Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread.
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 31 of 298 (60020)
10-07-2003 10:53 PM


I am curious as to how genesis 3:5 is to be explained.All the variations I have seen translate the first elohim as God (singular) and the second elohim as gods(plural)Why do the translators all make that same distinction?

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Amlodhi, posted 10-07-2003 11:24 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 298 (60022)
10-07-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 10:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
Genesis 1 is a sequential record of the creation and Genesis 2 is not sequential, nor is it contradictory to Genesis 1.
Without getting into whether Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are contradictory; which I do think is arguable. The fact that there is an abrupt and glaring switch from "Elohim" to "YHWH Elohim" precisely at the break beginning with Ch. 2 vs. 4, is at the very least intensely curious and suggestive of multiple authorship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 10:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 298 (60025)
10-07-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Amlodhi
10-07-2003 10:26 PM


quote:
As has been mentioned, no one is completely sure of the original pronunciation the "YHWH". Because it was, at some point, considered ineffable, the Masoretic scribes pointed the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowel sound indicators of "a-o-a(i)" to remind the Jewish reader to pronounce "adonai" whenever YHWH appeared in the text.
My understanding is that this was not the case with the earlier scribes. They were very meticulous to copy every jot, tittle and letter exactly as written in the manuscript of scripture they copied from. The vowels would be determined by tradition and were likely traditionally determined by the phonics of the consonents.
quote:
The Germanic translations substituted "J" for the "Y" sound simply because they pronounce the letter "J" as "Y".
Thus, it was the Germanic substitution of "J" for "Y" coupled with the Masoretic vowel indicators "a-o-a(i)" that resulted in the misapprehension that the tetragrammaton should be pronounced as "Jahovah".
But you're ignoring the fact that the Js and the Vs were also later adopted into the English language, so this coupled with my above statement is the reason nearly all translators use the name Jehovah to translate YHWH into English Bible texts wherever it is used, including the translators of the King James, which does use the word a relative few times in the OT. It was solely the unfounded superstition of the Jews who had departed from good standing with God that they enjoyed in the earlier history of the nation before this superstition existed, imo.
quote:
There are strong indications that "El" served as an original name of God. Quite possibly of Canaanite origin.
.........And, of course, that would lend no credibility to anything concerning the Bible, as the Canaanites were pagan cultures.
quote:
There are also indications that the use of "baal" to refer to God in the generic sense was popular in Hebrew culture before the term was used among the Canaanites for one of their gods. This is apparent in the altered names of some persons in the OT. For example "Ishbosheth" was originally "Ishbaal". The "baal" part of the name was later changed to "bosheth" which translated means "a shameful thing".
I as much as said the same thing, as I've all along contended that the word elohim would be used by Hebrew scholars and scribes in reference to any god, be that god, Jehovah, Baal, or any other god they would have had occasion to mention.
quote:
One sure thing, it is a complex topic.
.....Yes, and my purpose in this thread has been to sort out all the misconceptions about this topic and to dispel them by factual information from the credible sources I've drawn in order that it not be all so mysterious as these misconceptions have caused it to appear.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Amlodhi, posted 10-07-2003 10:26 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Amlodhi, posted 10-08-2003 1:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 298 (60026)
10-07-2003 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by sidelined
10-07-2003 10:53 PM


Hello sidelined,
quote:
Originally posted by sidelined
I am curious as to how genesis 3:5 is to be explained.All the variations I have seen translate the first elohim as God (singular) and the second elohim as gods(plural)Why do the translators all make that same distinction?
The KJV has "gods" in the second instance, but many other versions translate both occurances as "God".
The translation of "gods" in the KJV is untenable in the light of Gen. 3:22, "And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil . . ." While the "us" in this verse does denote plurality (or as some would have it, the Trinity), it is nevertheless clear that (in one form or another) YHWH Himself is included here.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 10:53 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 298 (60029)
10-07-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Amlodhi
10-07-2003 11:05 PM


quote:
Without getting into whether Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are contradictory; which I do think is arguable. The fact that there is an abrupt and glaring switch from "Elohim" to "YHWH Elohim" precisely at the break beginning with Ch. 2 vs. 4, is at the very least intensely curious and suggestive of multiple authorship.
I understand your point and one explanation for this may be that as no other gods were in the picture during evenings and mornings of creation, it would be assumed that the god/elohim of creation was Jehovah without reference to the name. Food for thought. That's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Amlodhi, posted 10-07-2003 11:05 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Amlodhi, posted 10-08-2003 1:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 43 by Prozacman, posted 10-08-2003 2:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 298 (60050)
10-08-2003 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 10:09 PM


Well I guess that now Buzsaw is happy that "Allah" is just the Arabic equivalent of "God" so I think we can declare the whole "Moon God" business quite thoroughly dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 10:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Prozacman, posted 10-08-2003 12:09 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 160 by NadirAhmed, posted 12-30-2003 8:29 AM PaulK has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 298 (60079)
10-08-2003 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 10:09 PM


quote:
Now, you may be interested to know that in the Hebrew text there is only one word for "god" whether referring to Jehovah/YHWH of the Bible, Allah of the Quran or another god, and that word is elohim, meaning god.
Except that this is fantastically wrong. Several words besides elohim are used to mean God. 'Eloah' is used, but is restricted to poetry if I remember right. 'Adonai' is used. 'YHVH' is used more than any. 'El' is used, usually in phrases like 'mighty God.' I don't understand how you can even entertain this notion.
quote:
So as to whether your god, Allah is in the Bible, that would have to be determined by the context in which it is claimed it exists and by whether your god and the YHWH of the Bible are one and the same.
Buz, you aren't likely to find my name in a Spanish text. You are likely to find the Spanish equivalent. The same will be the case with the name(s) for God in the Hebrew vs. Arabic languages. You have to remember that the languages have been mostly seperated for thousands of years.
quote:
That's also true of the Biblical god, Jehovah. Many names are attributed to him as descriptive, but that does not make them his official name.
There is something I don't understand, buz. 'God' in English doesn't have an official name. 'God' is a generic term that was adopted to mean the Christian God. This was done, I suspect, as a snub to the pagan gods. If you adopt the generic term for your God then it becomes difficult for anyone to talk about their gods without naming your God. It appears to me that the same has happened in arabic. This means that arguing over whether 'Allah' appears in the OT or not is pointless. It would be equivalent to arguing that the Christian God is not the god of the OT because the word 'God' doesn't appear in the OT.
quote:
But there is no dispute among Biblical scholars, either Jewish or Christian that I am aware of that the word YHWH means "the existing one" or the "I am" as Moses puts it in the book of Exodus when Moses asked God who he should tell Pharoah of Egypt who sent him.
The consensus seems to be that it was derived from the verb for 'to be' -- HVH. After Andya's post I started looking around a bit.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 10:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 298 (60102)
10-08-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Amlodhi
10-07-2003 10:26 PM


Thankyou Amlodhi; I'll have to study what you've just written because I am obviously a freshman on this subject while you're apparently a senior! The names of God in the OT is definitely a complex topic as you say, and as a critcal-scientific thinker that is why I cannot just put all of my faith into one particular sectarian interpretation of it. I will ask a few ?'s of you, and I will do research in order to falsify or verify your possible answers if you wish. Perhaps others writing in this thread may wish to comment, but that's up to them.
1. I have heard that 'Elohim' contains a feminine aspect. Do you know anything about this?
2. Why were ancient Jews(& even Jews nowadays)not allowed to say the name of YHWH? What's so incredibly cosmically important about the "name" of a god?
3. Thanks for setting me straight on "J&Y". During my life as a Gigantopithicus several thousand years ago, I read about the German translation of Y into J(somewhere),& then I forgot all about it. I'll have to find that reference.
4. I'm aware of the Canaanite name 'El' for God. Do you possibly know some history behind how 'El' ended up in the OT?
5. Can you elaborate on how, when, and why, for example, "Ishbaal became Ishbosheth?
I think these ?'s are important not only for 'knowledge' sake, but also to show that that the ancient Jews were highly influenced by the cultures around them. Now it's time to take on Buzsaw.
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-08-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Amlodhi, posted 10-07-2003 10:26 PM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Amlodhi, posted 10-08-2003 3:43 PM Prozacman has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 298 (60106)
10-08-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
10-08-2003 3:42 AM


Whooaah! Hold yer hosses buddy. Have you discussed the ancient moon-goddess Artemis;her Greek name, and her possible connection to the moon-goddess of the ancestors of Abram at HARAN. It is just a hypothesis of mine: these 2 goddesses are really the same gal, and I'm still working on the idea. But if you don't think it's worth researching, I'll go it alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2003 3:42 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 298 (60110)
10-08-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 10:27 PM


