YaHWeH Restoration Ministry - Removing The Fog of Religion

New Covenant Followers
Servantsofyahshua.com
Go to content

YaHWeH Restoration Ministry

Answers to My Questions
The Father's Identity -- the Messiah's Identity

My email is after this short response response, see below, then come back and read this response from Elder Randy folliard.
_________________________

Dan,

Thank you for the email. The Bible has already  been submitted to the publisher. We did place the book/chapter reference  in the header to the outside of the page, Regarding your understanding  of the Father, I disagree. The Father in the OT is the same Father that  Yahshua revealed. Our rendering of theos is based in scholarship. The  issue with rendering this word "Father" is that it doesn't reflect this  meaning.

Shalom,
Elder Randy Folliard

--

First_Name : Dan
Last_Name : Baxley
Email : dan@servantsofyahshua.com
Subject : Study Bible

Message  : This is old mail.  I sent this to you some time back, after receiving  my copy of the Restored study bible.  I never received a reply back so I  assumed it got lost.  Here it is again -- this time by email --

I  am writing you via snail mail because I could not get through on the  â€œcontact page†.  My original email only had the first four points  listed below and I tried several time over two days to submit my  suggestions and to congratulate you on such a fine effort.

Love  this new version.  Looks and feels rich.  Great Job.  I have a couple  of suggestions for a Study Bible and maybe you might consider the  following when it is time for a 'revision'.

1. Place a page between the OT and NT with a list of OT verses pointing to YaHshua as Messiah.
2. Place  the Book title heading to the top outside corner, as opposed to inside  top next to the spine -- too difficult to use, making it hard to locate  books quickly.
3. Add a KEY word guide that lists the words replacing the KJV word in alphabetical order.
4. A  brief history of the Holy Name Bible.  I think new readers would find  this informative and realize this is not something new.

This  last suggestion is a big one, at least for me, and I hope you will take  the time to consider it closely.  I would appreciate it if the reader  of this letter would forward it to the editorial staff working on  perfecting the next revision of this fine version you offer.  Please  consider the following:

  It is humbly suggest that when you come to the terms used to  distinguish our Heavenly Father, such as “God† (Theos) you use the  term “Father†, or “Heavenly Father†.  The reason for this is our  Savior said He came to reveal the Father whom the Pharisees did not  know, had never heard, nor seen.  This would mean the YHWH of the Old  Testament is not the Father of whom YaHshua spoke.  Certainly, YHWH, is  the Father of Israel, having created them as a nation.  Also, we know  YHWH had a part in the total of creation and when we look deeper we see  that it is YHWH that is the Creator of all things, but He is not the  Father of YaHshua – by permission of our Heavenly Father whom He said  He came to reveal, YaHshua acted.  YHWH did not raise YaHshua, The  Father revealed did, that Ancient of days no one knew until YaHshua  revealed Him.  To say YHWH raised YaHshua is to say YaHWeH raised  YaHWeH, or YaHshua raised YaHshua.  Please, if you do not see this right  away, hang with me and consider the following:

  Throughout the New Testament the Father is referred to, usually as God  (Theos) and it is a mistake to assume that every time He is mentioned  that it is YaHWeH.  There is ample proof demonstrating that the YaHWeH  of the Old Testament is none other than YaHshua Himself, prior to coming  in the flesh (Jn 8:23, Jn 17:5, Jn 1:18).  Read Zech 14 for a perfect  example demonstrating it is YHWH that is returning as YaHshua -- whose  feet is it standing on the Mount of Olive?  Who is it the Nations are  going to honor in that day at the Feast of tabernacles at Jerusalem?  Of  course, we know it is going to be YaHshua but in the OT it says it is  going to be YaHWeH – one and the same.  Also, when reading the last of  the chapters of the book of Revelation we see that the Heavenly Father  does not come to this earth until after everything is finished, after  the 1000 years of YaHshua’s rule.

Certainly  YaHWeH is Creator of all things and as such is then the Father of  Creation, just as YaHWeH is responsible for the creation of Israel as a  nation, so He is the Father of Israel, as well as being her, Israel’s,  husband, the divorcing her.  But a day is coming when He will bring all  of Israel back to Himself, and in all of the OT scriptures we read that  this is to be YaHWeH, but in the NT we read this is to be YaHshua.   Then when we read John 1:1-4 we see that the Word (Logos) made flesh is  and was the creator of all things then by putting two and two together  it should become obvious that YaHshua and YaHWeH are one and the same.   Many are confused by verses that refer to YaHWeH as Father.  By the  mere fact YaHWeH is the Creator of all we see make Him the Father of all  that we see, but the force behind this is the Heavenly Father whom  YaHshua came to reveal because no one knew or recognized Him.

  By using the term of endearment, Father, we also meet the instruction  not to call anyone our Father on earth as we have One Father in Heaven.   When we can understand that YaHshua is and was the YaHWeH of the OT  come in the flesh then many verses in the New Testament must then  reflect this.  Too many in translating and restoring the Holy Name of  the God of Israel and the only Name by which we must be saved, YaHshua,  inadvertently apply references to our Heavenly Father as YaHWeH, when it  should read, Father, God the Father, our Father in Heaven, etc. as the  Name YaHWeH is misapplied mistakenly implying that YaHWeH, the God of  Israel, the Husband of Israel, is the One Father in Heaven.  This is  something every translation restoring the Sacred Names has missed.  I  have yet to find one to correct this.  The correction would be easy  enough, even without fully understanding this, or even accepting it, but  by playing it safe – instead of introducing the Name YaHWeH every  time the term “God† or Diety or Theos is used and when the context  is clearly speaking of our Heavenly Father, merely put in Father.  Even  the KJV has done this on occasion making reference to “God the  Father†.

