Talk:Names of God

message: Under the section Abrahamic Religions/Christianity, an editor says,"In the effort to translate the Bible into every language (see SIL), the Christian God has usually been named after a pagan or philosophical concept that was present in the language before Christianity."No evidence has been provided for this statement. Is the writer perhaps confusing the concept 'god' with the actual personal name of the supreme deity as revealed/recorded in the Bible?--Lepton6 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Using the names of pagan gods for the name of the Christian God when translating the Bible into other languages!

message: I've expanded the Hinduism section, which originally was very limited and placed an undue emphasis on Krishna-centered traditions, and previously failed to mention any traditions except for the two main, Vaishnavism and Shaivism.  --Shruti14 talk • sign 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely Shruti it is not representative as to the Hinduism as a whole, nor it should be, as it was not "the main article", but just a See also pointer: Hare Krishna is notable as one of Hindu traditions that is specifically orineted and centered on Nama (or the name) and it is not strictly speaking a mantra (that in Hinduism would start with  (Om, Klim, Hrim or other seed sounds, such as Om namah narayana, Klim krishna govindaya, etc.,) and thus should remain as See also, mainly due to its popularity in the Western or English speaking world and being specifically the names of God not 'a mantra'. Sahasranama is also not the 'main' article as per your revision, but is about a specific concept of 1000 names of a god or a goddess, thus is also should remain in the See also line. 
Hare Krishna is the most prominent form of chanting the "Holy Names" of Krishna.  and "Names of God"  If the Sahasranama was changed to Names of God in Hinduism and thus became main article, Hare Krishna will still remain a See also. At the moment they are both See also and lets keep Sahasranama article first, since its more generic. Hare Krishna should remain Wikidās ॐ 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Shruti, it should not be a 'main article' for the Hinduism section, any more than the other names of God. ~ priyanath talk 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as a "See Also" link, it's giving undue weight to one particular mantra or nama that is primarily venerated by one specific group.  Also, I disagree that the Google search links provided prove that Hare Krishna is the "most prominent form of chanting the 'Holy Names' of Krishna," although it is certainly one of the more prominent ones.  --Shruti14 talk • sign 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly one of the more prominent forms of Hindu worship that is centered on the Holy Name and is called Holy Name. Omitting mentioning it on the article specifically dedicated to holy name would be unacceptable. Undue to a mere See also is certainly inapplicable. There is a need of inclusion of for NPOV policy. If you know of any other practice in Hinduism that is referred as a Holy Name please include it here as well. Google search just proving that it is the most common use of the term Holy Name in relation to Krishna is Hare Krishna. Your should not exhibit such a bias, as to remove a mere see also link. Wikidās ॐ 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "bias exhibited"; please assume good faith and do not accuse me of doing so.  My point was not that Hare Krishna has no merit as a "Holy Name", but rather that it probably shouldn't be in the "See Also" link area, which lists articles that are relevant to the whole section and not just one small part.  Sahasranama belongs there since it is relevant to most parts of the section, with there being a Vishnu Sahasranama, multiple Shiva Sahasranamas, Lalita Sahasranama, Ganesha Sahasranama, and so on.  Kirtan and Japa are also practiced by multiple groups, namely Vaishnavism and Shaivism.  Hare Krishna, however, is for Vaishnavas alone, and even within the Vaishnava tradition is mainly for Krishna devotees, especially those from ISKCON (who made it famous internationally) and other Gaudiya Vaishnava groups.  If you like, the information about Hare Krishna can be placed with the information about Krishna, where it would be relevant, but the "See Also" link is not the best place to put it. --Shruti14 talk • sign 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You see this article is not about gods, it is about Holy Name is the name in traditions or religions that is used in practice or prayer, in this regard Hare Krishna is the prominent practice, and other aspects are not. It has nothing to do with the number of traditions that practice it does it? It refers to Hari (Vishnu) Krishna and Rama not just Krishna. It can also refer to Shiva as Hara. Precisely because its universal and because of its international spread it has to be in the see also. There is nothing in MoS as far as I know stating that See also should refer to all items mentioned in the section, clearly a misunderstanding. Wikidās ॐ 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism 

