YRM - Yahweh's Restoration Ministry
Christian Leadership Response
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.
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.
Elder Randy Folliard
First_Name : Dan
Last_Name : Baxley
Email : firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject : Study Bible
Last_Name : Baxley
Email : email@example.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 pageâ€ . 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 â€œGodâ€ (Theos) you use the term â€œFatherâ€ , or â€œHeavenly Fatherâ€ . 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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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 YaHshuaâ€™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, Israelâ€™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 â€“ instead of introducing the Name YaHWeH every time the term â€œGodâ€ 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 â€œGod the Fatherâ€ .
The Father Has a Name
When YaHshua spoke of not being ashamed to call us â€œbrothersâ€ He also said He would make His (the Fatherâ€™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 â€œmake knownâ€ 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 â€“ YaHshua says He will make known the Father, someone they were not aware of. It is the Fatherâ€™s Name that men have been blinded to and only YaHshua can make known. I Know the Fatherâ€™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 Nameâ€™s Bible, not to openly reveal our Heavenly Fatherâ€™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€œgodâ€ . 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 â€œGodâ€ is used, it is more of a matter of the believer knowing whom this â€œGodâ€ is and recognizing this reference as the â€œFatherâ€ , in most cases. Had the original authors wanted to casually toss our Heavenly Fatherâ€™s Name out there they would have but instead used a term believers would know to be the Father. Seeing, also, our Saviorâ€™s name contains the Fatherâ€™s Name we could do that, and replace the â€œGodâ€ with His Name but this seems to depersonalize everything from a child to Father relationship which we are supposed to have â€“ 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, â€œdaddyâ€ , â€œdadâ€ or â€œfatherâ€ . 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 â€œrevealingâ€ 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.
KJV -- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
RSB â€“ 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€œelohimâ€ is not indicated, Theos or supreme, deity, but not â€œelohimâ€ which actually is plural for â€œgodsâ€ )
RN â€“ In the beginning was the Word (YaHshua) and the Word (YaHshua) was with the Father and the Word (YaHshua) was supreme. (G2316 â€“ is not â€œelohimâ€ â€”other choices â€“ divine, godwardly).
When we look at the alternate definitions in the Greek for the term â€œtheosâ€ (god) we should be able to differentiate between the two Supreme beings. The Hebrew Term â€œelohimâ€ is a plural term, as you know, and is misused in many applications as a â€œnameâ€ 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 Israelâ€™s writings much as the Christian writings use the generic terms â€œgodâ€ and â€œlordâ€ 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€œLogosâ€ is our Messiah, and is the son, and is the Father also, as the KJV of John 1:1 seems to be saying â€“ 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