Thoreau: Routine War Degenerates the Army

But when war too, like commerce and husbandry, gets to be a routine, and men go about it as indented apprentices, the hero degenerates into a marine, and the standing army into a standing jest.


--Thoreau, People, Principles, And Politics, Journal Entry, December 1839

Thoreau then goes on to state in Civil Disobedience:

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,

               "Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,

                   As his corse to the rampart we hurried;

              Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot

                   O'er the grave where our hero was buried."

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:

               "I am too high born to be propertied,

               To be a second at control,

               Or useful serving-man and instrument

               To any sovereign state throughout the world."

A Visitor From The Past

For those who have not seen this classic poem by Thelen Paulk...

I had a dream the other night, I didn't understand.
A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed.
He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said:

"We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty.
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.
For future generations, this legacy we gave.
In this, the land of the free and home of the brave.

"The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep.
But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep.
Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you're no more than a slave.
In this, the land of the free and home of the brave.

"You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun, permits to
start a business, or to build a place for one.
On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent.
Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money's spent.

"Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate.
Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state.
You read about the current news, in a regulated press.
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S.

"Your money is no longer made of Silver or of Gold.
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.
You pay for crimes that make our Nation, turn from God in shame.
You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name.

"You've given government control, to those who do you harm,
so they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm, and
keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail, and harass
your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail.

"Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn.
Your daughters visit Doctors, so their children won't be born.
Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores,
And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars.

"Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?
Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?
Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save?
Or do you wish your children, live in fear and be a slave?

"Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our Great Republic, and each GOD-Given Right!
And pray to GOD, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came.
His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame.
For even now as tyrants trample each GOD-Given Right,
We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you're asleep,
and wonders what remains of our Rights he fought to keep,
what would be your answer, if he called out from the grave:

"IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE
AND HOME OF THE BRAVE?"

Copyright ©1986 Thelen Paulk. All Rights Reserved.

Note: this poem by Thelen Paulk has been widely circulated throughout the Internet as "Author Unknown." Thelen is known and should be credited with his work.

"A Visitor From The Past" can be found in Thelen's book of Christian Patriot poetry:

Poems for Patriots, Pilgrims & Pioneers

Obama VP Bracket

A few weeks ago, I recommended playing the VP bracket challenge to pick McCain's Vice-President. Now that the Democratic race is over, CQ Politics has started the challenge to pick Obama's VP. It is the same format as Basketball college brackets, but with thirty-two potential VP candidates instead. You vote for your favorite candidate each round and then you can check the results until the game ends on July 1st. Be sure to head over and play.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Natural Law, and Conscience

One of my interests is human nature. Thus, in my search for a better understanding of human nature, I am led to the study of natural law and of conscience. As C.S. Lewis is the modern standard bearer for Conscience, I have compiled a short examination of his arguments (from Mere Christianity). If you are using Internet Explorer, this post will probably not display properly. IE is not a very good browser. If you're interested in upgrading your browser to something that actually works...download Firefox.

All human beings on the earth have an innate idea that they should behave in a certain way. Regardless of their actions, they are unable to remove this feeling. However, interestingly, regardless of feeling—in fact, in opposition to feeling—they do not always behave in this way. They instinctively know the “Law of Nature,” and yet, they break it. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis argues that these two particulars are the underpinning of all clear thinking regarding how humans behave. Consider the impulses of the human body. How does the mind determine what action to make when it has two simultaneous impulses that contradict each other? The Law of Human Nature is naturally the deciding factor. This Moral Law is not any one particular instinct or any specific set of instincts. Rather it directs the instincts; it is a guide, which promotes goodness and right conduct. Many descriptive words refer to this Law of Human Nature, consider Natural Law, fair play, decency, morality, ethics, principles, honesty, or integrity. Lewis believed that one must admit that Right is Right and that this Right is independent of what people think. If one does not adhere to this concept, then one is forced to accept the proposal that no morality is “better” or “righter” than, for example, Nazi morality. This forces the believer into a quagmire: “if my morality is no better then Hitler’s, what ‘right’ do I have to oppose him?” The answer is “no right.” Moreover, Lewis makes the point that quarreling testifies to the legitimacy of Natural Law. When a disagreement exists between two people, clearly each person believes he is “right.” When quarreling, both parties try to appeal to some sort of standard. Every people and every culture have this standard, or this “implanted awareness” of God. Moreover, it is intrinsically implanted into every person.

Lewis is by no means the only person to come to this conclusion. Indeed, the Psalmist attests to this:

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world (Psalms 19:1-4).

Additionally, the Apostle Paul declares:

For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse (Romans 1:20)

Similarly, John Calvin states that:

‘There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.’ This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretence of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops. Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate their lives to his will. If ignorance of God is to be looked for anywhere, surely one is more likely to find an example of it among the more backward folk and those more remote from civilization. Yet there is, as the eminent pagan says, no nation so barbarous, no people so savage, that they have not a deep-seated conviction that there is a God. So deeply does the common conception occupy the minds of all, so tenaciously does it inhere in the hearts of all! Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household that could not do without religion, there lies in this tact confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.

Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that his conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow…. From this we conclude that it is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget.[1]

Likewise, Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic theologian, called Human Nature Ratio, which in the Greek is rendered the classical logos. Aquinas defines natural law as “a share of eternal law in rational creatures.” Since it mirrors eternal law, or associates with it, natural law is, as such, divine.[2]

In his famous passage, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, proclaimed, “Conscience, conscience! Divine instinct, immortal and celestial voice. . . .”[3] However, this postulation was not first formed in the Enlightenment; rather it goes as far back as antiquity. The Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote, “God is near of you, with you, in you. A sacred spirit has its seat in us. It is the observer and keeper of our good deeds and our wrongdoings.”[4] This is the Stoic idea of conscience: it is divine. In Western regimes, law is axiomatic, that is, it arises from the will of “the people.” The people know what to do because they listen to their conscience. Thus, the law is based, in the last resort, on the conscience of the people. This is the understanding of Vox populi, vox Dei, “The voice of the people, is the voice of God.” Consider the words of the fifteenth century philosopher Nicholas of Cusa:

All legitimate authority arises from elective concordance and free submission. There is in the people a divine seed by virtue of their common birth and the equal natural right of all men so that all authority—which comes from God as does man himself—is recognized as divine when it arises from the common consent of the subjects.[5]

This is to say that conscience is divine in its natural state.

Some people say that the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound because different civilizations and different ages have had relatively different moralities. For example, men have differed in regards to which people one should be unselfish to—whether it was only one’s own family or one’s fellow countrymen or everyone. However, they have constantly agreed not to always put oneself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether one could have only one wife or four. However, they have always agreed that one must not simply have any woman one liked.

Is there a “Higher Being”? Lewis advocates two reasons that support belief in one. The first is the universe that He has made. Cleary, proclaims Lewis, this demonstrates that this Being is a great artist. The second is the Moral Law, which, apparently, He has put into our minds. Based on the evidence of the Moral Law, one can conclude that the Being who created the universe is exceptionally concerned in right conduct, fair play, thoughtfulness, valor, devotion, honesty, and truthfulness. In this sense, the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is “good” is most agreeable. Nevertheless, the Moral Law is in no way lenient. It tells each individual to do the right thing, and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If the “Higher Being” or “God” is like the Moral Law, than He is not credulous. According to the evidence of Natural Law, and according to the evidence of the universe, it is evident that there must be a “Higher Being” who created the universe and the inhabitants of the universe. This Being has set forth standards for what is “Righteous” and what is “Sinful.” What is Right and what is Wrong. These standards are ingrained in all people and relay a spiritual longing. Thus, not only is man by nature a “political animal” (if one adheres to the beliefs of Aristotle), but man is also, by nature, a “spiritual animal.”

---

[1] Calvin as quoted in Reason and Belief in God, 56-66

[2] Aquinas Thomas, Summa Theologica, IaIIae, q. 91, a. 2, c; ad 1m; a. 4, beginning.

[3] Rousseau, Emile IV, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 290.

[4] Seneca, Ad Lucilium epistolae, 41, 1-2; ed. L.C. Reynolds, Oxford, t. 1, 108.

[5] Nicholas of Cusa, De concordantia catholica, III, 4, 331 (Opera Omnia, vol. 14, 348); trans. P.E.

Sigmund (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 230.

Names Mean Things, YHVH, Eloah, and Bibles Today

Theology and politics are intrinsically intertwined. I see no reason simply to address part of an equation. Accordingly, here is a short essay I threw together on the last subject I researched. If you are using Internet Explorer, this post will probably not display properly. IE is not a very good browser. If you're interested in upgrading your browser to something that actually works...download Firefox.