The Father Has a Name

When  YaHshua spoke of not being ashamed to call us “brothers† He also  said He would make His (the Father’s) Name known to them (Heb 2:12, Mt  11:27).  The Name YaHWeH has been known all along and if this were the  name YaHshua was going to “make known† it would not make any sense  â€“ His disciples would wonder at such a statement having been raised on  the name YaHWeH as the father of Israel.   What is being reported,  prophetically in this verse is for then and now – YaHshua says He will  make known the Father, someone they were not aware of.  It is the  Father’s Name that men have been blinded to and only YaHshua can make  known.  I Know the Father’s Name and I suspect some of you do too.   What is His Name, can you tell me?  It is not YHWH, it is simpler  (easier) than that.  If you see it then it then He has made it known to  you.  This, then, would be a major improvement in any revision of a  Sacred Name’s Bible, not to openly reveal our Heavenly Father’s  Name, but to use the term of endearment any child uses for a father,  Abba, father, Father, Heavenly Father, and avoid the misapplication of  the Name YaHWeH.

When  reading the NT I find it easy and much more meaningful by replacing the  term God with Father when appropriate, which is most of the time and  this actually removes a lot of the problem many have with the term  â€œgod†.  While we all know the false name JESUS is an effort at  replacing His Name, the Name by which we must all come to Salvation  (acts 4:12), we do not see this same thing when the term “God† is  used, it is more of a matter of the believer knowing whom this “God†  is and recognizing this reference as the “Father†, in most cases.   Had the original authors wanted to casually toss our Heavenly  Father’s Name out there they would have but instead used a term  believers would know to be the Father.  Seeing, also, our Savior’s  name contains the Father’s Name we could do that, and replace the  â€œGod† with His Name but this seems to depersonalize everything from a  child to Father relationship which we are supposed to have – brothers  and sisters of YaHshua, all worshiping our Heavenly Father, YH.  Most  children do not go around calling their natural fathers by their name,  no they are much more intimate in the use of, “daddy†, “dad† or  â€œfather†.  This Name, while out in the open and visible and even  declared in the Gospels by our Savior and His disciples is hidden to  nearly everyone.  It is also a Name used among names and still  misapplied and for a reason.  Our Heavenly Father is the reason for  YaHshua, and for YaHWeH being God and Savior.  YaHshua came to reveal  Him and if He had been known as YaHWeH was known then there would be no  need for a “revealing† â€“ (Mat 11:27)  All things have been handed  over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and  no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son  chooses to reveal him.

I  pray that this is something your editorial team will take into  consideration when putting together the first revision of this version.

Permit  me to supply an example of misplaced titles that,  I feel, could be  clarified with this simple correction and be of great benefit to the  read and the students of His Word.

(John 1:1)

KJV -- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

RSB – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim

(my  note: this version has taken the liberty to change the term (options in  the Greek) for a Hebrew term not indicated in any of the definitions,  â€œelohim† is not indicated, Theos or supreme, deity, but not  â€œelohim† which actually is plural for “gods†)

RN  â€“ In the beginning was the Word (YaHshua) and the Word (YaHshua) was  with the Father and the Word (YaHshua) was supreme.   (G2316 – is not  â€œelohim†—other choices – divine, godwardly).

  When we look at the alternate definitions in the Greek for the term  â€œtheos† (god) we should be able to differentiate between the two  Supreme beings.  The Hebrew Term “elohim† is a plural term, as you  know, and is misused in many applications as a “name† when in fact  it is a reference to more than one and finds its origins in the  Canaanite worship of El which predates the existence of the nation  Israel.  El and Elohim became generic terms used in Israel’s writings  much as the Christian writings use the generic terms “god† and  â€œlord† today and nearly all mistakenly used this or try to apply  these generic terms as names, when they are mere titles of dubious  origins.  Understanding this should lead one to conclude the difference  between the two and be able to then choose the right application of each  term when considering the context, as we see in the example presented.

In  John 1:1 confusion reigns when trying to explain to anyone that the  â€œLogos† is our Messiah, and is the son, and is the Father also, as  the KJV of John 1:1 seems to be saying – so the son begets Himself?   Or, as we read in John 17, YaHshua is praying to Himself ?  If we let  John 1:1 stand as it is misunderstood today then that would be the case  and makes no sense at all.  YaHshua did not begat Himself, then die, and  raise Himself from the grave, no, the Father did this.   Everyone  recognizes the Word (Logos), is speaking of YaHshua, our Messiah, but  the King James Version seems to be saying the Logos is the Father.  In  the RSB version it is saying YaHshua is the Elohim, which is closer, as  we know He, YaHshua, is part of the Elohim, but still lacks clarity.  We  know YaHshua existed before, that everything was created by Him (Jn  1:2-3) but He tells us there is another, His Father, and it is from the  Father He receives all that He, YaHshua/YHWH receives.  Knowing this,  then, we can go to an alternate choice of words to express this truth.

  I appreciate what you have done in delivering a Holy Name Bible of such  fine quality and at a reasonable offer.  I hope you consider some of  the suggestions I have listed, and perhaps you have already considered  these things for the next revision and I am only making obvious  observations.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks again for the great work, your servant Dan

Referral : TV-Church Channel
Back to content