New York Jewish Museum’s Discomfort with Religion

The Jewish Museum of New York her latest core exhibition reveals a distance from Judaism indistinguishable from disregard, embarrassment, and disdain.

Menachem Wecker’s essay on Scenes from the Collection, the latest permanent exhibition at the Jewish Museum of New York, talks about the city’s venerable 115-year-old Jewish Museum. Its collection of about 30,000 objects makes this among the most important such institutions anywhere and, according to its website, one of the oldest remaining Jewish museums in the world.

Downstairs, at the museum’s outlet of Russ & Daughters café, customers devouring the herring, knishes, and blintzes are assured that everything on the — also venerable — menu is under kosher supervision.

But for him

Upstairs, however, is a different story. With its recent, ballyhooed revamping of its permanent exhibition, the museum has squandered a priceless opportunity to be the hub for contemporary Jewish conversation, education, and memory. In so doing, it has also departed drastically from its founding mission as a champion of Jewish culture and practice.

Wecker, a relatively young man, is in possession of a Jewish education that is probably atypical of most of the museum’s visitors. By contrast, the art historian who has served as the director of several museums, as Assistant Secretary for museums at the Smithsonian Institutions, and as director of the museum program at the National Endowment for the Arts, Tom L. Freudenheim is a senior citizen who according to his response at the exhibition, risks sounding like the character of the Grumpy Old Man played by Dana Carvey on the old Saturday Night Live — the kind who carries on about how much better things were in the past, and that’s the way we liked it.

He writes in the Jewish magazine Mosaic

In truth, though, I can’t say I really liked it better growing up in a world of Jews who still lowered their voices to whisper the word “Jewish” in restaurant conversations, or who swelled with unseemly pride when the 1950 recording by Pete Seeger and the Weavers of the Israeli folk song Tzena, Tzena, Tzena gave “us” temporary standing on the Hit Parade.

Nowadays, to judge by sources like the 2013 Pew survey, American Jews are less self-conscious about being Jewish. But are they, really? Could it be, instead, that their self-consciousness just runs in directions more in line with today’s rather than yesterday’s cultural norms? Wecker’s ruminations and strictures about the Jewish Museum’s “Jewish problem” — evidenced by its wildly overdone distancing of itself from any taint of “parochialism,” together with its marked condescension toward Judaism itself — invite speculation.


There is some history here. When the Jewish Museum first moved toward displaying contemporary art lacking any palpable connection to Jews or Judaism, it was partly following in the  footsteps of Karl Schwarz, the director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum: an institution that opened in 1933 around the same time that Hitler seized power and closed five years later after Kristallnacht. Schwarz’s idea, then quite original, was that, along with showcasing the “material culture” of the Jewish past — ritual objects, books, and other artifacts — a Jewish museum might legitimately start to pay attention to the work of living Jewish artists.

Two decades later in New York, with its transformational 1957 exhibition Artists of the New York School: Second Generation, the Jewish Museum both adopted Schwarz’s idea and went beyond it to include work by contemporary non-Jews and, as often as not, on non-Jewish themes. It thereby established a model that in one form or another continues to this day and that, to be fair, has resulted in a number of remarkable and occasionally even ground-breaking shows.

In doing so, the museum hardly escaped controversy or, especially, conflict with the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), its founding institution and proprietor. In 1947, as Wecker notes, with the opening of the museum in its then-new home on Fifth Avenue, JTS’s chancellor Louis Finkelstein defined its mission as the preservation and celebration of

“the singular beauty of Jewish life, as ordained in the laws of Moses, developed in the Talmud, and embellished in tradition.”

By the 1960s, it had become known instead, and with reason, mainly as an influential venue for the artistic avant-garde.

That transformation needed to be rationalized, and an argument for it was quickly developed. The new argument went like this:

Jews were a cosmopolitan people, interested by definition in a wide range of ideas and areas of cultural creativity both within and outside of the Jewish world.

Often adduced in this context was the example of Commentary magazine, founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee as a high-level forum of discussion of both Jewish and non-Jewish issues by writers and thinkers — what we now call “public intellectuals” — many but not all of whom were themselves Jews. Especially after Norman Podhoretz was appointed editor of Commentary in 1960, the magazine’s existence and success were invoked to justify JTS’s support for influential exhibitions at the Jewish Museum less and less related to the vision articulated in 1947 by Louis Finkelstein.


Such exhibitions flourished in the mid-1960s under the brief directorships of Alan Solomon and Sam Hunter, years that happened to coincide with my own tenure at the museum as a young curator, aspiring art historian, and ex-rabbinical student. Partly owing to the last-named credential, no doubt, I ended up being responsible for the “Jewish” parts of the museum, and soon became well-acquainted with its by-then considerable collections of Judaica of all kinds — collections that were then, and remain today, second only to the holdings of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

And this brings me back to Scenes from the Collection, so skillfully picked apart by Wecker. I concur with most of his criticisms of the exhibition’s substance. With regard to its presentation of, in particular, material related directly to Jewish religious traditions or values, he is certainly correct to point to the organizers’ shoddy scholarship and connoisseurship. I would only underline his point by stressing that museums thrive or wither not only on the visions of their directors but on the ideas, interests, ambitions, dreams, and scholarship of their curators. (Susan Braunstein, the museum’s longtime Judaica curator, retired some months ago and, although remaining on staff part-time in an emerita position, has yet to be replaced.)

As a counterexample to the latest “core” exhibition, Wecker writes with some enthusiasm about its 1990s predecessor, Culture and Continuity: The Jewish Journey, which indeed went far toward restoring the focus on the “Jewish” in Jewish Museum. I was never a great fan of that show for one simple reason: at its outset, visitors were invited to ask how Jews had survived for so many centuries and millennia, and were promised that the exhibition would answer that question. In fact, it’s sheer museological vanity to suggest that Jewish survival can be understood via Judaism’s material culture alone.

This stipulation aside, however, the conceptual premise of Culture and Continuity was solidly based: the Jewish Museum does indeed house any number of important works of Judaica — its field of specialty — that cannot be seen anywhere else. Indeed, the same principle underlies permanent exhibitions in most museums. Which is not to say that collections don’t also get temporarily rearranged to suit a curator’s creative idea, or some practical exigency. (For example, parts of the 17th-century Dutch collections in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art are currently on view in a two-year special exhibition because of skylight renovations in the main galleries.) But that is secondary, not primary. Permanent exhibitions are all about the core: how, in the end, a museum identifies and presents itself.


