’OT (God of hosts or armies – the armies of His “angels” or “agents” and creations), and SHADDAI (also translated as “Eternal” for want of a better word). God is also called RAHOOM (”kind”), HANOON (”compassionate”), GIBOR (”mighty”) as well as by numerous other epithets, which manifest different “aspects” of God’s attributes.

 

When Abraham, Moses, David and other biblical figures and prophets address God, they use the Hebrew name ADONAY. In Hebrew an ADON is a “lord” or “master”, and the –AY suffix, which is only ever used to God, would indicate “Our Lord”. Addressing God as ADONAY, as Jews do numerous times a day in all their Hebrew prayers and blessings, indicates that we submit ourselves to God’s complete dominion over us as servants submitting to our Master.

What’s in a name?

What is so important about the name of HaShem, which first appears in the Hebrew scriptures at the climax of the account of the Creation and in the ensuing verses giving details about the creation of Adam (Genesis 2:4ff). Prior to these verses, the account of Creation uses only the Hebrew name ELOHIM.

 

The Torah sages teach that only when the work of creation was complete could HASHEM, The Name, be revealed. It was this Name through which God revealed Himself to Israel when they received the Torah at Mount Sinai: “I am HASHEM your God that brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of slaves” (Exodus 20:2).

Names and formulae

For better understanding of the significance this name in particular in the Torah, it is necessary to grasp that there is a fundamental difference between the words and names of Biblical Hebrew and those of modern English. In English, all kinds of names are attached to all kinds of things, but regardless of the etymological and other connotations these names possesses, the actual letters of any given name do not necessarily relate to the inner essence of the thing it denotes. English names are essentially made up of mere phonemes, sounds that are conventionally used by the speakers of that language to signify whatever thing or being each noun or name denotes. In writing, these phonemes are represented by sequences of letters of the alphabet.

 

However, the building bricks of Hebrew words are more than mere letters signifying phonemes that are conventionally attached to the things they denote. Each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph Beit) has a mathematical value. Since the name of each letter is made up of that letter in combination with one or two other letters, each letter is a mathematical formula capable of joining with other mathematical formulae to make powerful combinations. (Note that the 22 letters of the Aleph Beit are all consonants, and in Hebrew texts the vowels are written as small dots or lines under or sometimes over the letters.)

 

Everyone knows that the conventional chemical formula for water is H²O because water is a combination of two hydrogen atoms to every oxygen atom. But do the words hydrogen and oxygen relate to the integral essence of their respective substances. Historically, they do relate to what was once thought to be the integral essence of those substances, but modern science views them differently. Yet in the more precise language of scientific theory, we see that formulae may possess enormous power. It is enough to consider the revolutionary implications of Albert Einstein’s E=mc² equation, in which he formulated his entire theory of relativity.

 

The Torah sages of the Kabbalah tradition teach that the Hebrew names and words relate to the integral essence of the things they denote, because these names are the underlying formulae of God’s creation. It was because Adam had knowledge of the secrets of creation that he knew the correct Hebrew name for each of the different creations: this is the underlying mystery of the verse: “…and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was its name” (Genesis 1:19).

Perfect Unity

Just as laymen and beginning science students find it hard to grasp Einstein’s theory of relativity, so we should not expect to grasp the secrets of the Essential Name of HaShem in the short time we can remain standing on one foot. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary to have a deep understanding of Hebrew in order to gain a glimmer of why this holy Name of God enshrined in the Torah contains the deepest mysteries of creation. All that is required is a modicum of patience and effort in order to grasp some very fundamental concepts.

 

The Tetragrammaton expresses even visually how three-dimensional physical space, the universe (OLAM), emanates from a higher source that is so beyond our comprehension that it can only be expressed as a mere dot.

Yod

Thus the first letter of the Tetragrammaton (reading from right to left) is the Hebrew letter YOD (?), smallest of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and considered to be their root. The YOD is written as a mere dot or blob of ink on the page. True, the Torah scribe writes the YOD with a tiny hairline above it, suggesting that this dot comes from somewhere hidden, and a tiny line emanating from underneath it, indicating that the power and energy of this dot is going somewhere. But the essence of the letter is a dot – a blob of ink that contains potential, yet the potential is not yet manifested in detail. Mathematically, the letter YOD is 10, indicating that it contains in absolute unity the 10 axiomatic powers of God (the 10 Sefirot). Similarly the cyper 1 actually contains the ten decimals – .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9 and 1.0 – which are all integral parts of the unity of 1.

Heh

The second letter of the Tetragrammaton is the Hebrew letter HEH, which is made up of three lines, two of which form a right angle while the third stands parallel to one of the lines forming the angle without touching the other. Three lines – three dimensions – with a suggestion of connection and disconnection. Here we have the beginnings of three-dimensional space, which emanates from God yet often seems disconnected from Him. Thus the HEH stands next to the YUD, emanating out of it.

 

This letter HEH is actually made up of two other Hebrew letters – the letter VAV, which is written with a single line or stroke, and the letter DALET which is made up of two lines joining to make a right angle. The HEH consists of a DALET with a small VAV parallel to one of the lines of the DALET while not touching the other. The DALET is considered a “womb” while the VAV is an embryo inside it. Both the VAV and the DALET emanate from the YOD, considered the “father”, and the VAV and the DALET reveal the inherent power of the YUD. Thus the name of the letter YUD is made up of the letters YUD, VAV and DALET.

Vav

The third letter of the Tetragrammaton is a VAV. What was an “embryo” contained in the “womb” of the second letter of the Name is now revealed as a complete letter in its own right. The VAV is like a YUD except that the thread coming out from underneath the blob of ink is extended much further downwards, to the bottom of the line on which the letters are written. Similarly God’s creation and self-revelation stretch “from top to bottom”, from the spiritual to the material.

Heh

The fourth letter of the Tetragrammaton is HEH. This is a reflection of the second letter, which is also a HEH. Of the three base letters of the Tetragrammaton, only the HEH is repeated. Whereas the first two letters of the name, the YOD and the HEH are “father” and “mother”, respectively God’s Wisdom and Understanding, the source of creation, the fourth letter of the name, the second HEH, alludes to the “kingdom” or “dominion” (OLAM, “Universe”) that He created for His own inscrutable purposes. This “kingdom” represented by the HEH emanates from the third letter of the Tetragrammaton, the VAV, which connects above and below. God’s plan is that the actual creation in this world “below” should come to reflect and reveal the source of that creation in the spiritual world “above”, just as the fourth letter of the Tetragrammaton, the second HEH, reflects and manifests the second letter of the Tegragrammaton, the first HEH.

Being and the source of being

Almost all Hebrew words with only a very tiny number of exceptions have a root consisting of three Hebrew letters. HaShem, the Essential Name of God, also has its three-letter root contained in the last three of its four constituent letters – HOVEH, a verb denoting “being”. In Hebrew grammar the YUD that in the Tetragrammaton stands before this root expresses the active subject of the verb, in this case the unknown, inconceivable One who brings “being” into existence. In Kabbalah this is called EYN SOF, “no end” – infinite and inconceivable. He is totally above and beyond Creation, yet His very essence permeates all of Creation on every plane, material, physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual… Perfect unity encompassing and contained within all plurality.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

I spoke with a very well know Priest here in Santa Monica, CA a few weeks ago... He said, Matthew do you have any idea how many millions it is costing the church to remove the Name of God from just our literature?

