While the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, however, there were times when the Israelites did venture off into worship of the heathen gods. The account is Numbers 25:1-4:

Israel abode in Shittim; and the people began to play the prostitute with the daughters of Moab: for they called the people to the sacrifices of their gods; and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods.
Israel joined himself to Baal-peor: and the anger of Yahwah was kindled against Israel. Yahwah said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up to Yahwah before the sun, that the fierce anger of Yahwah may turn away from Israel. Moses said to the judges of Israel, Kill you everyone his men who have joined themselves to Baal-peor.

Who was this god called "Baal-peor" (Baal of Peor)? According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, Baal-peor means "Lord of the opening"*, a god of the Moabites (Numbers 25:3; 31:16; Joshua 22:17) According to the Jamieson, Faussett, Brown commentary: "-- Baal was a general name for "lord," and Peor for a "mount" in Moab.

The real name of the idol was Chemosh, and his rites of worship were celebrated by the grossest obscenity. In participating in this festival, then, the Israelites committed the double offense of idolatry and licentiousness."** Yahweh gave the Israelites a great lesson in his jealousy by the execution of all who had joined themselve to Baal ("Lord") worship.

*Easton, Matthew George. "Entry for Baal-peor". Easton's Bible Dictionary. http://www.biblestudytools.net/Dictionaries/EastonBibleDictionary/ebd.cgi?number=T398. **Jamieson, Robert, D.D. "Commentary on Numbers 25". Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=nu&chapter=025. 1871.

Why is all this important? Because to call upon the divine name involves worship. For a worshipper of Yahwah to call upon the name of another god in opposition to him, as shown here, Baal (meaning, Lord, Master), does provoke Yahwah's anger. Please note the word "Baal" or "Lord", of itself, is not what angered God, but rather the use of this word in the act of calling upon a false god. In other words, the Hebrew scriptures often uses the word "baal" as a title or description of various ones who are in some position as lord or master.

Was The Divine Name Removed in the New Testament?
The statement is often made that no one has removed the divine name from the New Testament. And yet, if one looks closely at the scriptures it becomes apparent that this is not so. Why do we state this? Because, if no one removed the name from the New Testament, when the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament scriptures that contain the divine name, we would find the divine name in those New Testament scriptures. But we don't, so it is self-apparent that the divine name has been removed in the New Testament.

For instance, let us look at Matthew 4:7:Read According to The KJV.
Messiah said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'" -- Matthew 4:7, World English Bible translation (WEB).
Here Messiah quotes Deuteronomy 6:16: "You shall not tempt Yahwah your God." It is evident that someone replaced the divine name here in the Greek with a form of Kurios, without the definite article as it appears in the English. Someone had to remove it, else we would find some form of the Divine Name in this verse instead of Kurios. The question is who? Did Messiah remove it? Did Matthew remove it? Or did someone else later remove it?

Let us now look at Matthew 22:37:
Messiah said to him, "'You shall love the Lord (Kurios) your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
Here Messiah quotes Deuteronomy 6:5: "You shall love Yahwah your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Again, it is self-evident that the divine name has been replaced with Kurios. The question is not if someone replaced it. The question is "who?" Should we think that Messiah replaced it? Should we think that Messiah followed the disobedient Jews in replacing the divine name with Kurios? Should we think that Matthew himself replaced the divine name?

Let us look at another scripture, Matthew 23:39:
For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you will say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' Here Messiah quotes the name of the God in whose name he came. Directly it is from Psalm 118:26: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of Yahwah." So again, there is a subsitution of the very name of God. Again, it is not a question of if, since it is obvious that the name is not there, but it is a question of "who?" Did Jesus substitute the divine name with Kurios? Did Matthew? Or did someone else do so?

There is something else we need to note concerning Jesus' statement in Matthew 23:39. Indirectly, it is a confirmation of Deuteronomy 18:15-20: "Yahwah your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; according to all that you desired of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahwah my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die.