message: I'd like to ask why Hare Krishna continues to be added to the "Main articles" line. I don't think it should, and here is why:
* This is a Vaishnava mantra, but the article section respects multiple traditions and is not solely based on the Vaishnava perspective, so it can hardly be considered a main or primary article of the section.
* While the mantra is recited by multiple Vaishnava traditions, it is venerated in particular as the primary (or one of the primary) mantra for one tradition, Gaudiya Vaishnavism.  The section, again, represents much more than one single Vaishnava tradition.
* The mantra is specifically recognized (and made famous in the Western world by) one organization within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, ISKCON, which is a single organization within a single tradition that does not represent Hinduism as a whole.  Again, this is another reason why the single mantra is not a good representative for the section as a "Main article".
* The mantra venerates just three names of Vishnu (or two names of Vishnu and one of Radha, depending on which traditions one is from) whereas there are countless other names. (See Vishnu Sahasranama for just one example that lists one thousand names.)  In fact, it is said within Vaishnava traditions that there are an infinite number of names.  Three among these (two of which who are named in the section itself) would not be representative of the section as the "Main article".
* There are countless other mantras within the Vaishnava traditions that venerates Vishnu/Krishna or associated names, such as Om Namo Narayana, as well as within other traditions of Hinduism such as Shaivism where Om Nama Shivaya is a common mantra.  What makes one more notable than the rest?
* This is a Hinduism section within a Names of God article, not a "Hindu mantras" section within a "Prayers" or "Hymns" article.  A single mantra would not be a main article for this section, but rather a list of names such as Sahasranama, which is already listed as one of the main articles.
For these reasons I disagree with the placement of the article as a "Main article" within the section. --Shruti14 talk • sign 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely Shruti it is not representative as to the Hinduism as a whole, nor it should be, as it was not "the main article", but just a See also pointer: Hare Krishna is notable as one of Hindu traditions that is specifically orineted and centered on Nama (or the name) and it is not strictly speaking a mantra (that in Hinduism would start with  (Om, Klim, Hrim or other seed sounds, such as Om namah narayana, Klim krishna govindaya, etc.,) and thus should remain as See also, mainly due to its popularity in the Western or English speaking world and being specifically the names of God not 'a mantra'. Sahasranama is also not the 'main' article as per your revision, but is about a specific concept of 1000 names of a god or a goddess, thus is also should remain in the See also line. 
Hare Krishna is the most prominent form of chanting the "Holy Names" of Krishna.  and "Names of God"  If the Sahasranama was changed to Names of God in Hinduism and thus became main article, Hare Krishna will still remain a See also. At the moment they are both See also and lets keep Sahasranama article first, since its more generic. Hare Krishna should remain Wikidās ॐ 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Shruti, it should not be a 'main article' for the Hinduism section, any more than the other names of God. ~ priyanath talk 04:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as a "See Also" link, it's giving undue weight to one particular mantra or nama that is primarily venerated by one specific group.  Also, I disagree that the Google search links provided prove that Hare Krishna is the "most prominent form of chanting the 'Holy Names' of Krishna," although it is certainly one of the more prominent ones.  --Shruti14 talk • sign 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly one of the more prominent forms of Hindu worship that is centered on the Holy Name and is called Holy Name. Omitting mentioning it on the article specifically dedicated to holy name would be unacceptable. Undue to a mere See also is certainly inapplicable. There is a need of inclusion of for NPOV policy. If you know of any other practice in Hinduism that is referred as a Holy Name please include it here as well. Google search just proving that it is the most common use of the term Holy Name in relation to Krishna is Hare Krishna. Your should not exhibit such a bias, as to remove a mere see also link. Wikidās ॐ 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "bias exhibited"; please assume good faith and do not accuse me of doing so.  My point was not that Hare Krishna has no merit as a "Holy Name", but rather that it probably shouldn't be in the "See Also" link area, which lists articles that are relevant to the whole section and not just one small part.  Sahasranama belongs there since it is relevant to most parts of the section, with there being a Vishnu Sahasranama, multiple Shiva Sahasranamas, Lalita Sahasranama, Ganesha Sahasranama, and so on.  Kirtan and Japa are also practiced by multiple groups, namely Vaishnavism and Shaivism.  Hare Krishna, however, is for Vaishnavas alone, and even within the Vaishnava tradition is mainly for Krishna devotees, especially those from ISKCON (who made it famous internationally) and other Gaudiya Vaishnava groups.  If you like, the information about Hare Krishna can be placed with the information about Krishna, where it would be relevant, but the "See Also" link is not the best place to put it. --Shruti14 talk • sign 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You see this article is not about gods, it is about Holy Name is the name in traditions or religions that is used in practice or prayer, in this regard Hare Krishna is the prominent practice, and other aspects are not. It has nothing to do with the number of traditions that practice it does it? It refers to Hari (Vishnu) Krishna and Rama not just Krishna. It can also refer to Shiva as Hara. Precisely because its universal and because of its international spread it has to be in the see also. There is nothing in MoS as far as I know stating that See also should refer to all items mentioned in the section, clearly a misunderstanding. Wikidās ॐ 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hare Krishna 