Why is the Catholic Church removing the name of GOD?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm

 

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Actually an interesting read:
http://koshertorah.com/PDF/madonna%20kabbalah.pdf

Aside from the traditional Madonna blend of music and sensuality, in
this video we see Madonna has a Holy Name of G-d tattooed onto her
right shoulder. Tattooing, mind you, is a practice forbidden under
Torah Law, all the more so abhorred by the Kabbalah. Granted the
tattoo may not be real or only temporary but nonetheless, any
expression of performing a forbidden act is itself forbidden and
inexcusable.

Unfortunately, Madonna's abuse of Kabbalah and traditional Torah
Judaism does not stop here. Later in the video we see Madonna winding
leather straps around her left arm in the exact same format and style
as holy tefillin are worn by religious Jewish men. Tefillin consist of
a small leather box containing scared parchments. These are then
strapped to one's left biceps, and the strap is wound down the left
arm and around the hand. Granted Madonna did not go so far as to
defame the tefillin boxes themselves. Yet, it is quite clear that the
wrapping of the straps around her arm is done in orthodox Torah style.
This act of hers is pure sacrilege.

 Filed Under: TRENDS
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Knowing God By Name

By Jeff Calhoun
Guest Writer

CBN.com - http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/discipleship/Names_of_God.aspx 

"And He said to them, 'When you pray, say: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name . . ." - Luke 11:2

Who is Our God?

In the wake of the devastating terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, there was much talk about God. The phrase "God Bless America" echoed throughout our fifty states. Believers and non-believers alike turned to churches and prayer gatherings for comfort, calling upon God to heal and comfort them in the midst of their grief and pain. Others wondered if God was truly there at all, and if He was, they questioned His whereabouts on that terrible day.

Another group did a lot of talking about God: the terrorists themselves. On the same day as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, some Palestinian militants were seen celebrating in the streets, declaring "God is great!" On Sunday, October 7, 2001, Osama bin Laden said the following in a videotaped statement: "There is America, hit by God in one of its softest spots. Its greatest buildings were destroyed. Thank God for that. There is America, full of fear . . . thank God for that."

Upon hearing those words, I had to wonder: "Who is he talking about? Is he talking about our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? We of course know that he isn't, but how will the world know that? How will they know, when we tell them about the God whom we serve, that we do not mean this "God" spoken of by bin Laden? As we continue to seek our God for revival in this land, the distinction must be made between the God of the Bible and the gods of other faiths.

So, who is our God? Osama bin Laden's "God" has a name: Allah. What is our God's name? As with all matters, the answer to that question can be found in the Scriptures.

What is Our God's Name?

The Bible is full of references to the awesome power and importance of the Name of our God. For instance, Proverbs 18 refers to His Name as "a strong tower." In Psalm 119:55 the psalmist says, "I have remembered your Name in the night and have kept your law." Psalm 138:1-2 says, "I will bow myself towards your sacred temple and give thanks to your Name . . . for you have magnified your word, your Name, above all." There are many other Scriptures that speak of the sacred Name of our God.

One such verse has been adopted by CBN during this time of prayer for revival: "If my people who are called by my Name shall humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their evil ways, then I shall hear from the heavens, and forgive their sin and heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14).

An interesting thing to notice is that none of these Scriptures uses the plural word "names" but the singular "Name." This clearly indicates that there is but one Name for our God. So what is it?

In Exodus 3, when Moses encounters our God in the burning bush, he asks the following question: "See, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His Name?' what shall I say to them?"

What follows is one of the most profound and meaningful truths that can be found in Scripture. The answer to Moses' question is . . . "YHWH."

What's in a Name?

So, what does this mean? First, let's look at the word's structure. This Name YHWH given to Moses in Exodus 3 is comprised of the Hebrew letters Yod (Y), Hay (H), Waw (W - pronounced "Vav"), and Hay (H), which together are often referred to as the Tetragrammaton ("The four lettered name"). Although the issue of how to pronounce this Name has been the source of much debate and controversy for centuries, the pronunciation more Hebrew scholars agree is correct is "Yah-oo-way" (as in the transliteration Yahweh).

But let's not worry about what scholars think about pronunciation for a moment. Try saying the name aloud, using no vowel sounds at all. When I do it, it sounds very much like breathing. The Breath of Life.

Now, let's examine what this Name means. The Name YHWH is an archaic form of the verb "to be," so the concept drawn from the English translation of this word is "I am that I am," or "I am who I am." YHWH is not, however, the word used as "I am" when Yahweh says, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:14). Although the Name YHWH conveys the same idea of His perpetual existence and presence as "I am," it means so much more, as we're about to see.

The Hebrew language is one of complexity and intricate beauty. Each of its letters has its own meaning and numerical value. In this case, the meanings of the four letters used to form the Name of YHWH give the Name a powerful and prophetic significance. First, the letter Yod literally means "hand," while Hay means "behold," and Waw means "nail" (or "hook", depending on the context). So, in sequence: "Hand (Y), behold (H), nail (W), and behold (H)." The context of the word YHWH means, "Behold the nailed hand."

Clearly, this is no ordinary, every-day name. But wait, there's more: Yahushua (often Yeshua or Yahshua), the Hebrew name of the Messiah, the son of Yahweh, means "YHWH is salvation." Therefore, you can take that a step further and see it as "Behold, the nailed hand is salvation." This not only powerfully illustrates Yahushua's role as Savior, but also His divinity (as Yahweh incarnate) and His relationship to Yahweh as His only begotten son. As Yahushua Himself said, "I have come in my Father's name (John 5:43)." Just as His life and character point us to His Father (John 14:6 - "no one comes to the Father but by me;" see also John 17:23-26), so also does His name point us to the sacred Name of Yahweh. He even instructed us to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name . . . (Luke 11:2)."

What About Those Other Names?

You have no doubt heard most or all of the following descriptive terms and/or titles that have often been applied to Yahweh: El (meaning "mighty one," also the name of the sky god of the ancient Syrians), Elohim (the plural form of El), El Shaddai ("almighty one"), and Adonai ("my lord"), among others. While those words, like the commonly used English terms "Lord" and "God," can certainly express different aspects of the character of Yahweh, they are merely generic titles and descriptions. None of them is His Name.

If someone were to ask you "What is your God's name?" your first response might be "Jehovah." This is one of the most popular terms attributed to Yahweh, and is often thought by many to be His true name, but let's look at it more closely.

When the Scriptures were being transcribed, it was believed by the Jewish scribes performing the task that they should not pronounce the sacred Name of YHWH, for fear of violating the third commandment ("Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . . " - Exodus 20:7). This led to the use of other words, generic titles (such as "Adonai"), as substitutes for the true name, Yahweh. Therefore, if you were to compare a typical, modern English translation of the Bible with the original Hebrew texts, you would see how YHWH (which can be found a total of 7,038 times in the original Hebrew Old Testament) was replaced by "the Lord" or "God."

