Known only through Scripture.
God is by essence one. For this reason he cannot enter into the world of the gods as one among many; he cannot have one name among others. "I am who I am"—he is without any qualification.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The sound of God's name
- Thread starter Ashley Mathura
- Start date
Known only through Scripture.
God is by essence one. For this reason he cannot enter into the world of the gods as one among many; he cannot have one name among others. "I am who I am"—he is without any qualification.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Yes, they are equally as powerful... which is to say that neither has any inherent power at all.
Profound Realization
Active Member
"God" is just a word. "Name" in my perception would refer to "nature or character."
jackvincent
Member
Chanting God’s various names as a mantra will bring you closer to the Divine. Our languages come out of nature which is direct link to the Creator. Base languages like Sanskrit will always yield “better” results than more advanced languages like English. Look into root words as well.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Yes, there is a verse from the upanishads,
"oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate"
"He who is complete here, is complete there. From complete emanates only completeness. If one takes a complete portion from the complete, then what only remains is also complete"
Many interpretations, but our school of Vsishnavism interprets this as follows.
God, is complete and perfect, and so are His associated characteristics, like His Name, Form, Qualities and Pastimes. They are non-different and equal in power to Him. God Name is ontologically equal to God (both the syllables and the sound). When God descends into this world as an Avatar, His Name also descends. It isSad-Cid-Amanda (eternal, conscious and blissful).
In fact the Name is more merciful than God Himself, because we can call on His Name at any time, any place. It is the most sublime form of practice in this age.
"oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate"
"He who is complete here, is complete there. From complete emanates only completeness. If one takes a complete portion from the complete, then what only remains is also complete"
Many interpretations, but our school of Vsishnavism interprets this as follows.
God, is complete and perfect, and so are His associated characteristics, like His Name, Form, Qualities and Pastimes. They are non-different and equal in power to Him. God Name is ontologically equal to God (both the syllables and the sound). When God descends into this world as an Avatar, His Name also descends. It isSad-Cid-Amanda (eternal, conscious and blissful).
In fact the Name is more merciful than God Himself, because we can call on His Name at any time, any place. It is the most sublime form of practice in this age.
Jedster
Flying through space
Cool!
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
since some are deaf and blind i would imagine a feeling would be most effective
Ashley Mathura
New Member
Yes - the written name.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Isn't it the same thing. The sound of the word "God" doesn't seem that powerful. But, maybe I am missing something.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Do you mean like if God's name was a visual only phenomenon? Or like if God's audio only version is less powerful than if it was visual and auditory? Or like if God's name has an inaudible fragrance? Or like if God's name is just a thought form that takes whatever physical form it happens to take, then would it matter?
And powerful in what way? What is the effect of God's name? And how is that effect more or less powerful in it's audio only format? I assume you don't refer to the volume of the auditory manifestation? Obviously, a loud enough sound can have some pretty potent effects on the environment. And if you don't mean the volume at which God's name manifests, then is there at least a minimum volume requirement? Or a specific volume requirement (so if God's name manifested below the threshold of human hearing it would still be just as "powerful")? Maybe the sound of God's name has a powerful effect when it is at the right volume to be heard and understood by someone who is listening.
So if I say , "Hey Ashley!" does it have an effect if you don't hear me say it? And if the physical manifestation of God's name is not what makes it powerful, then I suppose that it doesn't matter. The sound exists only because it is manifesting the essential, immaterial, transcendental form.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Apparently I was less clear than I intended. Sorry about that.
My question was whether you were certain that the proper translation of G-d's response to Moses' question, אהיה אשר אהיה, is "I am who I am".
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I'm interested in what you think about it. Please elaborate.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
We name god for our own convenience.
I believe this is Moses' interpretation of his mystical experience of God. To be 'certain' of the "I am who I am" one would have to believe that God spoke 'words'. I do not.
Yohanan ben Yaaqov
Member
The Hebrew phrase – אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה – ʾeh’yeh ʾăsher ʾeh’yeh as found in Sh’mot 3:14 is I shall be that which I shall be. Just for the record there is no way to say “I am” in Hebrew, therefore “I am who I am” or “I am that I am” are deceitful translations.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Now I am being to feel a little frustrated at my lack of communication skills. Let me try again.
According to the Torah (Exodus 3:14), the response from G-d -be it heard, or intuited, or interpreted by Moses - regarding the question as to whom Moses should say sent him was - אהיה אשר אהיה
You indicated in your posts that the response of G-d, translated into English, to the question was to say "I am" or more fully "I am who I am." I simply asked the question whether you were certain that the translation you used for Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (the transliteration of the Hebrew) was correct.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
I would suggest you take a deep breath and then eat a prune danish with a nice cup of hot tea. It will help calm you down.
There is a big difference between being deceitful and simply being incorrect.
Last edited:
Yohanan ben Yaaqov
Member
The fact that every single instance of the word, outside the three occurrences in Sh'mot 3:14, is translated correctly, is proof enough to me that they are being deceitful. They are purposefully mistranslating it "I am" in order to connect it with John 8:58. That is deceptive.
Then would you explain this;
Thus, in v. 13, he is asking God a very specific and pointed question: "What is your name?" God’s answer, however, is anything but straightforward:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. 3:14
אֶהְיֶה.
And God said to Moses, "I am what I am."
Much of the Gospels are a translation using the Septuagint, not the Hebrew.
.