Talk:Names of God/Archive 1

Someone keeps replacing the phrase non-Jews with the racial slur goyim.

I removed "Eru is the name for God as omnipotent creator in a fictional language of some influence (Quenya), meaning "the One". It is not associated with a particular faith." since J.R.R. Tolkien and The Silmarillion are not theologically significant. --Henrygb 02:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism

...but by no means is The Buddha considered to be divine.

What? Since when? Perhaps in very early forms of Buddhism, but ask almost any Buddhist in China, Korea or Japan, and of course they'll tell you they consider the Buddha divine. Most strains of the Mahayana consider the Buddha the foundation of all reality itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.148.27 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God in other languages

Who are the people who keep adding this stuff about, "Jehovah"? It is utter rubbish and will give readers the wrong view on things.

We have a few, which are interesting, but it'd be great to have the name of God for every language that has a name for it.

...you will need then one per language ever spoken... --Zappaz 03:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The statement "All Christians believe in a divine Trinity" is not true. There are Christians who reject the idea of "three in one" and believe God in ONE ONLY. _______________________________________________________________________________________________

I 100% AGREE WITH you:

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

...There is only One God and He is Our Lord and Saviour and HIS name is YHWH. He came to earth in the Form of Jesus to pay the price for our sins. Direct link between the names of God.

ALL THESE REFERENCES ARE MADE TO JESUS.

The Tetragrammaton (Greek: τετραγράμματον word with four letters) is the usual reference to the Hebrew name for God, which is spelled (in Hebrew); י (yod) ה (heh) ו (vav) ה (heh) or יהוה (YHWH); it is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.

Of all the names of God, the one which occurs most frequently is the Tetragrammaton, appearing 6,823 times according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia texts of the Hebrew Scriptures each contain the Tetragrammaton 6,828 times.

In Judaism, the Tetragrammaton is the ineffable name of God, and is not read aloud. In the reading aloud of the scripture or in prayer, it is replaced with Adonai ("my Lord"). Other written forms such as ד׳ or ה׳ are read as Hashem (the Name), for the same reason.

One theory regarding the disuse of the Tetragrammaton is that the Jewish taboo on its pronunciation was so strong that the original pronunciation may have been lost somewhere in the first millennium. Since then, many scholars (particularly Christians) have sought to reconstruct its original pronunciation.

For example, circa 1518 Christian theologians introduced the pronunciation Yehovah, which is generally held to be implausible, based on the written form יְהֹוָה (read normally, "Yehovah") that was used to indicate to the reader of the Bible in Hebrew to pronounce it "Adonai" (אֲדֹנָי). (Note that due to a rule of Hebrew grammar, the beginning E of the first transliteration is analogous to the beginning A of the second, although they are pronounced differently.)

This theory regarding the disuse of the Tetragrammaton is the result of an interpretation of the Third of the Ten Commandments.

The Jewish people stopped saying the Name by the 3rd century out of fear of violating the commandment "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain" (Exodus 20:7).

It is possible that the practice was in effect prior to early Christian times as Jesus prayed to the Father "I have made your name known". (John 17:26)

Smith's " A Dictionary of the Bible" [published in 1863] notes that Wilhelm Gesenius, who is noted for being one of the greatest Hebrew and biblical scholars, punctuated YHWH as "יַהְוֶה". Many sacred name ministries who believe that YHWH consists of four vowels, pronounce these four vowels as "ee-ah-oo-eh" and believe that that indicates that God's name was "Yahweh".

In what may be a coincidence, the Greek name "ιαουε" would have been pronounced "ee-ah-oo-eh", using the same Greek pronunciation rules that James Strong used.

Yeshua

Yeshua is the late Hebrew of Yahshua (Yahshua in Strong's Concordance is #3091 which is defined as coming from #3068 - Yahweh, and from #3467 - yasha, which means "to save " Together Yahweh and yasha, or Yahshua, means Yahweh saves.)

This was how the late Hebrew/Aramaic 'Yeshua' became the Greek 'Iesous'.

Yeshua, in turn, was a syncopated variant or short form of the original Hebrew Yahshua.