Yahwah said to me, They have well said that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die."

According to these words, if the prophet came in another name than Yahwah, then he was to be put to death. It is obvious that "Kurios" in Matthew 23:39 would define the name that Messiah came in. But did Messiah actually say that he had come in the name of a god by the name of Kurios, or did Messiah say he had come in the name of Yahwah, as foretold in Deuteronomy, and thus someone else later changed what he said to "Kurios"?

It is claimed in John 8:58 Jesus applies the name Yahwah to himself, but use of the Greek term, "ego eimi". This is then cross-referenced with Exodus 3:14, where Yahweh uses the first person of Hayah (EHYEH), which is usually translated as "I am" by most translators. In reality, Messiah never says that his name is Ego Eimi, in any form or shape that is similar to Yahweh's statement that his name is EHYEH in Exodus 3:14. This thought has to be added to and read into John 8:58. That John 8:58 has no reference to Exodus 3:14 has been dealt with thoroughly in our study: "I am" in John 8:58

The next scripture is John 17:11:
I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

As this reads in the above translation, it appears that God has given God's name to Messiah. If this were really what Messiah was saying, then this would not mean that God changed his name to Jesus, but rather that Messiah would have the name "Yahweh". In other words, if this scripture be taken that God gave his name (Yahwah) to his Son, then we should be calling his Son by the name of Yahwah, not Jesus.

Actually, many other translations make it clearer as to what Jesus was talking about:
And no more am I in the world, and these are in the world, and I come unto Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, whom Thou hast given to me, that they may be one as we; -- Young's Literal

[NOTE:]
If the name of Yahweh had been replaced by the name of Jesus, then Matthew 23:39 would read: "For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you will say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jesus."

Romans 10:13 would have read:
For, "Whoever will call on the name of Jesus will be saved."

Mark 12:29 would have read:
Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, Jesus our God, Jesus is one."

Luke 4:12 would have read:
Jesus answering, said to him, "It has been said, 'You shall not tempt Jesus your God.'"

Luke 4:18 would have read:
"The Spirit of Jesus is on me, Because he anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed,

What about Romans 10:13? Does the context of this verse show that the Lord here refers to Jesus? Only if that is what one sees in it. The reference to Joel 2:32 shows that "Yahwah" is being replace by "kurios".

Romans 10:13 - For, "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord [Greek, kuriou, without an article] will be saved."
Joel 2:32 - It will happen that whoever will call on the name of Yahwah shall be saved; For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, As Yahwah has said, And among the remnant, those whom Yahwah calls.
Romans 10:13: For, "Whoever will call on the name of Yahwah will be saved."

This brings us to the scripture in question. Paul here makes reference to whoever will call upon the name of Yahwah will be saved. If we consider scriptures leading up to this scripture, it should be plain that Paul is making reference to Yahweh, the God of Israel, with whom both Jew and Gentile needs reconciliation. That reconciliation, however, as the apostle points out, is by faith, not by the keeping of the law. While we highly doubt that Paul substituted "Kurios" here for God's name, even if he did it is evident that he is referring to Yahweh, for it is Yahwah with whom both Jew and Gentile needs to be reconciled


I want to point out and dismiss the concept of rejecting the name we had been taught ("God") in favor of "Yahwah" as somewhat cultic, but our familiarity with a verse in the book of I Thessalonians stirred in us a desire to at least check it out together, prayerfully and diligently. In I Thessalonians 5:21 we are told, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Many of us were shocked to learn that "God" is not the Creator’s name at all, despite its common appearance in most English Bibles. Not only do Bibles insert "God" where our Creator’s TITLE (Elohim) appears, but they wrongly insert a TITLE (the LORD) where His NAME appears.

learned that His name is not and never was "God," other truths began to surface. I learned the truth regarding a Babylonian/Canaanite deity of fortune named "God," and of how this idol is mentioned in Scripture, but translators cleverly concealed its name. Isn’t it interesting that the name we are taught as belonging to the Creator of the universe turns out to be the name of a Babylonian deity worshipped by those who "forsake Yahwah" (Isaiah 65:11)? Not only this, but translators "hid" Yahwah’s name and replaced it with "the LORD," then "hid" the name of the Babylonian deity of fortune, apparently to justify inserting it as a "proper translation" of the Hebrew title "Elohim."

