Not more of this "God Forsaken" thread!!

That is the whole point.

People wrestle with that because that is what is being wrestled with by every skeptic.

This is the message. Jesus is God.


That is the fundamental and core belief of Christianity.

Every word uttered was and is and will be uttered through Jesus if the word uttered at all is from the Father, out of whom He is. The Father only speaks through the Son.

And the Holy Spirit given to the believer testifies of the Son, or else the apprehension of what constitutes the Holy Spirit is false, if not found testifying of the Son.


All Word of God is from and through the Son to man. Anything else is counterfeit. That's the bottom line to the New Testament.


Before He was flesh, while he was flesh and since he was flesh.

This is the point. This is what you are wrestling with, nothing less, nothing more, and nothing of greater consequence to your soul and spirit.



The only time that the Son of God sits down and the Father speaks for Himself is after heaven and earth are passed away. Not until then. That is crucial to understanding what is so debateable. But unchangeable.

That's why Christianity sticks in the craw of all of mankind.


Isn't it?

beautifully said my dear friend.

It’s a godforsaken thread
that tries to prove that God is dead
by the revelation
of the implication
of what the son of God had said

But believers go unmoved
by things we say are proved
what he said
whilst halfway dead
is certainly behooved!

A God cannot abandon
the essence of himself
unless, of course
there’s no remorse
betwixt an fairy and elf

Religion and mythology
The imagined and surreal
only the death of afterlife
has the power to reveal

I think proselytizers are sticking Christianity in the craws of men.

My Dad and I were laughing and joking one day about the way he acts around some of my brothers and I said to him, " So, your nepotism is kinda like prosyletizing neophytes, then?"

We laughed for hours and the family just looked at us and KNEW we were nuts, but had no clue about what we were laughing at.


Had to be there, but it was funny to catch him doing the very thing he thought I was doing and not telling him otherwise.

He just shakes his head at me and wonders what i'm doing in the "club" I'm in.


And why I am just as rebellious and independent within the church as I was outside of it.


Makes for good laughs.

Thu 12/13/07 05:15 PM
QUOTE:

feralcatlady are you saying that the people who said this

Ps 22:8
8 "He trusted in Yahweh, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"
NKJV

Was just quoting scripture at the same time Yahshua was?


Matt 27:41-43

41 Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, 42 "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. 43 He trusted in Elohim; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of Elohim.'"
NKJV
Then they did not know here what he was quoting.
Matt 27:47-48

47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for EliYah!" 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.
NKJV


seems that this is hard for me to believe that they did not know what Yahshua was quoting and in the same sentence quote the other part of Ps. 22 that was prophesied they would do.

How could that happen? Or what's the chances?.. Blessings..Miles





Miles,


You have a polluted text for a New Testament if it says 'elohiym' anywhere in it.

The Greek texts all use the word 'theos' and that refers to 'el', 'eloah' or 'elohiym' interchangeaby.

The nuances of the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament do not say the same thing, necessarily.


Elohiym is not the Father, it is a plural derivative denoting 'god' or 'gods' or 'angels' in general and is used to denote a specific with a conjunctive.

Tainted texts taint the meaning.


As the " Son of God" , you are suggesting that Jesus is "ben elohiym". Elsewhere you have said that 'ben elohiym' means children of God. Others say, 'born of angels or gods'.


Jesus has always been specific that he came from the Father and was in Him and with Him and that not anything that was made was made without him.


Get away from your teachers and back to the LORD.

Or at least use a correct transliteration.



Edited by wouldee on Thu 12/13/07 05:22 PM


Wooldee no you apperently do not know how the word is used. Actually the book of Math. The term Elohim was used exclusively because Math was writing alot to the Jews. You should know that the Jews will not use the name Yahweh. Or as you say the father. The name LORD if you look in the preface of most bibles you will see that this was stubstituded for the tetegramatan YHWH since Hebrew has no vowels but vowel points. The conscence is that Yahweh is the pronuciation. Elohim means many things depending on how it is used. If refering to the father the Elohim is perfectly correct as he himself called himself that Yahweh Elohim in the 3rd commandment. You saying that i mix the scriptures by using words that refer to our creator or Messiah is wrong. You using the word JC is putting the name of another diety on your lips as an idol. It is what the 3rd commandment says and I would research it before commenting. Those words i will not use can refer to anyone like the g-d of this world. who are u worshipping? When rev. says those who have wisdom count the number of the name. You can find it in the old testement as an hebrew translation but the words are then translated into english as The LORD is our Master. What you read is a mistranslation and thier are ones like from the Institute of Religious studies that has corrected all this. But it has proven true as the main Bible printing houses have not done so because the people would not understand because of tradition and would reject it. Moffatt version even says this in plain english in his prefase. You are the blind following the blind because of your traditions. If you think you can keep up with me on Biblical interpretations ( and i have no training except for the Holy Spirit) then show me you do sir.. Blessings..Miles

The Holy Spirit testifies of the Son, Miles.