message: it appear that items listed in the Chinese religions section are hardly fitting the description and are more like terms used by other religions in order to compensate for the fact that there is no specific equivalent. Should be moved to Phrases and alternatives. Wikidās ॐ 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese terms for God 

message: There is no evidence since two months as to wether the claims in the section of African religions are true. It appears to be a list of names, that refer to some forms of tribal gods without any sub-articles. The section should be cleaned up to omit OR list. Wikidās ॐ 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  African religions 

message: I have removed complete OR section. It was tagged for 15 weeks. It is unreasonable to have so much OR in one section.  Below is removed material/ -- Wikidās ॐ 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR removed 

message: This is a brief list of Ethiopian tribes and their respective names for the Supreme Being. 
* Boran - Waqa
* Afa - Yaroz, Robboqua, Fogatza, Musa, Musa Gueza
* Koma -  Yere Siezi, War, Wal
* Konso - Bamballe, Adota, Waq
* Male -  Sosi
* Mekan - Tuma
* Murle -  Tummu
* Sangama - Zabi
* Sidamo -  Magano
* Zala - Taosa
* Chiasson - Calins 09:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethiopian tribes

message: http://www.nawawi.org/downloads/article2.pdf
check it out its great i think it should be added  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.38.232 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  names of god article 

message: Anyone of the editors can help to work out a better lede based on the text below. All suggestions are welcomed, the sources are rather very close to the text of original, but it better to stick close to the matter in my opinion.
The Name of God, or Holy Name is a form of addressing God present in a majority of world religions as used in liturgy or prayer. Prayer with the Holy Name or the Name of God has been established as most common spiritual practice in Western and Eastern spiritual practices. Number of traditions that have lists of many Names of God which enumerate his various qualities have a special mention. The Qur'an contains the Ninety-nine Most Beautiful Names of Allah, Judaism refers to 72 Divine Names and Mahabharata text contains a thousand names of Vishnu. Andrew Wilson, World scripture: a comparative anthology of sacred texts‎ p. 596 International Religious Foundation, Paragon House, 1991  
The English word God is used by multiple religions to refer to different deities.
Eastern and Western correlation and intercultural interpretations of the philosophy of the Name of God had been as subject of study for thinkers in the east and west. Jordan, Mark D. (1983) The Names of God and the Being of Names. In The Existence and Nature of God, edited by Alfred J. Freddoso, pp. 161-190. University of Notre Dame Press.   In Christian theology the Word must be a personal and a proper name of God; hence it cannot be
dismissed as mere metaphor.Sacraments of the Incarnate Word: The Christological Form of the Summa theologiae C Wells  On the other hand, the Names of God in a different tradition are sometimes referred as symbols.Aiyadurai Jesudasen Appasamy, G. S. S. Sreenivasa Rao, Inter-faith dialogue and world community‎ Christian Literature Society for India (1991) "All these names of God are, of course, symbols. ... All names of God or the Absolute are symbols." p. 9  The question whether divine names used by different religions are equivalent has been raised and analyzed. Peter C. Phan Being religious interreligiously: Asian perspectives on interfaith dialogue. 2004 p.102
Exchange of symbols of religion between different traditions, is limited, symbols of religious core are shared (for example Om and Gayatri by members of Indian Christian community) but the usage of the names themselves mostly remain in the domain of a particular religion, such as in the case of recitation the names of God (japa). Jerald D. Gort On sharing religious experience: possibilities of interfaith mutuality p.146 Encounter of Religions Research Group Rodopi, 1992  The Divine Names, the classic treatise by Pseudo-Dionysius defines scope of traditional understandings in Western traditions such as Hellenic, Christian, Jewish and Islamic that concern the Names of God,Paul Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius: a commentary on the texts and an introduction to their influence. Oxford University Press, 1993, p.163  with further historical interfaith lists such as The 72 Names of the Lord showing parallels in history and interpretation of the list of the Name of God in Kabbalah, Christianity, Hebrew and Slavic, Palestine, Balkans and Provence etc.Valentina Izmirlieva, All the names of the Lord: lists, mysticism, and magic, University of Chicago Press, 2008 
One definition of the Name of God was given by Elisha Mulford as 'that name which passes into the common forms of thought'. The author states that in its derivation it may have an ethical significance.Elisha Mulford The republic of God: An institute of theology‎ p.5 1882 "The name of God is that name which passes into the common forms of thought. In its derivation it may have an ethical significance." While others suggest that the "name of God represents the nature of God".  James Montgomery Boice Foundations of the Christian faith: a comprehensive & readable theology‎ p.231 1986 The attitude as to the transmission of the Name in many cultures was surrounded by secrecy. The pronunciation of the Name of God, in Judaism, has always been guarded 
with great care. It is believed that in ancient times the sages communicated the pronunciation only once every seven years.James Orr "The International standard Bible encyclopaedia Edition: 2 - Item notes: v. 1 - 1959 1915 p. 1267. This system was challenged by more recent movements. The nature of the name can be described as personal and the attributive. In many cultures it is often difficult to distinguish between the personal and the attributive names of God, the two divisions necessarily shading into each other.John S. Mbiti Concepts of God in Africa‎ p.217 1970
----
I have included ref list above for checking and formatting. Wikidas© 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone out there who wants to improve the above intro or to add more references? Wikidas© 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single source is verifiable. Most have ISBN. Disputed tag added. Wikidas© 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede - work in progress 

message: I noticed that the article is partially organised by language, and partially organised by religion.  Can we pick one or the other?
Personally, I think organising by religion/deity would make the most sense.  Listing translations of the word "God" in different languages seems more the purview of Wiktionary. --Alynna (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion per region was discussed on the talk page as per above. I will support religion in this way, while there are no RS to support it the only way, it is the custom and practice in other similar pages on Wiki and is neutral. Wikidas© 13:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of the article 

message: God (word) is just a dictionary definition of 'God', whereas this article is about all the names of God in the abstract, and so is encyclopedic (encyclopedias are about abstract concepts not words, that's what dictionaries are for), so they should be merged I think; it's seems to be either that or AFD God (word).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Word God is a name and not a name. Do you have a definitive statement from a number of RS stating it is ONLY the name of God? Wikidas© 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the wikipedia I only have to show that it is an article about a word, and that the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary disallows that; and you just admitted that it is an article on a word.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge God (word) here 