Where does the Jewish Museum fit here? For me, the real scandal today is that a collection of such size, quality, and historical importance has been reduced from the museum’s main attraction to a resource only for special exhibitions like the airily named Scenes from the Collection. Evidently, in the museum’s current thinking, the core works in its collection are to be seen only in the context of thematic and temporary special exhibitions like this one, surrounded by works of tangential, or arbitrary, or opaque relevance. This rethinking, to put it bluntly, can only reflect a disdain for the museum’s core assets on the part of the institution’s leadership (both the staff and the trustees).

Among those core assets are not only the thousands of items in the collection but the self-understanding of Judaism itself. In his essay, Wecker raises serious questions about the attitude toward Judaism held by the museum’s leaders and stewards. Here, too, a larger cultural phenomenon may be seen at work: namely, a pervasive discomfort, or embarrassment, manifested by many art museums these days, when it comes to Western religion. For obvious reasons, Christianity is the prime example. To take the Met once again, but hardly the Met alone, the reigning but incorrect assumption appears to be that everyone knows the meaning of Christian devotional art, that everyone can readily identify saints by their visual attributes, and that everyone can “read” the allusions and symbols in paintings of the Madonna or the Crucifixion.

Of course that is not the case: many if not most Christians are as ignorant of their religious traditions as are most Jews. Why, then, the silence? After all, explication is available for “exotic” religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and so forth). Only with Christianity and, at the Jewish Museum, with Judaism is a fastidious distance observed — a distance indistinguishable from indifference or, again, discomfort, embarrassment, and disrespect. In each case, the result is an abdication of the opportunity and the responsibility to educate the public about some of the greatest and most important works of Western art.

Tom L. Freudenheim ends with saying

I’m a reasonably well-educated but not especially religiously observant Jew. Nevertheless, like many other Jews, I’m wholly unembarrassed to lay claim to my Jewishness, not only as a matter of ethnic pride but also in my being a legatee of a venerable and quite awesome religious tradition.

American Jews can rightly be proud of, among other things, the Jewish museums that their communities have developed and supported, and that have in turn served as models for other ethnic and group-based museums around the country. As Edward Rothstein, quoted by Wecker, has acutely observed, those many museums spawned by the Jewish example make a point of celebrating the unique traditions and values of their particular sponsoring groups. By contrast (with exceptions, like UC Berkeley’s Magnes Museum), Jews have deracinated their own museums to the point of flaunting not only an ignorance of the Jewish tradition but a disdain for it.

Menachem Wecker gives us example after example from Scenes from the Collection of the feckless and philistine lengths to which the Jewish Museum has gone in its dereliction from its elementary responsibility. Is it too much to propose that the accolades the museum so desperately craves from the art-world cognoscenti might be gained without totally reducing the “Jewish” in its name to the slim and increasingly fraying threads by which it remains connected to its tradition?

Yehowah in the Leningrad Codex

Since my childhood in the Old Roman Catholic Church I had been brought up with the Holy Name of God, though two versions of His Name were used: Jehovah (at that time written Yehowah or YHWH, later Jehovah and still later Jehovah or JHWH) and Yahweh (also later receiving the J for the Y and becoming Jahweh).

In the 1960ies the Jehovah’s Witnesses gaining more foot on the ground and the Catholic church starting loosing people to other faith groups and even having people (like me) totally abandoning the Holy Trinity, they started to create a hate against the Name Jehovah.

In a certain way we could see the growing hate against Jehovah, because most people, like still today, co-notate it with the faith group from the American organisation Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In the land of the origin of that organisation we also could see a growing hate against non-trinitarians and users of God’s Name. On the other hand around the turn of the 20th to 21st century we saw also in the United States more people coming up for God’s Name, though they refused the contemporary or modern spelling which was by then also used in most other languages and as such said God His Name was not Jehovah, because a Y did not exist yet in ancient Hebrew, instead of accepting that it is exactly the same and in modern spelling it is agreed to write Jehovah, like others also write Jesus or Jeshua and not Iesus (e.g. like in the King James Bible of 1611) or Yeshua (like some also claim Christ his name to be).


To remember

Leningrad Codex (or Codex Leningradensis) = oldest complete manuscript of Hebrew Bible using the Masoretic Text +Tiberian vocalization = oldest complete codex of the Tiberian mesorah

Masoretic vowel points in Leningrad Codex allow for pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton​ — the four Hebrew consonants making up the divine name — ​as Yeho·wah’.


Additional reading

  1. Another way looking at a language #5 Aramic, Hebrew and Greek
  2. Een Naam voor een God #11 Y of J Kiezen
  3. Lord in place of the divine name
  4. Lord Of The Creation
  5. Anti Jehovah sites
  6. Al-Fatiha [The Opening/De Opening] Süra 1:1-3 In the name of Allah the Merciful
  7. Old and newer King James Versions and other translations #11 Muslim Idiom Translations
  8. Jehovah in the BASF
  9. Americans their stars, pretension, God, Allah and end of times signs #1 Abrahamic religions



  1. The Tetragrammaton
  2. Questions and Answers About the Name of God
  3. Blog 1903 Names of God: Adonai
  4. What is the name of God?
  5. Yes, Yes; No, No; Men are men; Women are Women. Numbers 30 – part 1
  6. What’s in a name?
  7. His Name Upon Us – Numbers 6:23-27
  8. Respecting God’s name
  9. Why is God called by different names in different ages? What are the significances of God’s names? |Eastern Lightning

Angst voor ouderwetse regels en verlies van christenen

In het Nederlandstalig gebied van West-Europa zijn er heel wat die extreme ideeën hebben. Beiden maken elkaar bang en willen de anderen doen geloven dat zij deze contreien gaan of moeten overheersen.

De grote toestroom van immigranten doet veel mensen denken dat diegenen die zich hier willen komen vestigen, zich niet zullen aanpassen aan onze westerse samenleving en dat zij hun geloof aan de anderen zullen gaan opdringen.

