Using God's name in vain

[saturneptune]

All the slang expressions using the Lord always refer to the Father or Son. I have never heard one using the Holy Spirit. Another way to take the Lord's name in vain is to take an oath in court say, and lie. Also, using anything Holy for a frivolous purpose is to me committing the same sin. For example, if ones wife confronts a husband as to where they have been and he says, "I swear on a stack of Bibles."

Taking the Lord's Supper in a frivolous manner is taking God's name in vain.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't see a lot of difference between using, taking or saying the Lord's name in vain. It is basically calling on God to condemn someone to eternal punishment.

When we do that, we are demanding that God do something that is His prerogative alone. He will not condemn someone just because we say He should. That's why it's in vain.

 

[Greektim]

All the slang expressions using the Lord always refer to the Father or Son. I have never heard one using the Holy Spirit. Another way to take the Lord's name in vain is to take an oath in court say, and lie. Also, using anything Holy for a frivolous purpose is to me committing the same sin. For example, if ones wife confronts a husband as to where they have been and he says, "I swear on a stack of Bibles."

Taking the Lord's Supper in a frivolous manner is taking God's name in vain.

Where do you get this stuff???

 

[Greektim]

Agreed. His name is Jehovah. Or, 'Providence' in English.

To 'take His name', is to marry Him, or be adopted by Him. Same thing it means any other time.
My wife took my name. She didn't say 'Ramsey', she took the name 'Ramsey' as hers.

Pro 30:9
9 Lest I be full, and deny thee,
and say, Who is the Lord?
or lest I be poor, and steal,
and take the name of my God in vain.

Taking the name of Providence, as in "I'm a Christian", thereby taking the name of Jesus, as your groom, and then acting as if He can't provide for you, is "taking the name of the LORD thy God in vain."

For a Christian to borrow money from usurers, or steal, is a violation of their covenant with 'He who sees and provides'

Jehovah is a mispronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH, the divine name.

And where do you get the idea of it meaning providence? That is a new one for me.

 

[saturneptune]

Where do you get this stuff???

So, you think taking a oath by saying I swear on a stack of Bibles is not taking God's name in vain. I get it from Scripture. I would refer you to the third commandment. It is in Exodus. Also, I would refer you to Christ's command about oaths, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

As far as the Lords Supper goes, we are partaking it to remember what Christ did for us. Christ is God. I would refer you to Corinthians where Paul talks about taking the Supper in a frivolous manner, and how sometimes the penalty is death.

To think you are obeying the third commandment because you do not curse with God's name is a very minor part of obeying the commandment. It includes thought, deed and motive. If you "swear on a stack of Bible" you are making a mockery of His Word.

There are some really good online study courses that go over the basics of Scripture.

I hope that answered your question, where do I get that from.

 

[saturneptune]

Jehovah is a mispronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH, the divine name.

And where do you get the idea of it meaning providence? That is a new one for me.

Prophet is correct. Why are you trying to invent a limited scope of the third commandment?

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am sure that we would all agree that saying the word God and putting a profane word behind it is using His name in Vain.

Actually, as others have pointed out, "God" is a title, not a name. In the Hebrew mind, a person's "name" represented the person themselves, not just an identifier.

So the commandment not to take the name of the LORD is vain is a prohibition against using the LORD's name recklessly or for one's own purposes. A person claiming that their plans are God's plans (when they aren't) is guilty of using the LORD's name in vain. Someone coming up with a program or method and claiming it is the way of Jesus (for instance, "The Way of the Master") when it bears very little resemblance to anything that Jesus did or taught, is guilty of taking the LORD's name in vain.

Certainly using God's name as a curse can be part of taking the LORD's name in vain if done with an attitude of contempt toward God, but that is a relatively minor part of the prohibition.

 

[DHK]

Show me "using his name in vain" in the scriptures.
You got the 'in vain' part from the scriptures, maybe... But, "using"??

Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not idly utter the name of Jehovah thy God; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that idly uttereth his name. (Darby)

There is more than one translation of the Bible.
"Utter" is the same as "use." There is no difference between "take" and "use" the name of the Lord "in vain." When you do one you do the other. This is a good translation in that it gives a better sense of the command. It gives the adjective of "idly utter," something we do "idly," without thinking about it. The expression OMG is one expression that is often said idly, or in printed form posted idly; thus taken and used in vain. God will not hold that person guiltless.

In the NT, in application of the law, Jesus said:
Every idle word that a man shall speak he shall so give account of in the day of judgment;
By thy words thou shalt be justified; by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Mat.12:36,37).

 

[quantumfaith]

Prophet is correct. Why are you trying to invent a limited scope of the third commandment?

I have to side with GT on this one. Jehovah is a "created" name, as I understand it, using the vowel structure of Lord (Adonai) to create "Jehovah". The hebrew and Personal name for God was and is YHWH. Unless I am unaware, we only make our best guess as to its pronunciation (Yahweh). Perhaps some biblical and linguistic research has occurred since my OT Survey class back in the early 80's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

 

[Greektim]

Prophet is correct. Why are you trying to invent a limited scope of the third commandment?

Nothing in the post you quoted of me was about the 3rd commandment. I was correcting his pronunciation of YHWH. And then I asked about his understanding it to mean "providence." Pay attention.

However, if the 3rd commandment was allowed to mean what it says, and not more, then it is very much limited to simply the name of God... the Jews got this. That's why they stopped using it except rare occasions. B/c God's name should be venerated.

 

[Greektim]

So, you think taking a oath by saying I swear on a stack of Bibles is not taking God's name in vain. I get it from Scripture. I would refer you to the third commandment. It is in Exodus. Also, I would refer you to Christ's command about oaths, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

As far as the Lords Supper goes, we are partaking it to remember what Christ did for us. Christ is God. I would refer you to Corinthians where Paul talks about taking the Supper in a frivolous manner, and how sometimes the penalty is death.

To think you are obeying the third commandment because you do not curse with God's name is a very minor part of obeying the commandment. It includes thought, deed and motive. If you "swear on a stack of Bible" you are making a mockery of His Word.

There are some really good online study courses that go over the basics of Scripture.

I hope that answered your question, where do I get that from.

Yes... chapter and verse all that which equates it to the 3rd commandment that you listed. That sounded like a bunch of fundamentalist hoowey. So where does the Bible say making a mockery of his word equals misuse of the divine name?

 

[InTheLight]

Just an aside. Years ago a friend of mine with a huge heated and semi - finished garage would often have guys over to shoot the breeze. Some of his co-workers would salt their language with G-D and J-C in their conversations. This was just after 9/11. After a while I couldn't take it anymore and asked them if they would quit using God's name in vain and pick on the terrorists deity for a change, and offered up Muhammed - dammit as an alternative. They eagerly latched onto it, though sometimes forgetting. It sure was funny to see newcomers to the group react to this brand of swearing! Eventually Buddha was added to the list.

 

[saturneptune]

Just an aside. Years ago a friend of mine with a huge heated and semi - finished garage would often have guys over to shoot the breeze. Some of his co-workers would salt their language with G-D and J-C in their conversations. This was just after 9/11. After a while I couldn't take it anymore and asked them if they would quit using God's name in vain and pick on the terrorists deity for a change, and offered up Muhammed - dammit as an alternative. They eagerly latched onto it, though sometimes forgetting. It sure was funny to see newcomers to the group react to this brand of swearing! Eventually Buddha was added to the list.

I know in foreign countries it is good to know their customs and what is important to the folks where you are traveling. For example, we abuse the name of our God, the only true God quite a bit. But if I am in a Muslim country, I am not going to use a curse word or slang along with Allah or Mohammad. Or with Buddha, Hindu gods, or the like. Those gods are as real to them as Jesus Christ is to us. And actually, my guess is they respect their deities more than we do.

Our ship pulled into an English port once, and we were told what to do and not to do. One of the things they told us not to do was make fun or light of the royal family. Some of us walked into a local pub, where some English Marines were sitting. Someone has always got to try something stupid. One of the guys that was with us went up to the bar tender and asked who the picture was on the wall. He told them the Queen of England. This guy made a sexual remark about her. Anyway the English Marines heard it, and proceeded to beat him black and blue. We just sat there, as he got just what he deserved.

