Speaker 1: Welcome to the God's I View podcast. I am your host, Trevor.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get another episode in the books asap
Speaker 1: so that the most recent episode isn't my random theological screed,
Speaker 1: which was the last episode. You know, it's just been fun.
Speaker 1: I've been arguing with my friend. What's better. I think
Speaker 1: for me, a peak male friendship is somebody I can
Speaker 1: just argue with about science or theology. I argue with
Speaker 1: my boss at work about science, and I argue with
Speaker 1: my seventh day I'd be his friend about religion. It's
Speaker 1: kind of nice, you know. I feel like Plato or
Speaker 1: Socrates just out there arguing. Maybe with that all the
Speaker 1: young young male. Was it Socrates up to some shenanigans?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but yeah, just just just as nice
Speaker 1: to just intellectually joust. That's one of the things I'm
Speaker 1: into for some reason. Anyway, those arguments have been going strong,
Speaker 1: kind of flushing out what I think about stuff. It's interesting.
Speaker 1: I've been in communications with an Orthodox church by me,
Speaker 1: probably the most well known Orthodox priest in the internet
Speaker 1: space happens to have a church nearby. They've been super nice.
Speaker 1: You know what it is though, It's just something about
Speaker 1: I'm attracted to the seriousness of it, but it is
Speaker 1: kind of shocking for somebody like me, been an atheist
Speaker 1: nearly my whole life, never really been to church. I
Speaker 1: mean a few times here or there, you know, somebody's
Speaker 1: funeral and that's not really a service, or with a
Speaker 1: friend whose parents said we had to go a couple
Speaker 1: times as a kid. And then I have a few
Speaker 1: family members who are more on the evangelical side, so
Speaker 1: I've been a few times with them, and that's kind
Speaker 1: of just like going to like a concert. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not very serious. He can address the same but
Speaker 1: there's like protocol at an Orthodox church. There's like stuff
Speaker 1: you got to know, and it's very serious, and it
Speaker 1: makes me a little uncomfortable. So I don't know if
Speaker 1: I'll really work up the courage to go. I want
Speaker 1: to see it, you know, it looks beautiful in the
Speaker 1: pictures and it's again very serious, which I like, but
Speaker 1: I'm also afraid of does that make sense anyway? In
Speaker 1: kind of new format for the show, I think I
Speaker 1: might play two clips, one more scientific, one more theological,
Speaker 1: and kind of historical historically interesting in my opinion. But
Speaker 1: first personal anecdote I'm onto some good stuff at work
Speaker 1: right now, kind of exploring some really cool hypotheses. I
Speaker 1: won't get too into it because it's boring and it's
Speaker 1: not the topics we talk about, but just exploring some
Speaker 1: interesting side effects of certain types of blood pressure medications,
Speaker 1: because here's my thought process, right. You can learn a
Speaker 1: lot about a disease that's somewhat unrelated to the intended
Speaker 1: treatment effect of different medications just by virtue of what
Speaker 1: those medications do and how they work. You know, for example,
Speaker 1: there seems to be like certain blood pressure medications on
Speaker 1: the surface don't seem related at all, that keep amyloid
Speaker 1: and tao, the Alzheimer's disease biomarkers. They keep amyloid soluble,
Speaker 1: which is what you want, and they keep tao insoluble,
Speaker 1: which is what you want. You want tao in your
Speaker 1: neurons healthy and normal, and you want amyloid in your
Speaker 1: CSF healthy and normal. Should those twain? Should those two meet,
Speaker 1: you know, or whatever the expression is, that's not good.
Speaker 1: And there are certain blow pressure medications that prevent that
Speaker 1: from happening, but they're in different drug classes. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like a drug in this class a drug in
Speaker 1: that class, a drug in this class. So my thought
Speaker 1: process was, why not figure out what those drugs have
Speaker 1: in common? And there is this biological pathway that they
Speaker 1: all have in common. So to me, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: clearly that's an interesting biological pathway, you know, and no
Speaker 1: one's really studied it. And sure enough, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: like millions of health records. I'm looking at these big
Speaker 1: observational data sets where like five thousand people have had
Speaker 1: lumbar punctures and had cerebral spinal fluid pulled out, and
Speaker 1: I can go look at their meds, and sure enough,
Speaker 1: the ones taking these certain meds do better. And so
Speaker 1: it's like, well, if we figure out what that mechanism is,
Speaker 1: because clearly it's not like a well established thing that
Speaker 1: they do, you know, because the drugs all do different things,
Speaker 1: so they have some shared side effect that's beneficial. And
Speaker 1: so there's two implications there. One is, you know, all
Speaker 1: other things being equal, if the side effects of two
Speaker 1: drugs are the same, and it's an older person, especially
Speaker 1: if someone's genetically predisposed to Alzheimer's, give them the drug
Speaker 1: that will prevent Alzheimer's, you know, assuming they have hypertension,
Speaker 1: which most people do so, especially in that agridge. So
Speaker 1: so that that's pretty exciting. But then the more exciting
Speaker 1: thing is, well, if we figure out that specific pathway,
Speaker 1: you know, potentially you could come up with a better
Speaker 1: you know whatever drug or biomarker, you know something. It's
Speaker 1: something new for the billions and billions of dollars we've
Speaker 1: invested into Alzheimer's and come up with zilch. It's very
Speaker 1: exciting to have a new idea. And of course my
Speaker 1: grants are all linguishing. They all got good scores, but
Speaker 1: they're just sitting unpaid. It's an issue anyway. Moving on though,
Speaker 1: we're going to uh, we're gonna get into some stuff,
Speaker 1: starting with our friend Trent Horn. Now I've got some
Speaker 1: I like Trent. It's one of these things, you know,
Speaker 1: you become an Internet personality all of a sudden, everyone
Speaker 1: needs to have an opinion about you, right, and apparently
Speaker 1: I need to have an opinion about this guy. So
Speaker 1: I think he's very smart. I think he does a
Speaker 1: really good job articulating his positions. I do think he's
Speaker 1: kind of inconsistent, and I think one of the ways
Speaker 1: he's very good is that he can really kind of
Speaker 1: steamroll you. And he's a quick thinker, but he is fair.
Speaker 1: I'm not He's not a bully. I'm just saying he
Speaker 1: can kind of like ba up, bat up, bat up,
Speaker 1: but up. And as far as theology goes, I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems pretty cool. I'm not a Catholic, you know,
Speaker 1: but everything seems pretty cool that he says makes sense.
Speaker 1: But he wades into politics, and I'm okay with that.
Speaker 1: I'm okay with waiting into politics. But once you wade
Speaker 1: into politics, it's like, I don't know, like you can't
Speaker 1: the things you decide to talk about and not talk about.
Speaker 1: It's like of telling, you know. And he ownes in
Speaker 1: on really specific issues. And there's a lot of political
Speaker 1: issues that are that have religious significance, one of them
Speaker 1: being war. You know, he doesn't really talk about that
Speaker 1: as far as I know. One of them being you know,
Speaker 1: corruption and abuse and secret sexual abuse and all this stuff, right,
Speaker 1: he doesn't really talk about He he kind of talks
Speaker 1: about one thing, which is the trans stuff. And that's okay.
