Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:38 am**

Good point, Neo. I guess then to a degree we can classify that usage under the "probably no longer need to follow that so closely", because that sort of ritualistic/theocratic society no longer exists for Christianity.

Yes, in a theocratic society, God/authority/religion/law are tied into one construct AS A MUST, which is the system of the society. We can ignore the most strict literal meaning of the passage because the original meaning covered everything from slandering to lying in God's name and so on and so forth to strictly not take the name of God in vain, therefore the Israelites took great caution when they spelled YHWH or Yahweh, both verbally and in written form.

Though I would be curious, does that mean that the core meaning of the commandment has changed its focus with the times? Or gained new meaning? Or is my view of it simply totally off-base from the intended command?

The meaning is the same only the strictness of the application of this rule has changed. Your view lies in the middle of the whole intended meaning of the commandment, so does mine as we do not live in that culture anymore. In a theocratic society, the meaning would still be the same because in that context, the conditions to revere authority would be met in the fullest possible manner that it should.

For example, if you are in front of the queen of England, you can not say her first name without her proper title, it would come with Her majesty or her royal highness and other titles.

i.e "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith"

You have to realize that to Israel, even though they had human leaders, God was the ultimate authority and the final word. He was the king of Israel therefore to address him, one must take caution as they were to address the king and not only king, as in this instance it was God himself. Who was the king and the creator. To the Jew of that time, it was the utmost authority there was and as holy as it can get. And this reality exhibited their daily lives and culture.

So at one hand formal/legal dialogue required that the kings name (in this case God's name) be not taken in vain. And on the other hand the comand covered the spiritual side of matters as one must not slander or take the name of God for personal profit, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud and etc. So the same command addressed two sides of the picture, one social and legal, the other personal and spiritual.

Hope this clears it up.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:33 am**

Wow.

I had always taught the third commandment to refer to making false vows--vows in the name of God uselessly, and I paraphrased it for modern hearers as "Do not invoke God's Name if you don't really mean it." I then connected that to Jesus' later comments on not even making a vow, but just always tell the truth.

So after reading this thread, I decided to look the verse back up. Boy, was I wrong.

The commandment has nothing to do with speech. You can see that even in English. Don't take the Lord's name in vain. It doesn't say don't use it vainly. I then checked Deut. 14:1-21, where Moses expounds on that commandment with some specifics to illustrate how it might be violated. Sure enough, nothing there about speech. It has to do with not acting like pagans.

So God is talking to Israel. He tells them to not take His Name in vain. By extension, don't act like everyone else. That is, don't call yourselves the Chosen People--the Royal Priesthood--and act like everyone else. By way of analogy, when a woman takes her husband's name, she is identifying herself with him. I then checked the LXX to see how it rendered the verse, and there it becomes obvious that is exactly how it was understood. For they translate the word "to take" with "to receive" (lambano). That is, "Do not receive the Lord's Name vainly." Again, neither the Hebrew nor Greek or English translations have anything to do with speech, but rather with taking/receiving.

The modern application has nothing to do with speaking (much less writing) God's name. It has everything to do with not calling yourself a child of God and acting like a child of the world. Don't take God's name to yourself (for us, "Christian") and then act in a way contrary to that name.

I learned something today.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:01 am**

Jac3510 wrote:Wow.

I had always taught the third commandment to refer to making false vows--vows in the name of God uselessly, and I paraphrased it for modern hearers as "Do not invoke God's Name if you don't really mean it." I then connected that to Jesus' later comments on not even making a vow, but just always tell the truth.

So after reading this thread, I decided to look the verse back up. Boy, was I wrong.

The commandment has nothing to do with speech. You can see that even in English. Don't take the Lord's name in vain. It doesn't say don't use it vainly. I then checked Deut. 14:1-21, where Moses expounds on that commandment with some specifics to illustrate how it might be violated. Sure enough, nothing there about speech. It has to do with not acting like pagans.

So God is talking to Israel. He tells them to not take His Name in vain. By extension, don't act like everyone else. That is, don't call yourselves the Chosen People--the Royal Priesthood--and act like everyone else. By way of analogy, when a woman takes her husband's name, she is identifying herself with him. I then checked the LXX to see how it rendered the verse, and there it becomes obvious that is exactly how it was understood. For they translate the word "to take" with "to receive" (lambano). That is, "Do not receive the Lord's Name vainly." Again, neither the Hebrew nor Greek or English translations have anything to do with speech, but rather with taking/receiving.

The modern application has nothing to do with speaking (much less writing) God's name. It has everything to do with not calling yourself a child of God and acting like a child of the world. Don't take God's name to yourself (for us, "Christian") and then act in a way contrary to that name.

I learned something today.

I agree, BUT I don't think it is a case of either/or.
It can most certainly be both.
We do NOT take being a Christian lightly, being a Christian in name only.
That is taking ( for ourselves) the Lord's name in Vain.
But it is also quite correct to understand the severity of using the Lord's name without due reverence and using it to make promises we can't keep.
To swear an oath/promise in The name of Our Lord holds us accountable to the HS and to break that is to blasphemy against the HS, and we all know what THAT means.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:11 am**

So God is talking to Israel. He tells them to not take His Name in vain. By extension, don't act like everyone else. That is, don't call yourselves the Chosen People--the Royal Priesthood--and act like everyone else. By way of analogy, when a woman takes her husband's name, she is identifying herself with him. I then checked the LXX to see how it rendered the verse, and there it becomes obvious that is exactly how it was understood. For they translate the word "to take" with "to receive" (lambano). That is, "Do not receive the Lord's Name vainly." Again, neither the Hebrew nor Greek or English translations have anything to do with speech, but rather with taking/receiving.

