Join me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter/X I'm on Substack! Subscribe to my RSS feed

Name Changes in the Bible

HomeChristianity and the BibleName Changes in the Bible

A lot of people in the Bible had their names changed, or went by more than one name. I appreciate your patience while I compile a comprehensive list of all of them. If you can think of people I’ve missed, please use the form at the bottom of the page.

NOTE: This list is for name changes, or for people who went by different names. Variant spellings are too common to list, and are not included. If you’re looking for how to say “Jesus” in languages other than English, I also have a list:

NOTE: Lucifer’s name was not changed to Satan. The Hebrew word HEYLEL means something like “shining one,” and is only translated as Lucifer in the King James and Bibles derived from it. Given the fact that the word is also used to describe Jesus, it doesn’t seem wise to believe that Lucifer became the devil. The word “satan” means adversary, which could be applied to anyone, but especially to the enemy of our souls.

Click column headers to sort

NameChangeToBy Whom
Abram renamed Abraham God
Azariah renamed Abednego Ashpenaz
Barnabas also known as Joseph The Apostles
Barsabbas also known as Judas  
Bartholomew believed to be Nathanael  
Ben-Oni also known as Benjamin his father Jacob
Boanerges also known as James and John Jesus
Cephas (or Peter) also known as Simon  
Daniel renamed Belteshazzar Ashpenaz
Daniel also known as Kileab  
Didymus also known as Thomas  
Dorcas also known as Tabitha  
Edom also known as Esau  
Eliakim renamed Jehoiakim Pharoah Neco
Esau also known as Edom  
Esther also known as Hadassah Persian > Hebrew
Gideon renamed Jerub-Baal the men of Ophrah
Hadassah also known as Esther Hebrew > Persian
Hananiah renamed Shadrach Ashpenaz
Hoshea renamed Joshua Moses
Jacob renamed Israel God
James (Jesus’ disciple) nicknamed Boanerges Jesus
Jedidiah also known as Solomon God
Jethro also known as Reuel  
John (Jesus’ disciple) nicknamed Boanerges Jesus
John also known as Mark  
Joseph also known as Barnabas The Apostles
Joseph renamed Zaphenath-Paneah Pharoah
Joshua also known as Hoshea Moses
Judas also known as Barsabbas  
Kileab also known as Daniel  
Levi also known as Matthew Hebrew > Greek
Lo-Ammi renamed Ammi God
Lo-Ruhamah renamed Ruhamah God
Mara also known as Naomi Herself
Mark also known as John  
Mattaniah renamed Zedekiah Nebuchadnezzar
Matthew also known as Levi Greek > Hebrew
Merib-Baal also known as Mephibosheth  
Mephibosheth also known as Merib-Baal  
Mishael renamed Meshach Ashpenaz
Moses named Moses Pharaoh’s daughter
Naomi renamed Mara Herself
Nathanael believed to be Bartholomew  
Niger also known as Simeon  
Pashhur called Terror on Every Side God
Paul also known as Saul Latin > Hebrew
Peter also known as Cephas (and Simon)  
Reuel also known as Jethro  
Sarai renamed Sarah God
Saul also known as Paul Hebrew > Latin
Silas also known as Silvanus  
Silvanus also known as Silas  
Simeon also known as Niger  
Simon renamed Cephas (or Peter) Jesus
Solomon also known as Jedidiah God
Tabitha also known as Dorcas  
“the one who is victorious” renamed Only known to the one who receives it The Holy Spirit
“the woman” named Eve Adam
Thomas also known as Didymus  

Want to add to the list?


Join me on Substack! Join me on Substack!

Bookmark this page!
Bible Reading Checklist
Visit Awesome Christian Music


136 responses to “Name Changes in the Bible”

  1. silas says:

    Please bible verses needed

    • cathy says:

      Jesus was also named immanuel and immanuel means God with us.

      • Tony says:


        Thanks for your comment! For those who don’t know, we read in Matthew 1:21 that Joseph and Mary would name her baby Jesus. A couple of verses later, we read that His birth would fulfill the prophecies given by God in Isaiah 7:14. That’s the connection between Jesus and Emmanuel.

        The word “Immanuel” means “God with us.” It’s more of a description of Jesus, rather than a name. We don’t have any evidence that Jesus was ever called Immanuel by His friends or family, for example. Because Jesus is God become man, we know that He is God with us…but it’s not on the list because His name wasn’t changed from Jesus to anything else. There are lots of ways that Jesus is named in the Bible. He is called the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty One in Revelation 1:8, the Bread of Life in John 6:35, the Bridegroom in Matthew 9:15, and Messiah in John 1:41. These aren’t names, like Cathy or Tony…but they’re good descriptions nonetheless.

  2. Tony says:

    Silas: the column titled “Change” contains links to Bible Gateway, where you can read the relevant Bible verses. Have a great day!

  3. yvonne says:

    Awesome. Thanks.

  4. James Osler says:

    Would you consider “Boanerges”, or sons of thunder as a renaming of two of the apostles? I found myself listing all the renamed people of the Bible the other day and really got caught up in the process!

    • Tony says:


      I would indeed consider this a renaming. Good catch! I’m adding it to the list today. Let me know if you find any more!

  5. Jacqui says:

    Thanks for your reseach, I found it very useful. Thomas was also known as Didymus (twin).

  6. Wole Kolawole says:

    Great research, just what I was looking for. I also found that Esau was also known as Edom (Gen. 25:30)

  7. suppici71 says:

    I like this!
    What do you think of Emmanuel, Josha, Jesús, etc. Is that something to consider?

    • Tony says:

      Good question, suppici71. I haven’t included those for very specific reasons. First, alternate spellings and translations aren’t actually name changes, as Abram to Abraham would be. Second, Jesus’ name wasn’t changed to any of them…He was still called Jesus. Yes, He is “God with us” (Emmanuel), but that isn’t actually his name. For those reasons, I haven’t included them. Maybe instead I need an article outlining all of the ways Jesus is mentioned in the Bible!

  8. Mike Gyver says:

    Would lucifer to satan count

    • Tony says:


      Good question. I’m going to say no…and here’s why: the idea that Satan (adversary) used to be Lucifer (shining one, morning star) seems to be more mythical than Biblical. The only place “Lucifer” occurs in the Bible is Isaiah 14:12. The King James Bible translates the Hebrew word HEYLEL into Latin, which is Lucifer. Over time, people came to believe that this was Satan’s original name.

      When you actually read the passage, however, you can see that it isn’t about the Devil. It’s about Nebuchadnezzar II, the king of Babylon. The passage begins with this, in verses 3 and 4:

      On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

      That’s where we read the part about ‘the morning star’. This is poetic imagery, but it’s clearly about a man…not a fallen angel. Thanks for asking!

      • DaVon Brooks says:

        No, actually, it was about the principality (spirit) that was behind and empowering the man on the throne, just as in Ezekiel 28:1-19, which was clearly talking about Satan, but through the human subject that Satan had possessed, which in this case happen to be the king of Tyrus.
        We see other examples of this in the scriptures where the spiritual entity behind the person who was causing the trouble, was being rebuked, such as; “Get behind me Satan” said by Jesus, in response to Peter’s actions. And then we have the beast of Revelation who empowered those that would obey him.

