URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Love God Only
  HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Biblical Discussions
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 9432--------------------------------------------------
       A Paradox
       By: Kerry Date: October 27, 2014, 7:22 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The way this is translated,  when I read it I was sure it meant
       that at this time men began to pray to God using His Name
       Jehovah.  I figured up to then people talked to God as Cain had
       without calling on His Name.
       Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and
       he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of
       the LORD.
       Then I got to this:
       Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
       Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I
       not known to them.
       This put my mind in a spin.   After all there are so many
       passages that say Jehovah (or the LORD) appeared to them.
       I had to change my mind about the passage in Genesis when I
       learned that the passage could be translated to read, "then
       began men to use the name of LORD" meaning wrongly to apply to
       false gods.   Thus we should not be surprised at the similarity
       between some pagan gods like Io, Jove, etc.  and the name
       Jehovah.   I've also read that people after the Flood used
       Yahweh or Jehovah in Palestine for some pagan god.    These
       naming of pagan gods must have started back before the Flood,
       shortly after Adam and Eve left the Garden.   Thus this passage
       is telling us how men were being wicked by summoning dark forces
       and abusing the Name, not piously calling to the True God.
       I also had to alter my views about the passage in Exodus.
       "Name" in Exodus 6:3 does not mean that the Patriarchs were
       ignorant concerning the Name itself as a word.  Rather it means
       God had not demonstrated the power in His Name.   Consider the
       phrase, "Open in the name of the king."  It  can mean authority
       or power in English; and it can meant that in Hebrew as well.
       When we talk about doing something like casting out demons in
       the "name of Jesus", frequently that also means by his authority
       and using his power.
       God had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that their descendants
       would possess the Land of Palestine; but He had not performed it
       yet.   They believed  it would be true later by faith.  When God
       was speaking to Moses,  He was saying the time was coming when
       Israel would see the power of His Name.
       #Post#: 9434--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A Paradox
       By: Runner Date: October 27, 2014, 12:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I don't have anything interesing to add or comment about. I just
       wanted you to know I had read it and thought it a very
       interesting and good post. :)
       #Post#: 9437--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A Paradox
       By: Runner Date: October 28, 2014, 10:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I see that so far there are no takers on this one! :)
       I remember that at the burning bush ( somewhere around there)
       God uses three of His names in one verse.  It seems that back
       then many were named by prophesy...knowing that the nature is in
       the name. I believe God showed different aspects of His nature
       to people depending one what name He used for Himself ...Elohim
       -creator, El Shaddai..all powerful.
       then The Healer, The Shepherd and the nurturing sides...
       Maybe that is why the world is half crazy if as in biblical
       times the nature in in the name..the crazy names some parents
       have put on children may have produced crazy people with screwed
       up natures!!!!  ;D
       ( Like some of the film stars..Michael Jackson calling his son
       Blanket. Gweneth Paltrow..daughter Apple.. and modern parents
       making up silly names  etc etc )
       I know that Helen is suposed to mean "torch" or "light". Then
       one wonders who said what each name means! haha!  It was
       originally Ellen which I like alot better, it's softer than with
       the H .. Ellen changed to Helen much later....I wish it hadn't.
       But they both mean the same. :)
       #Post#: 9438--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A Paradox
       By: Kerry Date: October 29, 2014, 12:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The French Hélène  has the "h" in front but the French don't
       pronounce their h's.      Is the name Helen originally  Greek
       as in Helen of Troy?
       #Post#: 9440--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A Paradox
       By: James Date: October 29, 2014, 3:36 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I had always thought that Adam looked at each beast and then as
       he saw how they behaved he named them based upon their nature,
       did he also start off this way of naming a nature and so people
       at first were named by how they behaved?
       #Post#: 9446--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A Paradox
       By: Kerry Date: October 29, 2014, 10:13 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=James link=topic=898.msg9440#msg9440
       date=1414571800]
       I had always thought that Adam looked at each beast and then as
       he saw how they behaved he named them based upon their nature,
       did he also start off this way of naming a nature and so people
       at first were named by how they behaved?
       [/quote]i think this too; but I also think Adam was to name the
       animals so they would "recognize his voice" and know what he
       meant  when he called them.   Matthew 17 doesn't say so, but I
       think Jesus called to the fish and told them to come with the
       money.
       Using a name also a way of getting the attention of the being
       you're addressing.  "Yes, I mean you."   It is meant to have
       practical consequences, is it not?     If we call to God, that
       is based in part of His past behavior, but we may  also asking
       Him to do something in the future.
       The naming of the animals is still obscure to me.  I can see
       that they accepted their names; and I can believe too that they
       obeyed Adam.   I can believe too that they were all willing to
       "help" Adam in whatever way they could; but none of them was
       found to be a suitable helper.  Why not?    Why have them all
       appear then?  Wouldn't God have known beforehand none was a
       suitable helper?     I think God knew but it was done to prevent
       jealousy or envy.    Each animal was given the opportunity at
       the job but didn't qualify.
       Question: Was the species known to us as "man" among the
       animals?  I think maybe so.  I think the non-spiritual man, the
       "carnal" man, could have been among those animals.
       *****************************************************