Velen die zo bang zijn vergeten dat het enkel diegenen die zwak in hun eigen geloof staan bekeerd zullen kunnen geraken. Doch bekering loopt niet zo van een leien dakje. Wij moeten echter bewust zijn dat sommige geloofsgroepen weinig vergen om een bekeerling op te nemen en dit doen met aanlokkelijke slogans maar weinig diepgang. Gevolg hiervan zal zijn dat sommige van die bekeerden na een tijdje wel de waarheid zullen gaan inzien en die gemeenschap dan ook de rug zullen gaan toe keren. Hiertoe moet de rest van de maatschappij ook openstaan en er voor zorgen dat die ontmoedigden dan terug opgevangen kunnen worden in een ordelijke maatschappij.

Dat uit een studie van 2013, die nu zeer in de belangstelling is, blijkt dat in Nederland en vijf andere Europese landen tweederde van de ondervraagde moslims hun religieuze wetten belangrijker vinden dat de wetten van de landen waarin zij leven moet ons niet verwonderen. In wezen zouden de geloofswetten voor elke gelovige de basis waarden moeten vormen voor hun leven. Ook in het Christelijk geloof wordt er gevraagd om uit de wereld te stappen en zeker nooit akkoord te gaan met staatswetten die indruisen tegen de wetten van God. Bij de meerderheid van de Christenen is het echter zo dat zij zelf veel wetten van God niet na leven en eigenlijk weinig of geen interesse hebben in de beleving van het geloof of van God. Waar zij zich hoofdzakelijk aan houden zijn de heidense feesten en de menselijke tradities die eveneens meestal gebaseerd zijn op heidense gebruiken.

Dat er zo veel jongeren aangetrokken worden tot het islamitische geloof zou de mensen in het westen meer vragen moeten doen stellen. Indien veel christenen zich zouden gaan bekeren tot de islam zegt dat niet meer over die christenen dan over de islamieten?

Men kan er niet naast zien dat in de jaren 6070 van vorige eeuw heel wat Turken en Marokkanen naar hier zijn gekomen om meer te verdienen en zich een beter leven op te bouwen. Van die gezinnen bracht de meerderheid een conservatievere levensstijl mee dan de meerderheid in hun land. Die zeer oude conservatieve godsdienstbeleving bleef hier in hun kinderen ingedrukt geworden. Ook zij moesten zich houden aan de klassieke geloofsbeleving meet al de gebruiken van hun ouders hun heimat. Door hun afzondering en dikwijls het leven in ghettos kon hun geloofsbeleving stagneren en gingen velen niet mee met de tijd.

Door institutionele uitsluiting en stigmatisering kon de ‘underdog’ groeien en kreeg men uitvergrote verkeerde beelden. Bepaalde politieke partijen zagen hierin de kans schoon om zich te richten op hen die anders zijn dan de plaatselijke bevolking.

WLM - roel1943 - Koran

WLM – roel1943 – Koran (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In beide groepen, moslims en niet moslims geraakten valse beelden aangenomen gedachten die niet altijd kloppen met de werkelijkheid. Zo hebben bijvoorbeeld moslims in Duitsland aanmerkelijk minder rechten dan in Nederland. Sterker nog: in geen enkel Europees land hebben moslims zoveel rechten als in Nederland. Nochtans voelen vele moslims in Nederland onterecht behandeld. Ook in België geraken meerderen ook meer gefrustreerd. Vooral de media die mee helpen om een angstpsychose te creëren helpen er aan mee om de ontevredenheid aan te scherpen.

Ook al willen de leden van het Christendom, en voornamelijk dan de Katholieken, geloven dat zij de grootste ware geloofsgemeenschap is, kan de Islam zich veroorloven te zeggen dat 1 op vier Islamiet is. Van de totale wereldbevolking in 2009 (6,8 miljard) werden er namelijk 1,57 miljard mensen als moslim geboekstaafd. Er leven ook meer moslims in Azië dan in het Midden-Oosten. Ook al zou slechts vijf procent van de Europese bevolking of  ongeveer  38 miljoen mensen, aanhanger van de Islam zijn moeten wij er rekening mee houden dat er een veel grotere groep is die niet behoort tot de algemeen erkende geloofsverenigingen of Moslimexecutieven.

Het zijn die anders gelovige moslims die zoals anders gelovige christenen toch ook een belangrijke geloofsgroep vormen. Ook in België zegt men dikwijls ‘de christenen’ maar doelt men op de katholieken en vergeet men heel wat christenen die heel andere gebruiken en geloofsovertuigingen hebben dan die Rooms Katholieken. Zo  ook  zijn er onder de Islamieten heel wat verschillende strekkingen die niet allemaal dezelfde regels hebben, laat staan de zelfde geloofsopvattingen.

Erg is het gesteld met de fundamentalistische groepen die zo veel aandacht krijgen in de media dat de gewone mens wel begint te geloven dat zij ‘de Islam’ voor stellen. Vooral de Moslimexecutieve of in het algemeen de Islamitische raden hebben hiertoe bij gedragen door niet tijdig tegenwind te geven en er op te duiden waar Alquada, ISIL, ISIS, IS of Daesh en Bokoharam dingen deden die indruisen tegen het ware islamitische geloof.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life bracht in 2009 naar voor dat Islam is de tweede godsdienst in de wereld na het Christendom, dat ongeveer 2,2 miljard volgelingen heeft. Nu zeven jaar later ziet het Christendom de zeer grote groei van die Islam als een bedreiging aan en beseffen velen dat er heel wat meer moslims zijn dan de geregistreerden.

In België is dat duidelijk te zien aan de vele streken waar meer dan de nu normale 25% moslims kan vast gesteld worden.

Die enorme groei van de laatste jaren, waarbij ook veel meer vrouwen met hoofddoek een gewoon straatbeeld zijn geworden, boezemt velen angst in dat het nog meer gaat doorzetten door de toestroom van migranten.

The Balkans Chronicles getuigt van zulk een angst in de volksmond. De auteur wil de mensen doen geloven dat de meeste mensen gewoon niet bewust zijn dat de islam niet zomaar een religie, maar een totalitaire politieke cult-achtige ideologie is, die zijn volgelingen dwingt tot blinde gehoorzaamheid, leert intolerantie, brutaliteit en alle moslims en niet-moslims vergrendelt in een strijd die rechtstreeks voortvloeien uit de 7e eeuw nomadische, roofzuchtige, Bedoeïen culture. {Islam is hier om Europa over te nemen!}

Waar hij dit vandaan haalt mag Joost weten. Hij schrijft verder

Deze politieke ideologie heeft als doel, de wereld te onderwerpen,hetzij vreedzaam door middel van zending en migratie, hetzij met geweld door middel van de heilige oorlog of jihad… {Islam is hier om Europa over te nemen!}

Zonder oog te hebben wat bepaalde zogenaamd christelijke groepen hebben uitgespookt de vorige eeuwen, hun moorddadige acties in de doofpot stekend, kijkt hij wel naar tegenreacties van Islamitische groepen.