Speaker 1: I think I kind of agree with him, you know,
Speaker 1: I just I don't the selectivity is kind of odd
Speaker 1: to me. I don't know, a lot of people don't
Speaker 1: like him because he's not political enough, so you can't
Speaker 1: make everybody happy. And you know, I don't really like
Speaker 1: talking about politics at all for that reason. But I am.
Speaker 1: I am actually going to wait and this water ever
Speaker 1: so slightly. And this is more just a personal story
Speaker 1: than a political opinion. But it will probably turn into
Speaker 1: a political opinion at some point in the next five minutes.
Speaker 1: But the culture war trans stuff, you know, doesn't really
Speaker 1: affect me, you know, like I don't encounter it much.
Speaker 1: You know, I work with people who have the pronouns
Speaker 1: in the email or whatever. It's fine. I think it's
Speaker 1: kind of weird, you know, but you know, trying to
Speaker 1: be whatever, get along and and no one's making me
Speaker 1: do it, so that's fine, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: That's really my politics. You know. I won't make you
Speaker 1: do anything. You don't make me do anything. Once people
Speaker 1: start making me do stuff, it's like, all right, now
Speaker 1: I have an opinion. Now I'm upset, but you leave
Speaker 1: me alone. I'll leave you alone. All good. But I
Speaker 1: had a business. My wife had a business. She had
Speaker 1: a big warehouse, you know, like five thousand square feet,
Speaker 1: and then I was running a little business as well.
Speaker 1: We were roasting coffee and I was also working full time,
Speaker 1: and like healthcare, I think I've talked on the past
Speaker 1: episode all the businesses I've started, I forgot to mention
Speaker 1: that one. You know, that's how many there are. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So it was roasting coffee, making bottled beverages, and I
Speaker 1: needed help. So we decided to hire somebody, and so
Speaker 1: we did like the I don't know indeed or whatever,
Speaker 1: and someone applied and she did not really interview well,
Speaker 1: but she seemed nice. You know, I'm a subt dude.
Speaker 1: If you're nice, I'm a sucker. She seemed kind of sad.
Speaker 1: You know, she's pretty overweight, you know, just mind so
Speaker 1: am I you know, I'm getting better, I'm getting there.
Speaker 1: I'm getting back on track. But uh, anyway, man, if
Speaker 1: you could have seen me when I was twenty good lord,
Speaker 1: good lord. Anyway, anyway, that times change, times are changing. Anyway.
Speaker 1: So she's you know, kind of over which seems depressed.
Speaker 1: But she seems nice, you know, like she seems kind hearted,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of has a shorter haircut, but definitely
Speaker 1: a woman. You know, this is like a youngish woman,
Speaker 1: twenty two maybe something like that, we hire her. She's
Speaker 1: working in the warehouse alone, and I come by every
Speaker 1: once in a while, like in between zoom calls and
Speaker 1: stuff to do my own thing, like make a delivery
Speaker 1: or whatever. And so I come in and I noticed
Speaker 1: that she's falling her eyes out, she's crying. I'm leaving
Speaker 1: out one detail, which is the day prior I was
Speaker 1: training her on how to roast coffee. And I said
Speaker 1: to my friend, who was helping her because he's also
Speaker 1: a coffee roaster, Hey, why don't you show her how
Speaker 1: to do this? And she goes, oh, excuse me. I
Speaker 1: go by they them, and I was like, oh, I
Speaker 1: never had that experience in real life, you know, I've
Speaker 1: only ever heard about this. I was excited. I felt
Speaker 1: like an experience, you know. So I was like, of course,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you know, why don't you show them or whatever?
Speaker 1: Which is fine because like sometimes I even talk that
Speaker 1: way anyway, you know, like I think I feel like
Speaker 1: I've even been corrected as a kid, like anyway, I
Speaker 1: mean there's situations where the it doesn't make sense like dramatically,
Speaker 1: you know, but okay, whatever, So I say, sure, no problem.
Speaker 1: I was kind of caught off guard. I just want
Speaker 1: everybody to be happy. I'm that guy. You know. If
Speaker 1: you hate me for that, I'm sorry anyway. But as
Speaker 1: soon as someone tells me to put the them in
Speaker 1: my email or him, he man like, dude, that actually
Speaker 1: kind of upsets me. So I have a lot. It's
Speaker 1: more about autonomy. That's really my issue anyway. So I say, sure,
Speaker 1: no problems. So the next day she's they she I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say, she I all forgot, I'm gonna mess it up.
Speaker 1: She is crying her eyes out, and I'm like, hey,
Speaker 1: is everything going okay? She goes, yeah, I just I'm
Speaker 1: having a really hard time with my boyfriend. He's thinking
Speaker 1: of breaking up with me because his dad is just
Speaker 1: devastated that he came out as homosexual. And now I'm
Speaker 1: really confused because here is a woman, an adult woman,
Speaker 1: who boyfriend is thinking about breaking up with her because
Speaker 1: he came out as gay. So kind of my assumption
Speaker 1: is that he's realized he's gay and wants to break
Speaker 1: up with this woman to date a man, you know,
Speaker 1: but I don't know. These are treacherous waters. I'm like, okay, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry. She goes, yeah, he's never met me.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, this is real. You can't make this.
Speaker 1: I'm devastated that no one was there with me. I
Speaker 1: tell this story. No one else thinks that's as funny
Speaker 1: as I do. To me, it's like Seinfeld level, like
Speaker 1: just peak absurdity. She goes, yeah, he's never met me,
Speaker 1: but you know, his son told him that he's in
Speaker 1: a gay relationship. And I'm like, now, I don't understand. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna cut to the chase because I didn't really
Speaker 1: confront her on the issue. I just said I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: But here's what I was able to reverse engineer after
Speaker 1: the fact. Right, Okay, So here is a father, you know,
Speaker 1: normal father. His son comes to him and goes, Dad,
Speaker 1: I'm a gay man. I'm in a gay relationship and
Speaker 1: I'm gay. And the dad's like what what? He didn't
Speaker 1: handle it? Well, I can't believe it, like I've you've
Speaker 1: always been into you know, women. I don't understand. Here's
Speaker 1: the thing. He's gay because he's in a relationship with
Speaker 1: a non binary person. Do you understand. So here, when
Speaker 1: he says he's gay, what he means is he's having Uh,
Speaker 1: if there's kids in the car, you know, cover the years,
Speaker 1: this is gonna get biologically anatomical. But he's he's having
Speaker 1: vaginal sex with a woman, right of vaginal sex in
Speaker 1: the vagina, and a woman that came that way from
Speaker 1: the factory, right, Like, this is a born a woman
Speaker 1: anatomically is still that same, you know, you know, born
Speaker 1: a girl, still a woman, an adult woman. You know,
Speaker 1: am I'm making sense? Am I making sense? It's the
Speaker 1: most typical sexual relationship you can possibly imagine, right, it's
Speaker 1: an adult male and an adult woman engaging in consensual
Speaker 1: activities with one another. But because the adult woman identifies
Speaker 1: as that they them, the son confessed his homosexuality to
Speaker 1: his father. Upset. I'm like, you got to give me
Speaker 1: this guy's DAS number so I can just explain. Like, listen,
Speaker 1: here's what's going on. Your son is very confused. He's
Speaker 1: really looking to like have an issue, you know, because
Speaker 1: here's what's really going on, your son, an adult man
Speaker 1: is having consensual sex with an adult woman. This is
Speaker 1: what's actually happening right now, you know, Oh my god. Anyway,
Speaker 1: here's the only reason why am I telling this story.
