Just one other thought, but if God, yes I will just say god because it is shorter and easier to use, If a god is omnisient, i.e. knows everything, wouldn't god know what everyone is talking about if they directed their attention to god, regardless of what they say or write?

Either god is so interested in Earthly grammar and pronunciation, or humans are.  I'm gonna go with, its a human consideration and fabrication.

“Our CREATOR has but ONE name & it's found where all TRUTH is; in HIS WORD. Period!” – Jay Desmond

Which translation are you using so that we can all be on the same page?  Obviously I haven’t the translation you have. 

If you won't hear & if you won't take it to heart, to give glory to MY name, I'll send a curse upon you & I'll curse your blessings. Yes, I've cursed them already, because you don't take it (MY name) to heart. Behold, I'll rebuke your descendants as well. -Malachi 2:1-2 (Jay Desmond version)

And now, O priests, this commandment is for you:  If you do not listen, And if you do not lay it to heart, to give glory to my name, says the Lord of hosts, I will send a curse upon you and of your blessing I will make a curse.  Yes, I have already cursed it, because you do not lay it to heart. (NAB version) see also: (lev 26, 14-45)(deut 28, 15-68). 

Now IF Malachi said:

If you won't hear & if you won't take it to heart, to give glory to My name; that name being: Yahuawah, I'll send a curse upon you & I'll curse your blessings.  Yes, I've cursed them already, because you don't take it to heart, my name; that name being: Yahuawah, then Behold, I'll rebuke your descendants as well.

If Malachi had said that, and given that my version is adequate enough for you, then I might find your arguments interesting, maybe even plausible.  As it stands your arguments are whole cloth fabrications, not even based in scripture.  As bad as that might be, it gets worse because this particular passage has God talking directly to priests, not everyone else.  Not that it means anything to me, but usually priests are held to higher standards, by God, to follow his commandments more strictly.  But lets us just say for argument sake that a god only responds to certain syllables, grammar, and inflections.   Shouldn’t we all stop what we are doing to learn Hebrew?  But then isn’t that strange, being that the New Testament was written in Greek.  What’s the Greek equivalent of Yahuawah and why wasn’t it written correctly, by the profits who were on a first name basis with this alleged keeper of Truth.

Maybe this is not making sense, because maybe I have the wrong bible translation, but let’s take your other scripture Isaiah 52:5-6.

But now, what am I to do here?  Says the Lord.  My people have been taken away without redress; their rulers make a boast of it, says the Lord; all the day my name is constantly reviled.  Therefore on that day my people shall know my renown, that it is I who have foretold it.  Here I am! (Isaiah 52:5-6)

Now, same thing here; If Isaiah had said,

But now, what am I— Yahuawah—to do here?  Says the Lord.  My people have been taken away without redress; their rulers make a boast of it, says the Lord; all the day my name; which is Yahuawah and only Yahuawah, is constantly reviled.  Therefore on that day my people shall know my renown, that it is I— Yahuawah—by that name, who have foretold it. Here I am; in name: Yahuawah!

Here again, if the Bible, depending on which copy of which copies copy you are referring to said that, than your arguments would make more sense.  But then obviously you are the only one who can dictate “truth” because apparently you’re the only one holding the correct translation.  Which, in effect was what the papacy tried to do, and condemn any other translations from being made into other translations so that the people could read for themselves.  Prior to that the church and the Pharisees were against that because it took power away from the priests.  Essentially making their position irrelevant, or so they say, by allowing everyone access to your “truth”.  Beyond that, anyone who question doctrine or misinterpreted its meaning was collectively burned at the stake, fear reigned supreme and a system of chaos prevailed.  Maybe we should do as you say and relegate truth to a marginal and elite group of people who have access to the “correct” meaning of any given text.

Here again, if that is the insecure and narcissistic god you want to advertise to your followers, than by all means, I hope your business does well.  As for me, it simply does not ring true, and I can’t see how it could possibly ring true for a believer in the assigned designation of god that is made in the text of what you call THE WORD.

I will suggest to you, and contend that, what the biblical god is saying, in these passages, refers not literally to a phonetic address or grammatical requirement but rather the spirit and presence of god.  I would contend that Blasphemy is the opposition to that spirit or rebellion against its ideals and values, as spoken in what you so eloquently espouse as the word of god.  For example I think a god would be less concerned with the phonetic and grammatical version of his name, and more concerned with what that name actually stood for.  For another example, when people pick up a Christian or Jewish text, the insinuation is that they are following and accept the tenants in either book, and understand by concept that god, is that entity which they believe, wrote their books.  It does not seem plausible that a benevolent, omniscient god would see his people gravitate toward a place of worship with his book in their hands, and be skeptical of their intentions.  It would be even more strange to picture a scenario where all these people had gathered, said a name in reference to god, such as; God, Ancient of Days, Son of Man, I, Almighty, or whatever your confluence of imagination would reveal, and by doing so, regardless of their intentions and devotions and sincerity, and then have this god curse them because, they had all addressed him inaccurately.  It just seems really pathetic of a god, or even a holy tomb to suggest such a notion.  It seems more likely that god would be pissed off at someone preaching such a notion or trying to convince people that such a notion was relevant.      

Well thanks for letting me ramble on Des,

Çostaire

Institute for Scriptural Research, The Scriptures (1998 Version)(SISR), The Sword project?

        Interesting, so when did you get involved with this “sacred name movement?” 

From what I can tell, my arguments still stand on their own merit and accuracy.  I will give you the Hebraic name changes and the inclusion of the Hebrew text   יהוה to describe the Judeo-Christian deity, which is nice and traditional.  However the argument is the same, there seems to be no reasonable, scriptural or logical reason for your literalistic use of your deities name except as it may pertain to sentimental value and theological tradition.  Scripturally, I still don’t see where your case for the literalistic (necessity) for using the proper name for your deity exists.  If you are take the literal inferences there, why would you not go so far as to take the rest of the old covenant laws literal?  

ISR is also said to believe that the New Covenant (NT) was originally written in Hebrew, I don't suppose you believe that too? 

From the ISR website:  “The ISR will not respond to doctrinal questions.”

“Furthermore, the ISR board of directors members' identities are unknown, as are their scholastic credentials, and what their position is regarding the historical composition of the Bible. Notably lacking in The Scriptures translation or any of the ISR's research materials is any kind of position statement regarding the date of writing for any of the Biblical texts, their authorship, the location of the author, and/or the target audience of the text.” – Wikipedia (scriptures 98’ link)

As a seeker of knowledge and science, truth is always at the forefront of my desires.  As far as some objective Truth is known however, at least the kind you espouse, I am convinced we do not have it, and glad with the fact that we don't.  Had I the pretense of Truth on par with what you are talking about, life would be essentially irrelevant in every aspect, or so it is my experience to conclude.

Truth, to me, is observing what is and understanding how much of it we can so that we can effectively and more efficiently navigate in a world that is indifferent to our plight.  Beyond that all we have are stories that entertain, indoctrinate, fascinate, bewilder, and provide consolation for the hopeless in their time of ignorance and grief.

The difference between my understanding of truth and your extraordinary notion of truth, is that scientific knowledge is available to anyone willing to put in the effort to learn it.  Whereas your truth must ignore the facts in order to obey ancient and mythological principles based on inferred and unavailable data.  Wherein I’m happy for you, and hope that it gives you and your Hollywood stars consolation.  Nevertheless I’m still as of yet, reluctant to accept such a truth on spurious and insufficient evidence.  I’m glad that it fills your days with a search to try and understand what to call a literary idea you call YaHuWaH! Or the other hundreds of euphemisms and pronouns used in your text of preference.  I can’t even imagine what kind of god would concern itself with such trivial and pretentious narcissism.  But if that is the god you want to advertise than I hope that it provides you and your members with purpose.

Guess we will all find out when we die.  Just the same we may find out that Zeus is in charge or the thousands of other gods in the pantheon of human imagination and literature.

I think you're correct in assuming that "phonetic Blasphemy" is probably an inaccurate misinterpretation of scripture.