wow, I learned something new too from this. Thank you for sharing it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:13 am**

Do you know when you read something, and a little "light bulb" turns on in your head? You know, when you look at something in a different way, and it all of a sudden makes sense? Well, that's exactly what just happened here. Jac, you opened my eyes to something that I hadn't thought about before. I think what you said makes perfect sense, about taking the Lord's name in vain.
I looked at it from the perspective you gave, and then looked at the 10 commandments here, in Exodus 20:

1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 ¶ I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 ¶ Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 ¶ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: Ex. 34.17 · Lev. 19.4 ; 26.1 · Deut. 4.15-18 ; 27.15 for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Ex. 34.6, 7 · Num. 14.18 · Deut. 7.9, 10
7 ¶ Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: Lev. 19.12 for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 ¶ Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Ex. 16.23-30 ; 31.12-14
9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
10 but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, Ex. 23.12 ; 31.15 ; 34.21 ; 35.2 · Lev. 23.3 thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Gen. 2.1-3 · Ex. 31.17
12 ¶ Honor thy father and thy mother: Deut. 27.16 · Mt. 15.4 ; 19.19 · Mk. 7.10 ; 10.19 · Lk. 18.20 · Eph. 6.2 that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Eph. 6.3
13 ¶ Thou shalt not kill. Gen. 9.6 · Lev. 24.17 · Mt. 5.21 ; 19.18 · Mk. 10.19 · Lk. 18.20 · Rom. 13.9 · Jas. 2.11
14 ¶ Thou shalt not commit adultery. Lev. 20.10 · Mt. 5.27 ; 19.18 · Mk. 10.19 · Lk. 18.20 · Rom. 13.9 · Jas. 2.11
15 ¶ Thou shalt not steal. Lev. 19.11 · Mt. 19.18 · Mk. 10.19 · Lk. 18.20 · Rom. 13.9
16 ¶ Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Ex. 23.1 · Mt. 19.18 · Mk. 10.19 · Lk. 18.20
17 ¶ Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7.7 ; 13.9 thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Jac, your explanation makes perfect sense, especially when we look at the 10 Commandments, and Israel. God set apart Israel. The 10 commandments were given, by God, to Israel. They were given specifically to Israel as a nation that God wanted to bring out of, and separate from the pagan world.
Don't take God's name in vain. Don't claim to follow the Lord, and act like the pagans, because then you(Israel) wouldn't be set apart from them.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:23 am**

PaulSacramento wrote:I agree, BUT I don't think it is a case of either/or.
It can most certainly be both.
We do NOT take being a Christian lightly, being a Christian in name only.
That is taking ( for ourselves) the Lord's name in Vain.
But it is also quite correct to understand the severity of using the Lord's name without due reverence and using it to make promises we can't keep.
To swear an oath/promise in The name of Our Lord holds us accountable to the HS and to break that is to blasphemy against the HS, and we all know what THAT means.

I would agree that is a fair application of what the passage means. We wouldn't be taking our Christianity very seriously if we invoked Christ's name needlessly, now would we? But I think what I said above is the proper interpretation. It means don't call yourself a child of God and not act like it. There are lots of applications of that--one of which is not to speak irreverently about God or Christ.

In that regard, I don't think the God/G-d issue is a matter of proper interpretation of the Third Commandment. The question is whether or not it is a proper application. That is, since we ought not speak of God irreverently, are we being irreverent when we say "God." I think cheezerox made it clear that he doesn't think that is the case. For him, it's just a reminder not to do so. If so, then so long as those who choose to use G-d rather than God don't accuse those of us who say God of being irreverent (and so long as we don't accuse those who use G-d of legalism), we're on safe grounds. At least, that's the way it appears to me, having looked at the passage freshly today.

neo-x wrote:wow, I learned something new too from this. Thank you for sharing it.

You are welcome. I'm always amazed at the importance of just taking the Bible at face value . . . things usually become much clearer when we can identify assumptions and get rid of them. Usually, I think, our assumptions are what get in the way of clearly understanding a passage! This one is no exception. I mean, I could still be wrong, and that's why I submitted it here to see what you all think, but yeah . . . I think that's the original idea.

RickD wrote:Jac, your explanation makes perfect sense, especially when we look at the 10 Commandments, and Israel. God set apart Israel. The 10 commandments were given, by God, to Israel. They were given specifically to Israel as a nation that God wanted to bring out of, and separate from the pagan world.
Don't take God's name in vain. Don't claim to follow the Lord, and act like the pagans, because then you(Israel) wouldn't be set apart from them.

Right. That's what really made it click for me, too, Rick--the purpose of the commandments. Cf. Exod. 19:5-6, which says explicitly what you just said here--God was using the Ten Commandments (along with the rest of the Law) to set them apart. So "taking God's Name" for themselves and acting like the pagans would nullify the entire Law, essentially!

I realize we aren't under the Law, but I think the modern application is still there. Don't Christians do that all the time? Don't we take Christ's name to ourselves, calling ourselves Christians, and then turn around and act like everyone else, essentially nullifying our witness?!?

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:30 am**

neo-x wrote:
wow, I learned something new too from this. Thank you for sharing it.

You are welcome. I'm always amazed at the importance of just taking the Bible at face value . . . things usually become much clearer when we can identify assumptions and get rid of them. Usually, I think, our assumptions are what get in the way of clearly understanding a passage! This one is no exception. I mean, I could still be wrong, and that's why I submitted it here to see what you all think, but yeah . . . I think that's the original idea.

I agree, sometimes the plainest statements are often looked over.

Evidence for God from Science

Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?

Re: Is God's name God?