What's in a name?

[BATMan_OIF]

I was in Sunday school today and the instructor posed a question that I had never considered before. When I got home I tried to find the answer online without any progress. I was hoping someone might have some insight (and of course scripture and/or a quote or talk from a general authority to provide me with more to ponder and study). Here it goes:

Abram's name was changed to Abraham... why? I understand that his name wasn't changed until after he traveled into Egypt and that after his name was changed he was given many blessings, buy why change it at all? I mean why not just give Abram the blessings instead of changing his name to Abraham and then giving him blessings... what is the significance of the Lord changing his name?

[gabelpa]

That, for me is one of those things that going through the Temple helps to shed some light on.

[rameumptom]

Anciently, a name was a very important thing that established who one was. In Abraham 1, we read that Abraham sought to be the "father of many nations." That is what Abraham means.

In the ancient texts, Abraham fled for a time from the Chaldeans to the house of Noah and Shem. They taught him many things, and from them and Melchizedek, he would have come to desire the blessings placed on them. Noah was the father of all nations. Abraham sought a similar blessing.

Jehovah's name in Hebrew is YHWH. Jews do not pronounce it, as they believe the sacred name should not be pronounced (they use Adonai, etc). I believe that Yahweh/Jehovah gave the "H"s in his name to Abram and Sarai, making them Abraham and Sarah. IOW, he was making them his divine children by giving them the power of his own name!

I discuss this in more detail in the Old Testament thread.

[BATMan_OIF]

I had heard that the changing of the name in the ancient Jewish (and most modern) faith as significant importance. I have also heard that many Jews do not completely understand the relevance of such a change. I guess I am in the same boat... It has been many years since I have been through the temple, perhaps I need to go again to gain a deeper understanding.

[Lolita]

I think reading thekabalist's posts could help you in that...

But I have heard that we are going to be called by our blessing's name in the resurrection, the sons of Zion will be recognized by their names, so it won't be any confusion, just the true children of God will know their names and will answer the calling.

[Lolita]

I was in Sunday school today and the instructor posed a question that I had never considered before. When I got home I tried to find the answer online without any progress. I was hoping someone might have some insight (and of course scripture and/or a quote or talk from a general authority to provide me with more to ponder and study). Here it goes:

Abram's name was changed to Abraham... why? I understand that his name wasn't changed until after he traveled into Egypt and that after his name was changed he was given many blessings, buy why change it at all? I mean why not just give Abram the blessings instead of changing his name to Abraham and then giving him blessings... what is the significance of the Lord changing his name?

Considering that they were just little changes in Abraham's name it could be logical to attribute it to a change in the pronunciation throughout his trips from one region to another, as someone have just posted here. So it wouldn't be that God changed his name, but the people in the different regions changed its pronunciation or writing

[BATMan_OIF]

Due to the well known practices of the Jewish scribes in ancient times we know the accuracy of the Pentatuch to be irrifutable (as can be validated by comparing many of the ancient and modern scrolls). Because of this we know there was no mistake made when the Lord clearly identified himself in Genesis 17:1 to Abram and that it was he, in Genesis 17:5, who intentionally changed the name of Abram to Abraham.

In the Jewish language every character has an identifiable value, so even a small change like a letter or two is quite significant in the Jewish culture.

I believe that the Lord is purposeful in all he does and I want to better understand why the changing of a name is significant.

[Maureen]

...Abram's name was changed to Abraham... why? I understand that his name wasn't changed until after he traveled into Egypt and that after his name was changed he was given many blessings, buy why change it at all? I mean why not just give Abram the blessings instead of changing his name to Abraham and then giving him blessings... what is the significance of the Lord changing his name?

Bible.org says:

No longer will your name be 13 Abram. Instead, your name will be Abraham 14 because I will make you 15 the father of a multitude of nations. (Genesis 17:5)

14 sn Your name will be Abraham. The renaming of Abram was a sign of confirmation to the patriarch. Every time the name was used it would be a reminder of God’s promise. “Abram” means “exalted father,” probably referring to Abram’s father Terah. The name looks to the past; Abram came from noble lineage. The name “Abraham” is a dialectical variant of the name Abram. But its significance is in the wordplay with אַב־הֲמוֹן (’av-hamon, “the father of a multitude,” which sounds like אַבְרָהָם, ’avraham, “Abraham”). The new name would be a reminder of God’s intention to make Abraham the father of a multitude. For a general discussion of renaming, see O. Eissfeldt, “Renaming in the Old Testament,” Words and Meanings, 70-83.

NETBible: Genesis 17

M.

[rameumptom]

The idea that Abram moved to a new area and changed his name is silly. Not that such didn't happen, but the Bible gives us the reason why it occurred, and Abraham 1 also suggests the same: to become a father of many nations.

New names were very important, and we see it happening throughout the scriptures, such as Jacob to Israel. D&C 130 tells us that new names will be needed even in the next life, as they become the keyword/password to our own personal Urim and Thummim.

[volgadon]

Due to the well known practices of the Jewish scribes in ancient times we know the accuracy of the Pentatuch to be irrifutable

We know no such thing. In fact, there is a concept of deliberate scribal changes.

[BATMan_OIF]

Just to be clear, I speak of the Torah (Hebrew) or the Pentatuch (Greek) or more specifically the same text given on mount Sinai.

The Torah was originally dictated from God to Moses, letter for letter. From there, the Midrash (Devarim Rabba 9:4) tells us:

"Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would 'testify' against him." (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would 'testify' against him.)

How were the new scrolls verified? An authentic "proof text" was always kept in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, against which all other scrolls would be checked. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Sages would periodically perform global checks to weed out any scribal errors.

To eliminate any chance of human error, the Talmud enumerates more than 20 factors mandatory for a Torah scroll to be considered "kosher." This is the Torah's built-in security system. Should any one of these factors be lacking, it does not possess the sanctity of a Torah scroll, and is not to be used for a public Torah reading.

The meticulous process of hand-copying a scroll takes about 2,000 hours (a full-time job for one year). Throughout the centuries, Jewish scribes have adhered to the following guidelines:

- A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is added.

- A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is deleted.

- The scribe must be a learned, pious Jew, who has undergone special training and certification.

- All materials (parchment, ink, quill) must conform to strict specifications, and be prepared specifically for the purpose of writing a Torah Scroll.

- The scribe may not write even one letter into a Torah Scroll by heart. Rather, he must have a second, kosher scroll opened before him at all times.

- The scribe must pronounce every word out loud before copying it from the correct text.

- Every letter must have sufficient white space surrounding it. If one letter touched another in any spot, it invalidates the entire scroll.

- If a single letter was so marred that it cannot be read at all, or resembles another letter (whether the defect is in the writing, or is due to a hole, tear or smudge), this invalidates the entire scroll. Each letter must be sufficiently legible so that even an ordinary schoolchild could distinguish it from other, similar letters.

- The scribe must put precise space between words, so that one word will not look like two words, or two words look like one word.

- The scribe must not alter the design of the sections, and must conform to particular line-lengths and paragraph configurations.

- A Torah Scroll in which any mistake has been found, cannot be used, and must be fixed within 30 days, or buried.

[Lolita]

Wow!! This is why scribes were considered so important people!! And I bet they are today, too. I read this work costs about a total amount of 80,000 dollars and there are just 300 scribes worldwide.

This makes the Torah extremely autentical.

[volgadon]

I just got home from work, so I'll post a longer reply later, but most of those rules come from the Masoretes, early medieval period, folks!

[rameumptom]

Batman,

There is strong evidence that the Torah which we now have, did not come directly from Moses. Rather, it is a compilation of 5 or more authors/groups of authors, including J, E, P, D and R. This is called the Documentary Hypothesis.

We have two versions of the Creation. We have two stories of the Flood built into one. We have Moses going twice to Meribah to get water from a rock, once with God's approval and once with God chastising him.

Even the Book of Mormon seems supportive of the DH. The original manuscript notes in 1 Ne 5:11, "the book of Moses". It was changed later to "5 books of Moses". The Brass Plates of Laban contain writings not in our Bible, including those of Zenock and Zenos. The Plates of Laban seemed to only have one account of Moses at Meribah, the one where God is supportive (the E version).

Some LDS scholars have suggested that the Brass Plates were the source for E, as they originally came from the Northern Kingdom, were brought down to Jerusalem, and were used significantly by the Jews as reference (Laban obviously took them to the Elders of Jerusalem frequently at night, as it was not strange to Zoram for Nephi to want them carried out in the middle of the night). There are other points, as well.

If the DH is correct, then the Torah did not come to us directly from Moses. There were scribal changes, and political views entered into it. What political views? Well, there's an obvious conflict between the priests of Aaron and Moses, and it is felt in the Bible.

[rameumptom]

BTW, Volgadon is correct. The idea that each of the tribes anciently had their own scroll copy and it was compared with the one in the ark was belief that was added in medieval times.

The reality is, our oldest OT writings are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to 200 BC. While many of the writings are very accurate, many more are not. And then there is the issue of all the extra writings that did not make it into our Bible. There is even a scroll, the Temple Scroll, that is believed by some scholars to be a sixth Torah scroll!

And there are major differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts. It was not uncommon for ancient scribes to write their comments and corrections in the borders, and then to have later scribes add those comments as part of the original in later transmissions.