Chronologically speaking then, the various transliterations can be charted as follows:

Language

             Original rendition     English transliteration

Early Hebrew -----------------------------------------------------------------Yahshua

Late Hebrew -------------------------------------------------------------------Yeshua

Greek-----------------------------Ιησους----------------------------------------Iesous

Late Latin------------------------Iesus-----------------------------------------Iesus

English----------------------------Jesus-----------------------------------------Jesus

[1] --User:203.4.253.158--13:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Krislea Chandler....Yeshua El Shaddai Ministries, Australia 11:45pm 05/02/2006_----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[reply]

Abrahamic religions

I took out:

These mainly use names from their holy scriptures, Bible and Qur'an.

It seems very odd and has a few problems with it. First of all, it's not necessary to say that, since it's repeated in the respective sections. And secondly, the Bible and Qur'an (notice spelling) do not encompass the religious texts for all the Abrahamic religions. Jews would be horrified if you called their text the "old testament" of the Bible. Jews have texts which aren't included in the Bible, not to mention the Baha'i Faith, which is another issue.

I assume just leave this out. I also took out:

(notably in an Arabian pagan cult in pre-Muslim Mecca)

I have only heard this argument used by die-hard Christians who are desperately attacking Islam. It is not even correct and is not included in Allah#History, which would be the appropriate place for you to add it, not here. Cuñado - Talk 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is a good one.

But a PRE-Muslim practice cannot be an attack on Islam (which I respect no less then Christianity) since it didn't even exist! If true (I never heard it challenged before), it's simply a smart tactic to ease spreading the new faith, as many pagan traditions were wisely christianised during Catholic missions. Fastifex 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Muslim or a Christian. The argument used by Christians is that "Allah" is a God who is different from the Christian "God". It's because most Muslims use the word 'Allah' as an English word, when it's just the Arabic word for 'God'. They insinuate that Allah was simply one of many pagan gods that is being worshipped. Anyway, I just updated the page to clarify and take out the word "cult", it has bad connotations. Cuñado

- Talk 18:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight inaccuracy in the section about Islam: "The Arabic word Allah is a linguistic cognate of the Hebrew word Eloah and a translation of the English word "god" "

"Allah" translates as "God" (God as the supreme being, with a cap G). The word for "god" as any god among many is "ilah" (Al-lah being the contraction of Al-ilah: the god, hence God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"other"

my changes may not have been optimal, but I insist we cannot lump Ancient Egypt and Zoroastrianism under "other". Aten is extremely notable as the earliest sign of monotheism. Likewise, Zoroastrianism played a major role in the emergence of the concept. We do need a Zoroastrianism section, also including Yazidi/Gnostic concepts. Rastafarianism may be listed under "Abrahamic". There is nothing wrong with a section with a single entry (it's monotheism after all). dab (ᛏ) 18:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't categorize Rastafarians under "Abrahamic". When you get to know what they actually believe, it's very unrelated to Christianity. Similar to Nation of Islam vs. Islam. And if they're included, then do they get their own section? or would they go under Christianity? It's easier to just put them under "other". Cuñado

- Talk 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that their theonym is "Jah". Since we are listing names, not traditions, Rastafari "Jah" could be listed as a variant of YHWH. I agree they are rather marginal to "Abrahamic", but if we can categorize far out charismatic groups as "Christian" ("promise keepers" etc., no matter how remote their mindset from "Christianity" of late Antiquity or medieval times), we can also categorize Rastafaris as "Abrahamic". But feel free to move them back to "other" too, my main point was about Aten and Ahuramazda. dab (ᛏ) 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fine line. I would prefer them under "other", but I can see the rationale for both sides so I'll just leave it. Cuñado

- Talk 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I vote for merging this article with Names given to the divine. IamthatIam 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There are some religious people who disagree that Allah is a name for God [2]. Secular mind 02:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And are there any etymologists who claim this? -- Coelacan | talk 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who claim what? That the Arabic word Allah has the same meaning as the English word God? Secular mind 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opposite. You brought up that "some religious people disagree". The conventional view among linguists is that Al'lah does mean the God. So I was asking you if there are any credible sources that say otherwise, or were you just handing out a Chick Tract to stir things up? -- Coelacan | talk 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing above is predicated a bit conspiracy theory about how the vatican wanted to create an arab religion, and so started Islam. It's pure POV, and is not supported by any historical evidence save for a few polemical authors who self-refer a lot. I'm really not sure why it was raised by Secular Mind in the first place, as it amounts to slander.

Put another way, who cares if some "religious people" (evangelical christians of a particular slant) believe that the word "Allah" is not the arabic word for God is irrelevant. It clearly does mean that; even evangelical christian arabs use the term, in addition to all the non-evangelical christian churches of arabic descent. -- Christian Edward Gruber 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A monotheistic religion describes an entity, which is considered the supreme being, and claims that no other entity with similar characteristics exists. As there are several monotheistic religions, several such descriptions exist, which contradict each other.

This article claims with its very title, that all those different descriptions somehow mean the same entity. But this is only one point of view, there is also another point of view, namely, that different descriptions refer to different entities.

God is a generic English name and it is the translation of the generic Arabic name Allah. But only in the same sense as Steven is the translation of the German name Stefan. Secular mind 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While true, it is still somewhat irrelevant. Steven IS the translation of Stefan. There is a historical and cultural continuity. The monotheisms of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are related culturally and religiously. They all claim to worship the "God of Abraham", so claims by one that the other does not are just disengenuous. It would be like me saying "Christians worship three gods and therefore they are not monotheistic." I might believe that (I don't, incidentally), I might even believe that they believe it, but if they contradicted me as to their own belief, then their view would be preferred from an external (encyclopaedic) point of view. Islam and monothesitic arabs claim to believe in the same God that sent Jesus and Moses and Abraham and Noah and allegedly created Adam. They believe that the nature of that deity is different, but they claim the same identity for God. Nature and identity are related, but not the same issue.

If you think Fred has blue hair, but I think Fred has red hair, that does not ipso-facto mean that there are two freds. It means that we both need our eyes examined. To posit two Freds because we see different hair stretches things too far. Fred could have dyed his hair between viewings. You and I could have different coloured glasses. There are plenty of plausible explanations for the difference in view without sundering Fred's identity. Same issue with God/Allah. -- Christian Edward Gruber 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you are right with regard to Islam/Christianity/Judaism. One can even see the etymological progression, from El to El'oah to al'Lah. Mithras and Jesus can hang together too. But this page includes Brahman and Shang Ti and Jupiter. So there's a POV in the title being "Names of God" when they're clearly not all talking about the same thing, unless you are a hardcore omnitheist. -- Coelacan | talk 02:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Secular Mind has a good point. The article title has a theosophic or omnitheistic slant. And I suspect it can be resolved at the same time as a merger of this article with names given to the divine ... although even that article's title has a hint of the same problem, when it says "the divine". Maybe divine names or better yet names of divinities, since this article already includes deities from polytheistic traditions. -- Coelacan | talk 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Except that while the belief that all deities named here are the same one is POV, the fact that such a belief exists is not POV. That belief is, in fact, quite prevalent, and is the accepted norm among even secular relgious studies scholars (at least it was 15 years ago when I was in University). The title may be phrased POV, and I wouldn't mind a re-phrase of the title, but the belief in a single creator is a not uncommon belief. I think the point being raised, while it has some merit, is unhelpfully provocative. Especially if you go read the link presented. I could be wrong, and regardless I would welcome alternate phrasings of the title to make it NPOV, but within reason. "Names of creator deities" while accurate is clunky, and the current title isn't that confusing. Any better ones?

I do agree that this article is more geared towards monotheism, and it might be good to split into a page about monothistic creator deity. The whole topic of names of that kind of deity also is a bit of a special case. -- Christian Edward Gruber 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why polytheistic traditions were included, though I can see Hinduism, since Brahman is similar in descriptive concept to an unknowable essential creator deity. --Christian Edward Gruber 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never contested that such a belief exists, but this article should not adopt this belief. Is God the name of a supreme being or a name for a supreme being? If I got the Jewish believe correct, YHVH is the name their supreme being, while elohim is a name for him. I would therefor prefer Names for creator deities, but of would also be ok with me. Even the polytheistic creator gods could be subsumed under it. Alternatively I'd suggest Names for monotheistic deities as "creator" is redundant.

