I

've been updating one of my studies titled God's Name According to Ancient Hebrew Scholars, and when I came to Objection #3, chapter 4, I realized I could have done a much better job of explaining how and why we absolutely do not honor Yahweh by referring to Him as "our God." In today's semi-brainwashed culture, this statement is regarded as so absurd that virtually no one will even consider venturing any further into checking out my reasoning. Maybe you, who are reading this, are different. If so, this is for you. What follows is not part of the update, yet it aligns:

     I refer to those who teach that "God" is an acceptable title for Yahweh as "Pro-God advocates." Pro-God advocates teach that the "God" found in English translations of the Bible evolved separately from the Hebrew name "God," so it's just a coincidence that the "God" in the English translations of Scripture is pronounced the same as the idol named "God," whose worship Yahweh condemns (cf., the Hebrew text of Isaiah 65:11). And they make a big deal out of the fact that leading etymologists trace the English "God" to an Indo-European origin, not to the pagan idol referenced in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 65:11. So, in their estimation, the English "God" should not and cannot be regarded as the same as the Hebrew "God," which makes it a "perfectly acceptable" English title for Yahweh.

     So never mind the fact that Yahweh con-demns the worship of an idol named God, the English "God" is traced to a completely separate origin, no relation whatsoever to the Hebrew "God." That's what they believe and teach.

     In my study, I supply a quote from a Pro-God advocate named Robert Young, who, in 2001, authored an article titled "Is it Right to Call Yahweh Our God?" He wrote that even IF it could be conclusively proven that the title "God" found in our English translations is traced to the Hebrew "God" identified in Isaiah 65:11, it would not be evidence that Yahweh is against our using it as His title, since, as he puts it, it doesn't mean in English what it means in Hebrew. He concludes, "When I use it merely as a title, not as a name, not as a substitute for His name, I am simply saying in my language that Yahweh is my object of worship. Yahweh is my Mighty One, Yahweh is my Supreme Being, etc. I am using it as a translation of the Hebrew titles Elohim, El, or Eloah, etc."

     But there's a critical hitch in Robert's reasoning that I hadn't sufficiently addressed in my study. Actually several hitches.

     First and foremost, he ignores Yahweh's definition of "God" in favor of a definition contrived by men. Yahweh defines "God" as the name of an idol worshipped by those who forsake Him. Robert defines "God" as "Mighty One." Second, he trusts the etymological origin of "God" as reported by secular etymologists, but he doesn't trust their findings insofar as what "God" originally meant. If you're going to trust their scholarly research into where the word "God" originated, why would you NOT trust their research into what it originally meant?

     Secular etymologists agree that "God" originally meant such things as "to invoke, to pour, to offer sacrifice," and even "enjoyer or consumer of that which has been poured forth (presumably wine or blood, as a sacrifice)." For example, displayed below is the etymology of the word "God" found in The Oxford English Dictionary:

     BUT WAIT! Hold on! Aren't we supposed to be using an English title that accurately translates Yahweh's Hebrew title Elohim? And just what exactly does "Elohim" mean? It means "STRENGTH"! It means "MIGHTY"! It means "ALMIGHTY," as in "ALL MIGHTY"! It means "POWER"! That's Yahweh! Yahweh ALL-POWERFUL! Yahweh Almighty! So why in the world would anyone prefer a title that inherently means something else?

     BUT WAIT! Hold on! Robert Young wrote that, to HIM, "God" means "Mighty One"! So to ROBERT, in deference to the etymologists, "God" means "Mighty One," not "Enjoyer of that which has been poured forth." Not "to invoke, to pour, to offer sacrifice." He effectively came up with his own "user-defined" version of what "God" means, even though "God" never meant anything like "power," "strength" or "mighty." Soooo...what are the implications of Robert's definition of "God"—a definition that all Pro-God advocates I have ever met agree with?

     Well, look at it this way: The Apostle Paul, under inspiration from Yahweh, wrote that idols are nothing (1 Cor. 8:4). According to Yahweh, in whom I trust more than secular etymologists, "God" is an idol. So, yes, God is the name of an idol! And idols are nothing, so God is NOTHING! But wait! Pro-God advocates say that, to them, "God" is a perfectly acceptable translation of "Elohim," so to them, "God" means "Mighty One"! "SUPREME BEING"! So Yahweh says God is NOTHING, whereas men say the opposite—that God is Mighty! That God is POWERFUL! They are unwittingly ascribing power to God (who Yahweh says is nothing)! Do we remember the ONE thing Satan wants to take from Yahweh? Think on that! And just "who" is God, anyway?

     I felt that this topic is so important that I put together a PowerPoint presentation in which I explain the truth of this matter in more detailed fashion. It, like the issue of this newsletter, is titled "Is 'God' an Accurate Translation of the Hebrew Title 'Elohim'?"

Addendum 03/18/2025: I realize Pro-God advocates will likely attempt to justify using God as a title for Yahweh by protesting that Elohim doesn't necessarily mean "power," "strength," "Almighty," etc. This would put them at odds with many Hebrew scholars, starting with James Strong, in his Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. Strong traces Elohim to Eloah, which he in turn traces to El. And El, he says, means strength; as an adjective, it means mighty, esp. the Almighty. He also lists "power" and "strong" as viable English translations of El: