Taking God’s name in vain concerns how you use His name, not how accurately you pronounce it. You can pronounce it perfectly while invoking Him to support a lie. Would that cease to be taking His name in vain because you got the vowels right? Clearly not.
Also, Mr. Huff sneaks in a little Calvinism with the claim, "The idea of the verb indicates that God is not bound by time."
That's him bringing his theology to the text and allowing to make the text say what he already believes. In actual fact, such a conclusion does not follow from the grammar. “I will be who I will be” can express God’s continued existence, presence or faithfulness to His promises. None of those establishes timelessness. Existing throughout and infinite duration of time and existing outside time are not the same thing.
Indeed, the idea of timelessness does not exist anywhere within scripture whatsoever and didn't exist at all in any other Jewish literature until Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who's career overlapped Jesus' lifetime. He was the first thinker credited with attributing timelessness to the God of the Jewish Scriptures. His effort to do so was his allegiance to Plato overriding his allegiance to the scripture, as would later be the case with both Ambros and Augustine of Milan.