 

[prophet]

Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not idly utter the name of Jehovah thy God; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that idly uttereth his name. (Darby)

There is more than one translation of the Bible.
"Utter" is the same as "use." There is no difference between "take" and "use" the name of the Lord "in vain." When you do one you do the other. This is a good translation in that it gives a better sense of the command. It gives the adjective of "idly utter," something we do "idly," without thinking about it. The expression OMG is one expression that is often said idly, or in printed form posted idly; thus taken and used in vain. God will not hold that person guiltless.

In the NT, in application of the law, Jesus said:
Every idle word that a man shall speak he shall so give account of in the day of judgment;
By thy words thou shalt be justified; by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Mat.12:36,37).

Darby, really? I suppose you think his translative motives pure?

Even the ESV has "take"
Exo 20:7
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
(ESV)

 

[prophet]

All the slang expressions using the Lord always refer to the Father or Son. I have never heard one using the Holy Spirit. Another way to take the Lord's name in vain is to take an oath in court say, and lie. Also, using anything Holy for a frivolous purpose is to me committing the same sin. For example, if ones wife confronts a husband as to where they have been and he says, "I swear on a stack of Bibles."

Taking the Lord's Supper in a frivolous manner is taking God's name in vain.

Right. It isnt a matter of blaspheming, but rather, holding the truth in unbelief.
God will hold all of His children guiltless. It is impossible, then, to have taken His name in emptiness, unless you are claiming Him, but He doesn't know you.

 

[DHK]

Darby, really? I suppose you think his translative motives pure?

Even the ESV has "take"
Exo 20:7
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
(ESV)

(CEV) Do not misuse my name. I am the LORD your God, and I will punish anyone who misuses my name.

(Darby) Thou shalt not idly utter the name of Jehovah thy God; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that idly uttereth his name.

(ISV) "You are not to misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will not leave the one who misuses his name unpunished.

Even the ESV?? What is that supposed to mean? As I mentioned, there are several translations in the English language. Not all of them translate it "take." That is not the exclusive translation of the word. It has a broader meaning than that. It also has the meaning of use or utter.

 

[prophet]

(CEV) Do not misuse my name. I am the LORD your God, and I will punish anyone who misuses my name.

(Darby) Thou shalt not idly utter the name of Jehovah thy God; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that idly uttereth his name.

(ISV) "You are not to misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will not leave the one who misuses his name unpunished.

Even the ESV?? What is that supposed to mean? As I mentioned, there are several translations in the English language. Not all of them translate it "take." That is not the exclusive translation of the word. It has a broader meaning than that. It also has the meaning of use or utter.

"Use" does not necessarily mean "say". Utter, without a doubt, specifically means:"say".
Not the only thing the heretic Darby got wrong.

"Use" is too broad of a word. It can mean anything. "Take" shows ownership, hence the violation.

What punishment does a Christian receive, for typing OMG?

 

[DHK]

"Use" does not necessarily mean "say". Utter, without a doubt, specifically means:"say".
Not the only thing the heretic Darby got wrong.

"Use" is too broad of a word. It can mean anything. "Take" shows ownership, hence the violation.

What punishment does a Christian receive, for typing OMG?

The same another person would receive for typing "Mon Dieu!"
Or "My God!" That is the meaning that most see in it. Since you can't dictate the hearts of others (not your intention), what you post is important. It becomes a vain repetition of the name of God (theos, elohim, Yaweh, etc.). It is not just the titles that "God" has; it is his name--that which we refer to him. Often we refer to him simply as "God."

 

[Rippon]

Not the only thing the heretic Darby got wrong.

I don't agree with JND on eschatology;but what right do have calling him a heretic?

 

[prophet]

I don't agree with JND on eschatology;but what right do have calling him a heretic?

He invented the pretrib heresy that ensnared the evangelicals.
He 'translated' the pre-NIV, where he picked and chose what he wanted to change.

He reinvented, and reintroduced the intellectually dishonest dispensational teachings, in an attempt to defend a rising tide of Calvinism, within his church.

He was another intellectual, worshipping the brightest ideas and minds of men.

Plymouth Brethren