message: Just taking a quick look at the article section 'taboos'. And it seems to be from a somewhat religious point of view.
"More pious swearers try to substitute the blasphemy against holy names with minced oaths like Jeez!"
Just because someone swears with 'Jeez' hardly means they're purposely trying to substitute blasphemy against holy names.
"Most observant Jews forbid discarding holy objects"
I'm less sure of my arguments against this one, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but it seems to somewhat belittle any Jew who forgets he is not meant to be discard objects such as these is not 'observant'.
Perhaps there's more. It's also very possible I'm being too picky. But some of this article does seem to be a little iffy. Thoughts? --86.27.90.244 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both of those facts should be in there, but probably worded better. --Alynna (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: Is that simply an error in the section heading levels? I'd move the sections myself, but I'm not familiar with the history of this page and don't want to intrude on your territory. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whomever fixed that. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are Christianity and Islam listed as African and not Abrahamic religions??? 

message: In my opinion, Jehovah's Witnesses are at least as Christian as Roman Catholics. Is there a reason why the sect is listed under "Other religions" rather than under "Christianity"? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: This article needed extensive grammatical correction and both the intro and the section on Abrahamic tradition contained much OR which I have taken pains to extensively rewrite.  I could not find any cite on the web for the claim that YHWH is pronounced AEIOU.  A cite is provided for the claim that Yahweh be pronounced Ιαου in Greek, but that was mentioned elsewhere in the article; perhaps the author of this claim was going off of some sort of personal revelation. Yow! I think I was charitable in rewriting and not deleting as much as I did. 
Feel free *cough* to provide citations for the following stuff I deleted (rewrote section):  
Yclept:Berr (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive Rewrite -- Original claims removed and posted here. 

message: In which chapter and verse of which scripture did God "appear[] to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai" and Moses fail to pronounce God's personal name due to cleft lip?  is under the impression it was somewhere between Genesis and Deuteronomy. I don't remember any specific mention of a cleft lip in my studies of the Torah. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses's harelip 

message: All is article is article is accomplishing is basically giving linguistic translations [albeit some into phrases and ideas] of the idea that, in English, is written as "God".  Wikipedia is not a reference of translation lists; and, despite how some people feel about the idea of "God," said idea should be treated the same as all others in the eyes of an encyclopedia.  If Wikipedia is to have this article, then all other ideas should be represented in articles titled "Names of [insert idea]", in which said idea is then linguistically translated into all other possible languages.
:except the very idea of the names is a cultural artifact, and has notability through coverage.192.249.47.196 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't just a list of translations. Etymology is a very important tool for understanding language, and this page does a pretty good job at showing how the various names for God evolved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.50.237 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is Pointless 

message: I may have just not studied enough, but I have never seen heard of these two names being used in the passages quoted (I always read that it was simply "I AM" in that passage), and a search through the specific "Names in Judaism" article, as well as just searching "AEIOU" on wikipedia, gives no relevant results. The section this claim appears in is bulleted and reads somewhat out of place, and is not supported by a source; furthermore, searching for "AEIOU god" or "AEIOU god moses" only gets me sites that copy that passage straight from wikipedia. Is it possible that these are vandalism?192.249.47.196 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this looks like vandalism. Thehotelambush (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: AEIOU and AEI=

message: Adi Purush is currently a redlink, though there is an Adi Purusha article, which is a redirect to Svayam Bhagavan. However, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know which is the correct spelling (with or without the a) and whether the redirected article describes the same concept, and so I've not done anything. Can someone more knowledgeable help? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adi Purush(a)? 