They took out His name (Yahwah), replaced it with a title (the LORD), then took the name of a false idol (God) and inserted that name as a title for Yahwah, but most people in our society commonly regard that title as actually being His name, because they know the title that has been substituted for His name (the LORD) is clearly just that: a title!

"God" is rendered as a translation of the Hebrew title "Elohim." To make their cover-up complete, the translators removed all evidence of there having been a heathen deity named "God." The result: Millions of people today sincerely, yet wrongly, believe our Creator’s name is "God."

"We ought to be willing to admit that the Hebrew titles elohim and adonay can be translated into English as god and lord."

The King James Version translators erroneously rendered the Hebrew word pronounced "GAWD" in that verse as "that troop."6 The translators of other versions, at least recognizing "God" as the deity of fortune, simply rendered the Hebrew word as "Fortune," thus perpetrating the error of not transliterating the name of this idol.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, where the word appears as word #1408 in the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. Other reputable references, however, such as The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, refer to this deity as a Canaanite deity. Information gleaned from A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D., Volume II, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1899, article "Gad," p. 76, offers the following evidence that God was originally the name of a Canaanite idol:

In our English-speaking world we have been taught that the saving name of the Redeemer of Israel is “Jesus.” So accepted is this name that few stop to consider its authenticity.

But the truth is, there is indeed “something about that Name.” That “something” is the inescapable fact that the Savior’s name is not Jesus, and never was. What’s more, the Name of the Heavenly Father is not Jehovah, a designation that is only five centuries old.

Churchianity has so thoroughly immersed the world in the error of this tradition for the past 500 years that few even think to research the matter or to consider the consequences of calling on the wrong name. As a result, most continue believing that the Hebrew Savior is called by a Latinized Greek name that could not possibly have existed at the time He walked the earth. It’s a name that would have been completely foreign to Him.

Eminent French historian, scholar, and archaeologist Ernest Renan acknowledges that the Savior was never in His lifetime called “Jesus.” In his book, The Life of Jesus, Renan doubts that the Savior even spoke Greek (p.90). Greek was mostly the language of business and commerce in cosmopolitan circles.

As for the Father’s Name, the hybrid “Jehovah” came into existence through the ignorance of Christian writers who did not understand the Old Testament Hebrew. Credit for the error is given to Petrus Galatinus, confessor to Pope Leo X in the 16th century.

Paul wrote that Yahwah has given His Son a Name that is above every name, Philippians 2:9. The prophet Malachi tells us that if we will not give glory unto Yahwah’s Name that He would send a curse upon us (2:2).

Among the many reasons that both “Jesus” and “Jehovah” are erroneous is the simple fact that they begin with the letter J, the most recent letter added to our English alphabet. The Savior’s name could not begin with the letter J because it did not exist when He was born –not even a thousand years later! All good dictionaries and encyclopedias show that the letter J and its sound are of late origin.

The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:
“The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J, I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J, I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.”

The New Book of Knowledge reads:
“J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, is the youngest of the 26 letters. It is a descendant of the letter I and was not generally considered a separate letter until the 17th century. The early history of the letter J is the same as the history of the letter I. I is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter yod and the Greek letter iota” (Vol. 10, 1992 ed.).