Speaker 1: I have no idea why I'm telling this story anyway,
Speaker 1: But it does have an interesting ending. Our business closed
Speaker 1: down as it inevitably would, and I treated this individual
Speaker 1: with the utmost respect and dignity, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I actually kind of felt I don't know, I felt
Speaker 1: I was confused. I was confused by the situation because
Speaker 1: I think you could argue I'm not arguing this, so
Speaker 1: don't send me any emails. This is not me talking.
Speaker 1: This is a hypothetical person making this argument. You could
Speaker 1: argue that it isn't necessarily correct or good or even
Speaker 1: in the person's interest to a firm certain psychological issues.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying that gender identity is a psychological issue,
Speaker 1: but let's use some other examples that are clearly psychological issues,
Speaker 1: like anorexia, okay, or multiple personality disorder. Right, if someone
Speaker 1: comes to you that you you learn they have multiple
Speaker 1: personality disorders? What what is the right thing to do? Morally, medically? Everything?
Speaker 1: It is? Okay, Hey, listen, this happens. But we need
Speaker 1: to deal with this. You know, we need to talk
Speaker 1: to a professional, and we need to we need to
Speaker 1: sort of incorporate these personalities. We need to get you
Speaker 1: back on track. You're one person with one personality, you know,
Speaker 1: or anorexia, like, hey, we understand you're struggling with this
Speaker 1: and you feel fat, but you're not. You're actually significantly
Speaker 1: underweight and you're doing long term damage to your body.
Speaker 1: So we need to get you some food, right, You
Speaker 1: would never affirm those things, like imagine, imagine an anorex
Speaker 1: that came to you and it's like, I feel fat,
Speaker 1: like I identify as fat. You'd be psychotic to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, I support that you are fat. You
Speaker 1: are fat, amen, sister, you know, and in fact, here's
Speaker 1: a pill that will further suppress your hunger so that
Speaker 1: you more closely resemble you know, the way you feel.
Speaker 1: Because because you feel fat and you're trying to get skinnier,
Speaker 1: so the right thing to do is affirm you here's
Speaker 1: a GLP one agonist semaglue tide ozempic and uh yeah,
Speaker 1: we got to get you scale. You need to lose
Speaker 1: some weight. You know, it would just be crazy anyway,
Speaker 1: some people, not me, Absolutely not me. How dare you
Speaker 1: even insinuate this is what I'm saying because I'm not.
Speaker 1: But some people out there, bigots might say that about
Speaker 1: you know, if you're confused, you feel certain way you
Speaker 1: could say, well, really, the only appropriate thing to do
Speaker 1: is to kind of coach this person like, well, no,
Speaker 1: you know that's that's not the case. You know, this
Speaker 1: is this is how you're born. And you know, it
Speaker 1: is true that within each gender there is sort of
Speaker 1: a spectrum, right, there are more masculine and more feminine men.
Speaker 1: They're even gay men, which is a separate topic. But
Speaker 1: there is sort of the spectrum. But that spectrum does
Speaker 1: not transcend anatomy, right, And we would never try to
Speaker 1: change your physiology or actually change your anatomical structure surgically
Speaker 1: to to make that happen, unless unless there really is
Speaker 1: some kind of like sexual dimorphism thing going on. Some
Speaker 1: people are born with unclear genitalia, you know, so that
Speaker 1: would be a different thing. But the vast majority that's
Speaker 1: not the case. Wow, we're really going into it. I
Speaker 1: wasn't expecting to do this. Why am I doing this? Oh?
Speaker 1: I think just to finish the story, which is I
Speaker 1: ran into her recently beautiful adult woman, long hair, you know,
Speaker 1: wearing female clothes instead of male clothes, saying she and
Speaker 1: her and me and my boyfriend, you know, like complete
Speaker 1: just complete resolution, you know what I mean, Just so
Speaker 1: much happier, so happy, and it's like, well, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: clearly like you were going through something, you know, and
Speaker 1: it's sad and you should be comforted. That's why I
Speaker 1: don't believe in being mean. I see a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are mean to this group of people. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's the way to go. I think these
Speaker 1: people are you know, they're suffering. Now. They can't upset
Speaker 1: people to hear that, right, So I generally try to
Speaker 1: avoid the topic. But here we are, here we are.
Speaker 1: Why am I talking about this? Oh? Just because this
Speaker 1: is a topic. Trent also like, so I do agree
Speaker 1: with him. I just think it's weird to only talk
Speaker 1: about like but here, I just did it. I just
Speaker 1: did it. Oh am, I'm a hypocrite, you know the
Speaker 1: you know the this is the line. I've said this before.
Speaker 1: But the reason I don't go to church is because
Speaker 1: it's filled with hypocrites. And then the rejoinder is, yes,
Speaker 1: but there's room for one more. Okay, that will be
Speaker 1: the segue too. Talking about today's clip, did you guys
Speaker 1: think the story was funny at least? Like do you
Speaker 1: see the absurd humor in it? Like the boy crying
Speaker 1: telling his boomer dad like, Dad, I'm a gay man.
Speaker 1: And the dad's like, oh, son, why you know, I
Speaker 1: just wanted a grandson. And what's his name? Oh? Well
Speaker 1: his name is Tiffany. And and he's like, Tiffany, is
Speaker 1: that his stay your name? No, no, that's their name. Okay?
Speaker 1: And uh howl? How old is he? Well? Uh, it's
Speaker 1: they don't go by he Actually, you know, they were
Speaker 1: assigned female at birth and they go by they assigned
Speaker 1: female at birth, you say, and so they've they've had
Speaker 1: a like a transition surgery. No, no, no, totally you know,
Speaker 1: biologically female, but identifies it. Okay, Okay, So what you're
Speaker 1: telling me, son, is you are in a gay relationship
Speaker 1: with a woman. No, Dad, I'm in a gay relationship
Speaker 1: with a non binary person. Good Lord, No wonder the boomers.
Speaker 1: The boomers hate my generation, so confusing. Anyway, today's episode
Speaker 1: is what is God's Name? Unrelated to what I've been
Speaker 1: talking about for the last twenty minutes, here we go.
Speaker 2: Did you know that God's name is so sacred that
Speaker 2: Catholics aren't allowed to say it in certain contexts? So
Speaker 2: in today's episode, we'll examine the three thousand year old
Speaker 2: mystery of God's name, when it can and can't be said,
Speaker 2: and which religious groups still misunderstand God's name and identity today. Now,
Speaker 2: right off the bat, you should know God's personal name
Speaker 2: isn't God, just as the President's personal name isn't mister President.