        • Tony says:


          Thanks for weighing in. =)

          The trouble with this theory is that it doesn’t match what we see in Scripture. For example, Ezekiel 28 is about a human king. It’s poetic, and a lot of imagery is used…but the text itself doesn’t indicate any kind of dual application. Satan isn’t a name…it’s a word that means adversary and could be applied to anyone to make a point. Look at Numbers 22:32

          The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.

          The phrase to oppose you is the word satan. Certainly we wouldn’t say that the angel of the Lord in Numbers 22 is named Satan…right? In the same way, Jesus was addressing Peter and not the devil when He said “get behind me.”

          We need to be careful to avoid going beyond what Scripture says. While your theory is neither new nor uncommon, it’s also not biblical. Let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss it further.

  9. Mike Gyver says:

    Well I was really excited about all this information until I realize where your information is coming from a non-authorized Bible with faults statements in it . And we wonder why people are getting bad to interpretations of the Bible. Gods word hasn’t changed since from the beginning of time so I should the Bible change it statements. Can you read me Matthew 1721 or Matthew 1811 or Matthew 2314 to just begin with the NIV Bible shame on you. Satan get behind me. But you do have Matthew 23:13 in your Bible and I think you should under the stand that one.

  10. Ravi says:

    All of the Name changes happened in the Bible because the meaning of new name reflect in their life

  11. Mikegyver says:

    Well, big clues are in the attack of the media. If you look and listen carefully Lucifer’s name it is used as a savour, as well as Casper the friendly Ghost( and so on ). We also know Satan the earth name of this destroyer of faith, is ready to do damage in every way mimicking acts in which God( Jesus ) have preformed. you have your view. I do not judge that. Myself I will be cautious about what the Bible speaks to me compared to what people say. Just look at the followers of the Pope. I pray for the truth and it comes as God promises to his believers. AMEN. Just like the Woe in front of men. Think about it. And the woes in Matthew and other places speaks to me as shame on you, look at what your doing. Good women are good women (mother Mary ) but bad women mated with the falling angels. Let the bible talk to you…women, eve, evil, evening, it is freedom of choice. And the earthly wisdom is earthly wisdom. SAY NO MORE…

  12. Mike Gyver says:

    And in that statement that you said about the king of Babylon he was following the king of evil Lucifer

  13. Mike Gyver says:

    What about Esaias and Isaiah?

    • Tony says:

      Those aren’t exactly name changes, Mike…they’re just alternate spellings. Ancient documents like the Bible are chock full of spelling variants. =)

  14. mike says:

    can you please read Matthew 17:21 also Matthew 18:11 and Matthew 23: 14. or you might want to read Mark 7:16 or Mark 9:44 or Mark 9:46 how about Mark 11:26 or Mark 15:28. it goes on in Luke 6:48, 17:36, 23:17, John 5 verse 4, Acts 8:37, 9 verse 5-6, 15 verse 34, 24 verse 6 to 8, and also 28 verse 29. or how about Romans 8 verse 1,11:6, 16:24, Galathians 3:1 just to name a few of any Bible but the King James. Matthew 7 verse 13-14 explains it and if you want to take the easy read that is a freedom of choice ss spoken in the Bible. It is great communication you and I look forward to more God bless. Amen!

    • Tony says:


      I’ve read all of those verses before. They’re probably the same in both of our Bibles…so what is it you’re trying to say by listing them?

  15. Mike Gyver says:

    Can you show me the part or the verse that says Trinity. Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20 and Col 2:9. I like to add Revelation 22:18-19, 21. AMEN !!!

    • Tony says:


      The word “trinity” comes from the Latin trinitas, meaning “triad”. The word doesn’t appear in the Bible, as it seems to have been coined around 170 AD.

      The question isn’t whether the word appears in the Bible, but whether the idea comes from the Bible. It certainly does. In Isaiah 48, for example (specifically v 16), the Messiah speaks of Jehovah and His Spirit. Matthew 3 describes Father, Son, and Spirit during Jesus’ baptism. There are lots of other passages that show a distinct relationship between the three. The Father sent the Son, for example…and the Son had to go away to send the Spirit (John 16:7).

      Let me now if you have questions about the trinity. You might ask them over here, where I’ve outlined the doctrine.

  16. Mike Gyver says:

    I you saying that it is ok to change the word from GODHEAD to trinity, even throw it is not the used term in the bible? This seams to be man making changes to the words of GOD. Yes GOD is the Father, the SON,and the HOLY GHOST. 1 Timathy 3:16 proves this to me. The problem I am finding is when I bring the bible to new believers, the added words not in the bible are confusing them. This is why I asked about that. It keeps coming to mind Revelation 22:18-19 when I here trinity. We all know what the Cathlic Churches have done in there teachings, and when you say that it was coined in the 170 AD, who was it that was coining it??? So when I, switched to the King James Version of the bible (prior to 1800’s, when all this different version started to come out), I could not the find deep faith I was interested in. This is why I put the other verses for you to read, problely not in the versions of bible that you may be reading. (That read carfully you, can see the separation of God and Jesus). You are write with the freedom of choice points, but again, I refur to Revelation 22:18-19. Amen.

    • Tony says:


      First, I can’t find a Bible version that actually contains the word “trinity”. Can you?

      Second, you seem to have not thought this through. The word “trinity” isn’t in the Bible. Neither is the word “Godhead”. Neither are “fish” or “man” or “house” or “sandals”. When you and I read the Bible in English, almost every single word has been translated from Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic into English. Even the name “Jesus” isn’t in the original manuscripts. By your definition, virtually ALL of the words are “added words”.

      The point of translation (whether you’re translating the Bible or a menu for a Chinese restaurant) is to clearly communicate the content. Here are a few concepts that are contained and communicated in the Bible, even though it doesn’t actually contain the words we use today:

      • Atheism
      • Divinity
      • Incarnation
      • Monotheism

      Are you going to suggest that a Bible using these words is somehow “adding words” to the Bible? I wouldn’t think so. I would think that you’re going to agree that the concepts are in there, and a translation of the Bible that uses “Godhead” or “trinity” or “divine nature” instead of THEIOTES is a good thing, since most people don’t read Greek.

      Don’t confuse responsible translation with irresponsible translation. The original words convey a concept, and it’s perfectly reasonable to translate a concept in any way that accurately communicates its meaning.