The following excerpt from Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary (1984 edition) details what the scribes did and the origins of the word "Jehovah:"

The form Jehovah did not exist as a Hebrew word. It is actually a conflation (blend, fusion) of two Hebrew forms that came about through a peculiarity of the Hebrew writing system. The Hebrew name for God, the consonants of which are transliterated YHWH, was considered so sacred that it was never pronounced and its proper vowel points were never written. In some texts the vowel points for a completely different word, Adonai, "lord," were written with YHWH to indicate that the word Adonai was to be spoken whenever the reader came upon the word YHWH. YHWH was never intended to be pronounced with the vowels of Adonai, but Christian scholars of the Renaissance made exactly that mistake, and the forms Iehovah (using the classical Latin equivalents of the Hebrew letters) and Jehovah (substituting in English, J for consonantal I) came into common use.

Other texts agree: The Encarta Encyclopedia (2000 edition) says that Jehovah is the "name of the God of the Hebrew people as erroneously transliterated from the Masoretic Hebrew text." A New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936 edition) states, "The form 'Jehovah' is impossible, according to the strict principles of Hebrew vocalization."

So, it is clearly no secret that Jehovah is not the true Name of our God. But don't worry - this doesn't mean that the wonderful suffixes normally attached to Jehovah (as in Jehovah Jireh, Rapha, Nissi, etc.) are also wrong. Those transliterations are for the most part correct, and when added to the name Yahweh (as in "Yahweh Yireh" - "Yahweh the Provider"), they can serve as powerful expressions of certain attributes and characteristics of our Lord Yahweh.

So, What's the Big Deal?

You may be thinking, "That's nice, but why do I need to know and use the name of Yahweh?" You may feel perfectly secure and content in using one or all of the generic and descriptive terms already mentioned, feeling no need to change how you refer to Yahweh. Perhaps you think the name sounds funny, or that it's improper or even downright wrong to use it altogether. Well, you're not alone, and I was certainly skeptical at first myself. It can be very difficult to eschew and let go of things we have practiced and held on to for many years. But let's look at it in terms of relationship.

Our Father desires to know us intimately and yearns for us to reciprocate that desire. He loves us so much that "He sent His only begotten Son" as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. If we truly long to serve our God and have a deep and intimate relationship with Him, we should address Him in a more personal and intimate way.

When someone begins a relationship with you, one of the first things they learn is your name. As the relationship develops, they begin to learn more and more of your character, and eventually, if they want to, they will know you very well and will be devoted to your relationship. However, the relationship would most likely not last very long if they kept referring to you as "man" or "woman," "sir" or "madam." Such a thing would keep a certain amount of distance between the two of you, and would surely not be a good way to create and maintain intimacy and love.

They might tell you over and over again that they love you dearly, but would you really believe them if they kept addressing you by an impersonal title or description? The same applies to our relationship with our wonderful Creator, Yahweh. To continually apply generic terms like "Lord" and "God" to Him would be like a husband constantly calling his spouse "Wife" or "Woman." To use "Jehovah" would be like the same husband calling his wife by the wrong name altogether, expecting her to respond.

As we saw earlier, there are countless Scriptures that place a great amount of importance on the Name of Yahweh. It is not simply another generic term in a long list of titles and descriptions, as some would want to believe. Nor is it a name limited only to the Old Testament, as others have said. As Yahweh Himself said when He revealed His Name to Moses, "This is my Name forever, and this is my remembrance to all generations" (Exodus 3:15).

This is why our deceptive adversary (who comes "to steal, kill and destroy") has tried to wipe out the Name altogether by deceiving men into replacing it with other titles and generic or even false "names." He does not want us to have a close relationship with Yahweh. In fact, that's exactly why he is trying to deceive us, so that we will serve that which is not of Yahweh (and therefore is of the enemy). Since he cannot create but only corrupt, he has worked for centuries to corrupt and bury the sacred Name of Yahweh our God. He knows that the Name of Yahweh is a powerful weapon. Why else would it be virtually erased from all modern translations of the Bible? Why else would there be a counterfeit name (Jehovah) in its place?

I, for one, no longer wish to give the enemy any pleasure by continuing to deny the name of Yahweh. I count it as such a wonderful blessing and privilege to know and use Yahweh's true Name. While He is indeed my "Lord" and my "God," He is also my Abba Father, my Best Friend (who "sticks closer than a brother"), my Everything. Whatever question we have, the answer is always "YHWH . . . I AM THAT I AM."

 Filed Under: BIBLE STUDIES
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Yahweh

'Yahweh,' the Tetragrammaton (as introduced in yesterday's post), is composed of:

Yod

-Yod or yud was anciently portrayed as a symbol of a hand [yad in Hebrew]. This is the entire hand, or closed hand [in contrast with the letter kaf, which comes from the pictograph of the palm of the hand]. The closed hand denotes power and, figuratively, ownership.
-Yod is masculine. In the sacred name Yahweh, it is representative of the Father.
-Yod is the seminal letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It cannot be divided into component parts, like other letters can. It signifies the oneness of Elohim.
-The yod is the smallest [and most humble] letter. From it, the other letters originate. It is symbolic of creation.

Hey

-The letter hey is feminine, and represents femininity and gentleness. The first hey in the Name is representative of the Mother / Holy Spirit / Eloah.
-Hey means ‘behold’, ‘to show’ or ‘to reveal’.

Vav

-Vav is also masculine in gender.
-Vav signifies a nail, peg, or hook. It also conveys the meaning of being nailed or bound together.
-The numerical value of vav is 6.

They are pronounced, in Hebrew, "Yod Hey Vav Hey," when you read them in the Hebrew manner from right to left.


The four letters in God's name in Hebrew have the following meanings:

Hey = Behold

Vav = Nail

Yod = Closed Hand

When read in English from left to right, it says:

"BEHOLD THE NAIL, BEHOLD THE HAND!"
Or, "Behold the nailed hand."

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." (Zechariah 12:10)

"Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet." (Psalm 22:16)

"Clearly, this is no ordinary, every-day name. But wait, there's more: Yahushua (often Yeshua or Yahshua, the Hebrew name of Jesus, similar to Joshua), the Hebrew name of the Messiah, the son of Yahweh, means "YHWH is salvation." Therefore, you can take that a step further and see it as "Behold, the nailed hand is salvation." This not only powerfully illustrates Yahushua's role as Savior, but also His divinity (as Yahweh incarnate) and His relationship to Yahweh as His only begotten son. As Yahushua Himself said, "I have come in my Father's name (John 5:43)." Just as His life and character point us to His Father (John 14:6 - "no one comes to the Father but by me;" see also John 17:23-26), so also does His name point us to the sacred Name of Yahweh. He even instructed us to pray: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name . . . (Luke 11:2)."