Speaker 2: The word God comes from an Old German word meaning
Speaker 2: the invoked one. Now, a believer can use the title
Speaker 2: God as a kind of name and refer to God
Speaker 2: in that way, such as in the Liturgy of the
Speaker 2: Hours when we pray, Oh God, come to my assistance,
Speaker 2: Oh Lord, make haste to help me. But scripture reveals
Speaker 2: God's personal name in Exodus chapter three, when it describes
Speaker 2: Moses encountering God in the burning bush. It says, then
Speaker 2: Moses said to God, if I come to the people
Speaker 2: of Israel and say to them, the God of your
Speaker 2: father's has sent me to you, and they ask me,
Speaker 2: what is his name, what shall I say to them?
Speaker 2: God said to Moses, I am who I am, And
Speaker 2: he said, say this to the people of Israel, I
Speaker 2: am has sent me to you.
Speaker 1: The Friend. So I think that is kind of interesting,
Speaker 1: because we had that those two episodes we did on
Speaker 1: whether or not Jesus claim to be God. So the
Speaker 1: actual name that's given to Moses by God is I Am.
Speaker 1: I Am, And so I think that's fascinating. I can't
Speaker 1: explain why exactly, but to me that is fascinating. He says,
Speaker 1: what is your name? And the name is Bean, like
Speaker 1: Bean is what I am. I do notice a lot
Speaker 1: of like kind of new age collective consciousness. People sort
Speaker 1: of use this like the Kingdom of Heaven is within
Speaker 1: you that Jesus talks about, and to kind of say
Speaker 1: like that we are all a peace of God. And
Speaker 1: I don't think that's totally wrong, right, because God breathes
Speaker 1: his breath into dust to make us in the Garden story,
Speaker 1: so it kind of implies there is something from God
Speaker 1: in us, and that's reiterated throughout the Bible. When you die,
Speaker 1: you give up the ghosts and it goes back to
Speaker 1: God until the resurrection. Now this is a theological hot
Speaker 1: topic actually what I just said, but believe it there.
Speaker 1: But I didn't realize that the name Yahweh, which is
Speaker 1: kind of traditionally thought of as the name of the
Speaker 1: of God in the Old Testament, might actually come We'll
Speaker 1: let Trent explain it, but might actually come from the
Speaker 1: same word. So it could be that God's name really
Speaker 1: is just I am being itself. Right. It's possible. Now
Speaker 1: we don't know that for sure, but we'll let's let trin.
Speaker 2: Exwain he ay as I am who I am is
Speaker 2: aah aa and Hebrew. In verse fifteen, the word rendered
Speaker 2: i am comes from four consonants rendered yh wh in English.
Speaker 1: So the word that means I am is the word
Speaker 1: that we what's it called the something a graham yhwh.
Speaker 1: There's a name for it, but you know there's no vowels,
Speaker 1: but we think you pronounce it yahweh. It's the name
Speaker 1: is actually just I am, you know. And it's okay
Speaker 1: to say names in your language like in English, you know,
Speaker 1: because I am is Hebrew. You know yhwh ancient Hebrew.
Speaker 1: But you know it has a different, different name in Greek,
Speaker 1: you know. Or what? Actually, no, I don't I think
Speaker 1: yahweh never gets I think it always is just. I
Speaker 1: don't know. We'll let try and explain. But but the
Speaker 1: point is, like, you know, we don't say here in America,
Speaker 1: we don't say at an eye, which means lord. We
Speaker 1: say lord. You know, we don't say dios we say God,
Speaker 1: and so I think it is kind of just cool
Speaker 1: to just say I am, like like that's God's name,
Speaker 1: you know, like God's name is just the act of being,
Speaker 1: like just ah, I need a better word for it,
Speaker 1: you know, because his name, because I am is that's
Speaker 1: like a statement, that's a I'm sure there's a better
Speaker 1: literary term for it. Is that a preposition? No, I
Speaker 1: don't know, but it doesn't. It's not a moniker, like,
Speaker 1: it's not like sarah, you know. It Actually it means something.
Speaker 1: And so I think it would be totally acceptable to
Speaker 1: just think of God's name as I am, which I
Speaker 1: think is really really cool.
Speaker 2: Most scholars believe this word naa come from the same
Speaker 2: root haya, which means to be. In John A fifty eight,
Speaker 2: Jesus uses the divine name to describe himself because he says, truly, truly,
Speaker 2: I say to you. Before Abraham was I am or
Speaker 2: in Greek ago ame. In earlier parts of the Old Testament,
Speaker 2: God's personal name was spoken frequently, but after the Babylonian Captivity,
Speaker 2: Jewish people became much more hesitant to say God's name
Speaker 2: for fear of breaking the second commandment, you shall not
Speaker 2: take the name of the Lord, your God in vain,
Speaker 2: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes
Speaker 2: his name in vain. The Talmud records a tradition that
Speaker 2: the high priest only uttered God's name once a year
Speaker 2: during Yam Kapor, the day of Atonement. When the Hebrew
Speaker 2: Bible was translated into Greek, the word curios or lord
Speaker 2: was often used in place of the divine name. By
Speaker 2: the time of Jesus Ministry, this was a widespread practice,
Speaker 2: with the Hebrew word for Lord, Adonai, replacing God's name
Speaker 2: when scripture was read aloud. This became universal practice among
Speaker 2: Jews after the destruction of the Temple in eighty seventy,
Speaker 2: and in the medieval period, Jewish scribes added the vowel
Speaker 2: points for Adonai to yh wh to remind readers to
Speaker 2: say Adonai and not God's name. Christian scholars, who weren't
Speaker 2: familiar with this notation, thought the consonants and vowels belong together,
Speaker 2: so when they translated it into Latin, we would get
Speaker 2: God's name as yhwh, the vowels ah oh i, leading
Speaker 2: to the word Yahovah or Jehovah. Though the spelling gets interesting,
Speaker 2: as you may remember in this scene from Indiana Jones
Speaker 2: in the Last Crusade where Indy has to step on
Speaker 2: stones to spell God's name to get to the Holy Grail, Jovah.
Speaker 1: But in the latinow for a bit, Jehovah begins with
Speaker 1: an eye. Oh, we gotta help the YouTube by answering
Speaker 1: one question, and we're not gonna do it.
Speaker 2: Indian ends up correcting his error and spells Jehovah with
Speaker 2: an eye because, as is Dad correctly noted, Latin used
Speaker 2: an eye because the letter J did not exist until
Speaker 2: the seventeenth.
Speaker 1: I think this is kind of wild that Jehovah is
Speaker 1: actually not see this is I to me, this makes
Speaker 1: sense because it's always struck me as odd that God
Speaker 1: would have a personal name. I mean, he's this incomprehensible,
Speaker 1: unfathomable force that just brought order out of chaos, and
Speaker 1: he spoke time and space into existence, and he's got
Speaker 1: a name like he's got a moniker, he's got a
Speaker 1: Hebrew moniker that can be translated to English. I mean no,
Speaker 1: he's like the essence itself. He is the act of being.
Speaker 1: So I think this is cool, Like I kind of
Speaker 1: like learning that his name might just be I am.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of interesting if you read the passage,
Speaker 1: because it's like Moses is like, what do I call you?
Speaker 1: And he just goes, I am what I am? You know,
Speaker 1: I'm God. He doesn't say God, but that's how we
Speaker 1: would describe what he's saying, right, God is a symbol
Speaker 1: we would use for like incomprehensible, unlike ineffable, what I means, right,
Speaker 1: And so he just goes, I am what I am?