      • Eli says:

        Responsible translation??? Sure until u take the most sacred name and change his name why? Is it OK to rename your saviour? The name Jesus us no more holy then the name Bob and I can assure you whom ever is responsible will post the price

        • Tony says:


          1. From where do you get the idea that our savior’s name is sacred?
          2. From where do you get the idea that anyone will pay a price for “changing his name”?
  17. Joshua says:

    Joshua’s name (Yahushua) was indeed changed by Moshe (Moses). It was Hoshea (Salvation)…and Moshe added YAH (Yahweh)…. making his name Yahushua which means “Yahweh is Salvation”. This is also the name given to our Messiah – Y’shua is the poetic short form of Yahushua. His name was never “Jesus”…. There is no “J” in Hebrew…. the “J” is a late addition to even the English language. HeyZues was the name Greek translators gave our Messiah because they needed to see the name of their chief deity (Zues) in His name… it’s called syncretism.His name is the same name given to Joshua…. which is why English translators confused the Messiah with Joshua the son of Nun in the 1611 KVJ (see Acts 7:45 and Hebrew 4:8). Our Messiahs name should have been transliterated as “Joshua” not with the Greco-pagan name of HeyZues. … which means hail Zues. To those who hold Greek MSS as original, inspired, or inerrant….see Matt 27:9….every Greek MSS got the wrong prophet….every MSS (fragments) state the prophet was Jeremiah. …. and all have it wrong. It was Zechariah who spoke the prophesy (see Zechariah 11:12-13). Does The Holy Spirit really make such mistakes? There is however a set of ancient Aramaic MSS that do not contain such an error called the Peshetta texts. Check out AENT.ORG

    • Tony says:

      Joshua (and McKenna):

      I’m afraid you’ve been misled. You’re correct when you say that there’s no letter J in Hebrew. What you’re missing is that the SOUND that J makes is very much a part of the Hebrew language. It’s the letter YOD, which begins with a dz kind of sound. Your name, pronounced in Hebrew, would sound a lot like it sounds in English. Jesus is not a Greek TRANSLATION of Joshua. It’s a TRANSLITERATION, where one letter is substituted for another to make similar sounds. I’m Anthony, and Antonio isn’t the result of some ancient European conspiracy. It’s simply the same name in another language.

      IESOUS has nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus, and there’s no syncretism involved. Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua was a very common name, and it’s silly to believe that syncretists changed the name of thousands of men and boys because they wanted to connect one specific Yeshua with Zeus. That’s nonsense.

      The King James translators simply made a mistake. They did the same thing when they translated PASCHA to Easter instead of Passover. It’s an oversight, not a conspiracy.

      Your suggestion that people check out, and that an Aramaic version of the Old Testament would somehow be ‘more pure’ than those pesky Greek manuscripts, is simply more nonsense. First, the New Testament was not originally written in Aramaic, but Greek. Any Aramaic manuscripts would have come later. Also, only small portions of the Old Testament were originally written in Aramaic…a couple hundred verses total, in places like Genesis 31:47; Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; parts of Daniel, and Jeremiah 10:11. Any full version of the OT would have to include Hebrew, or include much (much) later versions that were translated into Aramaic from Hebrew.

      I await your response. Thanks for writing! =)

      • Eli says:

        The saviour spoke Aramaic not Hebrew there are no j sounding words in Aramaic your wrong. His name is the most important name in translate his name is proves malicious intent. How are we to ask anything in his name when noone knows his name!

        • Tony says:


          >> The saviour spoke Aramaic not Hebrew

          Says who?

          >> there are no j sounding words in Aramaic your wrong.

          About what am I wrong, Eli? Come on, man…don’t just throw stones. Make your case with facts and logic.

          >> His name is the most important name in history.

          Again, says who? He (God, that is) is the most important person in history, but who says that His name must be spoken in ancient Aramaic? Keep in mind that it’s God who is responsible for the multiplicity of language, and that praising God in English or Welsh or Japanese is no less than praising Him in Aramaic.

          >> to translate his name is proves malicious intent.

          Says who? Besides you, I mean. I’m not being disparaging when I ask that…I’m being logical. Can you name a respected scholar in the fields of linguistics, or theology, or biblical studies who agrees with you?

          >> How are we to ask anything in his name when noone knows his name!

          We do know His name, Eli…it’s

          • Yeshua
          • Jésus
          • Jesus
          • Jezu
          • የሱስ
          • يسوع
          • հիսուս
          • İsa
          • Ісус
          • যীশু
          • Isus
          • Исус
          • Jesús
          • Yesu
          • 耶稣
          • gesù

          When you can show me sound linguistic and logical reasons to agree with you, I will agree with you. So far, all I see are knee-jerk reactions based in faulty assumptions about what the Bible does and does not say about God. I wish you well, Eli.

      • Alexis says:

        The King James Bible was written in 1611 by scholars who new over 17 languages. How dare you say that the King James Bible has mistakes. If there isn’t a Bible out there with NO mistakes than what’s the point of even reading it. How would you ever know what to believe? Let me ask you this- When has God ever made a mistake? Do you think he just forgot about His Word that he spent hundreds of years creating? Do you think he just said forget it, it’s too hard? I don’t know what you think about Jesus, but I’m telling you the God who made Heaven and Earth and everything in it and the God who knows EVERYTHING can probably, most likely, no, most definitely have the power to preserve His Word. God NEVER does things half heartedly and if you think so I don’t know how you could be a Christian. The King James Bible was only written ONCE and nobody has ever been able to find fault with it no matter how hard they try. You may want to read it sometime and find out for yourself.

        • Tony says:


          With respect, you appear to be superstitious about the Bible. For the record, I believe the Bible to be the fully trustworthy Word of God. I’m totally a Bible guy. I study the Bible, teach the Bible, and learn as much as I can about the Bible. What I’ve learned in this more than 40-year journey is that it’s just not that simple.

          I dare to say that the KJV has mistakes because there are mistakes in the KJV. I’ve written in a bit more detail here, where further comments are welcome. Also, the translators themselves did not make the claims you’re making. It would be helpful for you to read their preface to the 1611 KJV.

          When you do, let me know what you think. These errors do not undermine the Bible, by the way.

          Further: we agree that God has preserved His Word. Nothing I’ve written about the King James Bible undermines its authority, or its truthfulness. The translators themselves considered previous versions of the Bible to be fully inspired, and hoped that people would come after them to improve on their work…creating better Bibles for future generations. Really. Read it. I’m sorry that you didn’t know this before, but you can know it now.

      • Tommy says:

        The word Easter in acts 12:4 is not a mistake. Herod took Peter and put him in prison during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Meaning Passover was over (Abib 14th) and the days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Abib 15th-21st) was at hand. King Herod was a pagan king and he observed the pagan holiday Ashstar translated there in Acts 12:4 as Easter. Most people like yourselve, thinks it’s refering to Passover but it’s not.

        • Tony says:

          Hey Tommy! Thanks for commenting.

          You’re listening to the wrong people, my friend.

          First, the word does not refer to a pagan holiday. If you do a bit of research, you will find that Easter is not connected to pagan ceremonies.

          Next, there’s no indication in Scripture that Luke was talking about a pagan holiday.

          Finally, the Hebrew word pecach has no meaning in Greek. Used in the New Testament, it’s a borrowed word. It means Passover. The King James (a wonderful Bible) translates the exact same word as Passover 28 times in the New Testament, and as Easter once. It’s simply nonsense to use the same word – a word that does not have multiple definitions – to mean different things. When a word does have more than one meaning, translators use the context to determine which definition was intended by the author. In this case, pascha does not have multiple, different definitions. Translators could not have used the context of the surrounding passage to determine that they should give the word an entirely new definition. This error, beginning with Tyndale and continuing through Coverdale and the Bishop’s Bible, has finally come to rest with modern Bibles. The KJV is simply in error.

          I know that’s not something you want to hear, Tommy. Don’t take my word for it. Do the research yourself, you will find that the KJV is awesome, but not perfect. Not even the translators of the KJV believed it was perfect.

  18. Mike Gyver says:

    Godhead in the King James Bible. Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 I say no more!!!

    • Tony says:


      You seem to have misunderstood. Let me be more specific. The word “Godhead” does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, or in any of the New Testament’s 25000+ manuscripts. It’s not a Greek word, a Hebrew word, or an Aramaic word. It’s an English word. When you claim that changing “Godhead” to “trinity” may be wrong, you’re forgetting that translators changed THEIOTES into Godhead in the first place. The question isn’t “why did they change Godhead?” but “what’s the English equivalent for THEIOTES? It’s a Greek word – a feminine noun – that means “divinity” or “divine nature”.

      That’s what I meant when I wrote that “Godhead” was – using your phrase – an “added word”. Not one single English word was written by Old Testament or New Testament authors. Almost every word in our English Bibles has been put there by translators. It’s okay that some Bibles don’t translate THEIOTES as “Godhead”…because that’s not quite exactly what THEIOTES means.

  19. Mike Gyver says:


    NOTE: In proper English do you not pronounce yourself last, (To humble yourself).
    NOTE: Does this not say that Jesus is Gods first creation, he who inherits all that was created???
    NOTE: GODHEAD. We now have The FATHER, The SON (JESUS is The WORD, and The LIGHT of the world), and The HOLY SPIRIT.
    NOTE: No capitals on soul, thus meaning the soul that GOD breathed in to Adam. This is not the Holy Spirit!!!
    NOTE: Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit, Are they the same???

    ‘HOLY SPIRIT’ in the Bible… 979 Instances.
    ‘HOLY GHOST’ in the Bible… 563 Instances.
    ‘SPIRIT’ in the Bible… 522 Instances.
    The Trinity equals the body, the sole and the spirit of the flesh.


    • Tony says:


      You are, quite simply, wrong. Your comments do not match the facts.

      >> NOTE: In proper English do you not pronounce yourself last, (To humble yourself). NOTE: Does this not say that Jesus is Gods first creation, he who inherits all that was created???

      No. What you’re suggesting is contradicted by a number of clear Bible verses. Jesus is not God’s first creation, regardless of what The Watchtower may say. There’s abundant information on the internet for anyone to find where they can check this out for themselves.

      >> NOTE: GODHEAD. We now have The FATHER, The SON (JESUS is The WORD, and The LIGHT of the world), and The HOLY SPIRIT.

      No. You have a problem with the word “trinity”. You should have the same problem with the word “Godhead”. Neither word appears in the ancient manuscripts. Both were coined later, though trinity came first. If you’re going to object to one, you must object to both to be consistent. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

      >> NOTE: No capitals on soul, thus meaning the soul that GOD breathed in to Adam. This is not the Holy Spirit!!!

      Have you spent any time looking at this in the original languages? I recommend Blue Letter Bible for this.

      >> NOTE: Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit, Are they the same???

      Yes. The King James translates PNEUMA as “ghost”, which is unfortunate. It suggests something that “spirit” does not. Every place where “ghost” appears uses the same word translated “spirit”.

      I don’t know where you’re copying your information from, but you need to think through these things yourself. I’d be happy to help. Please try to keep it simple, though. =)

  20. Mike Gyver says:

    Trinity Not in Bible. Body Soul Spirit of the flesh is the Trinity (MAN). Trinity derived form RC Church just before 400’s AB!!! This is why it was pushed on people. Look it up!!!

    • Tony says:


      Again, you’re simply wrong. Your information isn’t factual.

      1. “Trinity not in Bible”
        Right. Neither “trinity” nor “Godhead” appear in any ancient Bible manuscript. It’s illogical to rule out the concepts simply because the words hadn’t been coined yet.
      2. Body Soul Spirit of the flesh is the Trinity (MAN)
        No. Look in Genesis. God formed Adam from the ground, then breathed into him and he became a living being. That’s not three parts, it’s two. The word used is NEPHESH…the man became a NEPHESH. That’s the result of the physical and God’s ‘breath’. Not a trinity, but two things making something else. Body and breath make a soul.
      3. Trinity derived from RC Church just before 400’s AB!!! This is why it was pushed on people. Look it up!!!
        Wrong again, Mike. The first use of the word “trinity” with regard to Christian theology appeared in 170 AD. Tertullian wrote in the early 200’s and used the word “trinity” to describe God’s nature. I have a copy of that document that you can read, if you care about getting your facts straight. Aside from the numerous passages in the Bible that outline the doctrine, Ignatius of Antioch taught the doctrine as early as 100 AD when he wrote that Christians should be obedient to “Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit”. Justin Martyr (who died in 165 AD, long before “400s”) wrote, “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”. You can read that bit here.

      In other words, YOU should look it up. You’ve fallen for the oldest trick in the book: simply lying about what happened. Somebody’s led you astray, Mike…and you need to do your own homework (like the Bereans) and drop this nonsense you’ve been taught. I care about you, and will do whatever I can to help. Let me know about your other questions.

  21. Mike Gyver says:

    I do appreciate your input and I will look it up. Yes I am looking for the truth and if I have been let astray I do appreciate you putting me in the right direction. Again my information does come from the King James 1611 Version with the Apocrypha. Constantine’s writings and the Catholic Church writings,( which I do find misleading and sometimes disturbing) are to make there mark. I do find Godhead in the 1611 KJV translation of the Bible, and have been trying to find Trinity in many different Bibles that do not separate God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit(Ghost) and do not idolize. I try to be very cautious what I pick up and what I leave behind. And many times throughout the Bible, Jesus says “do not worship me, worship the one who sent me”. (Thus do not worship the flesh but worship the Father). When reading the New International Version, the American Standard and others, I find them confusing. But when I picked up the King James 1611 Version , things come together. I do not go to man’s school to find man’s ways, so the King James Bible has been my best friend. Deceit(disarray and dissent) is everywhere and the devils tools. The path is narrow so if you have brought me on to the narrow path I do appreciate it. I will look up your information. Again the Bible is supposed to be inspire you buy the Holy SPIRIT “Ghost” and this is why these questions are asked and debated over many of years. The wisdom of man is the wisdom of man so we do have to be careful. Ps. No I am not into the Watchtower, And I do not mean to disturb anyone. I do though look for the church without the riches inside And look for the heavenly riches. AMEN!

    • Tony says:


      I’m so glad to hear that you’re doing your own homework! The only reason GodWords exists is so I’ll have a place to post the homework I do. I have a very hard time just accepting what others say…I need to look it up myself, and make sure that what I believe makes sense. The Bereans questioned what Paul (the Apostle) taught, and we should do no less.

      I’m not a big fan of the Catholic church – for theological and philosophical reasons – but I’m also not a fan of conspiracy theories that use Rome as a punching bag. We should tell the truth, but not go beyond the truth to harmful speculation.

      The reason you find “Godhead” in the 1611 KJV is that the translators put it there. They made a decision about how best to translate THEIOTES into English, and considered “Godhead” the best choice. As I wrote in a recent post about the KJVO Controversy, they also made some unfortunate choices…like translating PASCHA as Easter instead of Passover, and translating RE-EM into “unicorn”, nine times.

      You’re RIGHT to go back to Scripture to find the truth, of course. Keep at it! However: don’t trust people who claim this or that about a particular Bible…do your own homework, like the Bereans. Check things out before you believe them. Like this: I’m checking out what you’ve said…

      >> Jesus says “do not worship me, worship the one who sent me”.

      I’ve looked, and can’t find this passage. Can you point me to it? I’m guessing that there’s been some misunderstanding. Jesus claimed to be God, and accepted worship from people more than once. In fact, some of the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him for that very reason.

      You’re on the right track, Mike. Keep learning. Be careful who you trust, especially those who engage in conspiracy theories about Jesus and the Bible. Do your own homework, and look beyond simple claims to be able to discern lies and rumors from truth. I would be happy to help you in any way I can, of course.

  22. Mike Gyver says:

    We have been back-and-forth with comments about Lucifer ans satan for name changes. If you check Isaiah 14:12 in authorize King James version the King James version and the new King James version the living Bible just to name a few you can see Lucifer was an angel and had fallen. Also check these Bibles with revelations 2:4-5 of the same Bibles you might get my point. In the Abingdon’s Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible you will see Lucifer and it’s explanation it is under 1966. Spelling in Hebrew (heylel) pronounced hay-lale’. Sorry I can’t get all the vowel sounds in but I think you understand what I mean. Explains it comes from 1984 halal pronounced haw-lal’. Now I couldn’t find Lucifer in the NIV or some other Bibles. I did find Satan in the Concordance 7854 & 4567. Spelling saw-tawn’ in Hebrew 7854 from 7853 saw-tan. Now in Greek Satanas pronounced sat-an-as’ ,of Chald. or corresp. To 4566 (with the def. affix); the accuser, i.e. The devil:- Satan Comp. 4567. It does not say nothing about the king of Babylon. Can you please explain?

    • Tony says:


      This is a pretty simple item. The Hebrew word HELEL does not translate straight into “Lucifer”. If it did, the KJV would have four mentions of “Lucifer”. It does not. The word “Lucifer” is Latin. It occurs four times in the Latin Vulgate:

      1. Isaiah 14:12
      2. Job 11:17
      3. Job 38:32
      4. 2 Peter 1:19

      Only once (Isaiah) is Lucifer used in the KJV. It’s used in a passage about the King of Babylon. If you read the full passage, you can clearly see that it’s speaking of a human person, not a fallen angel. Now, it could be a passage with a dual meaning…but the primary reading of the passage is about a dude, not the devil. Before you raise questions about a passage, it’s ALWAYS best to read the passage in context.

      How did the KJV translators render “Lucifer” in the other three passages? 2) “the morning”, 3) as signs of the zodiac, and 4) “day star”. Clearly, Lucifer isn’t necessarily the devil…or Peter wouldn’t have used the term to refer to Jesus Christ. Right?

      Your concern stems from a conspiracy theory that says the NIV (and others) have removed the devil from the Bible by rendering HELEL as something other than Lucifer. Considering how the KJV translation team handled Lucifer, it seems foolish to continue with this line of reasoning.

      Here are a couple of articles, written by people who know more about it than I do, that might help with your research:

      Let me know about some other ways I can help you, Mike. I’m enjoying the additional homework! =)

      • Korumilli narayana murthy,(Immanuel ) says:

        Please sent Hebrew bible to me…In pdf format …If you have send through mail….

        • Tony says:


          I don’t have the Bible in PDF format. You can, of course, view the Bible online at any time. If you need a Bible for yourself, there are people who give away Bibles. You can find them on the internet by searching for “free Bible.”

  23. Mike Gyver says:

    I’ll get back to you on that about worshiping the flesh but worshiping the father.

  24. Mike Gyver says:

    If you have an email I’d like to email you some stuff That I have come across. And it only being once in the Bible King James, that could be because of the name change. Again to my understanding. Also I would like to know what denomination you come from and what Bible you used to read. this could be good information on my side as well. Thank you again and God bless.AMEN

  25. Joshua says:

    Shlama ahki Tony…if I may call you Tony.

    Ok, so there are several issues at hand here. First being the “J” issue. You are correct, Y’shua’s name just as Yahweh’s name begins with a Yud (or Yod as you have it). I am ancestrally Jewish, though I believe in Y’shua, so no rabbinical Jew would acknowledge me as a Jew. And although I am not a native Hebrew speaker, I can tell you אני מדבר עברית… I do speak and read Hebrew – and a little Aramaic. That said, I would encourage you to ask a native Hebrew speaker if the yud,or any letter in the Hebrew Aleph-bet makes the “J” sound. I promise you they will tell you that the J sound is not something you will find in either Hebrew or it’s close cousin – Aramaic.

    Never-the-less, the debate over the “J” sound is moot, because (as I’m sure you know) in Greek “Jesus” is pronounced “Hey-seus”. But where exactly did this name come from?

    Tarsus means Sweat of Zeus … Dionysus, the Son of Zeus … Ephesus … Jesus or Iesous … read this:

    “It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous [which are phonetic pronunciations for the chief Greek god of Olympus] were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus.”
    Dictionary of Christian Lore and Ledgend
    Professor J. C. J. Metford

    Now let’s deal with the Greek primacy issue. First, I have to point out that you ducked the Matt 27:9 issue where the Holy Spirit… who is leading these men to write in Greek – gets the wrong prophet…. in every manuscript. How do you deal with that? Do we ignore this blaring error on the part of the Ruach H’Kodesh? The fact that there isn’t a single extant Greek MSS that doesn’t contain such an error?

    Or, what about the fact that Matt 1:17 states there are three sets of 14 generations in the genealogy of The Messiah…. have you counted them? If the New Testament was really written in Greek, then the Holy Spirit can’t add either. However, the Pishetta get’s this correct, because the “Joseph” in the lineage is not called her husband but her father/guardian. By the way,this is the only way to have a true ancestral link to the throne of David, since Joseph was not Y’shua’s biological father, nor was he descended from David – through Solomon (the only son of David who could pass on the scepter)….. but Mary was.

    You also proved my point in citing the Easter/Pashca “error”. For arguments sake, lets just agree that KJV translators unintentionally replaced the SCRIPTURAL Passover with the name of the pagan fertility goddess Easter (Oster Ashtoreth, Estarte… take your pick)…. the fact that every Greek MSS contains the word Pashca is proof of Aramaic primacy. When I say Aramaic primacy, please understand, that I don’t mean the Ketubim Netzarim (Writings of the Netzarim – aka the “New Testament”) were necessarily first written in Aramaic. They may very well have been first penned in Hebrew, then Aramaic. All I mean is that there is overwhelming proof that they were translated from Aramaic into Greek. The word Pashca, my brother – is Aramaic…. yet it was left in the text by Greek translators. Interestingly, they didn’t translate from the more widely used HEBREW word for Passover which is Pesach. Peter’s name in Greek would be Petras… yet in John 1:42 we find the Aramaic word for rock – Kepha. “Eli Eli Lama Sabactani” is Aramaic… not Hebrew… of course not Greek.

    Now for some very compelling evidence against Greek being spoken or written by first century Jews… good ol Josephus comes to the rescue:

    Joseph ben Mattathias (nicknamed Josephus), is by far the most famous Jewish historian, intellect and writer of the 1st Century who wrote, “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations.” Josephus is a champion of the Greek Christian world, he is considered to be a secret Christian by many Christian theologians, Josephus wrote in Hebrew not in Greek. Josephus says “I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness”.

    Remember Josephus is an educated 1st century Jew… just like Paul… and he doesn’t know Greek well, because Jews were discouraged from learning Greek.

    How bout the “early church fathers”:

    “Matthew put down the words of the Lord
    in the Hebrew language, and others have translated
    them, each as best he could.”
    -Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D …….