You have no doubt heard most or all of the following descriptive terms and/or titles that have often been applied to Yahweh: El (meaning "mighty one,"), Elohim (the plural form of El), El Shaddai ("almighty one"), and Adonai ("my lord"), among others. While those words, like the commonly used English terms "Lord" and "God," can certainly express different aspects of the character of Yahweh, they are merely generic titles and descriptions. None of them is His Name.

When the Scriptures were being transcribed, it was believed by the Jewish scribes performing the task that they should not pronounce the sacred Name of YHWH, for fear of violating the third commandment ("Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . . " - Exodus 20:7). This led to the use of other words, generic titles (such as "Adonai"), as substitutes for the true name, Yahweh. Therefore, if you were to compare a typical, modern English translation of the Bible with the original Hebrew texts, you would see how YHWH (which can be found a total of 7,038 times in the original Hebrew Old Testament) was replaced by "the Lord" or "God."

The form Jehovah did not exist as a Hebrew word. It is actually a conflation (blend, fusion) of two Hebrew forms that came about through a peculiarity of the Hebrew writing system. The Hebrew name for God, the consonants of which are transliterated YHWH, was considered so sacred that it was never pronounced and its proper vowel points were never written. In some texts the vowel points for a completely different word, Adonai, "lord," were written with YHWH to indicate that the word Adonai was to be spoken whenever the reader came upon the word YHWH. YHWH was never intended to be pronounced with the vowels of Adonai, but Christian scholars of the Renaissance made exactly that mistake, and the forms Iehovah (using the classical Latin equivalents of the Hebrew letters) and Jehovah (substituting in English, J for consonantal I) came into common use.

A New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936 edition) states, "The form 'Jehovah' is impossible, according to the strict principles of Hebrew vocalization."

So, it is clearly no secret that Jehovah is not the true Name of our God. But don't worry - this doesn't mean that the wonderful suffixes normally attached to Jehovah (as in Jehovah Jireh, Rapha, Nissi, etc.) are also wrong. Those transliterations are for the most part correct, and when added to the name Yahweh (as in "Yahweh Yireh" - "Yahweh the Provider"), they can serve as powerful expressions of certain attributes and characteristics of our Lord Yahweh."

You might reply, "So what? Who cares what the exact Name may or may not be? Why should it matter?"

"When someone begins a relationship with you, one of the first things they learn is your name. As the relationship develops, they begin to learn more and more of your character, and eventually, if they want to, they will know you very well and will be devoted to your relationship. However, the relationship would most likely not last very long if they kept referring to you as "man" or "woman," "sir" or "madam." Such a thing would keep a certain amount of distance between the two of you, and would surely not be a good way to create and maintain intimacy and love.

They might tell you over and over again that they love you dearly, but would you really believe them if they kept addressing you by an impersonal title or description? The same applies to our relationship with our wonderful Creator, Yahweh. To continually apply generic terms like "Lord" and "God" to Him would be like a husband constantly calling his spouse "Wife" or "Woman."

I'm not saying that its wrong to refer to Yahweh as 'God' or 'Lord.' But, for a Christian who wants to increase their intimate relationship with their Lord, shouldn't you want to learn more about His Name (as well as other biblical references to Him) and what it means?


(some portions of information are from):
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/discipleship/Names_of_God.aspx Sphere: Related Content

 Filed Under: General
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Hebrew Gematria -
	Finding numerical relationships between words and phrases

	Within the earliest Jewish traditions, groups of Jewish scholars counted the number of times each letter appeared in the Scriptures (as well as the number of words, verses, paragraphs, etc.). These textual specialists were called Soferim (counters). The Soferim ensured that every Torah scroll (and the other books of the Tanakh) were identical, noting any unusual words and spellings and replicating them exactly through their scribal arts. Many Jews believe that Ezra the Scribe instituted many of the practices of the Soferim. In the medieval mystical text called Sefer Yitzirah: The Book of Creation, the letters of the Alphabet are described as the stones used to build a house. They are called the “twenty two letters of foundation.” This doctrine highlights the belief in the essential relationship between letters, words and the creative process.

Gematria is a type of numerological study that may be defined as one of more systems for calculating the numerical equivalence of letters, words, and phrases in a particular Hebrew text. These systems are used for the purpose of gaining insight into interrelating concepts and for finding correspondences between words and concepts. Although not identical, gematria is also in the same orbit as the so-called “Bible Codes” and “Equi-distant Letter Sequences” (ELS) that have become fashionable recently.

	According to most practitioners, there are several methods used to calculate the numerical value for individual words and phrases. When converted to a number, words/phrases can then be compared to other words/phrases and similarities drawn. I list the most common Hebrew gematria methods below.

	The Standard Method

	Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is given an assigned number, beginning with one for Aleph, two for Bet, and so on. The tenth letter, Yod, is numerically equivalent to 10, and successive letters equal 20, 30, 40, and so on. The letter Kaf near the end of the alphabet, equals 100, and the last letter, Tav, equals 400. This method is sometimes called “Ragil.” Using this method, you simply add up each letter of a given word (or phrase) to determine its numerical value: Examples: The value of the word shalom (Shin, Lamed, Vav, Mem) is 300+30+6+40 = 376. The value of the Name YHVH (Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey) is 10+5+6+5 = 26. Note: In the Mispar Mussafi method, the value of a word (or phrase) is the standard gematria value plus the number of letters in the word (or phrase). For example, the value of the word shalom (Shin, Lamed, Vav, Mem) is 300+30+6+40+4 or 380, and the value of the Name YHVH (Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey) is 10+5+6+5+4 or 30.

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

144 Names of God in the Hebrew Bible: A Journey to the Center of GodSpeak in Ancient Israel

If you can read the unvocalized text correctly and without difficulty, you have a strong working knowledge of ancient Hebrew. If you cannot, but you would like to be able to, stay with me. By committing these names to memory, you will take a giant step in the direction of being able to read the Hebrew of the Bible without the aid of vowels and without consulting a dictionary and a grammar at every turn.

 Filed Under: BIBLE STUDIES
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Ancient manuscripts from Mt. Sinai move into the digital age with the help of a Bedouin camel driver's son.

SINAI, EGYPT — On a refreshingly cool morning, before the sun drenches every exposed grain of sand in this vast desert, Hemeid Sobhy sets out on foot from the Bedouin village where he lives with his parents and sisters. Neatly dressed in jeans, sport shirt and sturdy sandals, he walks 40 minutes to the Holy Monastery of St. Catherine.

He passes through a narrow door in the monastery's thick walls and makes his way past an ancient church and a warren of buildings, clustered along winding pathways. A stairway takes him to the third floor of a relatively modern structure along the monastery's south wall, where he enters the library, greets a monk in a long black robe and gets to work.

His office is an 8-foot-square, 8-foot-tall tent of clear plastic sheeting stretched over a metal frame. A filtering system keeps the air free from dust. Erected in a small room at the end of the cavernous library, the tent is equipped with a computer, a large-format digital camera, two flash units on tripods and a metal cradle designed to hold fragile manuscripts safely in place while they are photographed.