Speaker 1: And then it like almost like just appealing to the
Speaker 1: fact that there's this little human in front of him
Speaker 1: looking for like a Matt or a Steve, you know
Speaker 1: whatever the Hebrew version is of that name, like what
Speaker 1: you know what, he's just looking for a moniker. He goes,
Speaker 1: you know what, tell him, tell him I am sent
Speaker 1: to you, And it just sounds like just some mysterious
Speaker 1: like timeless ancient power is just like condescending to Moses,
Speaker 1: like just tell him I'm being itself, you know, like
Speaker 1: how else how else would you describe it? And I
Speaker 1: just think it's cool. And then I think it's funny
Speaker 1: that Jehovah is maybe just like a misinterpretation of Yahweh
Speaker 1: or yhwh In century before that time, Latin used an I,
Speaker 1: even for names like Julius Caesar. In fifteen twenty four,
Speaker 1: Gian Giorgio Trasina proposed an elongated eye to represent jay sounds,
Speaker 1: though it took a while for his idea to catch on,
Speaker 1: as can be seen in the first fifteen ninety seven
Speaker 1: edition of Romeo and Juliet being spelled with an I,
Speaker 1: and the sixteen eleven edition of the King James Bible
Speaker 1: spelled Jehovah with an I, but by sixteen twenty nine
Speaker 1: the KJV rendered Jehovah with a jay as we know
Speaker 1: it today, but most Bibles in Church history followed the
Speaker 1: Jewish tradition of not translating God's name and instead used
Speaker 1: the word Lord or Dominus in Latin. After the Reformation,
Speaker 1: Protestant scholars attempted to go back to the sources for
Speaker 1: their biblical studies and believed Jehovah was the correct pronunciation
Speaker 1: of the divine name. However, by the late eighteen hundred,
Speaker 1: scholars like Wilhelm Gesenius used archaeology, textual study, and early
Speaker 1: Christian sources to show the divine name sounded more like
Speaker 1: Yahweh than Jehovah, and now scholars have settled on Yahweh
Speaker 1: being closer to the original pronunciation. But in the late
Speaker 1: nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, one group group was still
Speaker 1: firmly committed to God's name being pronounced Jehovah, and you
Speaker 1: can probably guess which group I'm talking about. In eighteen
Speaker 1: seventy four, Charles Tays Russell, a self described Bible student,
Speaker 1: taught that several Christian doctrines on hell and the soul
Speaker 1: were wrong and that Christ had invisibly returned to Earth
Speaker 1: in eighteen seventy four. By eighteen eighty two, Russell had
Speaker 1: published Zion's Watchtower, which openly denied the Trinity, saying the
Speaker 1: incomprehensible doctrine of Trinity was of papal decree, now without
Speaker 1: any foundation in scripture. Russell's text also frequently refers to
Speaker 1: the true God as Jehovah, who exists apart from Christ,
Speaker 1: who is not the one true God but merely a
Speaker 1: God or an exalted creature. In nineteen thirty one, the
Speaker 1: organization's president, Joseph Rutherford, changed the group's name to the
Speaker 1: Jehovah's Witnesses. In order to distinguish them from other competing
Speaker 1: Bible student groups. According to the Jovah's Witnesses, it is
Speaker 1: important not only to know but also to use that name.
Speaker 1: Why because the Bible tells us everyone who calls the
Speaker 1: name of Jehovah will be saved. But Romans ten thirteen,
Speaker 1: the verse this author references, does not say everyone who
Speaker 1: calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved. It
Speaker 1: says everyone who calls on the name of the Lord
Speaker 1: will be saved, or in Greek, everyone who calls on
Speaker 1: the name of the courier will be saved. The name
Speaker 1: Jehovah or any variation of that name like Yahweh, is
Speaker 1: not found in any New Testament manuscripts, which brings us
Speaker 1: to one of the oddest features of the Jehovah's Witnesses
Speaker 1: New World Translation of the Bible. Whenever the word Lord
Speaker 1: or curios is found in the New Testament, the New
Speaker 1: World Translation renders it Jehovah, with a few curious exceptions.
Speaker 1: Look how the New World Translation renders Romans ten. For
Speaker 1: if you publicly declare with your mouth that Jesus's Lord,
Speaker 1: and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him
Speaker 1: up from the dead. You will be saved. For everyone
Speaker 1: who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.
Speaker 1: If the New World translation were consistent, it would render
Speaker 1: Romans ten nine this way. For if you publicly declare
Speaker 1: with your mouth that Jesus is Jehovah, and exercise faith
Speaker 1: in your heart that God raised him up from the dead,
Speaker 1: you will be saved. But the Jehovah's witnesses translation can't do.
Speaker 1: I was having a conversation with my friend today about like,
Speaker 1: the way you translate things there is I'm not one
Speaker 1: of these people who thinks, like, oh, the Bible has
Speaker 1: been translated a million different times and it's not reliable.
Speaker 1: I don't think that at all. I think that's silly.
Speaker 1: I think that's uh. You know, as far as two
Speaker 1: thousand year old books for the New Testament go, there
Speaker 1: is no more reliable document than the New Testament in
Speaker 1: that category of ancient ancient books. However, the interpretation, the
Speaker 1: way that certain words are chosen to be translated it
Speaker 1: it does mean a lot, especially when the same word
Speaker 1: is translated differently, sometimes even in the same sentence, like that,
Speaker 1: you know, lord or whatever. The original Greek is is
Speaker 1: Lord in one spot and Jehovah and another spot? And
Speaker 1: it's because the translators go, well earlier, this is clearly
Speaker 1: a title. So let's say Lord, whereas here to name,
Speaker 1: so let's say Jehovah. But this is sort of this
Speaker 1: is only implied. You know, this is sort of editorializing.
Speaker 1: And I had a long conversation because there's probably the
Speaker 1: most controversial sentence in the Bible for inter denominational debate.
Speaker 1: Is I got to google the full thing? Do you
Speaker 1: know what it is? Can you guess? Can you guess?
Speaker 1: It has to do with Peter? It has to do
Speaker 1: with Peter. Sorry, I'm just stalling for time. Okay, let's
Speaker 1: do Matthew sixteen seventeen. Is that it? Yes? Okay, this
Speaker 1: isn't right though, this is NIV, which should be good. Right.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, this is it? This is it? Okay,
Speaker 1: I was on the wrong passage. Okay, So we're gonna
Speaker 1: start with Matthew sixteen seventeen. Jesus replied, Simon is just declared.
Speaker 1: You know that he is who he says he is. Right,
Speaker 1: So Jesus replies, blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah?
Speaker 1: For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood,
Speaker 1: but but my Father in Heaven. And then Matthew sixteen eighteen,
Speaker 1: what is this website doing? Okay? And I tell you
Speaker 1: that you are Peter, and on this rock I will
Speaker 1: build my church, and the gates of Hades will not
Speaker 1: overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
Speaker 1: Kingdom of Heaven. So Catholics and Orthodox see this as
Speaker 1: like a declaration. And the reason is because Peter, or
Speaker 1: the Greek Petros or the Aramaics, I think it's Kephis
Speaker 1: means rock. And so oh, there's a little footnote here.
Speaker 1: What controversial thing does this say? Yeah, oh, it says
Speaker 1: the Greek word for Peter means rock. So what's interesting
Speaker 1: is is Peter it was not like Peter is today, right,
Speaker 1: Like there's not ten Peters in your town. It is.
Speaker 1: It's a name that literally means rock. So you could
Speaker 1: read the sentence two other ways. You could read it.
Speaker 1: And I tell so Jesus is changing his name from Simon,
Speaker 1: and he goes. I tell you that you are Peter,
Speaker 1: and on this rock or sorry, and on this Peter,
Speaker 1: I will build my church. It's the same word. This
Speaker 1: is the point. And so if you call it, you
Speaker 1: can do it as a moniker in one spot and
Speaker 1: as an actual object in another spot. But it's the
Speaker 1: same word. So you could say I, and I tell
Speaker 1: you that you are Rock, and on this rock I
Speaker 1: will build my church. Or you can say, and I
Speaker 1: tell you that you are Peter, and on this Peter,
Speaker 1: I will build my church. Or you can say, and
Speaker 1: I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock,
Speaker 1: I will build my church. And so Catholics and Orthodox
Speaker 1: understandably see this as like Jesus saying, Peter, I'm giving
Speaker 1: you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and you
Speaker 1: are forming my church on earth, and the gates of
Speaker 1: Hell will not prevail against it. And because Catholics and
Speaker 1: Orthodox can sort of trace their Apostolic secession back to
Speaker 1: these this group of disciples, they feel like one of
Speaker 1: them is the church that Jesus established on earth. Every
Speaker 1: other Christian group feels like, no, that's not right. You know,
Speaker 1: this is just like an expression or And it's funny
Speaker 1: because it is the group who like literally, you know,
Speaker 1: they they care much more deeply about the literal words
Speaker 1: of the Bible than that would be the claim that
Speaker 1: the Catholics do, but they say, no, he's talking about
Speaker 1: Peter's Declaration of Faith, because the sentence prior Peter says
Speaker 1: you are the Messiah, the son of the Living God,
Speaker 1: and Jesus says, it's that type of it's that type
Speaker 1: of thinking, you know, it's that type of thought upon
Speaker 1: which I will build my church. But I think the
Speaker 1: more natural reading is blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah.
Speaker 1: For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood,
Speaker 1: but but my Father in Heaven, and I tell you
Speaker 1: that you are Peter Rock. And on this rock I
Speaker 1: will build my church, and the gates of Hades will
Speaker 1: not overcome it. And I will give you, Peter, not
Speaker 1: some like non descript spiritual energy or like a vibe.
Speaker 1: I will give you, Peter, the keys to the Kingdom
Speaker 1: of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound
Speaker 1: in heaven. So anyway, so that is like the big
Speaker 1: that's the big Catholic Protestant Orthodox divide for those who
Speaker 1: don't know my opinion. My opinion is that it's hard
Speaker 1: for me to believe that Jesus's church popped up in
Speaker 1: the sixteenth century, right because clearly Jesus is establishing a
Speaker 1: church right here in thirty AD in this passage, right,
Speaker 1: if you take this all literally, he's establishing a church
Speaker 1: right here in this moment. In those apostles, they go
Speaker 1: out and they found churches all over the Roman Empire,
Speaker 1: and the religion spreads, and that church continues today. It
Speaker 1: didn't go away, right, It's still here. And so there's
Speaker 1: only two organizations that technically fit that description that went
Speaker 1: from this moment to today, and that's the Catholic and
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church, because they have Apostolic secession all the way
Speaker 1: back to the first Apostles, and they were there, they
Speaker 1: were the churches during this time, and then the Protestants came,
Speaker 1: you know, much later in the sixteenth century, I think,
Speaker 1: and so I think it makes sense like the Catholic
Speaker 1: Church was doing the wrong thing. I think we all agree, right,
Speaker 1: a lot of problems, and so they wanted to reform it.
Speaker 1: That's why it was called the Protestant Reformation. But I
Speaker 1: think the point is they didn't reform it. They started
Speaker 1: their own church. So therefore it's not the church that
Speaker 1: goes back anyway, not that man, is there anyone. I'm
Speaker 1: not offending tonight. I just think it's interesting, it's cool.
Speaker 1: It's history. This is where we come from, man, this
Speaker 1: is where the Western world comes from. A paragraph right here.
Speaker 1: It's pretty cool, all right. Anyway, back to our cool
Speaker 1: clip from Drendham. Sorry too that because Jehovah's witnesses deny
Speaker 1: Jesus is the true God. Oh my God, that whole
Speaker 1: story just came from the fact that that Jehovah witness
Speaker 1: translation translates Jehovah inconsistently.
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry God, or that he is Jehovah, even
Speaker 2: though the New Testament identifies Jesus with the god called
Speaker 2: Yahweh in the Old Testament. In John chapter twelve, John
Speaker 2: describes how some of the people's unbelief fulfilled the prophecy
Speaker 2: of the suffering servant in Isaiah fifty three, Lord who
Speaker 2: has believed our report? And to whom has the arm
Speaker 2: of the Lord been revealed? John twelve forty one then
Speaker 2: says Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and
Speaker 2: spoke of him. The pronouns his and him ow too
Speaker 2: in Greek refer to Jesus, but the incident John is
Speaker 2: referring to is found in Isaiah chapter six, where Isaiah
Speaker 2: has a vision of God of Yahweh on his throne.
Speaker 2: That means John is saying that Jesus is the enthroned
Speaker 2: God that Isaiah saw, and so Jesus is fully God
Speaker 2: and fully man. Another non Christian group that makes a
Speaker 2: mistake about Jehovah are Mormons. In the Book of Mormon,
Speaker 2: Nephi is an Israelite who emigrates to the Americas and
Speaker 2: delivers various teachings in a text called Second Nephi. About
Speaker 2: one third of the text, or thirteen chapters, are direct
Speaker 2: copying of Isaiah and what appears to be the translation
Speaker 2: of Isaiah found in the King James Bible, which was
Speaker 2: published almost two thousand years after Nephi allegedly lived. In
Speaker 2: the original Hebrew, Isaiah twelve to two says yah or
Speaker 2: Yahweh is my strength, while Second Phi twenty two to
Speaker 2: two says Jehovah is my strength, matching the King James version.
Speaker 2: I'll let you decide if this is because Joseph Smith
Speaker 2: just wanted his translation to sound like the vernacular of
Speaker 2: his time, so he chose not to use yah Yahweh
Speaker 2: as some Mormons claim, or if he just borrowed straight
Speaker 2: from Isaiah and didn't translate anything as.
Speaker 1: This is like the first version of forgetting to delete
Speaker 1: your prompt response from chat GPT on your fake essay,
Speaker 1: Like you have this beautiful essay about you know, the
Speaker 1: great war, World War One, and then at the end
Speaker 1: it says, let me know if you'd like a slightly
Speaker 1: more elaborate approach, maybe with some bullet points highlighting the
Speaker 1: key events of the war, you leave it in. You know,
Speaker 1: this is Joseph Smith getting caught, getting caught doing that
Speaker 1: much much earlier.
Speaker 2: Non Mormon scholars claim in nineteen sixteen, the Mormon Presidency
Speaker 2: officially taught that quote among the spirit children of Elohem,
Speaker 2: the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ, to
Speaker 2: whom all others are juniors. Mormons are correct that Jesus
Speaker 2: Christ is Jehovah or Yahweh. Where they air is that
Speaker 2: they do not believe Yahweh is the only divine being.
Speaker 2: They believe the Hebrew term Elohem, which also means God,
Speaker 2: refers to a different being than Jehovah. As I noted
Speaker 2: in my episode on whether Mormons are atheists, Mormonism can
Speaker 2: best described as a kind of heno theism that recognizes
Speaker 2: multiple divine beings exist, but only one of them deserves
Speaker 2: the highest form of worship. In contrast, Christian Monothy the whole.
Speaker 1: Yahweh maybe just meaning to be or being itself or
Speaker 1: I am. It might kind of clarify some of the
Speaker 1: confusion about the Trinity. And as a recently religious person,
Speaker 1: I'm probably not in the position to like dispense the
Speaker 1: Trinitarian theology. So you know, take this with a grain
Speaker 1: of salt. But if you think about the Father in
Speaker 1: Heaven as being this like kind of like formless, just
Speaker 1: raw being itself, you know, just completely incomprehensible to us,
Speaker 1: and then Jesus being that same spirit but incarnate in
Speaker 1: a human body. So it is it is just like truth.
Speaker 1: It is the essence of true and being and logic.
Speaker 1: That's so. John describes it as the logos in human form,
Speaker 1: so fully God yes, fully human yes, and you know,
Speaker 1: coexistent eternal being. And then the Holy Spirit being like
Speaker 1: the aspect of being itself that animates humans or at
Speaker 1: least humans that are have been blessed with the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't know, Man, Trinity stuff gets a
Speaker 1: little confusing, But I don't know if it were really simple,
Speaker 1: i'd sort of be suspicious of it. But I don't know.
Speaker 1: What do you think.
Speaker 2: Gism believes there is only one divine being who exists
Speaker 2: as three distinct persons, each of whom is worthy of
Speaker 2: the highest form of worship. That's why the Mormon Book
Speaker 2: of Abraham describes the Gods plural organizing the world. Whereas
Speaker 2: genis one to one, says God Eloheim created the world.
Speaker 2: The verse uses the singular verb barrah to note that
Speaker 2: only one being engages in this creation, even though Eloheim
Speaker 2: has plural elements to it, similar to the plural of
Speaker 2: majesty given to ancient kings who would speak of themselves
Speaker 2: with plural pronouns, also known as the royal wei. This
Speaker 2: whole area is technically closed while we're trimming we candy
Speaker 2: tree department.
Speaker 1: See, there is a reason I brought up pronouns earlier.
Speaker 1: It was all an elaborate segue to this video. Oh gosh, no,
Speaker 1: we have an air conditioning commercial. Guys. I'm excited to report.
Speaker 1: I haven't talked about this on this show, but I've
Speaker 1: been building. Fuck, I've been building. What I've been telling
Speaker 1: my wife is an office for her. It's really actually beautiful.
Speaker 1: It's just like kit building. It's an outbuilding and we
Speaker 1: live on a hill and there's retaining walls. So I
Speaker 1: had to dig this insane trench to get power and
Speaker 1: internet out there. But I did it because I just
Speaker 1: want my wife to keep loving me. And this is
Speaker 1: what I've found. This is this is a little bit
Speaker 1: of advice for the young men out there. If you
Speaker 1: would like to be with a woman that's out of
Speaker 1: your leak like I am, you should try to be
Speaker 1: like incredibly useful. I've determined that this is a big
Speaker 1: thing for women. I didn't I didn't know this, so
Speaker 1: I just became useful by accident. But if you could
Speaker 1: be like incredibly useful, which can take many different forms,
Speaker 1: you know, can this can manifest itself in many different arenas.
Speaker 1: But if you can figure out a way to be
Speaker 1: of use, it's quite quite helpful. So anyway, built a
Speaker 1: office for her. But I think you know what I
Speaker 1: think it's it's this air conditioned, is dark, it's got
Speaker 1: cool art on the wall. It's very it's very it's
Speaker 1: got the vibes. You know. Sure would be a good
Speaker 1: little recording studio for a YouTube channel, you know, what
Speaker 1: I mean. You know what I mean. I can't do
Speaker 1: YouTube right now because I got this lame little MacBook
Speaker 1: camera and it's a mess. I'm sitting like in a
Speaker 1: nook off my kitchen right now. You'd be able to
Speaker 1: see my dishes stacked up behind me, so would not work.
Speaker 1: But but the little outbuilding that I told my wife
Speaker 1: is her office is looking pretty good. I can see
Speaker 1: it out my window right now. Podcast Studio Alpha is
Speaker 1: calling my name anyway. Sorry, that segue or that little
Speaker 1: way of killing time. All the commercial plade was unnecessarily long.
Speaker 1: Here we go, just meet today, So you just meant
Speaker 1: like the royally. Yep, that's right.
Speaker 2: However, the division of Eloheim and Yahweh into separate beings
Speaker 2: does not explain how the Hebrew Bible treats them as
Speaker 2: being interchangeable. This includes Exous twenty verse two, which says
Speaker 2: I am Yahweh your eloheka a form of Elohem, and
Speaker 2: Deuteronomy four thirty five, which says yahwehj Elohim or Yahweh
Speaker 2: is Elohim. Now, it is true that early in Biblical history,
Speaker 2: the term Yahweh referred to the God who rescued as
Speaker 2: people from Egypt, while El or Elohim referred to the
Speaker 2: supreme deity of the Canaanites. So in that sense they
Speaker 2: were considered separate beings. But eventually God's people recognize that
Speaker 2: these different names referred to the same being, the one
Speaker 2: supreme creator of all things. What the Canaanites called El,
Speaker 2: the Israelites knew is Yahweh. In fact, the name Israel
Speaker 2: means El rules. This is like when Saint Paul said
Speaker 2: the God he preached was what the Athenians called the
Speaker 2: unknown God. It also helps explain how Christians can say
Speaker 2: Muslims worship God even though Muslims don't completely understand God.
Speaker 2: According to Old Testaments scholar Mark Smith, although the Bible
Speaker 2: fiercely criticizes other pagan deities like ball Quote, there are
Speaker 2: no biblical polemics against El. At an early point, Israelite
Speaker 2: tradition identified L with Yahweh, or presupposed this equation. In
Speaker 2: his book, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, writes,
Speaker 2: it is interesting that the Old Testament has no qualms
Speaker 2: in equating Yahweh with L, something which stands in market
Speaker 2: contrast to its vehement opposition to ball Let alone the
Speaker 2: equation of Yahweh with ball This must reflect a favorable
Speaker 2: judgment on L's characteristic attributes as supreme deity, creator, God,
Speaker 2: and one possessed of wisdom. L was deemed wholly fit
Speaker 2: to be equated with Yahweh. Day goes on to say
Speaker 2: that Yahweh was not a Canaanite deity, but was introduced
Speaker 2: to the land of Canaan and originally came from the
Speaker 2: region of Media, which corresponds to Moses learning God's name
Speaker 2: in Media, since he fled there after killing the Egyptian.