Introduction

The names of God unveil the essence of who God is, describe His qualities, and depict His work in both our lives and in the universe. In revealing His names, God reveals parts of his character.[1] The great poet William Shakespeare once posed the question:

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.[2]

God’s characteristics are revealed throughout the Bible by the descriptive names he chose to use in His relationship with His people. Every culture in the world has a different meaning for the word “god.” Every people and every culture have an implanted awareness of God. Thus, we see that the search for the “God” is intrinsically implanted within every person. The Psalmist attests to this (Psalms 19:1-4):

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.

To understand the names of God is to know God better. This essay will concentrate on a short exploration of God’s primary name and an examination of one of the lesser-known names of God.

YHVH

One of the post-exilic apostasies of Orthodox Judaism was the avoidance of the Name of the Almighty, the (so called) Tetragrammaton (the four lettered nameיהוה ). Later, following in the Jewish tradition, the Christian Church substituted the name LORD in place of the Tetragrammaton, YHVH. A quandary is created with such changing of names. The name that appears in the majority of English Bibles today is LORD which is a translation of the Hebrew Adonay. According to the rabbinical tradition, Judaism uses Adonay in place of Yahweh. Rabbinic writers derive the prohibition of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton from Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of YHVH, he shall surely be put to death." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Hebrew participle noqedh, here rendered "blasphemeth,” is translated honomazon in the Septuagint, and appears to have the meaning "to determine", "to denote" (by means of its proper vowels) in Genesis 30:28; Numbers 1:17; Isaiah 62:2. Still, the context of Leviticus 24:16 (cf. verses 11 and 15), favours the meaning "to blaspheme.” Rabbinic exegetes derive the prohibition also from Exodus 3:15; but this argument cannot stand the test of the laws of sober hermeneutics (cf. Drusius, "Tetragrammaton", 8-10, in "Critici Sacri", Amsterdam, 1698, I, p. ii, col. 339-42; "De nomine divino", ibid., 512-16; Drach, "Harmonic entre l'Eglise et la Synagogue", I, Paris, 1844, pp. 350-53, and Note 30, pp. 512-16). [3]

Thus, the translators paraphrase one of the names of Elohim (and thereby, miss an opportunity to extrapolate on His awesome character) and in translating instead of transliterating the translators add a word that was inserted by men—and is not inspired by Elohim.

Transliteration and Translation

The chief distinction between transliteration and translation is the difference between a comparison of sound and a comparison of meaning. Generally, most words going from one language to another are translated. However, proper nouns are not translated but transliterated.[4] The translators of the King James Version note this as a rule:

The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.[5]

Pronunciation of YHVH

An argument over the pronunciation of YHVH (יהוה) has existed for years. With the evidence available today, a conclusive resolution is unlikely. However, the basic form of God’s name is clearly known. The Tetragrammaton is formed by four Hebrew consonants: yud – hey – vav – hey. Two predominate ways to determine how ancient words are pronounced exist.[6] The first is to hear a native speaker pronounce the word. The second is to know the position of the tongue and mouth of the native speaker as he makes the words. Linguists do not have access to either the former or the latter. Because of this, there are dozens of credible ways to pronounce the Tetragrammaton.

Personal Name of God

Of the many reasons to use the Personal Name of God, three reasons resonate distinctively. The first is to identify and accordingly exalt the bearer of this Name as the personal God of Israel and of the cosmos, as opposed to the universal interpretation of a rather mystical, almost unidentifiable “being,” as held by most religions. The second is to make known the name “YHVH” to the many individuals who assert to follow Him but who do not know His Name—so that they may consecrate and praise His name—and so that His Name may be honoured among the nations (Malachi 1:11; Isaiah 12:4). The final reason is to conform with what may be the more correctly interpreted instruction of Exod. 20:7 concerning the use of His Name: “Do not make His Name worthless,” By withholding the proclamation of His Name, we may well be guilty of "making His Name worthless.” Proverbs 30:4-6 poses the question: “What is His [God’s] name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? Every word of God is pure…. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Taken literally, this is precisely what rabbinic Judaism and contemporary English scholars have done: they took away the personal name of God (YHVH) and replaced it with the counterfeit “Adonay,” “LORD” or “GOD.” Addressing this subject, the translators of the Revised Standard Version state:

While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘YHVH’…. For two reasons the [Revised Standard Version] Committee has returned to the more familiar usage [of substituting either “the LORD” or “GOD” in place of YHWH] of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God ... was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.[7]

Similarly, the translators of the New American Standard Bible state: “This name [YHVH] has not been pronounced by the Jews.... Therefore, it has been consistently translated Lord.”[8] These statements exemplify what Yeshua (Jesus) said in Matt. 15:3, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

Eloah

The word “Eloah” (אלוהּ) is the singular (or dual) of “Elohim” (אלהים) and appears more than 50 times in the Tanak (Old Testament), primarily in the more poetic passages. The singular form is used in a handful of places for heathen deities (e.g., Second Chronicles 32:15; Daniel 11:37-8), though in the majority of cases, the name is used for the Elohim of Israel. The Hebrew word is quite similar to the Aramaic Elah, the usual name for God in Biblical Aramaic. It has been suggested that the term comes from two elements of Aramaic: El and Ah (a shortened form of Ahyeh, Exo. 3:14, "I shall be," the designation of YHVH in the first person).[9] This suggests the possibility that initially two separate gods were involved and later combined. Such a suggestion does not seem likely inasmuch as the term is almost always used in Scripture as a description of the true God. Most likely, it is akin to the term El, which was in use rather early. Then, after a period of disregard among God's people, the term was revitalized to a limited use perhaps through the contacts with Aramaic, where a similar term was in constant use.[10] Marvin H. Pope in his Book, El in the Ugaritic Texts, notes that Eloah never has the article although it is once determined by the suffix (Hab. 1:11) and found once in the construct (Psa. 114:7). He further points out that it never occurs in permutation with another divine name.[11]

Divine Comfort and Assurance

Eloah seems to convey divine comfort and assurance to God’s people (rock, Deut. 32:15, Psa. 18:31, Isa. 44:8, a strong fortress, here referring to the anti-God, Dan. 11:37, 38, 39, and a shield Pro. 30: 5). At the same time, it conveys terror and trepidation to the enemies of God’s people (trembling, Psa. 114: 7, slaying, Psa. 139:19, to those of God's people who forget Him, Psa. 50:22). In Hab. 3:3, the prophet speaks of Eloah coming from Teman. In Job, Teman is associated with one of Job's three friends, Eliphaz (Job 4:1). The term Eloah, used for God, is predominantly used in the book of Job (more than 40 times) by Job and Eliphaz in their debating. Only in one situation does Zophar use the term (Job 11:5-7). Bildad never does. Elihu uses it, perhaps in imitation of the former speakers (six times in chapters 33-37). YHVH himself, in speaking to Job, uses the term twice: once in a context of his providence and once in parallel to "the Almighty." Moreover, interestingly, the Levites in the post-exilic period used the name Eloah (Neh. 9:17) when referring to the descriptive revelation of YHVH given in Exodus, where El and YHVH were originally used. (Exo. 34: 6-7). Eloah is the Mighty and Powerful One, and in Him, we can be comforted and protected.

Biblical Uses of Eloah

Verse	Context	Usage
Deut. 32: 15	Song of Moses	The Rock of salvation.
Deut. 32: 17	Song of Moses	Not sacrificing to God
2 Cor. 32:15	Sennacherib boasting against YHVH	No other god…was able to deliver
Neh. 9:17	Song of the Levites	A God ready to pardon, merciful…
Psa. 18:31	God the sovereign Savior	Who is a rock except God?
Psa. 50:22	God the Righteous Judge	You who forget God... lest I tear you to pieces….
Psa. 114:7	God's deliverance of Israel	Tremble, O earth…at the presence of the God of Jacob
Psa. 139:19	God's perfect knowledge of man	Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God! …
Pro. 30:5	The Wisdom of Agur	Every word of God is pure, He is a shield….
Isa. 44:8	God's blessing on Israel	Is there a God besides Me? Indeed, there is no other Rock.
Dan. 11:37	The Northern king's blasphemies	...Nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all…
Dan. 11:38	The Northern king's blasphemies	He shall honor a god of fortresses; one his Fathers did not know….
Dan. 11:39	The Northern king's blasphemies	He shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god…
Hab. 1:11	The prophet's question and YHVH's reply	He transgresses; he commits offence, ascribing this power to his god.
Hab. 3:3	The prophet's prayer	God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran.
Job	Job's primary name for God	Job uses Eloah some 41 times.