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language says about the J:
“The tenth letter of the English alphabet developed as a variant form of I in Medieval Latin, and except for the preference for the J as an initial letter, the two were used interchangeably, both serving to represent the vowel (i) and the consonant (y). Later, through specialization, it came to be distinguished as a separate sign, acquiring its present phonetic value under the influence of the French.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, under “J,” offers additional information:
“J, a letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! Jung, & c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are of foreign (mostly French) origin, as ‘jaundice,’ ‘judge’”…(p.103).

The King James Version and other Bibles employ the Latinized-Greek “Jesus.” But the facts of etymology prove that this cannot be His true name. If the King James and other Bibles are in error in calling the Savior “Jesus,” how did the error come about? And how can we determine exactly what that precious Name is?

The fact is, the first copies of the 1611 King James Bible did not use the letter J
The Bible clearly reveals that salvation is available in only one name: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

This original Name has been made a hybrid by translators and changed to the Latinized, Grecianized name Jesus – a name that came into our language about the time of Christopher Columbus.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary: “Jesus [Gk. Iesous]. Several persons mentioned in the Bible bear this name, which is a Greek form of Joshua (Heb. Yehosua; cf. the Gk of Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8)…’Jesus Christ’ is a composite name made up of the personal name ‘Jesus’ (from the Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yesu(a), a late form of Hebrew yehosua, the meaning of which is ‘YHWH is salvation’

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible: “Jeshua: An Aramaic form of the name Joshua, meaning ‘Yahweh is salvation.’ It occurs only in postexilic biblical literature, which supports the later origin of the name. Joshua, the son of Nun, is referred to in one passage as Jeshua (Neh. 8:17)” (p.444).

New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, “OT Iesous is the Gk. Form of the OT Jewish name Yesua, arrived at by transcribing the Heb. And adding an –s to the nominative to facilitate declension. Yesua (Joshua) seems to have come into general use about the time of the Babylonian exile in place of the older Yehosua. The LXX rendered both the ancient and more recent forms of the name uniformly as Iesous. Joshua the son of Nun, who according to the tradition was Moses’ successor and completed his work in the occupation of the promised land by the tribes of Israel, appears under this name…It is the oldest name containing the divine name Yahweh, and means ‘Yahweh is help’ or ‘Yahweh is salvation’ (cf. the verb yasa, help save). Joshua also appears in one post-exilic passage in the Heb. OT (Neh. 8:17) as Yesua the son of Nun, and not as in the older texts, Yehosua” (Vol. 2, pp.330-331).

In Strange Facts About the Bible, author Garrison notes on page 81: “In its English form, ‘Jesus’ goes back to church Latin Iesus which is a transliteration of the Greek Iesous. But in its original Hebrew form it was Y’hoshua (‘Yahweh saves’), frequently abbreviated to Joshua…”

Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary: “Jesus –The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel.”

The prefix Yah is the short or poetic form of YAH-weh the Heavenly Father’s Name as found in HalleluYAH and in names of many Biblical personalities, as we will see. Thus, the Savior’s Name begins with the prefix “Yah” that begins Yahwah’s Name, as revealed in Psalm 68:4: “Sing unto Elohim, sing praises to his name: extol him that rides upon the heavens by his name JAH [YAH], and rejoice before him.”

The following reasons clearly show why the name Jesus could never have been the Savior’s Name:
Þ There is no letter J or equivalent in Hebrew.
Þ There is no letter J or equivalent in Greek.
Þ There was no letter J in English until about 500 years ago.
Þ “Jesus,” an etymological hybrid from Greek and Latin, has no inherent, etymological meaning in Greek or Latin, not to mention Hebrew or English.

Would a celestial being announce the coming Savior to Jews who spoke Hebrew (or Aramaic), proclaiming a Romanized, Grecian name beginning with a letter J that did not exist, but would originate in a European tongue 1500 years later? Remember it was to Israel, a Semitic people who spoke and understood Hebrew, that His saving Name was first revealed.

Þ Would HEBREW parents give their baby a hybridized GREEK name devoid of any meaning – especially such an important name that would identify the very Savior of the world?

