The Atheist's Worst Nightmare: The Banana

[Loki]

Only that there is no such God's name as Jehovah, nor is there such a name as Yahweh. The first is misspelling and the second is philological reconstruction.

Talking about 'Jehovah' really sounds utterly outlandish.

Oh come on, you guys know exactly who they're referring to: the god of the Bible (esp OT). YHWH is more accurate than "Lord", which it normally is translated to.

[Poltergeist]

Oh come on, you guys know exactly who they're referring to: the god of the Bible (esp OT). YHWH is more accurate than "Lord", which it normally is translated to.

YHVH was a secret name of God, unvocalized, Hebrews only wrote YHVH, but read "adonay" in its place (something like: "my lord"), for which reason YHVH was rendered kyrios ("lord") in the Greek translation of the OT known as Septuagint - a translation, by the way, made by Jews for their own needs (for the Greek-speaking Jews, that is), later Dominus in Latin etc. So saying "Lord" is very justified. Unless the real vocalization of the tetragram is discovered.

[Loki]

Unless the real vocalization of the tetragram is discovered.

Nitpicking imo. There can only be so many ways it is vocalized.

[Poltergeist]

Nitpicking imo. There can only be so many ways it is vocalized.

It's not nitpicking. The original God's name is an important thing, so pronouncing it in a wrong way can mislead people, to attribute to God some name that isn't his own.

But there is something else that's crucial here. It's that Christianity means liberation from the chains of OT Israelitic law, thus the need for various YHVHs and similar purely Hebrew ritual and textual details is abolished and God, now expressly of all nations (it was even before, but earlier manifested himself in his fullness to Israelites only), can be called simply by the generic name of "god", in whatever language: God, Gott, Deus, Dio, Theos, Bog, Tanri, Isten etc etc.

But insisting - speaking of Christians, at least - on God's "name" being Yahweh or Jehovah is clearly a regression to the OT Judaism, and the mistaken one for that matter, because neither of the two reflects the original mysterious name. It is simply misleading.

[Loki]

But insisting - speaking of Christians, at least - on God's "name" being Yahweh or Jehovah is clearly a regression to the OT Judaism, and the mistaken one for that matter, because neither of the two reflects the original mysterious name. It is simply misleading.

Indeed, post-Christ Christianity (as advocated by the apostles, especially Paul) has very little to do with the OT god. It's a new god and a new religion, totally contradictory to YHWH's ruthless, selfish, jealous and bloodthirsty character.

[Anthropos]

Oh come on, you guys know exactly who they're referring to: the god of the Bible (esp OT). YHWH is more accurate than "Lord", which it normally is translated to.

Oghren (formerly Pallamedes) has admitted on several occasions that he does not intend to write anything that makes sense, but that rather he wants to annoy Christians, as he just admitted explicitly. In other words there is no way to know what he means by anything that he says. His (often very long) posts concerning Christianity are elaborate mixtures of lies and subtle slander with a few traces of truth here and there, and he did not present them as his opinions about or views pertaining to Christianity, but as if they were factual accounts of what Christianity really is.

The word that your post was about is not in the Bible; not in the original language and not in translations. It is not used by Christians and what I said holds true: It sounds outlandish, as in coming from an outlander. The fact that he deliberately used it to 'irritate Christians' should tell you something.

[Anthropos]

Indeed, post-Christ Christianity (as advocated by the apostles, especially Paul) has very little to do with the OT god. It's a new god and a new religion, totally contradictory to YHWH's ruthless, selfish, jealous and bloodthirsty character.

That may be your opinion, but that is not what the Old Testament itself says. The New Testament tells about the fulfilment of prophecies about a new covenant that are found in the Old Testament.

[Cato]

Oghren (formerly Pallamedes) has admitted on several occasions that he does not intend to write anything that makes sense, but that rather he wants to annoy Christians, as he just admitted explicitly. In other words there is no way to know what he means by anything that he says. His (often very long) posts concerning Christianity are elaborate mixtures of lies and subtle slander with a few traces of truth here and there, and he did not present them as his opinions about or views pertaining to Christianity, but as if they were factual accounts of what Christianity really is.

The word that your post was about is not in the Bible; not in the original language and not in translations. It is not used by Christians and what I said holds true: It sounds outlandish, as in coming from an outlander. The fact that he deliberately used it to 'irritate Christians' should tell you something.

I think that you need to get off my case and pronto buster.

[Loki]

That may be your opinion, but that is not what the Old Testament itself says. The New Testament tells about the fulfilment of prophecies about a new covenant that are found in the Old Testament.

Those are so vague, it's very easy to make up any new religion based on delirious OT prophecies, and justifying them that way.

[Anthropos]

Those are so vague, it's very easy to make up any new religion based on delirious OT prophecies, and justifying them that way.

Are they really? E.g. they tell about how whole nations of non-Jews will be included in that covenant while a lot of Jews will not be included.