So, while the Bible has been rather consistent over the last 1-2000 years, there are strong evidences that it has not always been that way.

[BATMan_OIF]

Volgadon and Rameumptom,

This is the very first forum that I have ever joined and this was the very first post I have ever submitted. Your post replies have been enlightening and I love opportunities to learn. It's all about the pursuit of truth and I have much more to research now on this topic, thank you both very much.

For years now I have believed in the accuracy of the first five books of the OT, based on what I had been taught, and I didn't questioned it. I take upon me the approach that I will study and ponder and pray to understand truth (I guess I didn't do enough of that on this topic) in all its forms and I chose long ago to freely accept and embrace the truth even if I do not completely understand it - much like a child I guess. I don't regret this approach and have found that over time I learn more in this way.

I think this forum / site is a great place to be. I am growing to love it and I haven't been here very long. Again thank you for your time and effort in responding and expanding my knowledge.

[rameumptom]

Batman,

Glad we can be of help. There is much about the history of the Bible that most Christians do not know. For most, traditional and LDS Christians, they read the Bible from a modern viewpoint, and often with the view of sola scriptura (perfect, without flaw, and there is nothing else from God).

Yet, while we believe the Bible to be incredibly inspired and teaching much spiritual truth, it is NOT a history book. Nor is it perfect. Prophets write things down according to their understanding. The Old Testament teaches a flat earth concept, and that the earth is in the center of the universe. Does this make the spiritual teachings wrong, simply because prophets were being taught spiritual things to bring people to repentance and not science? Of course not.

We have to accept the truths in the Bible. However, we must learn to understand them from the ancient view, and also temper it with new truths we learn outside the Bible. I do not know anyone today who insists the earth is in the center of the universe, but we accept Copernicus and Galileo over the original understanding in the Bible. And that is how it should be. Galileo does not take away from the reality of God, His commandments, or the Atonement. But we can understand the Bible and appreciate it, even as we appreciate modern truths that are not found in the Bible (such as technology and science).

And as we study the ancient view, we can often find new ways of looking at scripture. Often, I have found I read the scriptures in a completely wrong way, simply because I don't know how the ancients viewed things.

[aharon]

I have done a little study of Hebrew and one thing I found very fascinating was that their language has different layers to it, rather than English, which only uses 1 layer, meaning that a lot is lost in translation of the bible from Hebrew to English.

The words, letters and even how things are written are done to convey a different meaning.

I only studied it for a few weeks, but it is a very interesting language.

I do know that the "h" sound in the hebrew language stands for "covenant with God" it makes sense looking at it that way, that Abram and Sara both got an 'h' added to their names.

[aharon]

Batman,

Glad we can be of help. There is much about the history of the Bible that most Christians do not know. For most, traditional and LDS Christians, they read the Bible from a modern viewpoint, and often with the view of sola scriptura (perfect, without flaw, and there is nothing else from God).

Yet, while we believe the Bible to be incredibly inspired and teaching much spiritual truth, it is NOT a history book. Nor is it perfect. Prophets write things down according to their understanding. The Old Testament teaches a flat earth concept, and that the earth is in the center of the universe. Does this make the spiritual teachings wrong, simply because prophets were being taught spiritual things to bring people to repentance and not science? Of course not.

We have to accept the truths in the Bible. However, we must learn to understand them from the ancient view, and also temper it with new truths we learn outside the Bible. I do not know anyone today who insists the earth is in the center of the universe, but we accept Copernicus and Galileo over the original understanding in the Bible. And that is how it should be. Galileo does not take away from the reality of God, His commandments, or the Atonement. But we can understand the Bible and appreciate it, even as we appreciate modern truths that are not found in the Bible (such as technology and science).

And as we study the ancient view, we can often find new ways of looking at scripture. Often, I have found I read the scriptures in a completely wrong way, simply because I don't know how the ancients viewed things.

Well said! This type of thinking will put at ease a lot of people uncomfortable with some of the theories science has discovered, ecspecially evolution...

[Elgama]

actually I think it still holds true my children's names the meanings came through revelation my daughter's name is Hebrew for Tree. my middle Child is Strong Man of God and the youngest means to Laugh. When i was writing lists for their names we found that the shortlist always had names of similar meanings

[volgadon]

I do know that the "h" sound in the hebrew language stands for "covenant with God" it makes sense looking at it that way, that Abram and Sara both got an 'h' added to their names.

First I've heard of that. It is considered a sacred letter by virtue of appearing in God's name (and twice), but I haven't heard that it specifically means covenant with God.

[buffyscrubs]

nice post thanks for sharing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dexter box set

Lost dvd box set

mash complete series