Numerology of Eloah

The name אלוהּ (Eloah) consists of four Hebrew letters: aleph, lamed, vav, and hey. According to the Hebraic numerical system, aleph is one, lamed is thirty, vav is six, and hey is five. In all languages one (aleph), as a cardinal number, is a symbol of unity. As it is indivisible, and not made up of other numbers, is therefore independent of all others and is the source of all others. Likewise with the Deity of YHVH. The great first cause is independent of all. All stand in need of Him, and He needs no assistance from any.[12] Thirty (lamed), denotes in a higher degree the perfection of the Divine order.[13] Six (vav) is the number of man; the human number; the number of man as destitute of God, without God, without Messiah.[14] Five (hey) is the number of grace.[15] Our imperfection is covered by the Grace of Eloah. Thus, we see a strange perfection in the name Eloah. We, as believers are safe in the Unity (aleph) and perfection of Elohim’s divine order (lamed). However, without grace (hey) we are destitute men who come short of spiritual perfection (vav).

Conclusion

The names of God are powerful and beautiful. They are vital for all those seeking a deeper understand of YHVH. God reveals his very nature through his names. “…[T]he YHVH Elohim of hosts. YHVH is His memorable name” (Hosea 12:5). We are to praise the name of YHVH our Elohim (Joel 2:26). Who forms the mountains? Who creates the wind? Who treads in the high places of the earth? YHVH Elohim of hosts is His name (Amos 4:13). By studying and using the names of God, we honor His Name. (Mal. 1, Psa. 66) All “Christians” know the name “God,” but how many “Christians” know the Name of “GOD”?

Bibliography

E. W. Bullinger. Number in Scripture. Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub, 1967.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,

England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook

of the Old Testament, Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Revised Standard Version Committee, The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version,

Cleveland, Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962.

Rosenau, William. Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible. Baltimore:

Friedenwald Co, 1903.

Samuel I. Feigin, “The Origin of ʾĔlôh, ‘God,’ in Hebrew,” Journal of Near Eastern

Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4. (Oct., 1944), 259.

Scott, Brad, “Names Mean Things,” http://www.wildbranch.org/Archive/index.html

(accessed 03/26/2008).

Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

The Lockman Foundation, New American Standard Bible: Updated Edition,

Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1977.

Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1955.

---

[1] Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester,

England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 157-160.

[2] Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 2.2. 43-44.

[3] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, “Elohim” (New York: Robert Appleton Com., 1910). Http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm (accessed 03/36.2008).

[4] Scott, Brad, “Names Mean Things,” http://www.wildbranch.org/Archive/index.html (accessed 03/26/2008).

[5] Rosenau, William. Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible (Baltimore: Friedenwald Co, 1903), 40.

[6] Scott, Brad.

[7] Revised Standard Version Committee, “Preface,” The Holy Bible Revised Standard Version

(Cleveland, Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1962), v.

[8] The Lockman Foundation, “Foreword,” New American Standard Bible: Updated Edition

(Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1977), iv.

[9] Samuel I. Feigin, “The Origin of ʾĔlôh, "God," in Hebrew,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4. (Oct., 1944), 259.

[10] Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the

Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).

[11] Pope, Marvin H., El in the Ugaritic Texts, “Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, v. 2” (Leiden: Brill, 1955).

[12] E. W. Bullinger, Number in Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub, 1967), 50-92.

[13] Ibid, 265.

[14] Ibid, 150-158.

[15] Ibid, 135-150.

America's Weirdest Real Laws...

Just for the fun of it, here are some of the best strange, and real laws in the United States (don't tell your lawyer friends).

It is illegal to...

...Pawn your dentures in Las Vegas.

...Tie your pet crocodile to a fire hydrant in Michigan.

...Walk your elephant without a leash in Wisconsin.

...Hunt whales from your automobile in California.

...Serve ice cream on cherry pie in Kansas.

...Draw funny faces on window shades in Garfield County, Montana.

...Serve on the jury if you are dead in Oregon.

...Hunt moths under streetlights in Los Angeles.

...Shave in the middle of Main Street in Tylertown, Mississippi.

...Push a live moose out of a moving airplane in Alaska.

...Open a can of food with a gun in Indiana.

...Drive a goat cart past a church "in ridiculous fashion" in Chaseville, New York.

...Charge a bald man more than twenty-five cents for a haircut in Louisiana.

...Blindfold cows on public highways in Arkansas.

...Sell ice after 6 p.m. in Newark, New Jersey without a prescription.

...Carry a concealed weapon longer than six feet in Seattle.

Those laws make certain members of Congress almost sound like good lawmakers.

Source: The BRI