The setup could hardly seem more out of place at the oldest continuously operating monastery in Christendom. But St. Catherine's is entering the Age of Technology — with the help of Father Justin Sinaites, a 57-year-old American monk from El Paso, and Hemeid, the 23-year-old son of a Bedouin camel driver. They are implementing a digital photography project that will make high-resolution images of the library's closely guarded manuscripts available to scholars all over the world.

Consisting of 3,300 manuscripts in 11 languages — many of them richly illuminated in gold leaf and bright, jewel-like colors — the library's collection is second in number and importance only to the trove at the Vatican. With manuscripts made as early as the 6th century, the Sinai cache consists mainly of scriptures, sermons and texts for religious services, but it includes classical Greek literature and a few medical texts with herbal remedies for various afflictions.

Today the object awaiting its close-up is a rare Arabic manuscript of Christian gospels, written on parchment in 897. A vacuum hose attached to the cradle gently pulls back the open page. A narrow piece of bone placed on the front of the page, near the binding, helps to flatten the rumpled parchment.

Hemeid scrutinizes a video preview of the page on the computer screen, centers the image, adjusts the focus and clicks the mouse. The flash units, covered with diffusers to remove harmful ultraviolet light, pop four times as the camera takes four pictures, each in a slightly different position. Hemeid clicks a command that enables the computer to merge the four exposures into a single high-resolution digital photograph.

One more page down; hundreds of thousands to go.

"If you do the math, it's discouraging," says Father Justin, who oversees the library. "There are 1.8 million pages, not to mention the manuscript fragments discovered in 1975, known as the New Finds; the scrolls and the collection of early printed books — all in overwhelming numbers. But each manuscript is the work of a patient scribe working with difficult materials, recording a text of importance. Each manuscript is unique, and each is yet another facet of the library of Sinai, contributing to our understanding of the spiritual heritage that has been preserved here."



Protection in isolation

Lodged in a fortress-like complex at the foot of precipitous mountains on a forbidding desert, St. Catherine's has survived partly because of its isolated location. The difficulty of getting here, even now that paved roads bring busloads of tourists, has protected the monastery and its spectacular collections of manuscripts and Byzantine icons, examples of which are on view through March 4 in a landmark exhibition at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles.

But remotely situated as it is, the monastery is a Greek Orthodox oasis in Muslim territory. St. Catherine's resides in a community that is also adjusting to modernity.

When Byzantine Emperor Justinian built the monastery, in the 6th century, he moved about 200 families of Bedouin slaves from Alexandria and the northern shore of Anatolia to guard and care for it. Today their descendants, the Jebeliya tribe of Sinai Bedouins, who are Muslims, offer camel rides to visitors making the trek up Mt. Sinai and provide the monastery with an essential workforce. As the resident population of monks at St. Catherine's has dwindled to 25, Bedouins have continued to serve as guards, cooks, gardeners, restaurant managers, storeroom supervisors and shopkeepers. Their wages are low but so are living expenses in Sinai, Father Justin says.

Hemeid's father, Sobhy Hemeid, worked at the monastery's pharmacy until 1986, when he became a camel driver. The young man's grandfather was employed at St. Catherine's for 50 years, and many of his relatives still tend the bookshop, but he headed off to college in Cairo. Overwhelmed by the city's noise, confusion and pollution, he transferred to a university in much quieter Ismailiya, where he studied accounting, economics, management and computer science, and graduated in June 2005.

"When I was studying at the university, the archbishop said I could work at the monastery," Hemeid says in carefully considered English. He had thought he might work in a bank, but when he didn't find a situation that suited him, he went home and presented himself to Archbishop Damianos. As abbot of St. Catherine's community of monks, the archbishop is responsible for day-to-day operations and outreach as well spiritual traditions.

Hemeid's timing was impeccable. Father Justin, who arrived at the monastery in 1996, needed help. Born into a Baptist family that published religious books, he became fascinated with Byzantine history as a student at the University of Texas and joined the Greek Orthodox church. He entered a monastery in Brookline, Mass., and took charge of its publishing projects.

At St. Catherine's, he started making digital images of the manuscripts when he was second in command at the library. Saint Catherine Foundation, a London-based charitable organization devoted to supporting the library, had allotted $10,000 to the project. Larger grants from other sources had paid for necessary equipment. The Flora Family Foundation in Menlo Park, Calif., gave $150,000; Italian publishing heir Leonardo Mondadori donated $35,000.

But after photographing some of the most important manuscripts, Father Justin was promoted. New responsibilities left little time to continue the project. He had to facilitate plans to renovate the library and conserve its collections. On the rare occasions when manuscripts from the collection are allowed to travel, he accompanies them. And he is in demand as a speaker. He will present a seminar on one of the manuscripts in the Los Angeles exhibition Tuesday at the Getty Center. (getty.edu/art/exhibitions/icons_sinai/events.html)

"When I asked for a helper, the monks' first instinct was to bring people from Greece because they know them, they trust them, they share the same culture," says Father Justin, adding that he and a British colleague are the only monks at the monastery who are not Greek. "But then you have the expense of transportation, wages, room and board. And how long can you expect the person to be here? So I told them, 'Get me a Bedouin who is instinctively careful and I can teach him the computer part.' They live here, we have known all their relatives for generations, and there is no thought about how long they can stay here."

When Hemeid applied for work at the monastery, he knew nothing about the library.

"I did not decide to work there," he says. "The Archbishop chose that place for me."

A quiet trailblazer who spends his spare time listening to Arabic music while working on his home computer, Hemeid has the dreams of many young men. He wants to get married and have a child. He hopes to have a car. But he is the first person in his community to graduate from a university and the first Bedouin to secure such a rarefied position at the monastery.

By all accounts, he caught on quickly because of his experience with computers.

"He is a tremendous help," Father Justin says. "He is very careful. When he sees something that is not quite right, he asks me, instead of just charging ahead. That's exactly what I want. Each manuscript is unique and presents its own demands. But there is a certain repetition once things are set up. I compare it to driving. You have to be alert, but there's a routine to it. I think it takes a certain temperament. I think Hemeid has it."

Six months into his job, Hemeid seems to have found a niche. He has no plans to leave the monastery or his village.

"I am so happy to have this job," he says. "I feel that I have important work. I love it so much that I never get bored."

He isn't likely to run out of work, even if the project is narrowed down considerably.

"Photographing the whole library is not a realistic goal," Father Justin says. "But, as with all collections, 90% of the users are interested in 10% of the collection. The 10% that is of the greatest interest is quite a reasonable goal."

---

suzanne.muchnic@latimes.com

 Filed Under: BIBLE STUDIES
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

OCT. 24, 2005

TEENS
OMG: It's a multimedia generation

Teenagers and college-age young adults know all kinds of things others don't: Cool, unheralded musical artists. Fascinating web sites. Scintillating new books. How? They are so wired into one another - through cell phones, email and instant messaging - that they seem to absorb information through their pores. And it's clear many are looking for spiritual meaning outside their parents' tradition.

The new buzzword for reaching out religiously to this group is multimedia - using music, videos, the web, print and more, often all at the same time. The feel is energetic and edgy. The theology ranges from conservative to liberal. Will these efforts help ground this generation in age-old faiths? Will it help them form their own traditions? Time will tell.

Why it matters

Young people may not want information so much as meaning. In most cities, congregations are using multimedia, lights and sound to appeal to "Generation Net." And ministries and outreach programs using cutting-edge technology are proliferating.

Questions for reporters

• What are congregations in your area doing to attract teenagers and college students? What is edgy and new? What's working?
• Is religion flavored with hip-hop a trend in your region? What about geek-tinged hipsterism? Or alternative rock, or straight-out pop?
• What religious web sites, webzines, blogs and other multimedia are teens favoring?
• How does the presentation change the message?

Click the map for interview sources in your state and region

National sources

CHRISTIAN
• Cameron Strang is president and founder of Relevant Media Group of Orlando, Fla., which targets 18- to 34-year-old Christians across denominations. He publishes RELEVANT magazine, a daily web site and Relevant Books. Read a June 23, 2004, USA Today story. Contact 407-660-1411, Cameron@relevantmediagroup.com.
• Pastor Rob Bell is featured in the NOOMA series of 10- to 14-minute films on DVD with spiritual teachings aimed at teenagers and college-age adults. Bell's Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., meets in a former shopping mall that can seat 3,500. Bell wrote Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Zondervan, 2005); Zondervan also is distributing the films. Contact Karen Campbell, 616-698-3246, Karen.campbell@zondervan.com.
• Tommy Kyllonen, who also goes by Urban D., is a hip-hop artist and lead pastor at the Tampa, Fla., Crossover Community Church. The church's ministry is the hip-hop culture, and worship combines music, dance, visual arts and other media. He has recorded five albums, performs concerts and is writing his first book, about hip-hop and the church. Contact 813-935-8887, urband@flavoralliance.com.
• The Rev. Paul B. Raushenbush, an American Baptist minister, is associate dean for religious life at Princeton University. He is the author of Teen Spirit: One World, Many Paths (HCI Teens, 2004) and writes a teen spirituality advice column on Beliefnet.com - "Ask Pastor Paul" - in which he answers teens' questions on subjects from the spiritual implications of tattooing to abstinence to interfaith dating. Contact 609-258-6245, praushen@princeton.edu.
• The Rev. Kenda Creasy Dean is assistant professor of youth, church and culture at Princeton Theological Seminary. A United Methodist minister and parent of two teenagers, she served on the research team for the National Study of Youth and Religion. She is the author of several books on youth and the church, including Practicing Passion: Youth and the Quest for a Passionate Church (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004) and co-author, with Ron Foster, of The Godbearing Life: The Art of Soul-Tending for Youth Ministry (Upper Room Books, 1998). Contact kenda.dean@ptsem.edu.
• Chap Clark is an associate professor of youth, family and culture at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena and directs the seminary's youth ministry programs. Clark immersed himself in the life of a public high school in Los Angeles County, working as a substitute teacher and conducting ethnographic research there, and convened discussion groups with teenagers around the country for his book Hurt: Inside the World of Today's Teenagers (Baker Academic, 2004). Contact 626-584-5608, cclark@fuller.edu.
• T. Suzanne Eller of Muskogee, Okla., an author and speaker with a ministry to teens and college students, has a blog and a web site. Contact tseller@daretobelieve.org.
• Laurie Whaley Roe is vice president of Thomas Nelson's Nelson Bibles, which publishes youth-oriented BibleZines, including REVOLVE, the complete New Testament for teenage girls in a magazine format, and REAL, a similar product for the hip-hop crowd. Contact Cameron Conant, 615-902-1284, cconant@thomasnelson.com.
• Jennifer Swanson is spokeswoman for LIFE TEEN INC., an international Catholic youth ministry that produces videos and a web site. Contact 480-820-7001, jswanson@lifeteen.com.

JEWISH
• Jewish rocker Rick Recht of St. Louis considers himself an educator as well as a musician. He plays more than 125 concerts a year, has recorded four Jewish albums and one secular one, and is at work on a movie and web sites. Contact 314-991-0909, rick@rickrecht.com.
• Yosef I. Abramowitz is publisher of JVibe, a new magazine for Jewish youth that is produced by Jewish Family & Life Media. Abramowitz is founder and CEO of JFL. Contact 617-581-6804, yabramowitz@jflmedia.com, or Michelle Cove, editor, mcove@jflmedia.com.
• Amy L. Sales is associate director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. She has studied Jewish life on college campuses and the experience of teenagers at Jewish summer camps. She is co-author of How Goodly Are Thy Tents: Summer Camps as Jewish Socializing Experiences (University Press of New England, 2003), for which she visited 20 summer camps in 2000. Contact 781-736-2066, sales@brandeis.edu.
• Rabbi Hayim Herring is director of STAR (Synagogues: Transformation and Renewal), an organization based in Minneapolis that works to renew the American Jewish community through congregational innovation and leadership development. He helped conduct a study called "Shema: Listening to Jewish Youth," examining the attitudes of Jewish teens in the Minneapolis area toward Judaism. Contact 612-381-8840, hherring@starsynagogue.org.

MUSLIM
• Abdul Malik Mujahid is founder and president of Soundvision.com, a web-based resource for Muslims with a teen section and multimedia products. Read a 2000 Dallas Morning News article posted by Soundvision. Contact 708-430-1255 ext. 405.
• Amir Hussain is a professor in the religious studies department at California State University, Northridge, but during the 2005-06 academic year will be teaching in the theological studies department at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Hussain has taught courses about contemporary Islam and about religion and film, and can speak about the role that faith plays in the lives of Muslim young people. Contact 818-677-2741, amir.hussain@csun.edu.
• Ted Swedenburg is a professor of cultural anthropology at the University of Arkansas. He has done research on popular music, including Islamic and Middle Eastern influences on rap and hip-hop music, and he hosts a world music show on the radio. He can speak about the impact that Muslim young people are having in the world of music. Contact 479-575-6624, tsweden@uark.edu.
• Visit the web site for the Muslim Students Association, which lists chapters on college campuses across the country.

BUDDHIST
• Diana Winston of Berkeley, Calif., teaches meditation at Buddhist retreat centers and to classes of teenagers. She also leads retreats for Buddhist teenagers and young adults and is the author of Wide Awake: A Buddhist Guide for Teens (Perigree Books, 2003). Contact 510-527-4729, info@wide-awake.org, or through Adrienne Biggs, 415-453-4474, Adrienne@biggspublicity.com.
• Buddhist Gateway has a teen area. Contact Press-Ads@Faith.com.

HINDU
• Hindu Gateway has a teen area. Contact Press-Ads@Faith.com.
• Visit the web site for the Hindu Students Council, which links to chapters at colleges across the country.

NEW AGE/NEOPAGAN
• Sarah M. Pike is an associate professor of religious studies at California State University in Chico. She has written about New Age and neopagan religions and is working on a project about teens on the margins of American culture. Contact 530-898-6341, spike@csuchico.edu.