P.S.: Do secular religious studies scholars belief, that all the monotheistic religions refer to a unique entity which does not exist? Secular mind 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular "Religious Studies" is a social-science, often seen to have branched from sociology. It is secular in its approach to a given religion, but the fact that it is secular does not mean that an individual social scientist doesn't have a personal belief in one or another system of belief under examination. It is secular in approach, and takes a purely agnostic position, though some such students of religion take a pure-sociology approach, assume an atheistic universe, and interpret religious belief and behaviour through that lense. The point is that these folks are neutral to any particular formulation of religion, and they don't argue endlessly whether when a Muslim says "Allah", he's referring to the same deity as when an anglophonic Christian says God, or a Jew says Adonai. --Christian Edward Gruber 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Names given to the divine

I think the article is redundant, and everything in the other article that was valuble has been included into this article. Feel free to vote at the AfD here. -- Wikipedical 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied the Bible and found a large collection of names for "God". These are all backed up with the Bible book, chapter and verses that state these common names for God. http://www.christian-websource.com/other-names-for-god.html I am sure they are of use to someone. May 28,2007

"Messianic Judaism" is not Judaism at all, but a form of evangelical Christianity. They believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinitarian G_d all of which is contrary to the teachings of Judaism. So it would be advisable to move the names of G_d as used in Messianic Judaism to the Christianity section.

Uh...what exactly is "G_d"? Could you please clarify. It looks like an emicon. Just say God, OK? You can specify which if you like, but G_d isn't a word in my vocabulary, because it is phonetically awkward. I thought it is written "G-d" anyway.Anthonzi 11:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Judaism, it is considered sacrilegious to say the word God and thus it is changed to "G_d" when it is required to be used. --ॐJesucristo301 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a friend of mine who is Jewish always refers to the Creator as Yod (this is, of course, the first letter of the Tetragrammaton, so it's a bit like calling Him by His initial letter). It gets around the problem of saying the Name, since G-d isn't easily pronounced. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism

I concur with the last commentator. As I see no dialogue about it here, I'll be bold and make the move. 89.100.179.51 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Link?

Dr. Umar F. Abd-Allah on the names "God" and "Allah" : One God, Many Names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salleyye (talk • contribs) 03:39, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of pronouns

While some Bibles and religious publications use capitals in the third person to refer to God (and usually, at least among Christians, also to Jesus), some works go further and use capitals in the first and second persons: Me, My, You, Your, etc. (e.g., "Hallowed be Your Name"). Others avoid capitals altogether (except for I, of course), apparently considering their use pretentious or gratuitous.

I don't know if this should be included in the article, though I would recommend it if it could be sourced. 192.235.1.34 19:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Names of God → Names of the chief gods. The name of this article is not accurate as proven by the discussion in a vote for the article's deletion where not a single user argued the the "God" discussed are [notice the "are"] equal; that is, Allah=Yahweh=Brahman=Great Spirit=Jupiter (god)=Zeus=Amaterasu, et cetera. See also the discussion of the category "Names of God".--Names of chief gods (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an apparent socks proposal, without any merit. Wikidās ॐ 07:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator.--Names of chief gods (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. --Wikidās ॐ 07:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. -- The subject is a big one! There are many words for 'god', i.e. meaning 'the supreme deity'. However not all cultures believe that there is a supreme deity. Of those that do, they each have their own name for it/him/her. The word used (Lord, God, Almighty etc) may simply mean 'god' as a generic term, but some use a more personal name. Some religions have many gods, each having a different name. Should we list all the names of all the various gods, or just those considered to be the supreme deity of the gods, if there is such an entity, of the group(s) of gods worshipped by various groups of believers?

In summary, I suggest that the name of the article ('Names of God') be retained, but also that the article be used as an opportunity to collate and catalogue the various names, making clear those instances where the name is actually a personal name or cases where the word used is simply as an alternative word for 'god' i.e. essentially meaning 'the supreme one'. --Lepton6 (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This isn't just a matter of relabelling the article - it's a matter of completely changing its topic. Ilkali (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]