Ook wijst hij met een boze vinger naar de migratieproblematiek waarin hij een verder gevaar van islamisering ziet. Hij schrijft:

In landen waar moslims met oorlogsvoering de sharia niet dwingend kan opleggen, daar wordt gebruik/misbruik gemaakt van migratie. Indonesië, Maleisië, Centraal Azië en delen van India dankzij migratie werden geïslamiseerd. Migratie is slechts een verkapte verovering en het zal pas eindigen wanneer de hele wereld is veroverd.Er zijn nu 57 staten waarin de islam regeert…

Europa wordt binnenkort een ‘islamitische staat’, waar de shari’ah geldt! De opkomst van de islam, betekent ook de opkomst van de sharia wetgeving in ons rechtssysteem.Veel menende term ISLAMISERING niet helemaal begrijpen.Met islamisering wordt niet alleen de toename van de moslimpopulatie bedoeld, en ook niet de militaire verovering van het land door moslims of de stichting van een islamitische staat. Islamisering is een proces waarbij de religie sluipenderwijs alle aspecten van het leven gaat domineren. {Islam is hier om Europa over te nemen!}

Dit lijkt wel Vlaams Blok of Vlaams Belang praat en is niet gestoeld op werkelijkheid maar getuigd ook van een onderschatting van het huidige staatsapparaat. Alsook onderschat het het vermogen van de Europese Unie als gemeenschap van federale staten die ook zelf hun eigen zeg in eigen land mogen doen.

Londen is een mooi voorbeeld hoe zijn gedachte over de komende twintig jaar, werkelijkheid kan worden en er niet alleen  genoeg islamitische kiezers in dat Europa zullen zijn, maar dat er ook anderen er voor zullen kiezen om op een Islamiet te kiezen als burgemeester of als President!  Heeft men er in het verleden zo veel vragen bij gesteld als het een Katholiek, Protestant, Niet gelovige, Humanist, Boeddhist of anders gelovige was die zich kandidaat stelde in een gemeente of in het land voor een kiesbare plaats?

Hebben die Christenen die zo bang zijn dat hun geloofsgemeenschap zal verminderen zich zorgen gemaakt toen atheïsten de burgemeesterposten gingen opeisen of parlementszetels gingen innemen? Waar waren dan die bezorgde christenen toen wetten werden goedgekeurd die tegen hun christelijk geloof ingingen? Toen leek het allemaal heel gewoon of moest iedereen maar mee op de kar van de vooruitgang klimmen.

Wat heeft men gedaan toen men gemeenschapsscholen or rijksscholen oprichtte, of protestantse Bijbelscholen of Joodse scholen terwijl men nu bezwaren heeft tegen sharia erfenissen, sharia scholen, en sharia banken in Europa?

Dat in Amsterdam polygame huwelijken officieel worden geregistreerd door de gemeentediensten is dat niet gewoon der werkelijkheid voor waar nemen? Trouwens heel wat Belgische blanke mannen houden er ook meerdere vrouwen op na, zonder dat zij al doende geregistreerd zijn. Is hun buitenechtelijke verhouding dan zo veel beter dan de echtelijke verbintenis van diegene die openen bloot voor meerdere vrouwen zorgt en hun goed behandelt?

Heel wat zogenaamde christenen zien er geen bezwaar in om seks te hebben voor het huwelijk of om met nog anderen seks te hebben als zij al door de echt met iemand anders verbonden zijn. Sommigen houden er zelfs van om van de verscheiden geslachten te snoepen en enkelen vinden het heel aangenaam om met meerderen tegelijk de liefde te bedrijven en vinden er zelfs geen bezwaar in om er mee te pronken.

De normen en waarde in onze westerse samenleving zijn zodanig laag komen te staan dat bepaalde bevolkingsgroepen terecht een halt toe roepen tegen die decadentie. Dat het voornamelijk Islamieten zijn, getuigd alleen maar hoe weinig christenen echt met het geloof bezig zijn en zich aan de regels van hun heilige boeken willen houden.

Sommige debatten zoals rond de hoofddoeken zijn dikwijls zaken die wij eerder bij de katholieken ook gezien hebben. De kinderboom generatie hebben hun ouders nog weten gescheiden zitten in de kerk en zagen hun moeders nog gesluierd en ofwel met hoedje of met hoofddoek de straat op gaan. Voor veel jongeren vandaag is dat niet meer gekend, maar dat wij ze gerust eens onze familie albums eens voor leggen.

Vele christenen zijn vergeten hoe de nonnen hun kapsels waren of hoe priesters in habijt rond liepen. In sommige landen is dat nog gewone praktijk.

Kan men niet inzien dat bepaalde islamitische groepen nu in een zelfde fase zitten als de christenen in de vorige eeuw hebben mee gemaakt?

Ook bij de moslims ziet men een duidelijke trent dat jongeren hun geloof minder diep beleven dan hun grootouders en ouders. Maar dat er terecht nu een opleving komt in geloofsbevraging is een feit waar wij in het westen beter zouden nadenken wat er in onze eigen cultuur verkeerd is gelopen. Indien christenen zo bang zijn dat het christendom zou ‘overwonnen’ worden door de islam, zouden zij zich dan niet beter aan de regels van die christelijke leer houden?

Betreft regels aan anderen opleggen moet iedereen die in het westen komt wonen zich aansluiten bij de rechtsbepalingen van dat land. Anders moet hij of zij dar niet wonen. Indien dat duidelijk wordt gemaakt aan hen die naar hier komen mag dat ook geen probleem vormen.

Iedereen, moslims maar ook christenen moeten zich er bewust van zijn dat geen enkele religie het recht heeft zich op te dringen aan anderen.

Analoog aan de uitspraak de Spaanse minister van Justitie López Aguilar (op 11-09-2004 ), geldt ook hier hetzelfde wat de Australische minister van Onderwijs Brendan Nelson zei:

“Indien u en uw achterban niet van plan zijn onze wetten, waarden en omgangsvormen te accepteren, hoort u hier niet thuis en dient u de koffers te pakken, paspoorten in te leveren en Australië te verlaten!” …

Maar dit hoeft niet in te houden dat zij niet hun eigen gebruiken en wijze van geloofsuitvoering zouden mogen hebben.  Zolang zij de vrijheid van een ander niet beperken en niemand schade berokkenen met hun geloofsbeleving moet deze ook vrij blijvend kunnen uitgevoerd worden.

Nederlands: Hans Janmaat, fractievoorzitter va...

Hans Janmaat, fractievoorzitter van de centrumpartij, tijdens een televisieuitzending in de zendtijd voor politieke partijen. Nederland, 8 februari 1984. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dat een stem voor de PvdA, SP, Groen, Groenlinks, CDA, CD&V, N-VA, Liberalen of D66 een stem zou zijn voor Sharia, voor de burka’s, hoofddoekjes, moskeeën, gescheiden zwemmen, gescheiden klassen en ga maar door is een onterechte uitspraak. Mogen wij er ook op wijzen dat wij, die nu nog leven, zelf nog dat gescheiden zwemmen hebben gekend.  Natuurlijk moeten wij niet terug naar die oude tijd toen onze ouders nog met die lange zwempakken het zeewater in gingen en wij niet met ontblote benen en armen mochten lopen. Misschien kan de oudere generatie de jongeren daar misschien even terug aan herinneren. Ook al hebben deze, zoals de schrijver van dit stuk, zich ook heftig tegen die ouderwetse ouders en de maatschappij verzet. Wij zijn er zelfs de barricaden voor opgeklommen in 1968 en hebben er niet tegen opgezien om naakt te lopen of in communes te leven. Zo is de wereld van één uiterste naar een ander gegaan en ziet het er naar uit dat de wereld nu terug naar een ander (vroeger) uiterste wil gaan.

Om te zeggen

Nergens ter wereld bestaat er een goed functionerende islamitische samenleving...

is de waarheid geweld aan doen en er niet in geloven dat zoals het christendom geëvolueerd is, de Islam ook zal evolueren en gebonden zal zijn aan het tijdsgebeuren..


Lees ook:

  1. Veroverende geloofsgroep
  2. Angst en verlossing van het kwaad
  3. Eerste moslim-mensenrechtencommissie start deze maand
  4. Sharia een kwaad voor Islam
  5. 15 jaar cel geëist voor leider Sharia4Belgium
  6. Nieuwkomers, nieuwelingen, immigranten, allochtonen en import
  7. Wat heeft zovelen ertoe gebracht naar Duitsland te willen emigreren
  8. Migratie en veiligheid even geherformuleerd
  9. Overzicht voor het jaar 2015 #1 Dreiging en angst
  10. Islamofobie
  11. Is Islamfobie uitgevonden door fundamentalistische regime
  12. Interview P-magazine // Overbevolking: hoe gaan we al die vluchtelingen opvangen?
  13. Denemarken zwicht onder druk van anti asielzoekers
  14. Wanneer de jongere oor kreeg voor Arabische klanken
  15. Verbod veruiterlijking van overtuiging
  16. Boerka moet weg uit Frankrijk
  17. Fundamentalisme en religie #2 Frankrijk en België
  18. Fundamentalisme en religie #3 Vluchtelingen en racisme
  19. Fundamentalisme en religie #5 Verguisde Koran
  20. Fundamentalisme en religie #6 Versplintering
  21. Het Raadsel, Salah Abdeslam
  22. Waarom jihadi’s niet onze eigen schuld zijn
  23. Het failliet van de war on terror
  24. De nacht is ver gevorderd 2 Studie 1 Zijn het de laatste dagen? 1 Intro
  25. Het gevaar om niets te doen tegen de oorzaak en de kwaal
  26. Volgens vele Belgen over tien jaar in de problemen door te soepele asiel opnamen vandaag


Verwant aan het christen zijn en bekering

  1. Overdracht van mening te vrijwaren
  2. Moslims, Christenen en Gratis Heilige Boeken
  3. Onze God ook deze van de moslims
  4. Antwerpse tien dagen moslima voor sociaal experiment
  5. Bekering een ‘keerpunt’
  6. Christenen die het juiste hart hebben om anderen te roepen om naar God te komen
  7. Wie zichzelf kent, is mild voor een ander
  8. Wat betreft Wees de beste…
  9. Door verkondiging ook geruster
  10. De rol van de Vader en zijn Zoon


Verdere bedenkingen van anderen
  1. Help mijn vriend doet aan de Ramadan!
  2. Religie, democratie & vrijheid
  3. Aanslagen en tegenslagen..
  4. Tegen IS, niet tegen de Islam
  5. De moslimburgemeester
  6. Ontbreekt het respect in Almere?
  7. Module: De succesvolle moslim door Ustaadz Suleyman Van Ael
  8. Leugens (FB column voorjaar 2015)
  9. Tijd voor Verandering
  10. Selvforsvar (upassende begejsting)
  11. Fremgang for ordentlige skoler
  12. Mental Health: Muslim Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviour
  13. Should we wish a ‘Blessed Ramadan’ on our Muslim friends?


Related articles

People Seeking for God 7 The Lord and lords

With purpose in the previous article People Seeking for God 6 Strategy we used a few times the words LORD and Lord. We can ask if everybody could clearly know about whom we where talking. When people read certain New Testaments in their language they can find often written ‘Lord’ or ‘lord’, but for sure it is not clear about whom it is been talking. Several people also use the title “Lord” to indicate God, but at the same time they use is it also to denote Jesus Christ (‘hail Zeus the Anointed”), whose name is really Jeshua in full Jehosjhua or Jehosjoea (“Salvation or Help from Jehovah”).

John Tenniel's "Our New 'First Lord' at S...

John Tenniel’s “Our New ‘First Lord’ at Sea” for the 13 October 1877 issue (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Though the Most High Elohim is certainly the Master or owner of everything it may be very confusing to only keep calling Him”Lord”. In the Bible or Holy Scriptures we do find several times that there is somebody speaking who says about Himself He is the “Sovereign Lord Jehovah“. The “Sovran” or sovrin or supreme ruler or head and lord (lörd) master or feudal superior, the proprietor or owner and a dominant person. It could be a titled nobleman, a duke marquess, earl, viscount or baron, a peer. But than we face the other lord also, who could be by courtesy the son of a duke or marquis, or the eldest son of an earl.

Today many do take it when they speak about the ‘lord’, they mean Jesus but also God. so by always saying Lord they do not see the difference any-more about which lord is been spoken, either the Father or the son. In this instance also a special son, namely, the eldest of the New Covenant. Because after God had created the first Adam, that first son revolted against his Father, the Divine Creator, and God promised He would take care that an other son would come onto the earth to bring Salvation to all the descendants of the first Adam. The Divine Creator created an other human being to be the first of God His New Creation. That second and last Adam became as such the oldest son of the “Lord of the New Creation“. The second Adam as oldest son could as such be called “Lord” and was going to be called also “Lord of lords” by many, the master of many people who would be master of others or would be a ‘bishop’, a member of the House of Lords, a judge of the Court of Session and would be appointed by his Father in heaven as a mediator between God and man but also as the High Judge of this world, placed above all human judges this world would produce.

Title page of Parables

Title page of Parables (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This second Adam as such would not be a lordling (a little lord) but the lordship appointed by the Most High Lord of the Universe. With his lord-ship that second Adam, would receive a state or condition of being a lord receiving the territory of a lord by his heavenly Father, Jehovah God.

People would come to speak about the Lord’s Prayer and the Lord’s Supper, having for the first speaking about the prayer Jesus gave to his followers to talk to his Father, Who also should be “Our Father” (Matthew 6:9-13). When talking about the Lord’s table people would speak about the communion table, where holy communion took and takes place, remembering Jesus Christ who took the bread, broke it and gave it to his disciples saying tit was the sign of the New Covenant. It is used for the table where people gather around to remember the one lord who gave his flesh, blood and his whole soul (his whole being) only willing to do the wish of his heavenly Father and not his will. (Luke 22:42).

This second Adam told all those around him, he did not come into this world to do his will, but to do the will of his Father, who is must more mightier than him, and without Him he could do nothing. We should not look to do just the will of this lord Jesus, but should seek to do the Will of the Father of Jesus (John 5:30). Jesus recognised Who was the Only One Rightful Lord or Master of everything. Without this Master of the Universe Jesus could do nothing. He was only a creation of that Divine Creator who was given the possibility to handle in the name of the Most High Elohim, “Lord of Lords”. He might have been the only begotten son of God, but in case God did not gave him the power he was just nothing or like anybody else.

Joh 5:19-32 The Scriptures 1998+  (19)  Therefore יהושע {Jeshua} responded and said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son is able to do none at all by Himself, but only that which He sees the Father doing, because whatever He does, the Son also likewise does.  (20)  “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all that He Himself does. And greater works than these He is going to show Him, in order that you marvel.  (21)  “For as the Father raises the dead and makes alive, even so the Son makes alive whom He wishes.  (22)  “For the Father judges no one, but has given all the judgment to the Son,  (23)  that all should value the Son even as they value the Father. He who does not value the Son does not value the Father who sent Him.  (24)  “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me possesses everlasting life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.  (25)  “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Elohim. And those having heard shall live.  (26)  “For as the Father possesses life in Himself, so He gave also to the Son to possess life in Himself,  (27)  and He has given Him authority also to do judgment, because He is the Son of Aḏam.  (28)  “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the tombs shall hear His voice,  (29)  and shall come forth – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have practised evil matters, to a resurrection of judgment.  (30)  “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own desire, but the desire of the Father who sent Me.  (31)  “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.  (32)  “There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true.

Jesus could only become lord or judge by the allowance of his Father in heaven, to Whom he came to sit at His right hand to judge the living and the dead. Already early in time it was said Jehovah would raise up judges (Judges 2:16) but knowing that a man of flesh and blood would be the best person to know what is in the heart of an other person of flesh and blood, god has given the power to judge to His only begotten son, Jeshua (Jesus Christ). In that son people should be able to come to see Who God really was. Nobody would be able to bring an excuse because God had given His Word to the World in the Holy Writings brought into many different manuscripts by many men of the world who offered themselves to be men of God. The many promises made in hat Word became reality by the birth of that man Christ Jesus, and as such the Word became flesh (John 1:1-5)

Yah Chanan (John 1:1-3): In the beginning the Word having been and the Word having been unto God and God having been the Word he having been, in the beginning, unto God all through his hand became: and without him not even one being whatever became.  (Aramaic New Covenant;  ANCJ Released: 1996 Contents: New Testament Source Used: Exegeses Bibles (1996) Location: Tyndale House, Cambridge, United Kingdom)

It was the Most High Lord, Allah, the God or “Lord of heaven and earth“, Who took care that His Word could be brought to many, and that the world would come to understand the Word He provided. Jesus came to explain the Words of his Father, and made many things clear, which lots of people did not understand from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Father and Son's nameIn this man Jesus people got to see an important person and as such called him also ‘sir’ or ‘lord’, which we would do when we encounter a man by which we do have no relation or whom we want to give esteem. As such we should consider the title ‘lord’ given to Jeshua a title of respect or courtesy. Some wrongly consider it a title giving proof of the godhead or divinity of Jesus. But would they consider the lords of this world also than to be the God, though several of them may be called gods as well. Already in Scripture we do find such lords also receiving a title of being a ‘god’ but that did not make them The God. Many love to bring John 1:1 to say Jesus was God because they would love to see it that way. But the phrase gives us to understand that the writer wanted to have his book written like the Genesis of the Hebrew Scriptures, but now the Genesis of the New Covenant or the “New Testament” (hence the name of the assembly of the Greek books).

“In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.” (Emphatic Diaglott – interlineary side)

Many want to take the Word like Wisdom, which where personified in the writings to be really a person, but it was a description by which word was masculine and wisdom feminine, but not having like so many think a man god and a woman god, and therefore speaking of Elohim or the “Mighty Ones”, in the plural so more than one person. They forget that for higher persons always the Pluralis Majestatis was used. A singular person speaking with the term “we” but only appointing to himself as the higher placed one.

There where also may people in the world who tried to get people away from God and they did everything to obscure the Name of God and to confuse people. In the previous century, from the 1960ies onward they tried to erase the name of God from the Bible itself. Several new translations replaced the Name of God with the word Lord. At first they still used LORD and Lord, so that people still could see the difference between The God and the lord Jesus. Though for the trinitarians it was more useful to have not such distinction and to have people just to read ‘lord’  so that they could not see any more the difference between the Lord God and the Lord Jesus.