message: In section 2, Abrahamic Religions, the statement is made: "According to the Bible, the name of God was used during the lifetime of Adam and Eve, but by the time Moses was born, the scriptures imply that none of mankind still knew the name."
I believe this to be incorrect.  I believe that the name of God was in continuous use from the time of Adam and Eve up to the time period identified with Exodus 3:13-15 and beyond. For example, Noah (Genesis 9:26), Abraham (Genesis 15:8), Lot (Genesis 19:18) and Job (Job 1:21) used the name of God, Jehovah, in conversations with the Most High and others.  The original Hebrew shows the divine name in these and many other instances during this time period.  Translators into English have chosen to convert it to the word "Lord".  Other translators have left the divine name in.  Can we agree to remove the entire sentence after the word "Eve"?  Now'n'Them (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was God's name unknown after Adam and Eve and before Moses? 

message: This section needs a fair bit of work I think.
Take the following paragraph.
"The earliest mention of the name of God in the Koran is found sura 2, The Cow: "When your Lord said to the angels: 'I am placing on the earth one that shall rule as My deputy,' they replied: 'Will You put there one that will do evil and shed blood, when we have for so long sung Your praises and sanctified Your Name?'. During the lifetime of Adam and Eve, the record from the Bible indicates that the name of God was used, but by the time Moses was born the scriptures show that none of mankind still knew the Name. Perhaps an argument could be made that this knowledge was lost at the time of Noah, when only he and his relatives survived the flood. When Moses first spoke with God and asked His Name, God said, "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not let myself be known by My Name." When Moses heard the name of God he realized that since he had a speech impediment as a result of a harelip, he was unable to pronounce it accurately. He was able to say "Allah" and that was the name conveyed to Pharaoh and the Egyptians and the name Allah was referenced from that point in time till today. Further details in the Torah describe the role of Aaron who acted as Moses" mouthpiece and conveyed the Name of God distinctly as "YHWH" to the Israelites. The pronunciation of YHWH is described in Psalms 8.2 by the prophet who wrote, "Thou hast made babes, infants at the breast sound aloud Thy praise.""
There are no references what so ever in there apart from a reference to Psalms near the end, and some vague reference to the Koran at the start.
It should either be referenced, or fixed, or removed, as sentences like "Perhaps an argument could be made that this knowledge was ......" make it look like opinion.
131.217.33.146 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taboos 

message: {{So, does the christian god have a name? No...and Jehovah is not a name but comes from the jewish translation of Yiddish to english "I am". Read on...
In Exodus 3:13-14, the christian god is reported to have answered that question saying "I AM WHO I AM".
However, some people say that the name of God is Jehovah or Yahweh.
[[[Exodus 3:13 - King James Version (KJV)
(13) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
(14) And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.]]]
The reason is that in Hebrew (the Book of Exodus was written in Hebrew) the word for “I AM” is a Hebrew word translated as YHWH. This is why a lot of English translations will say that the name of God is Jehovah or Yahweh. It is an English-styled version of those four letters. It is an English, from the Hebrew, mistranslation of "I AM WHO I AM", and unlike any of the other gods down through recorder history, the christian god is the only "god" that does not have a name.}}
Moved from main article by --Auric  talk 21:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by {{User|Word1}} 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Names of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111200434/http://www.princeton.edu/~aamihay/Divine_Names.html to http://www.princeton.edu/~aamihay/Divine_Names.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should Christ Pantocrator be included in this article?  the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christ Pantocrator Suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Names of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927184721/http://www.exodus-314.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=41 to http://www.exodus-314.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=41
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325123530/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TU/TURKS.htm to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TU/TURKS.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article's title implies there is some kind of monotheistic consensus that the Abrahamic and Indian deities are the same god. While both branches of belief refer to their supreme being as 'God', clearly they are not the same. Obscurasky (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused title 

message: The Bible is quite clear in many ways that the religion of the Israelites was changing over time, and that it was not monotheistic, but rather henotheistic, that God was localised geographically (Yhwh "went forth from Seir" and "marched out of the field of Edom" [Judges 5:4], "God came from Teman" [Habbakuk 3:3]), etc. The article disregards all that and sticks to modern rabbincal Judaism. Arminden (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion of the Israelites distinct from Judaism