The Father is "I am that I am", Miles.

Use A Strong's Concordance to verify.

Also, click on the number of my posts on my avatar to the left and scroll to my post that breaks down the facts transcribed showing the truth.The Father and the Son are not both elohiym.You will find what you need on the bottom of page 7 of my posts within the avatar

Matthew was written in Greek and the word 'theos'is used.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but you will need to find an Aramaic text to prove what you say.

You are winging it. The Moffit translation is not credible.


Try the academic route with any of these.

Vulgate..400 AD
Tyndale 1525AD
Matthews 1537 AD
Geneva 1560 AD
King James 1611 AD
Revised Version 1881AD

American Standard 1901 AD
Revised Standard Version 1952AD

These all source the prevous and the Original Manuscripts,

which include:
Codex Alexandrinus 425 AD
Codex Vitanicus 340 AD
Codex Sinaiticus 330 AD


or,

Coverdale 1535 AD
Great 1539 AD
Bishops 1568 AD
Douay 1610 AD
Wycliffe 1380 AD


The Moffit is erroneous and subjective to the whim of the publisher.

Be credible.

You haven't learned a thing about doctrine, only adopted a text that has an axe to grind in supporting an elitist perspective.


Pray for more guidance and truth from God and listen to the Holy Spirit, if in fact you are so blessed, when He directs you to clarity of His word and the truth of His word.

The only formula you need 3 nails + 1 cross = 4 given

That sums it up for me perfectly

wouldee and miles:

I value and respect each of you for different reasons indeed... but I do value both, and therefore I want to say something concerning this latest bit of exchanges between you...if I may,


Perhaps we can all profit from a teaching that develops character in the truest of senses... Know that the world has a fingerprint on each of us, according to individual exposure. Know also that should we only look at this world through that fingerprint, our sight is, indeed, incorruptably tainted, by the very causes of all we are within. I only wish for people to be able to recognize the need for self-invasive examination in order to identify our inner acceptances of those teachings in our lives which cause us not to learn.

May you both be well, my friends.

I agree creativesoul thanks for the reality check. The spirit is peaceful and I spoke as i usually do not. at least try. but thanks for bringing that to my attention. Blessings in the Highest...Miles

Thier is am Arabic text and anouther that is close in structure in language. Yahshua spoke Hebrew. My El My El is Hebrew he was speaking. Thjey even put it in the text you because they were not sure how else to say it.Yahshua said He was Elohim and he quoted scripture why. I am an Elohim when it comes to my house and brethern. It also can be used alot as judge. I am not twisting the scriptures. But most do not want to see these words especially Yahshua it pricks to the heart. yahshua in John spoke that this would happen in John5:43. Nowhere does it say that you can call him or his father another name. You use titles like president or govenor or such. Yahweh demands you declare his name as Your Elohim. I have never said quite the oppisite that Yahshua is Yahweh. He says he can do nothing except the father tells him. He tells us we will do greater things than he did.

I am a adopted child of Elohim. This does not mean Yahshua but Yahweh.

I can also say I am an adopted child of Yahweh. or the father abba.

Son of the father that was bar-abbas son of the father. Who came as a murderer killing romans as the Jews wanted. they chose him. He was claiming his messiah hood also. The flow of the text in the NT is Hebrew. All the apostles were called unlearned men. Now luke was a phisician and Judas the betrayer was probally the most educated of the bunch. His reasoning instead of believing killed him.