ACADEMICS
• Lynn Schofield Clark is an assistant research professor in the school of journalism and mass communication at the University of Colorado at Boulder and directs the Teens and the New Media@Home Project, which studies how young people use new media technologies. She also is the author of From Angels to Aliens: Teenagers, the Media and the Supernatural (Oxford University Press, 2003), which is based on extensive interviews with U.S. teens and considers how presentations of the supernatural in the media help shape the religious views of teenagers. Contact 303-735-5632, Lynn.Clark@Colorado.edu.
• Christian Smith is a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and co-principal investigator for the Youth and Religion Project. He is the author, with Melinda Lundquist Denton, of a new book summarizing major findings from that study called Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press, 2005). Contact 919-962-4524, cssmith@email.unc.edu.

Background

WEBZINES, ETC.
• Focus on the Family publishes Brio for teenage girls and Breakaway for teenage guys, and broadcasts a live call-in radio show, Life on the Edge.
• Christianity Today publishes Campus Life, which is available by email subscription.
• Beliefnet hosts teen discussion boards about a range of faiths.

POLLS AND SURVEYS
• See summaries of research findings from the National Study of Youth and Religion, funded by the Lilly Endowment and based at the University of North Carolina. From July 2002 to March 2003, the researchers conducted a random nationwide telephone survey of 3,370 teenagers ages 13 to 17 and their parents, and followed that up with 267 in-depth interviews with teenagers in 45 states. Among the findings: Teenagers seemed remarkably conventional in their religious views, and there wasn't much evidence of "spiritual seeking" or exploration. But even teenagers who considered religion important were not very articulate in talking about their faith - they have a hard time explaining what they believe.
• Read the preliminary results of a national study of spirituality in higher education. A pilot survey released in 2004 found strong interest in spiritual matters among third-year college students. It is part of a broader, longer-term study funded by the John Templeton Foundation. The survey, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California in Los Angeles, included the responses of 3,680 undergraduates at 46 diverse colleges and universities from around the country.
• "OMG! How Generation Y is Redefining Faith in the iPod Era" -- a survey of almost 1,400 youth ages 18 to 25 that included Christian, Muslim and Jewish youth and a mix of races and ethnicities - explored attitudes about faith, politics and volunteer service. It found a "strong and intimate" connection between religious faith and volunteerism. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed volunteered in their community in the last year, but only 14 percent did so regularly. The 2004 survey was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

WEB SITES
• A 2003 ReligionLink tip on teens and the Internet includes national and regional interview sources.
• Learn about a road trip that a group of reporters ages 11 to 16 took in 2002 to talk to teenagers across the country about spirituality - interviewing, among others, Maggie, a Buddhist teen in Texas, about reincarnation; Vidisha, an 11-year-old in Nashville, about Hindu prayer; and Alexis, a 15-year-old Baptist-turned-Catholic from New Orleans who was the only person in her family who went to church. The trip was organized by Children's PressLine, a media organization in New York City that trains young reporters.
• The Youth Ministry and Spirituality Project, based at San Francisco Theological Seminary and funded by the Lilly Endowment, worked with more than a dozen Christian congregations - Baptist, Catholic, Mennonite, Lutheran and others - as well as youth ministry leaders to explore contemplative practices such as centering prayer and walking labyrinths in working with teenagers.
• The Center for Parent/Youth Understanding is a nonprofit group that tries to help parents and other adults better understand youth culture.

ARTICLES
• Read a 2004 Religion News Service story explaining some of the research findings from the National Study of Youth and Religion. It's posted by Beliefnet.
• Read a Sept. 3, 2004, Associated Press story about Seventeen magazine starting a new section on faith. It's posted by TheFashionSpot.com.
• Read a Sept. 26, 2004, Indianapolis Star story (posted by ReligionNewsBlog.com) about techniques congregations are using - from basketball to fire pits - to try to draw more teenagers to worship.
• Read an Associated Press story about the religious views of the "millennial generation" (born starting in 1982). It's posted by Beliefnet.com.
• Read a June 2002 story from AsianWeek.com about Generation M, an annual interfaith conference organized by Muslim youth that uses hip-hop music and poetry to teach people about Islam and tolerance.
• Read an account of a Hindu Global Youth Conference held in Washington, D.C., in 2000 and interviews with teenagers who attended a Hindu summer camp outside Chicago.

 Filed Under: TRENDS
 SEEK FIRST's blog »

Books & Culture, January/February 2007
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/1.8.html
Naming God
How should we address him?
by Virginia Stem Owens

At night, when I get down on my knees beside my bed and lean my head on my folded hands in the posture of prayer I was taught as a child, there's always a moment's hesitation while I fumble for the first word to launch into the cosmos, a name that will find the infinite mystery I want my words to reach.

Doubtless my attention to the question of what to call God has been heightened by the violent clash between partisans from the world's three major monotheistic religions. Muslims call upon Allah, ideally, five times a day. The Qur'an lists the ninety-nine names of God, e. g., "He is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, the Fashioner, the Exalted in Might, the Wise." The name Allah itself is the Arabic transliteration of the Hebrew Eloah (cf. Elohim, one of God's names in the Hebrew scriptures) or Aramaic Elah , meaning "Mighty One" or "One Worthy of Praise." But the Qur'an also says that Allah has names that he keeps to himself, an option I find strangely appealing.

Jewish prayers most often address God as "King of the Universe." Rabbi Yochanan, who salvaged the Torah when Jerusalem was destroyed in ad 70, instructed his fellow exiles, "Any blessing which does not include mention of [God's] sovereignty is not a blessing." During my nightly hesitation over what to call God, I often envy Jews that substantial prescription. On the other hand, while it seems appropriate for an acclamation, it lacks the kind of intimacy my Christian ears seek in prayer.

So what are my choices? Do I address myself to Father? If so, should it be preceded with Our or My? Should I say Lord, perhaps with a prefatory Dear, like the greeting of a letter? What about Jesus, Holy Spirit, or just plain God? If I say Father, is it because I am a child, seeking comfort and certain assurance? Do I say Lord because I feel strong enough to approach as an adult, yet humble enough to acknowledge servanthood? Can I, this night, transcend the barriers of time to experience the personal presence of the resurrected Jesus, the one who has "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows"? Should I appeal to the Holy Spirit, feeling the need for firing up by that life-giving but elusive essence? Or do I take the easy way out and just say God, the generic term for whatever is infinitely bigger and better than I am?

Then there's Yahweh, that most open-ended of all divine names, written in Hebrew today using only the windy consonants Y or H. Perhaps the name that God revealed to Moses was chosen especially for its exhalation. It is the very breath of God breathed into our ears. By omitting the open vowels in the written name, the Jewish scribes signaled their readers that the name of God is too holy to have on their unclean lips. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the unspeakable name revealed to Moses is variously translated as "I am who I am" or "I will be who I will be" or even "I am becoming who I will become."

It has been left to the foolhardy Christians to stick in the vowels and dare to pronounce aloud, albeit with a certain awkwardness, the name Yahweh. Even so, we speak this name most often when reading aloud certain contemporary translations of Scripture or in a few praise songs.

But unless I want to spend all night dithering, eventually I have to get on with my prayer, hoping the Great Unpronounceable will understand my struggle. So I plunge in to address him.

The name I often plunge in with these days is Father. Father is what Jesus called God. In fact, the Aramaic word he actually used, "Abba," is more akin to our homely English equivalents—Daddy or Papa, simple two-syllable names ending in open vowels easy for toddlers to pronounce.

But why would someone such as myself, a 64-year-old grandmother, suddenly want a father? Maybe because a child is what I often feel like these days. Fearful and impotent, and in need of comfort. I'm not ashamed of slipping into the persona of child when I kneel there at my bedside. I want a Parent. I need a Parent. Someone who cares for me as unfailingly as the mother I lost two years ago.

As for my father, World War II kept me from meeting him until I was four years old. Unfortunately, this meant we never formed a close natural bond. Moreover, at 88, my father has become the child while I have taken on the role of parent in caring for him.

In some ways this blank spot in my psyche has been beneficial. Many women have trouble with God because they identify him with an oppressive earthly father. For them, patriarchal oppression is a problem. But calling God Father at this point in my life doesn't put my ideological nose out of joint. I don't spurn or suspect any fatherly consolation he's likely to offer. In fact, crawling into God's lap and going to sleep in his arms seems about the best ending to a day—or a life—I can imagine.

Still, to be honest, Father has to be a conscious choice. "Lord" is the mode of address that automatically springs unbidden to my lips. In my experience, it is also the name most often used among Christians to speak about the lump-sum Trinity.

Why is Lord so routinely spoken? After all, it is an archaic word, one we never use outside of a religious context unless we're British. Such a word doesn't fit in our contemporary culture, except in certain kinds of science fiction and fantasy (The Lord of the Rings, for example). Like Father, Lord puts us in a position of dependence. But Lord implies even more. Not only do I depend on this Great Unknowable for my very breath, but with that word I acknowledge a kind of feudal relationship in which I play peasant to his patron.

Yet I've never been in such a relationship. Our word "boss" is about as close as we commonly come to Lord, but the ties between employer and employee in our capitalist democracy are not nearly so close or strong as those between Lord and liegeman. So should I call God Boss? It would be our own Americanized way of acknowledging God's sovereignty, or at least his right to be in control.

But Boss carries its own baggage, not all of it good. There's a whiff of irony, even sarcasm about the name. Boss means, "Okay, you're in charge here. Do it your way. Just don't blame me when it doesn't work out." Calling God Boss shuffles all the responsibility for my flaws to him. Which I'm already all too tempted to do.

So I'm back to Lord. Even though it isn't native to our times or tongues, it leaps unbidden to our praying lips. It's the name which most of us have heard most frequently, both in and out of prayer, whether talking to or about God. Because Lord, either in lower- or all uppercase letters, stands in for several Hebrew divine monikers, it appears more often in Scripture than any other name. We often use Lord in offhand colloquial expressions such as, "The good Lord willing and the creek don't rise." We take our troubles "to the Lord in prayer." And I use such exclamatory phrases as "Good Lord" with no hesitation whereas I would shrink from using God in the same mode.

One synonym for Lord is Master. This hits me on a deeper level. Slaves have masters. Trained animals have masters. Disciples of whatever craft or discipline have masters. Much more than Lord, calling on my Master puts me in a place I know instantly and instinctively. My personal history connects with that name as it must for anyone who grew up in the segregated South. The history of the slave-master relationship sets up internal seismic shock waves.

I recognize instantly the tone of the Syro-Phoenician woman's retort to Jesus when he turns aside her request to heal her child: "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table." She is abasing herself by acknowledging, bitterly perhaps, her despised position while also acknowledging his power. Jesus himself often names the most powerful character in his parables "the master." Sometimes this is a kindly figure; at other times the master in the parable can seem arbitrary and capricious. In other places in the New Testament, master refers to a slaveowner, and not just metaphorically. Several of the pastoral letters admonish both slaves and masters to treat one another well. Master is also what his disciples often called Jesus.

Yet Master is not a name one hears addressed to anyone often these days. Nor, despite its emotional freight, do I call upon it often. Its demands scare me. Whether we're talking about slaves or wild animals or students or disciples, obeying seems to be the operative ingredient in the relationship.

But when his disciples call Jesus Master, they are not groveling before him. They use the Greek word for teacher (didaskalos) to address him. They are showing him the respect due a teacher by recognizing his superiority of knowledge or skill. Those fascinated with God, whatever manifestation of faith they find themselves in, have historically called their spiritual teacher Master. Who better to call Master than Jesus?

I have an elderly cousin who sometimes addresses her prayers directly to Jesus, adding the shockingly familiar accolade, "You're just so precious!" This woman has been throughout her long life a better Christian than I'll ever be, yet I cringe when she says it, picturing her tweaking Jesus' cheek.

On the other end of the spectrum, I once heard a radio preacher claim that we are not to pray to Jesus but rather, following his divine example, we should address our prayers to his father in heaven. I wonder what that preacher has to say about the Kyrie, one of the church's oldest prayers. Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.

Which brings me to the way the names Jesus and Christ are frequently linked. Christ, of course, is the translated equivalent of Messiah. Or at least it started out that way. Children, however, often take it for his last name. And scholars debate the nuances, some suggesting that Jesus was only his earthly name and Christ his heavenly designation.

I rarely open up my heart with Jesus' name—no doubt a sad loss to my spiritual life. Of such seemingly minor distractions are stumbling blocks compounded, a fact that should make us all wary of our words. There is more than one way to take the Lord's name in vain.

As for the generic term, god, talk about God can get by with that designation, but addressing God directly seems to require something more. Prayer bonds us to God with a peculiar intimacy. It is what brings us to the point of actually needing to name this Person in whose image we are made.

If God is no more than concept or, as some theologians like to say, construct, then there is little point in naming him. One does not cry out to a concept or a construct. One may respect or admire it, even preach about it or advertise it, trying to attract converts to its cause. But one does not expect an answer if one were to address it or try to communicate with it. Only a person can do that. Calling God's name in the expectation or maybe just the hope that he hears, the supplicant recognizes God, if only fleetingly or even unwittingly, as a person, a person who can respond.

Getting that initial address right seems important to me, not because I imagine I can really capture this source of all being in a verbal container. But the name I call to God with determines the guise in which I come to this task, duty, privilege of prayer. In naming God, I am in some way—far beyond my incomplete understanding—determining my own identity. Naming God ends up defining not him, but me.

Virginia Stem Owens lives and writes in Texas. Her book And the Trees Clap Their Hands: Faith, Perception, and the New Physics was recently reissued by Wipf & Stock.

Copyright © 2006 by the author or Christianity Today International/Books & Culture magazine.
Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.
January/February 2007, Vol. 13, No. 1, Page 8

 Filed Under: TRUTH
 SEEK FIRST's blog »