    “Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written
    among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
    – Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.)
    Bishop of Lions, France …….

    “The first Gospel composed in the Hebrew language,
    was written by Matthew…for those who came to faith
    from Judaism.”
    -Origen (225 A.D.) …….

    “Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews,
    and when he was about to go to others also,
    he transmitted his Gospel in writing in his
    native language”
    – (Ecclesiastical History III 24, 6) …….

    “Matthew collected and wrote the oracles
    in the Hebrew language”
    -(Ecclesiastical History, III, 39, 16).…….

    How bout modern scholarship?

    “both the Church Fathers as well as the recently
    discovered Dead Sea Scrolls state quite clearly
    and without any equivocation that Hebrew WAS the
    language spoken and written at the time of the
    Messiah and his Disciples.”

    Dr. D. Briggs, Ph.D., Walden University

    “What was the language of ordinary life of educated
    native Jews in Jerusalem and Judaea in the period
    from 400 BCE to 150 CE? The evidence presented by
    Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt
    that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew.”

    – The Companion Bible,
    E. W. Bullinger, (Appendix 94) …….

    “Hebrew continued to be used as a spoken and written
    language even after the fourth century, including the
    New Testament period.”

    -The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
    third edition, in 1997


    Tony… my brother, you are arguing against all the evidence and even against modern scholarship. I hope we can continue this discussion… iron sharpens iron… yes?

    Take care brother,

    Ps. I have much respect for you brother… (I say this is fun) posting my reply in it’s entirety and proving you wrong on your own website… mighty upright of you. 😉

    • Tony says:


      Truly, your argument is as tortured as almost any I’ve seen. I mean no disrespect…only to describe how entirely wrong your information is.

      >> in Greek “Jesus” is pronounced “Hey-seus”

      You are incorrect. In Greek, the name Iesous is pronounced ee-ay-sooce’. If you know anything about the basics of Koine Greek, the diacritical mark on Iesous indicates a smooth breathing sound. This is first-year stuff.

      You seem to be trying to cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible by suggesting that what most Christians believe today comes from corrupted source material. Let me recommend that you continue your research. If you’re going to mess up with something as simple as where “Jesus” came from, it makes sense that you would be misled by a number of other, less believable ideas. Iesous and Zeus may be homophones, but they are etymologically unrelated. Iesous wasn’t a change related to Jesus, either…the Septuagint used it as the title for the story of Joshua 300 years before Jesus was born. It’s simply a Greek rendering of a Hebrew word.

      The crux of the matter seems to be that you’re concerned about the accurate transmission of God’s message to humanity. You seem worried that saying “Jesus” instead of “Yeshua”, for example, causes a spiritual problem. That logic comes from the magical land of fairies and unicorns, not from any serious student of Scripture, theology, or logic. Tell me: do you actually believe that someone might end up in Hell because they don’t use “Yeshua”?

  26. Mike says:

    Just reading your notes on the King James Bible. You stated that it is not perfect (or use someone else statement), anyways; what do you have to say about “all the words of the Bible are inspired from the Holy Spirit.

    • Tony says:


      When you say “all the words of the Bible are inspired from the Holy Spirit”, I have to challenge you. You may be referring to 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

      All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

      Do I believe this passage? Yes, completely. Absolutely. You and I have both read this verse, but we appear to understand it differently. You seem to be saying “if it’s in the Bible, it’s directly from the Holy Spirit”. That suggests that every Bible, in every language, regardless of who translated/paraphrased it, is exactly perfect. I don’t believe that, and I don’t think you believe that.

      Do you believe in unicorns? I sure hope not. Why did the King James translators translate RE-EM as “unicorn”? I don’t know…but it’s not because that was the perfect thing to do.

      2 Timothy 3:16-17 must mean something other than what you wrote earlier. Right?

      • Alexis says:

        Look in Webster’s first dictionary. A unicorn is a one-horned rhinoceros. Uni meaning one and bi meaning two. Were not speaking here of a mythical creature.

        • Tony says:


          I’m sorry to be so disagreeable, but that’s kinda silly. Nobody has ever seriously suggested 1) that the mythical unicorn is a rhino, 2) that rhinos lived near ancient Israel, or 3) that the Hebrew word re’em speaks of a rhino. The word likely refers to the now-extinct auroch.

          * Disclaimer: I love rhinos. I collect rhino figurines, stuffed animals, and statuettes. No rhinos were harmed in the writing of this comment.

  27. Mike says:

    trinity = body( formed from the hands of the holy one, the creator), soul = ( as the creator breathed in to his nostrils Adam became a living soul Gen 2:7) and when you receive the Holy Spirit the man becomes one with God. Called a Trinity.

    • Tony says:

      From where do you get this stuff, Mike? The term trinity implies full unity. There is no sense in which a Spirit-filled believer is fully unified with God. That’s more of a Hindu kind of idea than a Christian one. We are creations, and will never be “one” with the Creator. We can be unified in the metaphorical sense, with a common purpose (for example) but we will never be truly one with Him.

  28. Dr. Ramon de Torres says:

    My brother is a KJV only person. I find it ridiculous and agree with you that the translation (esp. where the translators put a textual note indicating an alternate translation in the margin) is not perfect, but that this DOES NOT CHANGE the meaning of scripture as in Timothy.

    • Tony says:

      Dr. Ramon:

      In case you haven’t seen it, I outline some details on the King James Only movement here. We agree that Scripture is trustworthy, and that it provides everything we need for life and godliness. There’s no question that reading the KJV can show a non-believer how to begin, and to continue, a right relationship with God. I recommend the King James because I believe that God has superintended the preservation of His message. My beef is not with the text itself, but with those who claim that it’s the only Bible that should be read.

      Thanks for writing. Let me know if there’s anything I can do for you.

  29. Daniel W says:

    Would you consider translations a name change? For example, the King James Version uses some Greek translations of names i.e. Elias instead of the Hebrew Elijah.

    • Tony says:


      Depends. I do have some “also known as” entries, for those who are well-known by two names (Saul, Paul). There are simply too many variant spellings and translations for me to list them all in a meaningful way, though.

  30. ig says:

    I don’t even know the way I ended up right here,
    however I thought this put up was good. I do not recognise who you’re but definitely you
    are going to a well-known blogger for those who aren’t already.

  31. Martin says:

    What about jacob to israel

  32. Lance Linton says:

    In Luke 1:28 (ancient Greek) Gabriel, upon his visit with Mary, said, “Chaire Kekaritomene” as though referring to her by a new name.

    • Tony says:


      The Greek in Luke 1:28 is CHAIRO CHARITOO. It’s not a name…CHAIRO means “rejoice” or “be glad” or even simply “hail”. This is where the “Hail, Mary” comes from in the Catholic prayer (which I don’t recommend). CHARITOO is a verb meaning “to make graceful” or “to honor with blessings”, among other things. It’s kind of like saying, “Yo, Lance…what’s up, awesome?”.

  33. LEN says:

    AND WHY IS THE WORD JEW NOT IN THERE?????????????????????


    • Tony says:

      Because Jew is not a personal name. Len. It’s a derivation of Judah, indicating both those from the family line of Judah and the inhabitants of the land of Judah, who were primarily Israelites.

      By the way: I’ve edited your “comment”. I’m not interested in promoting the website of your choice…especially not a silly website like that one, and especially not when you throw 21 extraneous question marks on your comment. I mean, really…that’s just overkill. 😉

      • LEN says:

        Did God change the name of Judah to Jew? Can you show where that is? Just wondering why you took out the link to a piece of work by Martin Luther.

        • Tony says:


          The list of name changes includes individuals who are known by different names, and the references that show their name changes. The descendants of Abraham, as a group, are not part of the list. They have been called many things over the years…from Semites to Israelites to Danites and Benjamites and Jews. An Israelite is a descendant of Israel, also known as Jacob. A Danite is a descendant of Dan. A Jew is a descendant of Judah. A person from Oregon is an Oregonian. A person from Michigan is a Michigander. A person from Glasgow is a Glaswegian. There’s nothing insidious going on here, Len. God didn’t change Judah’s name to Jew…it’s simply a way to talk about a large group of people. You seem to object to the term, but that doesn’t make much sense.

          I didn’t remove a link to “a piece of work by Martin Luther.” I removed a link to a piece by some guy who wrote about Martin Luther. I had two reasons for removing the link:

          1. It wasn’t relevant to discussion of name changes in the Bible, and
          2. on the surface, it didn’t seem like anything I wanted to promote.

          A better question than “why did you remove it” might be “why did you include it?” What were you trying to accomplish?

  34. Samphson_Justice says:

    Been keeping silent on several discussion but just want you all to know thousands of people are reading,please,if you are sure of your answer,please add a link to read in other to strong your here to learn and am gona accept those who truly stand on what they know with PROVE! i just enrole myself in a theology school..TONY,Can you direct me to a link as a beginner? welldone

    • Tony says:


      Thanks. You’re very kind. What sort of links do you need? What kind of information are you looking for?

  35. Emmanuel Mensah says:

    Moses also changed the name of Hoshea to Joshua

  36. Michelle says:

    Thanks for putting this together Tony! I was only able to think of Abraham, Sarah, Paul and Jacob- so, this was very informative.

  37. Don says:

    Excellent answers. Calm heart. Patient scholar. God bless!

  38. NOside says:

    Hi Sir Tony

    Can you give me more explanation about why God change the name of a person in the bible? And I want to grab this opportunity if you consider the historical background, language or even its literature why God change their names.

    Thank you in advance and God Bless you!


    • Tony says:

      Hi Sir NOside!

      You ask a good question. Each name change had its own circumstances, so there’s not a single answer for all. In some cases – like Abram to Abraham – the name was changed to include the AH sound. This comes from YAHWEH, and connects the old person (Abram) to God in a way that suggests they’re a new person (AbrAHam) because of their relationship with God. Sometimes, a name was changed for political reasons, as with Daniel being called Belteshazzar. Most of the time, the explanations are clear from reading the passage itself. The links in the chart above will take you to the right section of the Bible, where you can read about them for yourself.

      Have a great day!

  39. Michael Sherman says:

    Daniel and his partners are missing

  40. Matt says:

    Jonatan was change to Jonathan in all of the text after standing up to his father Saul because of David

  41. Matt says:

    Sorry I mean,
    Yonatan was changed to Yehonatan after standing up to his father Saul for David

    • Tony says:


      I’d like to see the verses in question. Lots of names have variant spellings, and Jonathan is one of them. As far as I can tell, Jehonathan is the same name as Jonathan, and both mean “Jehovah has given.” You can see some info on that at BibleHub. Let me know if you have info I’m missing. Thanks!

  42. Paul says:

    Thaddeus AKA Jude (Judas)
    Judas called Barsabbas, Acts 15:22

  43. cooper says:

    Would lucifer to satan count

    • Tony says:


      I wouldn’t think so. The word “lucifer” seems to be an unfortunate translation of the Hebrew helel, which means “shining one” or “light-bearer” or “morning star.” It only appears once, and only in the King James Version of the Bible. It’s in Isaiah 14. If we go to Isaiah 14 and read the text, it appears to be speaking of the human ruler of Babylon. While it’s common for some to believe this passage to be about Satan, the text itself suggests otherwise. Note vv3-4, the beginning of that section:

      On the day the Lord gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

      Clearly and obviously, the text is speaking directly about the king of Babylon. While some suggest a dual interpretation of the verse, again the text suggests otherwise. In v16 we see that this person is called a man, in vv11 and 20 we see that this person has a body, buried and eaten by worms. This is a human’s fate, as angels and demons have no physical forms like we do.

      Thanks for asking!

  44. Peter V says:

    We have no idea what his original name was as it is not given, but it would seem that Moses probably had his name changed by Pharoah’s daughter. I would expect that Amram and Jochebed probably gave their son a name, even if they expected to have to kill him

    • Tony says:

      I suspect you’re right, Peter. That’s a good insight. I’d like to know his name. Let’s ask him when we get to Heaven!

  45. Tony says:

    I’ve added a couple of new lists that might be of interest here:

    Name Meanings in the Bible

    Jesus in Every Language

    As usual, the lists are incomplete. Let me know if you can add to the list by using the forms at the bottom of each page. Thanks, everybody!

  46. Eugene says:

    Wow I didn’t know about this

  47. Mike Langford says:

    I must confess I find some of the comments on this forum a little adversarial for a christian site. We are one body and one spirit. Maybe we should make sure of our salvation by reading THE book and reflecting on the bits we find most difficult. That may identify the things that drag us down in holiness. (They aren’t planks and splinters) We secure heaven by purifying ourselves not by great works . Me, It’s 2Corinthians ;13 and Matthew 25:31-46. that speak to me. I’d lay down my life for my kids but I do have difficulty giving money to charity and keeping my temper …..
    …Ref; the discussion about names.. Peter was the only one re-named by Jesus. ( The last of 4 major people renamed by God.)Yes, he re-voiced Satan’s desert temptation and suffered that rebuff but Jesus directed his words to “Satan” or to the fear in Peter- or maybe the satanic voice whispering continuously in his own ear (Desert / Gethsemane). Peter was the one Jesus asked to feed his sheep and strengthen his brothers. We all let Him down but he re-commissions us again and again.
    Ref the Bible. Have you ever wondered who wrote the Creeds and chose the books; who translated the books from Pre-Aramaic, Aramaic and Coine Greek to Latin/Greek and other languages , Who translated scripture through 2000 years of cultural change (try reading “The Canterbury tales” in olde english and some problems become apparent.
    Who …… formulated the doctrines to exclude major heresies;
    Marcionism – That the OT was now irrelevant.
    Montanism –Reliance on prophetic revelations.
    Adoptionism – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
    Docetism – Jesus was pure spirit and not human.
    and others…..
    Farewell my fellow christians. I pray the Holy spirit guides us all to heaven… Mike

    • Tony says:


      First, thanks for commenting. How did you find GodWords? I’m always curious. As for what you’ve written, it appears to be a mixed bag. I hope you don’t mind some feedback.

      First, we agree. Some of the comments here ARE a little adversarial. That next bit, however, remains to be seen. Not everybody who comments on a Christian website is Christian, obviously… and not everyone who claims to be Christian IS a Christian. Keeping that in mind, we are not one body and one spirit. How can I know that? Well, in addition to writing articles and having discussions here, I also correspond with many readers via email. I can tell you that many, if not most, are simply not part of the body of Christ. I don’t say that to be judgmental, but as a matter of theological discovery. Most don’t know the gospel, most have not surrendered to God, and most are part of religious movements that are antithetical to Christianity. I wish we were all part of the body of Christ, but we’re not… and that’s the very reason this website exists. I seek only to grow the Kingdom, and to help others mature so they will also grow the Kingdom.

      I’m going to respond strongly to one of your points. We do not secure heaven by purifying ourselves. Not even close. This isn’t part of biblical Christianity, it’s something else entirely. We secure our place in Heaven by being born again. Christians should indeed purify ourselves, but not to secure Heaven. It’s to be like Jesus, to be holy as a way of revering God:

      Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure. 1 John 3:2-3

      Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. 2 Corinthians 7:1

      Neither passage – nor any other in the New Testament – suggests that we secure our place in Heaven by purifying ourselves. As you point out, 2 Corinthians 13 tells us to examine ourselves to see if we’re in the faith… and Matthew 25 points out that true faith will spur us to action. This is good. There are a number of passages teaching that we who love Jesus will obey Him. This is important, but in no sense does the New Testament teach that we secure our place in Heaven by purifying ourselves.

      As for Peter, Jesus did not direct His words to “Satan” or to Peter’s fear. This is, honestly, silly 21st-century nonsense. The word satan means an adversary or opponent. It’s not always about the devil… it’s often about someone opposed to you. Jesus’ words make this context clear:

      But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Mark 8:33

      Note that Mark does not say that Jesus rebuked the devil, or Peter’s fear. He rebuked Peter, and pointed out that God had a different and better plan than Peter could. By arguing against Jesus’ death, Peter was opposing God… therefore, at that moment, Peter was a satan: an adversary.

      I sincerely appreciate your comment, Mike. Please don’t take my disagreement with your words to suggest that I consider you anything less than my beloved brother in Christ. If you’d like to discuss any of this further, I have no doubt that many will benefit from reading it. Have a great day!

  48. Craig Hoch says:

    Tony, here’s one you might consider in Jeremiah. The Lord changed the name of Jeconiah to Coniah in Jeremiah 22:28 . I remember a preaching message about why the Je was removed but would have to go back and restudy it to spark my memory. Great compilation.

    • Tony says:


      First, thanks. I appreciate it!
      Second, I can’t find what you refer to. Could you double-check for me? I see Jeconiah only in Matthew 1, and don’t see Coniah anywhere. Thanks!

  49. Nithiya says:

    Do any one know the city or place name that is been changed after it is burner

  50. Anders Jonsson says:

    Rev. 2.17 is interesting in this connection. “To him that overcomes will I give … a white stone, and in the stone a new name…”
    I know you are listing names of individuals only, but Isaiah 62.2-4 teaches that even a nation will be renamed.
    Great study!

  51. Anders Jonsson says:

    Ah, you are right. I missed that.
    I wonder if Nithiya above is thinking of Zoar. It used to be called Bela (Gen. 14.2) but when Sodom was destroyed, it was renamed Zoar. (Gen. 19. 20-22)

  52. Mae Ann says:

    Love it??❤️❤️

  53. Anders says:

    Regarding the “new name” in Rev. 2.17, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s commentary writes: “The “new name” is Christ’s (compare Rev 3:12, “I will write upon him My new name”): some new revelation of Himself which shall hereafter be imparted to His people, and which they alone are capable of receiving.” When hymn writer C. Austin Miles wrote “There’s a new name written down in glory, and it’s mine, oh, yes it’s mine,” he was presumably not thinking or Rev. 2.17 but rather Rev 13.8 — “all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb.”

    • Tony says:


      That’s some good information. I don’t believe it’s right, though. The reason is very, very, very simple: it doesn’t fit the context. Revelation 2:12-17 is a letter to the church in Pergamum. It’s important to ask who is speaking, and to whom. If we go back to chapter 1, we see that the letters are from Jesus to the seven churches. Jesus couldn’t be the subject, since He is the speaker. Let’s look at 2:17 and add JF&B’s idea to see if it fits:

      “Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious (myself), I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person (myself) a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it (myself).”

      The only way to make their idea fit is to presume that someone else is the speaker… that someone else is the First and the Last, the Living One, who was dead and is now alive for ever and ever, and who holds the keys of death and Hades. Clearly, that makes no sense. Right?

  54. Anders says:

    “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;”
    Shakespeare’s Juliet didn’t think so , but it seems names are important to God. However you read Rev. 2.17, (few commentaries agree with JF&B’s interpretation, but some do) it indicates that there is in fact something in a name. To have your name written in the Lamb’s book of life, or to have your name changed by God is no trifling matter.

  55. Patrick says:


    I trust I am able to make an off-the-subject-matter comment?

    …mRNA “shot”
    … Cana’an (Vatican)
    … DNA markers

    • Tony says:

      Um… no.

      You’re more than welcome to join the conversation, of course. I hope you will. If you’d like to start your own new conversations, there are plenty of other options available. I have no doubt you can add to our existing conversations, and would encourage you to do so. If you have a question that might start a conversation, bring it! =)

  56. Terry Mullinix says:

    I have the names as changed per listed above. Do you by chance have the Geographic names in the Bible that have been changed?

  57. West says:

    This is exhausting to read. Great list though. Thank you. I applaud the efforts at arguing logic and facts versus misguided hate and ridiculousness…btw…I’m agnostic. Interesting stuff though for sure…

    • Tony says:

      Thanks, West… I appreciate meeting another critical thinker! Let me know if there’s anything I can do for you. Have a great day!

  58. Nyad Gibbs says:

    I would like to thank you for posting this article on the names changed in the bible. I’m doing research for a book I am writing and names changed by God or the Lord is one of the chapters.
    I’m also interested in any information you may have that I can quote on Angels. Thanks for your thoughts and information
    Nyad Gibbs

    • Tony says:


      Thanks for visiting GodWords! How did you find me? I’m always curious. Someone asked me for a list, and I couldn’t find one… so I made one. I’m happy to know it’s being put to good use. It’s one of the most popular pages on my website! At this point, I don’t really have much about angels. It’s on my list, but I haven’t studied well enough to write about them yet. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a great day!

  59. Anders says:

    I got to thinking about when God calls your name twice, as in: Abraham, Abraham (Gen 22:11), Jacob, Jacob (Gen 46:2), Moses, Moses (Ex 3:4), Samuel, Samuel (1 Sam 3:10), Martha, Martha (Lk 10:41), Simon, Simon (Lk 22:31), Saul, Saul (Acts 9:4)
    And then there is Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Lk 13:34) and Land, land, land (Jer 22:29)
    Have I missed any?

    • Tony says:

      Interesting, Anders… I have no idea how many repetitions there are. We know that their culture used repetition for emphasis, as in “truly, truly” and so on. Maybe it’s God’s way of saying “PAY CLOSE ATTENTION NOW.” =)

  60. Anders says:

    “Amen, amen!” That one never occurred to me. Then there is “Eli, Eli” (Matt 27:46), and “Abba, Father” in no less than three verses: Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6. It seems to indicate more than just “Listen up!” Intense emotion? “We cry, Abba, Father.”

  61. Anders says:

    I don’t know if you are still collecting these, but I noticed one that you don’t have: Jesus also called Justus, Col 4:11

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Go to top