Those looking for God and wanting to get to know God better, their  quest was made more difficult. But if they still tried to listen what was rally written in the Books they still could find the Only One God. It would have not been so easy when they could have found the Name of the One God, wherever it was originally written. Bbut God protected His Word and everywhere in the world could have been found proper translations where the Name of God was till placed there where the Tetragammaton (according to the syllables) or the Name of God was really originally written.

We may be pleased to see a tendency of change, coming back into the world, more people finding it important again to use Bibles with the Name of God where it was in the original writings. Several Restored Names, Holy Name Bible or Sacred Names Bible and Hebrew Roots Bible translations could see the light around the turn of the previous century.

Jehova vs JehoshuaTo our shame lovers of God have to agree that in lots of the modern Bible translations including the later King James Bible versions, that our Heavenly Father’s personal name Jehovah/Yahweh has been taken out and replaced with titles and even names of pagan deities more than 10,000 times.
Literal translations were not much liked and lots of people were encouraged by their churches to read paraphrased Bile translations. Not many where eager to take a Bible translation close to the original language that was written thousands of years ago – the Bible as it was! The Old Testament from the original Hebrew manuscripts and the New Testament from the original Aramaic and Greek texts.

We should take it at heart that the Divine Creator wanted us to know Him and come into close realtionship with Him, having all the world for the many generations knowing His Name.

Exo 3:13-15 The Scriptures 1998+  (13)  And Mosheh said to Elohim, “See, when I come to the children of Yisra’ĕl and say to them, ‘The Elohim of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His Name?’ what shall I say to them?”  (14)  And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.”1 And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕll, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” Footnote: 1The Heḇrew text reads: ’eyeh ’asher ’eyeh, the word ’eyeh being derived from hayah which means to be, to exist, but the Aramaic text here in v. 14 reads: ayah ashar ayah. This is not His Name, but it is an explanation that leads up to the revelation of His Name in v. 15, namely: יהוה {Jehovah}.  (15)  And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה {Jehovvah} Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Yaʽaqob, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’

Looking at Exodus 20:7 concerning the use of the Divine Creator His Name, we should be warned not to make His Name worthless: “Lo tisah et Shem YHVH Eloheicha l’shav.”

Exo 20:7 The Scriptures 1998+  (7) “You do not bring1 the Name of יהוה {Jehovah} your Elohim to naught, for יהוה {Jehovah} does not leave the one unpunished who brings His Name to naught. {Footnote: 1Or lift up, or take}.

By withholding the proclamation of His Name, we may well be guilty of “making His Name worthless.”  Those who just use ‘Lord” do they not use lightly the name of the Adonai? Will Allah, the God of heaven and earth not leave those unpunished who uses His name lightly. Therefore it is important that we also show the outside world our relationship we do want to have with the Creator of heaven and earth.

In older American movies you might find children calling their father “sir”, but would you when you really love your father call him “sir” or “lord? Would you not speak to him by using the words “Father” and using His name when he himself asked you to call him by his name? God explained Who He was and is, and Who He wants to be know by the Whole world, and How important He does find it to have His name be hallowed. When we do know that our Father wants His Name to be praised and to be considered holy or set apart, would we than not place His Name apart and make it special?

By calling God “Lord” we are not making Him very special and do not use His Name but only a title, which also can be used by other people. The Name of God can not be used by other people in the same way. It is so special, so sacred, we also should give it an extra place and have others to know it.

The Torah and Tanach or Tanakh (‘Old’ Testament) clearly records how Hebraic Patriarchs and Prophets actually proclaimed and pronounced the Sacred Name as a Testimony to non-Jews and non-believers and how His followers will come to know His Name and call upon Him, using this Name!

When you keep using the title “LORD” or “Lord” you keep refraining from using the Sacred Name of God. by not using the name of the God of Adam, the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, who was also the God of Jesus and the God of the apostles, you do not show the love for the Father of Christ, nor the love for the son of the Father who taught his followers the importance of the Name of God and learned them to pray that the Name of God shall be placed separate or be made holy.

As followers of Christ it is our task to do what Jesus demanded and to have the Name of his Father resound all over the world. We should go out into the world and get that Name sound everywhere where we can. We should not be afraid to use that Name, though it frightens a lot of people and lots of people shall let us know they do not like to hear that Name “Jehovah”. But we should not fear those human people but should more fear that “Jehovah” Himself, Who is the Most Mighty Lord over all lords.

Let us therefore be careful looking sincerely about whom is spoken and using the right person spoken of.

For example let us see in Acts 2 whose name we should call on.

Acts 2: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD,( Jehovah Joel 2:31,32 ) shall be saved.

Acts 2: 39 or the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD,( Jehovah Joel 2:32 ) our God shall call.

“And thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”(Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luk 10:27 )

Let us declare the love of God by using His Name not in vain but with respect and holiness.

Calling on the Name JehovahThe substitution of the Names of יהוה (YHWH = Jehovah) and יהושע (Yehushua = Jeshua) by the names of the pagan deities of the nations has brought immeasurable harm. Such names as Lord, God, Jesus (hail Zeus), and Christ in no way represent the meaning of the Name revealed by the Most High to Moses and the ancient Hebrew leaders. By employing these names the people unknowingly turn the worship of יהוה (YHWH = Jehovah) into that of idols and actually ascribe the benevolent characteristics of the Mighty One of Israel to the pagan deities (Hosea 2:8).

When we are looking for God, seeking Him with an honest heart, we shall be able to find Him easier by using a Bible translation which uses His Name there where God has given His Name in His Word.

We should at all times use the proper titles and proper name of the God of gods, the “El-Shaddai”, “Eternal” or “Everliving One”, the Elohim Hashem Jehovah.

Preceding articles:

Corruption in our translations !

Finding God amid all the religious externals

Seeing or not seeing and willingness to find God

People Seeking for God 1 Looking for answers

People Seeking for God 2 Human interpretations

People Seeking for God 3 Laws and directions

People Seeking for God 4 Biblical terms

People Seeking for God 5 Bread of life

People Seeking for God 6 Strategy



For those who swear that only the King James Bible is the right translation they should consider very well wich version they are using and which version they think is the good translation. Most of those who claim we should only use the King James version do themselves not use the original King James version where Jehovah is used and a ‘v’ is presented by a ‘u’, plus using very old language. They very often use a later more ‘contemporary’ version where God His name is taken away and replaced with ‘Lord’

 Please do find The Divine Name Jehovah Restored 6972 Times in the divine Name King James Bible.

The Divine Name King James Bible is

the unrevised 1769 edition of the Authorized King James Version
with the wonderful restoration of God’s personal and unique name Jehovah in over 6970 rightful places.

We also would like to remind people that there is no singular organisation which has the sole right to use the Name of God.

It is a misconception that JWs have a monopoly on the name Jehovah. The Sacred Name Bible Movement is not affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Please also do find to read:

  1. A God between many gods
  2. God of gods
  3. Attributes to God
  4. Only One God
  5. God is one
  6. Jehovah Yahweh Gods Name
  7. I am that I am Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh אהיה אשר אהיה
  8. God about His name “יהוה“
  9. יהוה , YHWH and Love: Four-letter words
  10. Another way looking at a language #5 Aramic, Hebrew and Greek
  11. Pluralis Majestatis in the Holy Scriptures
  12. The Bible and names in it
  13. Praise the God with His Name
  14. Praise the most High Jehovah God above all
  15. Jehovah Yahweh Gods Name (Video)
  16. The Divine name of the Creator (Video)
  17. Use of /Gebruik van Jehovah or/of Yahweh in Bible Translations/Bijbel vertalingen
  18. Lord or Yahuwah, Yeshua or Yahushua
  19. Jesus begotten Son of God #18 Believing in inhuman or human person
  20. Sitting at the right hand of God
  21. Hashem השם, Hebrew for “the Name”
  22. Titles of God beginning with the Aleph in Hebrew
  23. Trusting, Faith, calling and Ascribing to Jehovah #2 Calling upon the Name of God
  24. Trusting, Faith, Calling and Ascribing to Jehovah #13 Prayer #11 Name to be set apart
  25. The Trinity – the Truth
  26. Altered to fit a Trinityod of gods
  27. History of the acceptance of a three-in-one God
  28. I Will Cause Your Name To Be Remembered
  29. Without God no purpose, no goal, no hope
  30. Created to live in relation with God
  31. Nuturing a close relationship with God
  32. A remaining name
  33. No Other Name (But Jesus)
  34. Archeological Findings the name of God YHWH
  35. Accuracy, Word-for-Word Translation Preferred by most Bible Readers
  36. Some Restored Name Versions
  37. Holiness and expression of worship coming from inside
  38. Listening and Praying to the Father
  39. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
  40. Let us recognise how great God is
  41. Wishing to do the will of God
  42. Corruption in our translations !


Additional reading:

  1. The Divine Name
  2. Misuse of God’s name Jehovah => Jehovah Is Worthy of Honor
  3. Frequently Asked Questions about the the DNKJB.
  4. Is the DNKJB a real King James Bible?
  5. Why did the Divine Name Publishers choose the form Jehovah to be the name for the Tetragrammaton YHWH?
  6. Restored King James Version Bible Translation
  7. Christian clergyman defiling book which did not belong to him


  • Who is God? (
    El Shaddai means God Almighty, God of the mountains.
  • Sabbath Lord… (
    Open our eyes to see You more clearly, open our minds to know You more deeply and open our spirits to worship You more sincerely.
  • When Fear comes Knocking (
    Where Rabshakeh and the king of Assyria failed was in counting the Lord God as like unto the gods of wood and stone.
    There are times when we are faced with similar circumstances in our lives.  We face giants and situations that are far greater than we are in the natural.  They blaspheme or mock our God and expect that we should bow to them.  Our very lives or livelihood may be at stake.  What will we do?  Will we bow in fear to the enemies’ demands or will we throw ourselves before the Lord and plead our case before Him as Hezekiah did?
  • “The God of Of Salvation, The Lord Of Death” (
    The God that we can call our own, is “the God of salvation” or, in other words, He is “the Mighty One that controls the deliverance of His people.”  Here, once again we can see a physical and spiritual aspect to this text…
  • Carissimi; Today’s Mass: Monday Lent I (
    O almighty and eternal God, who hast dominion over both the living and the dead, and hast mercy on all whom Thou forekowest shall be Thine by faith and good works : we humbly beseech Thee that all for whom we have resolved to make supplication whether the present world still holds them in the flesh or the world to come has already received them out of the body, may, through the intercession of all Thy saints, obtain of Thy goodness and clemency pardon for all their sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Who livest and reignest, with God the Father, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God For ever and ever.
  • In the article Holding Fast the Name of Jesus ( we can clearly see how easily the persons are mixed with each other when a person uses a bible translation with omitting the name of God, having it replaced with ‘Lord’.
    It is also not because salvation comes by a man that it means that that man is the Most High God. the text of the New testament speaks about calling on the Name of God and not on the name of Jesus:
    Rom 10:13 ToY+  Whoever calls on YHVH’s name will Live!
  • SIH’s Think On These Things: Ephesians 3:17a (
    Many times, the alignment of the believer’s desires to the will of God is an ongoing process.  As the believer grows in faith and knowledge of the Word, they find their heart (desires) gradually becoming more aligned with God’s will (1 Peter 2:1-3, Colossians 1:9-10)
  • A laborer for the LORD. (
    We are each blessed with a gift we could share with others, like singing, praying for others, preaching, evangelizing, acting, leadership….the gifts are many. There are people we could approach and strike up a conversation with and tell them about God and others are not so open to listening. Silently praying comes in handy in such a situation.
  • Lord (
    We are in awe of your blessings and your magic threads you tug and tie among us. We are striving, God, to make you proud and to grow into the best versions of ourselves for you.
  • Praise The Lord (
    When I was lost He found me, Before I needed Him, before I was enslaved, before I took my first breath, He  provided a way of salvation, a way of freedom through His Son Jesus.
  • Devotional 05.02.2014 (
    Jehovah, God of Heaven and Earth, Creator of the entire world, He alone is God! His powers are so great “very great, exceeding great; so great that it cannot be said, nor even conceived how great they are, what a display of wisdom, power, and goodness is in them; they are wonderful beyond expression and conception;

Enhanced by Zemanta