Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: G-d vs. God vs. ???
Message-ID: <648@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 10:55:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.648
Posted: Thu Jun  6 10:55:20 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 03:27:13 EDT
References: <136@erc3ba.UUCP> <csd2.3780047> <348@unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 17
Summary: 

>>1. The translation or transliteration of a holy name into English
>>   is not the same as the original, but it is still holy, and, if
>>   written on paper, should not be destroyed. One should write "G-d"
>>   instead.
>>[etc.]
>
>How do you define "translation or transliteration"?
>If I always refer to you-know-who as G-d, then
>doesn't "G-d" become the new de-facto translation?
>
>	Frank Silbermann

And wasn't YHWH originally an acronym (now forgotten), which eventually
became YAHWEH (or something like that)...?

Merlyn Leroy
Shouldn't it be "y-u-kn-w-wh-"?