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains, “Iesous is the Greek form of the Old Testament Jewish name Yesua [Yahshua]

But where did Yahshua come from ? No where in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Nor New that we are aware of at all ...did the name Yahwah ever appear connected with other words..as in Yah Shua...it was made up...from Yahwah Lela Shua meaning Yah Salvation Or Yahwah is my Salvation! So his name could not have been Yahshua or the short form Yeshua...jesus ..iesus...iesous...or any such name but only be named the same name of the father cause he was indeed Yahwah in the Flesh according to 1 Tim. 3:16

Think About This ..why would hebrew parents name a child ...who was to have a name that was above all others ... as we mentioned before...and have a name that was common as smith ... many folks are named Jesus in one form or another and have been for many many years.

Is it not significant that even though these Hebrew names were Grecianized, that they still are recognizable? Why then in English versions does Yahweh’s Name become changed to a completely foreign “God,” while “Yahshua” mutates into “Jesus,” a substitute that is not even close to the original?

If The Messiahs name was to be a name above every name as quoted in Scripture then why would it be a common name as Yahshua or Jesus?

If we believe the word in the Old Testament That Yahwah says there is no other god ...and no saviour beside him ... and we believe that Yahwah is the father...and according to 1 Tim. 3:16 was manifest in the Flesh as Messiah ...then his name would be one name!

Zec 12:10 ~i;l'v.Wr.y bevw{y l;[.w dyiw'D tyeB-l;[ yiT.k;p'v.w .Wr'q'D-r,v]a tea y;lea .WjyiBih.w ~yin.Wn]x;t.w !ex ;x.Wr rem'h.w dyix'Y;h-l;[ deP.sim.K wy'l'[ .Wd.p's.w rw{k.B;h-l;[ rem'h.K wy'l'[

Zech. 12:10
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

This is Yahwah speaking prophetically about a future event in the future.
Look at Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Re 1:7 jIdou; e~rcetai meta; tw'n nefelw'n, kai; o~yetai aujto;n pa'ß ojfqalmo;ß kai; oi&tineß aujto;n ejxekevnthsan, kai; kovyontai ejpj aujto;n pa'sai aiJ fulai; th'ß gh'ß. naiv, ajmhvn.

This is the very same scripture that was spoken of in Zech. 12:10 The same Yahwah but speaking as the messiah.
Re 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Now Remember that Messiah is speaking but here in this verse ... Lord replaced the name of Yahwah.
Messiah said this in ...John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name
In the preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is the following: “The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” pp. 6-7.

The Emphasized Bible, editor Joseph Rotherham writes, “The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, against grammatical and historical propriety.” Rotherham continues his analysis of this ghost word, “Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowel in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for YHWH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name…To give the name YHWH the vowels of the word for Lord

New Testament NOT Originally Written in Greek!
Very early in history, even before the Messiah, Greek had become a world language. Alexander the Great conquered the lands east and south of Greece, establishing Hellenistic culture and society as far as the Indus River and south into Egypt.

The koine or common Greek dialect prevailed, becoming dominant in the wake of Alexander’s exploits. Greek survived the ravages of Roman persecution, as well as the crusades, and continued to be spoken up to the time of the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean area.

Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Rome crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E. The Roman army destroyed anything Jewish, especially religious scrolls and books, including their Torah. This was followed by the Catholic inquisitions in Europe, eradicating anything Jewish. The crusaders made fair game of the Jews, ruthlessly destroying any vestiges of Hebrew writings.

Thus, between the suppression carried out by the Romans and the later Crusades, any Hebrew copies of both Old and New Testament writings were lost. Only Greek copies survived. Neither are there any original Hebrew Old Testaments manuscripts, only copies of copies of copies.

An increasing number of competent Bible scholars now agree with scholar Charles Cutler Torrey (Documents of the Primitive Church) that the New Testament in whole or part was first written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek.