What's in a Name?

What difference does it make what name we use for God?
     "What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;" (Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene ii). So asks Juliet the question about Romeo himself. What difference does his surname, Montegue, really make? It doesn't change the man himself, only the idea or perception of him. The first words of the Tao Te Ching are, “The Tao which can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name which can be named is not the eternal name” (Dyer, Wayne W., Trans. & Ed.). The truth behind these words is that once you name something, you project your own idea or perception of the thing onto it, and so the word reflects your idea or perception and not the thing itself. Nowhere is this more true than the Eternal Source and Foundation of all existence.
       In the ancient world, people’s names were just words or phrases which were given to reflect either the parent’s hopes for the child, their mood at the time, to commemorate something, or perhaps as a perpetual pun. For example, “Daniel” means “my judge is God” in Hebrew. “Paulus” essentially means “shorty.” “Mosheh” (Moses) means “drawn out,” so named because he was “drawn out” of the water. This is similar to the naming conventions of native Americans still somewhat used to this day. My own last name was originally “Bear,” a relatively common Cherokee surname in the late 1800s, before my grandfather or great-grandfather changed the spelling to disassociate from his Cherokee heritage.
      So, what name do you give the unfathomable? What name do you give the Source and Foundation of all creation and existence which would do Him justice? Even the pronouns of any human language fail here. The words for “god” in most human languages refer back either to other ancient pagan deities, such as “El” or “Deus.” Even the word “god” itself simply means something like, “thing to which you sacrifice” in its original Indo-European root. What do you call that which cannot be adequately expressed in human language without causing a misperception or error? As the Tao Te Ching says, “the name which can be named is not the eternal name.”
     In the book of Exodus, God seems to be keenly aware of this problem when Moses asks for His name. Moses literally “cards” God for His I.D. The name He gives is a reflection of the failure of human language. In Hebrew, it’s YHWH, a third person masculine singular imperfect form of the ancient verb “hawah,” the later form being “hayah,” which means “to be.” What this translates to is something like “He Continuously Is,” though we know it more famously as “I… Am.” God recognized that no word, phrase, or even book of words could adequately name Him, and so He doesn’t even try to explain who and what He is. He just says, “I… Am.”
      In principle, this Being whom we are trying to name and describe doesn’t change based on what we call Him. He remains who He is regardless if we use YHWH, Allah, Zeus, or Dave. But our perception of Him does change based on what name we use, even if it doesn’t affect Him in the slightest. In a way, naming Him is a kind of idol creation. He understood that too, and He was trying to avoid it by choosing the simplest most effective explanation of Himself that human beings could comprehend. “I just Am. Don’t bother trying to figure any more out about it. You won’t get it. I just Am.”