Speaker 2: So to summarize, in scripture, words like Elohem refer to God.
Speaker 2: But the name God revealed to Moses sounded more like
Speaker 2: Yahweh than Jehovah, which was the result of misunderstanding medieval
Speaker 2: Hebrew renderings of the divine name. But in knowing God's name,
Speaker 2: we also have a sacred responsibility to treat that name
Speaker 2: with the utmost respect. The Catechism says this, among all
Speaker 2: the words of revelation, there is one which is unique,
Speaker 2: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to
Speaker 2: those who believe in him. He reveals himself to them
Speaker 2: in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs
Speaker 2: to the order of trust and intimacy. The Lord's name
Speaker 2: is holy for this reason, man must not abuse it.
Speaker 2: Catholics aren't always prohibited from referring to God as Yahweh.
Speaker 2: Since I've said God's name numerous times in this video
Speaker 2: and nothing bad has happened. Hilarious, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Speaker 2: But the Church has sought to preserve the reverence of
Speaker 2: the divine name when it's used in the liturgy, and
Speaker 2: to maintain continuity with the tradition of how it is
Speaker 2: treated in that context. In two thousand and eight, the
Speaker 2: Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship gave an instruction for how
Speaker 2: the name of God should be used in the public
Speaker 2: worship of God. It recounted how Christian Biblical tradition, going
Speaker 2: all the way through the contemporary Latin Vulgate, did not
Speaker 2: translate the divine name, but rendered it some equival of
Speaker 2: the word Lord. The letter says this practice was related
Speaker 2: to remaining faithful to the Church's tradition from the beginning
Speaker 2: that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context.
Speaker 1: Tetragrammaton. That's what I was trying to remember tetra for
Speaker 1: grammaton tetra grammaton next.
Speaker 2: Nor translated into any of the languages into which the
Speaker 2: Bible was translated. The congregation then said, in liturgical celebrations,
Speaker 2: in songs and prayers, the name of God in the
Speaker 2: form of the tetragramraton yhwh is neither to be used
Speaker 2: or pronounced. It then instructs it alternatives like God or
Speaker 2: Lord be used instead. Now it's important to remember that
Speaker 2: it's not intrinsically wrong to utter God's name. God never
Speaker 2: said his name can't be uttered, only that it can't
Speaker 2: be uttered in vain. Moreover, a person can utter the
Speaker 2: name Lord in vain if their heart is set on
Speaker 2: doing that. But the people of God can develop customs
Speaker 2: to encourage holy behavior, and one of those customs was
Speaker 2: to not treat God's personal name like any other name
Speaker 2: we might proclaim in the contexts of the literary Other
Speaker 2: commentaries have noticed what is.
Speaker 1: Happening, All right, I think that's good. I was going
Speaker 1: to play another clip, but I'm kind of tired. I
Speaker 1: told too many stories tonight. Hopefully I didn't offend everyone.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny, sane pro Catholic stuff. I will say,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of more attracted to Orthodoxy because I think
Speaker 1: the pope thing is a little weird, and I think
Speaker 1: celibate priests is a little bit weird. And both churches
Speaker 1: have an equal apostolic claim. So one of them is
Speaker 1: the church that Jesus established. I think. I think that's
Speaker 1: pretty clear. Obviously, you know, half the Christian world disagrees,
Speaker 1: but it seems like one of them is probably the
Speaker 1: true Church that Jesus established. But I will I will
Speaker 1: say nothing pisss off. I've learned. This is new to me.
Speaker 1: I'm learning this in real time. Nothing upsets Christians more
Speaker 1: than you being Catholic, because I'm not Catholic. I'm not.
Speaker 1: But I have been talking to my friend, and I've
Speaker 1: been an atheist the whole time I've been friends with him.
Speaker 1: He's a convicted Seventh day Adventist, which is technically a Protestant,
Speaker 1: although he doesn't really identify that way. Anyone anyone in
Speaker 1: rebellion to the one true Roman Church. The Catholics would
Speaker 1: say is in protest and therefore as a Protestant, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't see that way anyway. He's been an Adventist
Speaker 1: I've been an atheist the whole time we've known each other,
Speaker 1: and then I've I've I've changed changed my ways. He's
Speaker 1: very supportive, but now I'm starting to talk to him
Speaker 1: about Catholic and Orthodox stuff, and he's so mad. He
Speaker 1: is so mad at me. He's way madder at me
Speaker 1: for that than he ever was about may be an atheist.
Speaker 1: So it is just kind of funny. I don't know,
Speaker 1: what do I know? You know, a year from now,
Speaker 1: I might be singing a different tune. But we'll see.
Speaker 1: I just to me, it seems like the natural reading.
Speaker 1: But anyway, we'll leave it there. But so hopefully I
Speaker 1: haven't alienated you all. I'm convinced there's probably only five
Speaker 1: people in the world who could listen to the show
Speaker 1: and actually not be offended by something. So if you're
Speaker 1: not offended, give yourself a pat on the back. That's
Speaker 1: very impressive. You're a resilient, open minded spirit. All right, everybody.
Speaker 1: Hopefully soon I'll be podcasting from the studio. Oh, it
Speaker 1: looks good out there. It's got his own air conditioning
Speaker 1: and heater. I could crank it down to sixty very
Speaker 1: exciting fast internet Ethernet all the way out there, could happen,
Speaker 1: could be doing YouTube soon. I have to clean up
Speaker 1: my act a little bit. If you can see my face,
Speaker 1: I have to be a little bit nicer. Last disclaimer,
Speaker 1: sorry to be annoying. I hope this isn't annoying, but
Speaker 1: I you know, the trans stuff is very controversial. I
Speaker 1: don't know, man, I don't know. I'm not a hater.
Speaker 1: I think I kind of shared. You probably can guess
Speaker 1: kind of my sense of things, but you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not a hater. It's a relatively new phenomenon. Can we
Speaker 1: admit that, at least at the scale that it's at.
Speaker 1: And technically, if you really really wanted to confuse a
Speaker 1: person who is very supportive of like medically and surgically
Speaker 1: transitioning people, I think you could say that they are
Speaker 1: and this is I think is true. They're actually potentially
Speaker 1: systematically performing a genocide against homosexual individuals. And the reason is,
Speaker 1: what little evidence there is on this topic is that
Speaker 1: most people who experience gender dys for you as a child,
Speaker 1: will grow into a gay adult. And so if you,
Speaker 1: if you were to systematically affirm these impulses and children,
Speaker 1: you would technically eradicate eradicate homosexuality. So what you say is,
Speaker 1: are you trying to give those Republicans what they want?
Speaker 1: Is that what you're trying to do? Monster? I love
Speaker 1: arguments like that that kind of give you a new
Speaker 1: perspective on things. I don't know why I brought this up.
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have anyway. Email me, tell me where I've
Speaker 1: gone wrong. Send your hate mail directly to me. I
Speaker 1: I enjoy it. I'll take it seriously. I'll read it.
Speaker 1: I'll respond, I'll say sorry, it's okay, go ahead, talk
Speaker 1: to you later. Stay safe out there. God bless