Thier is nothing new in the NT. Yahshua said so and it is true. I can find everything said in the Torah mainly. You can not understand the New without the Basic knowledge of the old. Which in itself denote gone away not useful. Which society as a hole has been duked into believing. What field of study can you say that you do not nee the basics to be able to understand and do the more advanced studies. Which is what the NT is more advanced. Explaining the deeper meaning of the Torah. Why did Yahshua speak of the ox in the ditch and it shut up the pharisses? They did not shut up just because of what it seems like is said. They were being condemned in thier own hearts for what was said in the Torah. So saying I mis use NT words you can say all you want . But it is just that. The Torah who Yahshua said He was ( The word) and also Yahweh changes not. Must be seen in the Hebrew influence and the Torah. Or else you can be like i know thier is over 700 divisions of chr-stianity in the U.S today and make anything say whatever you want. You can not do that with the Torah. Yahshua said he had the right to judge (go and sin no more) but he chose not to. That thier he was saying he was an Elohim. I do not know anywhere where angels can be judges. If you study these words Angels as we know them. Can not judge and niether do they try as Michael did not even try to condemn or accuse satan/helel. In Jude. Yahweh said his children would have his name in them. When you have a child or adopt one he takes your name. Yah the poetic name of Yahweh is in the prophets and will be in us and is in his son. Yahshua means Yahweh is salvation. That is why thier is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved. Not the son. People look at the scriptures and see.. Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Just what do they think that means? Thier are many lords and g-ds. That really says Everyone who calls upon the name of Yahshua shall be saved. Which goes right back to what i just said Yahshua means Yahweh saves. Yet all the scholars and such know this nbut it would not be a good thing for them to say the truth. Why? no different than the pharasess that anyone who keeps the law is accussed of trying to be when the actual fact it is them being afraid of losing thier POWER over the people. The people would start to see that they have been taught greek mythology as Abra says. They would have a measuring stick to use to see why some things which are hard to understand really means as the Holy Spirit enters them for thier obediense from the heart as Hebrews tells us. But keep all these words like they are and say the law is done away, who can understand? Only The ELITE RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS and MINISTERS. Who's father is The Devil himself the Great accusser of the brethern who wanders the world as a RAGING LION. Thier is nothing NEW UNDER THE SUN.King Davids son the wisest who ever lived hit it on the head. Those who are his hear his voice and another they will not follow. May Yahweh of Hosts Open Our Minds That His Will Be Done....Blessings...Miles

JHWH is not the Father, but the Son.

Elohiym is a plural derivative.

JHWH is Jesus Christ.

You are mistaken and in erroneous teaching.

The "devil" you mention is in your version of falsehood.

The Biblical schplars cannot be historically ignored.

The simple truth is the Word itself.

The Torah says what I've shown you in accurate philology.


You and yours are re-inventing your own Jesus and ignoring what was originally known. That being that Christ is JHWH.

JHWH is a plural derivative of 'el'.

And not the Father.

We will go round and round on this , Miles.

I will not relent.

Study it and disprove what I say with the Words themselves and use credible philology or stop altogether.

Your implications and innuendo are misleading you.

You sit in judgement of things that you know nothing about, and purposing to ascribe Satanic authority over anything that you do not want to embrace is tantamount to delusion and backed only by your own personal and proud emotion.


My responsibility is to correct error where it is evident and known to me. That responsibility is due to bearing your burdens as a brother.

Denying the fallacy that has deceived you is equal to embracing the ambivilence that complacancy has wrought in too many minds.


Once the truth is known and understood, error is quite easily kept away from the heart.

You represent the same churchianity that defaces the simple truth of simple words. That those simple words do not translate to English, does not exclude your personal responsibility to ascertain the genuine expression and teach it only. Teaching falsehood proves the learning of falsehood.

The Father is not JHWH. The Old Testament and the Torah are the same set of documents.

God, the Father, only speaks to man through JHWH ; no other way.

All of creation is spoken into existence, and all knowledge of God spoken through JHWH. The Father ONLY speaks to JHWH.

JHWH is Jesus Christ. JHWH is in and of the Father.

In the Book of Revelation, the only time the Father will speak, as it is written, is when heavern and earth pass away. At that ttime, the Son, JHWH, sits down at the right hand of the Father and the Father reveals His Will directly.

Presently, while we are menbers of the present ongoing creation, the Son is the voice of God.

Until you and I, and your religion and the Bible itself are reconciled in a common understanding of the words used, and their meaning, we are not serving God in spirit and truth as brothers.

There are not two JHWHs and there are not two Jesus'. Only one and they are one in the same.

At present, you hold that JHWH is te Father.



Read the Word in Hebrew and learn of the meanings and origins of the words used.

Your eyes will open and you will see the truth.





As an aside, Miles. Your religion is fairly new. I wonder, why is that?
Has the truth been hidden for millinia to be revealed so far after the fact?


When you deny the authority of the early church, you deny the apostles themselves. That is heretical to abandon the gospel as taught and devise an alternate gospel.

Create a new religion and leave the ancient texts out of your religion altogether if you want to label them devils.
Otherwise, the devil is your religion. Can you see that?
It is not my opinion of you, but it your own logic that makes that observation. I am convinced of your confusion but not of your insincerity. On the contrary, I believe you are being held captive by false teachings that only serve to limit your fruitfulness.

We all must be on guard for error, Miles. There has to be some basis for credibility of truth in Christ.
Denying his deity and teaching a lesser truth about Jesus is at the core, a fundamental error and heresy.

I'm going to have to disagree.

Isaiah 44:6


Both the Father and the Son are YVWH.

Pronunciation of the Name
Part of a series on

Judaism
Portal | Category
Jews · Judaism · Denominations
Orthodox · Conservative · Reform
Haredi · Hasidic · Modern Orthodox
Reconstructionist · Renewal · Rabbinic
Karaite · Samaritanism
Jewish philosophy
Principles of faith · Minyan · Kabbalah
Noahide laws · God · Eschatology · Messiah
Chosenness · Holocaust · Halakha · Kashrut
Modesty · Tzedakah · Ethics · Mussar
Religious texts
Torah · Tanakh · Talmud · Midrash · Tosefta
Rabbinic works · Kuzari · Mishneh Torah
Tur · Shulchan Aruch · Mishnah Berurah
Ḥumash · Siddur · Piyutim · Zohar · Tanya
Holy cities
Jerusalem · Safed · Hebron · Tiberias
Important figures
Abraham · Isaac · Jacob/Israel · Sarah
Rebecca · Rachel · Leah · David
Moses · Deborah · Ruth · Solomon · Shammai
Ovadia Yosef · Elijah · Hillel · Judah the Prince
Rashi · Rif · Tosafists · Maimonides
Gersonides · Yosef Karo · Baal Shem Tov
Jewish life cycle
Brit · Bar/Bat Mitzvah · Shidduch · Marriage
Niddah · Naming · Pidyon HaBen · Bereavement
Religious roles
Rabbi · Rebbe · Hazzan
Kohen/Priest · Mashgiach · Gabbai · Maggid
Mohel · Beth din · Rosh yeshiva
Religious buildings
Synagogue · Mikvah · Holy Temple / Tabernacle
Religious articles
Tallit · Tefillin · Kipa · Sefer Torah
Tzitzit · Mezuzah · Menorah · Shofar
4 Species · Kittel · Gartel · Yad
Jewish prayers
Jewish services · Shema · Amidah · Aleinu
Kol Nidre · Kaddish · Hallel · Ma Tovu · Havdalah
Judaism & other religions
Christianity · Islam · "Judeo-Christian" · Others
Abrahamic faiths · Judeo-Paganism · Pluralism
Related topics
Antisemitism · Criticism
Philo-Semitism · Yeshiva · Zionism
v • d • e
Various proposals exist for what the vowels of יהוה were. Current convention is יַהְוֶה, that is, "Yahweh" (IPA: /'jahwe/). Evidence is:

Some Biblical theophoric names end in -ia(h) or -yahu as shortened forms of YHWH: that points to the first vowel being "a".
Various Early Christian Greek transcriptions of the Hebrew Divine Name seem to point to "Yahweh" or similar.
Samaritan priests have preserved a liturgical pronunciation "Yahwe" or "Yahwa" to the present day.[3]
Today many scholars accept this proposal,[4] based on the pronunciation conserved both by the Church Fathers (as noted above) and by the Samaritans.[5] (Here 'accept' does not necessarily mean that they actually believe that it describes the truth, but rather that among the many vocalizations that have been proposed, none is clearly superior. That is, 'Yahweh' is the scholarly convention, rather than the scholarly consensus.)


[edit] Evidence from theophoric names
"Yahū" or "Yehū" is a common short form for "Yahweh" in Hebrew theophoric names; as a prefix it sometimes appears as "Yehō-". This has caused two opinions:

In former times (at least from c.1650 AD), that it was abbreviated from the supposed pronunciation "Yehowah", rather than "Yahweh" which contains no 'o'- or 'u'-type vowel sound in the middle.
[2] Recently, that, as "Yahweh" is likely an imperfective verb form, "Yahu" is its corresponding preterite or jussive short form: compare yiŝtahaweh (imperfective), yiŝtáhû (preterit or jussive short form) = "do obeisance".
George Wesley Buchanan in Biblical Archaeology Review argues for (1), as the prefix "Yehu-" or "Yeho-" always keeps its second vowel.[6]

Smith’s 1863 A Dictionary of the Bible Section # 2.1 supports (1) for the same reason.

The Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon (1848)[7] in its article הוה supports (1) because of the "Yeho-" name prefixes and the vowel pointing difference described in #Details of vowel pointing.

Smith’s 1863 A Dictionary of the Bible says that "Yahweh" is possible because shortening to "Yahw" would end up as "Yahu" or similar.

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 in the Article:Names Of God has a very similar discussion, and also gives the form Jo or Yo (יוֹ) contracted from Jeho or Yeho (יְהוֹ).

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (New York: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-11, vol. 15, pp. 312, in its article "JEHOVAH", also says that "Jelo-" or "Jo" can be explained from "Yahweh", and that the suffix "-jah" can be explained from "Yahweh" better than from "Yehowah".

Chapter 1 of The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures, under the heading: THE PRONUNCIATION OF GOD'S NAME quotes from Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 7:

Hebrew Scholars generally favor "Yahweh" as the most likely pronunciation. They point out that the abbreviated form of the name is Yah (Jah in the Latinized form), as at Psalm 89:8 and in the expression Hallelu-Yah (meaning "Praise Yah, you people!") (Ps 104:35; 150:1,6). Also, the forms Yehoh', Yoh, Yah, and Ya'hu, found in the Hebrew spelling of the names of Jehoshaphat, Joshaphat, Shephatiah, and others, can all be derived from Yahweh. ... Still, there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject, some favoring yet other pronunciations, such as "Yahuwa", "Yahuah", or "Yehuah".
Everett Fox in his introduction to his translation of The Five Books of Moses stated: "Both old and new attempts to recover the ‘correct’ pronunciation of the Hebrew name [of God] have not succeeded; neither the sometimes-heard ‘Jehovah’ nor the standard scholarly ‘Yahweh’ can be conclusively proven."


[edit] Using consonants as semi-vowels (v/w)
In ancient Hebrew, the letter ו, known to modern Hebrew speakers as vav, was a semivowel /w/ (as in English, not as in German) rather than a letter v.[8] The letter is referred to as waw in the academic world. Because the ancient pronunciation differs from the modern pronunciation, it is common today to represent יהוה as YHWH rather than YHVH.

In Biblical Hebrew, most vowels are not written and the rest are written only ambiguously, as the vowel letters double as consonants (similar to the Latin use of V to indicate both U and V). See Matres lectionis for details. For similar reasons, an appearance of the Tetragrammaton in ancient Egyptian records of the 13th century BC sheds no light on the original pronunciation.[9] Therefore it is, in general, difficult to deduce how a word is pronounced from its spelling only, and the Tetragrammaton is a particular example: two of its letters can serve as vowels, and two are vocalic place-holders, which are not pronounced.

This difficulty occurs somewhat also in Greek when transcribing Hebrew words, because of Greek's lack of a letter for consonant 'y' and (since loss of the digamma) of a letter for "w", forcing the Hebrew consonants yod and waw to be transcribed into Greek as vowels. Also, non-initial 'h' caused difficulty for Greeks and was liable to be omitted; х (chi) was pronounced as 'k' + 'h' (as in modern Hindi "lakh") and could not be used to spell 'h' as in e.g. Modern Greek Χάρρι = "Harry".


[edit] J/Y
The English practice of transcribing Biblical Hebrew Yodh as "j" and pronouncing it "dzh" (/dʒ/). It started when in late Latin the pronunciation of consonantal "i" changed from "y" to "dzh" but continued to be spelled "i", bringing along with it Latin transcriptions and spoken renderings of biblical and other foreign words and names. To avoid confusion it is easiest to transcribe Hebrew yod as "y" in English. However anglicized versions of names such as Jesus and Judah are often used by many in place of correct Hebrew pronunciations and are widely accepted.


[edit] Kethib and Qere and Qere perpetuum
The original consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible was provided with vowel marks by the Masoretes to assist reading. In places where the consonants of the text to be read (the Qere) differed from the consonants of the written text (the Kethib), they wrote the Qere in the margin as a note showing what was to be read. In such a case the vowels of the Qere were written on the Kethib. For a few very frequent words the marginal note was omitted: this is called Q're perpetuum.

One of these frequent cases was God's name, that should not be pronounced, but read as "Adonai" ("My Lord [plural of majesty]"), or, if the previous or next word already was "Adonai", or "Adoni" ("My Lord"), as "Elohim" ("God"). This combination produces יְהֹוָה and יֱהֹוִה respectively, non-words that would spell "yehovah" and "yehovih" respectively.

The oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, such as the Aleppo Codex and the Codex Leningradensis mostly write יְהוָה (yehvah), with no pointing on the first H; this points to its Qere being 'Shema', which is Aramaic for "the Name".

Gerard Gertoux wrote that in the Leningrad Codex of 1008-1010, the Masoretes used 7 different vowel pointings [i.e. 7 different Q're's] for YHWH.[10]


[edit] Jehovah
Later, Christian Europeans who did not know about the Q're perpetuum custom took these spellings at face value, producing the form "Jehovah" and spelling variants of it. For more information, see the page Jehovah.


[edit] Counts
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, יְהֹוָה (Qr אֲדֹנָי) occurs 6518 times, and יֱהֹוִה (Qr אֱלֹהִים) occurs 305 times in the Masoretic Text.

It appears 6,823 times in the Jewish Bible, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, and 6,828 times each in the Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia texts of the Hebrew Scriptures.


[edit] The vocalizations of יְהֹוָה and אֲדֹנָי are not identical
The "simple shewa" (schwa vowel, usually written as 'e') in Yehovah and the "hatef patah" (short a) in Adonay are not identical. Two reasons have been suggested for this:

A spelling "Yahovah" causes a risk that a reader might start reading "Yah", which is a form of the Name, and the first half of the full Name.
The two are not really different: both short vowels, shva and hatef-patah, were allophones of the same phoneme used in different situations. Adonai uses the "hatef patah" because of the glottal nature of its first consonant aleph (the glottal stop), but the first consonant of YHWH is yodh, which is not glottal, and so uses the vowel shva.

[edit] Evidence from very old scrolls
The discovery of the Qumran scrolls has added support to some parts of this position. These scrolls are unvocalized, showing that the position of those who claim that the vowel marks were already written by the original authors of the text is untenable. Many of these scrolls write (only) the tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script, showing that the Name was treated specially. See also this link.

As said above, the Aleppo and Leningrad codices do not use the holem (o) in their vocalization, or only in very few instances, so that the (systematic) spelling "Yehovah" is more recent than about 1000 A.D. or from a different tradition.


[edit] Original pronunciation
The main approaches in modern attempts to determine a pronunciation of YHWH have been study of the Hebrew Bible text, study of theophoric names, and study of early Christian Greek texts that contain reports about the pronunciation. Evidence from Semitic philology and archeology has been tried.

The result is a "scholarly convention to pronounce YHWH as Yahweh".

Delitzsch prefers "יַהֲוָה" (yahavah) since he considered the shwa quiescens below ה ungrammatical.

In his 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible", William Smith prefers the form "יַהֲוֶה" (yahaveh). Many other variations have been proposed.

However, Gesenius' proposal gradually became accepted as the best scholarly reconstructed vocalized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton.


[edit] Early Greek and Latin forms
The writings of the Church Fathers contain several references to God's name in Greek or Latin. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907)] and B.D. Eerdmans: [11]

Diodorus Siculus[12] writes Ἰαῶ (Iao);
Irenaeus reports[13] that the Gnostics formed a compound Ἰαωθ (Iaoth) with the last syllable of Sabaoth. He also reports[14] that the Valentinian heretics use Ἰαῶ (Iao);
Clement of Alexandria[15] writes Ἰαοὺ (Iaou) - see also below;
Origen,[16] Iao;
Porphyry,[17] Ἰευώ (Ieuo);
Epiphanius (d. 404), who was born in Palestine and spent a considerable part of his life there, gives[18] Ia and Iabe (one codex Iaue);
Pseudo-Jerome,[19] tetragrammaton legi potest Iaho;
Theodoret (d. c. 457) writes Ἰάω (Iao); he also reports[20] that the Samaritans say Ἰαβέ (Iabe), Ἰαβαι (Iabai), while the Jews say Ἀϊά (Aia).[21] (The latter is probably not יהוה but אהיה Ehyeh = "I am" (Exod. iii. 14), which the Jews counted among the names of God.)
James of Edessa (cf.[22]), Jehjeh;
Jerome[23] speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name יהוה as ΠΙΠΙ.
In Smith’s 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible", the author displays some of the above forms and concludes:

But even if these writers were entitled to speak with authority, their evidence only tends to show in how many different ways the four letters of the word יהוה could be represented in Greek characters, and throws no light either upon its real pronunciation or its punctuation.

[edit] Josephus
Josephus in Jewish Wars, chapter V, verse 235, wrote "τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα· ταῦτα δ' ἐστὶ φωνήεντα τέσσαρα" ("...[engraved with] the holy letters; and they are four vowels"), presumably because Hebrew yod and waw, even if consonantal, would have to be transcribed into the Greek of the time as vowels.


[edit] Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria writes in Stromata V,6:34-35

"Πάλιν τὸ παραπέτασμα τῆς εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων παρόδου, κίονες τέτταρες αὐτόθι, ἁγίας μήνυμα τετράδος διαθηκῶν παλαιῶν, ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαουε, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. Καὶ μὴν καὶ καθʼ Ἕλληνας θεὸς τὸ ὄνομα τετράδα περιέχει γραμμάτων."
The translation[3] of Clement's Stromata in Volume II of the classic Ante-Nicene Fathers series renders this as:

"... Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, 'Who is and shall be.' The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters."[24]
Of Clement's Stromata there is only one surviving manuscript, the Codex L (Codex Laurentianus V 3), from the 11th century. Other sources are later copies of that ms. and a few dozen quotations from this work by other authors. For Stromata V,6:34, Codex L has ἰαοὺ. The critical edition by Otto Stählin (1905) gives the forms

"ἰαουέ Didymus Taurinensis de pronunc. divini nominis quatuor literarum (Parmae 1799) p. 32ff, ἰαοὺ L, ἰὰ οὐαὶ Nic., ἰὰ οὐὲ Mon. 9.82 Reg. 1888 Taurin. III 50 (bei Did.), ἰαοῦε Coisl. Seg. 308 Reg. 1825."
and has Ἰαουε in the running text. The Additions and Corrections page gives a reference to an author who rejects the change of ἰαοὺ into Ἰαουε.[25]

Other editors give similar data. A catena (latin: chain) referred to by A. le Boulluec [26] ("Coisl. 113 fol. 368v") and by Smith’s 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" ("a catena to the Pentateuch in a MS. at Turin") is reported to have "ια ουε".

The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh".


[edit] Magic papyri
Spellings of the Tetragrammaton occur among the many combinations and permutations of names of powerful agents that occur in Egyptian magical writings.[27] One of these forms is the heptagram ιαωουηε[28]

In the magical texts, Iave (Jahveh Sebaoth), and Iαβα, occurs frequently.[29] In an Ethiopic list of magical names of Jesus, purporting to have been taught by him to his disciples, Yawe[30] [31] is found.


[edit] Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh
In the early 19th century Hebrew scholars were still critiquing "Jehovah" [a.k.a. Iehovah and Iehouah] because they believed that the vowel points of יְהֹוָה were not the actual vowel points of God's name. The Hebrew scholar Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842] had suggested that the Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה, which is transliterated into English as "Yahweh", might more accurately represent the actual pronunciation of God's name than the Biblical Hebrew punctuation "יְהֹוָה", from which the English name Jehovah has been derived.


William Gesenius's Hebrew punctuation (i.e. Yahweh)Wilhelm Gesenius is noted for being one of the greatest Hebrew and biblical scholars [4]. His proposal to read YHWH as "יַהְוֶה" (see image to the right) was based in large part on various Greek transcriptions, such as ιαβε, dating from the first centuries AD, but also on the forms of theophoric names.

In his Hebrew Dictionary Gesenius (see image of German text) supports the pronunciation "Yahweh" because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form "Yahweh".
Today many scholars accept Gesenius's proposal to read YHWH as יַהְוֶה.
(Here 'accept' does not necessarily mean that they actually believe that it describes the truth, but rather that among the many vocalizations that have been proposed, none is clearly superior. That is, 'Yahweh' is the scholarly convention, rather than the scholarly consensus.)

[edit] Inferences
Various people draw various conclusions from this Greek material.

William Smith writes in his 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" about the different Hebrew forms supported by these Greek forms:

... The votes of others are divided between יַהְוֶה (yahveh) or יַהֲוֶה (yahaveh), supposed to be represented by the Ιαβέ of Epiphanius mentioned above, and יַהְוָה (yahvah) or יַהֲוָה (yahavah), which Fürst holds to be the Ιευώ of Porphyry, or the Ιαού of Clemens Alexandrinus.
The editors of New Bible Dictionary (1962 write:

The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliterations of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form Ιαουε (Clement of Alexandria) or Ιαβε (Theodoret; by this time β had the pronunciation of v).
As already mentioned, Gesenius arrived at his form using the evidence of proper names, and following the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret.


[edit] Usage of YHWH

Personally i like the Moffatt version..Miles

[edit] History
J was originally an alternative version of I. There was an emerging distinctive use in Middle High German.[3] Petrus Ramus (d. 1572) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds.[4] Originally, both I and J represented /i/, /iː/, and /j/; but Romance languages developed new sounds (from former /j/ and /g/) that came to be represented as I and J; therefore, English J (from French J) has a sound value quite different from /i/.

All the Germanic languages except English use J for /j/. This is also true of Albanian, and those Uralic and Slavic languages that use the Latin alphabet, such as Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Polish, and Czech. Some languages in these families, such as Serbian, also adopted J into the Cyrillic alphabet for the same purpose. Because of this standard, the minuscule letter was chosen to be used in the IPA as the phonetic symbol for the sound.

Linguists from Germany and Central Europe also took up this letter in transliterations from those Slavic languages which use the Cyrillic alphabet. Specifically, the "Е" in Russian is sometimes transliterated "je" (with the "Ё" becoming "jo"); the "Я" is transliterated as "ja"; and the character "Ю" is transliterated "ju" - whereas the linguists from America and the English speaking world use "y" in place of "j" because of English and Spanish use of Y for /j/. European linguists also use the character Й so that their transliterations of nominative case of adjectives ("-ий") end in "-ij" whereas in American transliterations it's "-ii". The student who uses the American transliteration has to remember that the second "i" is different from the first in the original.

In modern standard Italian spelling, only Latin words or those of foreign languages have J. Until the 19th century, J was used instead of I in diphthongs, as a replacement for final -ii, and in vowel groups (as in Savoja); this rule was quite strict for official writing. And J is also used for rendering words in dialect, where it stands for /j/, e.g. Romanesque ajo for standard aglio (garlic). The Italian Novelist Luigi Pirandello utilised J in vowel groups in his works.

In Spanish J stands for /x ~ h/ (which developed from an earlier affricate /dʒ/); the actual phonetic realization depends on dialect. When followed by an 'A' or an 'O' however, it assumes a guttural sound (fricative uvular /X/), probably a remainder of Arabic or Hebrew influences.

In French, Portuguese, and Romanian, former /dʒ/ is now pronounced as /ʒ/ (as in English measure).

In Turkish, Azerbaijani and Tatar, J always represents /ʒ/.

Hebrew also influenced the English J, which in a few cases is used in place of the more normal Y. The classic example is Hallelujah which is pronounced the same as "Halleluyah". See the Hebrew yodh for more details.

Some German typefaces of the fraktur or schwabacher types, obsolete since the end of the Second World War, do not necessarily distinguish between the capital I and J. The same character, a 'J' with a top serif of the tilde form, was sometimes used for both. The minuscule i and j, however, were distinguished.

In Germany, Sweden and Albania, this letter is often written with a long serif on top, but only to the left of the character.

J is used relatively infrequently in the English Language, though it is more commonly used than Q, X

spider,

click on the # of posts on my avatar to the left.

Read the post of 12/7/07 at 3:30pm.

Exodus 3 : 14 i the text.

JHWH is a plural derivative of 'el'.

I AM THAT I AM is not the same person of the Godhead as taught in Trinity. I AM is the Father.

You must notice that the Father never speaks to man except through the Son, according to scripture.

Never has and will not until after the Judgement and Christ sits down at the right hand of the Father and the Father then reveals Himself to us.

In the meantime, Spider, either Jesus Christ is God and spoke all of all creation into existence and is LORD over it or he is not.

This is the conundrum of emotional discourse that ignores the scripture itself.

Understand the who is speaking for whom and by whom in Exodus 3:14 and you see the Father and the Son for who they are.

One in the same, but the spoken Word is only , And the Bible is clear here, only through the Son.

It speaks for itself. I did not invent this.

This is the Trinity that you embrace.

Study it and prove it, but don't allow preference to taint your judgement, but rather prefer the objectivity of the meaning of the words and their respective roots. They are carefully and purposefully followed with extereme and infallable consistency within all ancient texts and are not questionable anywhere in scripture.

elohiym is a plural derivative and requires a conjunctive to represent the required singularity within scripture itself. If for no other reason than to make the distinction within any prophesy or utterance as being by JHWH or by the gods of other cultures.
You see, JHWH is the 'elohiym' of Israel. The 'elohiym' of other contemporaries in scripture are just that, 'elohiym'.
Can the 'elohiym' of other cultures in scripture be JHWH?

Of course not, but nevertheless, they are 'elohiym'.


How do you equate 'elohiym' with the Father in that case?

It is a false interpretaiotn to suggest that 'elohiym' is the Father.

Back to school, kids.

Your cut and paste only stipulates citing OT examples, but does less than nothing for NT text.

It also ignores the meaning of the words when compared to themselves.

I didn't ask for a list.

I asked for clear proof from you that 'elohiym' is not a plural derivative of 'el'

You cannot do it. It does not exist, therefore 'elohiym' is equal in stature to the 'elohiym' of other cultures represented in Biblical texts that are other that Israel herself.

The Father is not equal to the gods of other peoples found so having within the scriptures themselves.

The LORD God, as expressed in Hebrew, is JHWH elohiym. Two words. It is a plural derivative and denotes the spoken Word.

After reading all of these posts my mind has been put at ease because I now know Jesus never said these words on the cross. These were added in by his followers later on to try and boost his claim to being God. Isn't it funny that the people who felt that this would give people faith probably drove me from Christianity.
As proof that this happens in the Bible(people put in connections to the OT that didn't happen) the killing of the first born cildren at the birth of Jesus. There is no historical record for this. This is something that would be so far out of the norm that it should pop up everywhere. It just didn't happen. Again the most faithful not having faith in the truth.