Well, this is apparently where conservative and liberal bible- scholars take sides. Firstly, my NRSV(New Oxford Annotated Bible,page 3, notes on Genesis.2.4b-25), states, and I quote: "This is a different tradition from(verses) 1.1-2.3 as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events of creation". I'll give one example; In the first creation story Elohim creates all the animals before he(they) creates 'man'="human beings"(man& woman are created at the same time), but in the second creation story YHWH-Elohim creates man first and then ceates the animals for Adam to name, and then after naming all the animals, Eve is created.
Secondly, We agree that YHWH-Elohim & Jehovah-Elohim are equivalent forms of the same name of the same God. We do not agree that 'Elohim' in Gen.1.1-2.3 and 'YHWH-Elohim' in Gen.2.4-25 are the same God. Why? Because 'Elohim' is plural(gods), and the history of the Elohim comes from all over the Middle-East and not just Israel. 'El' as it has been stated elswhere was a common name for God.
3rdly, If, as you seem to say Elohim is the 'proper' name for God, and names like YHWH-Elohim are descriptive names for the same God, then why are conservative Jews not allowed to say the name YHWH but are allowed to say Elohim?
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-08-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-08-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 10:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 298 (60112)
10-08-2003 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 11:20 PM


The name game
Hello buzsaw,
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
My understanding is that this was not the case with the earlier scribes. They were very meticulous to copy every jot, tittle and letter exactly as written in the manuscript of scripture they copied from. The vowels would be determined by tradition and were likely traditionally determined by the phonics of the consonents.
As I say, no one really knows for sure and your argument can't be disregarded. At an early stage in the development of the language, some consonants did indeed begin to function as vowel indicators. These were primarily "Heh" (to indicate "a" class vowels); "Yod" (to indicate "e" & "i" class vowels) and "Vav" (to indicate "o" & "u" class vowels. Hebrew grammarians even coined the term "matres lectionis" (mothers of reading) to refer to these consonants. Tradition also played a large part in determining pronunciation.
There are however, specific rules of vocalization and syllable divisions that govern the vowel pointing. Applying the vocalization of "adonai" to the tetragrammaton necessitates changing the compound sheva under the non-gutteral yod to a simple sheva. The resultant form is: Yod (pointed with simple sheva), Heh (pointed with {c}holem; Vav (pointed with qame{t}s); then the final Heh. Thus, the apparent pronunciation of YeHoVaH from a form in which the Jewish reader pronounces adonai. This transliteration of YeHoVaH (pronounced the same but spelled "JeHoVaH" in the German language)did not actually come into use until the time of the Protestant Reformation.
Were it not for the proscription against pronouncing the Name, the grammatical rules of vocalization would most likely have resulted in the vowel pointing of: Yod (pointed with pata{c}h}; Heh (pointed with silent sheva); Vav (pointed with segol) then Heh; thus pronounced as either "Yah-weh" or "Yah-veh".
quote:
buzsaw:
It was solely the unfounded superstition of the Jews who had departed from good standing with God that they enjoyed in the earlier history of the nation before this superstition existed, imo.
This is too uncharitable. It is quite likely that the Jews did not originally refrain from speaking the Name of God due to any superstition. They were, rather, so intensely concerned with not transgressing the Mosaic law that they would avoid even approaching the outer boundary of transgressing these laws; later sages would term this practice "building a fence around the law". Thus, in the sense of "playing it safe", they refrained from speaking the name lest they inadvertantly blaspheme or use the Name in vain.
quote:
buzsaw
. . . my purpose in this thread has been to sort out all the misconceptions about this topic and to dispel them by factual information from the credible sources I've drawn. . .
That's a tall order. It should be worth at least an honorary doctorate if you're successful.
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 298 (60114)
10-08-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 11:33 PM


say again?
quote:
Originally posted by buzsaw
. . . one explanation for this may be that as no other gods were in the picture during evenings and mornings of creation, it would be assumed that the god/elohim of creation was Jehovah without reference to the name.
But the abrupt name change occurs at the Gen. 2:4. What other gods were "in the picture" during the events of chapters 2 & 3?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 298 (60118)
10-08-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
10-07-2003 11:33 PM


"...it would be assumed..."
Yes, it would have to be assumed "...that the god/elohim of creation was Jehovah without reference to the name", but only if one refuses to question one's own faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2003 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 298 (60120)
10-08-2003 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
10-05-2003 9:06 PM


Your initial post seems a tad disengenuous.
buzsaw writes:
Mohammed simply eliminated the proper name of the Hebrew god of Abraham, Yahweh from his thinking and his book and ascribed all pertaining to the Biblical Yahweh/Jehovah to his pagan god, Allah... Mohammed intended to have all to believe his god is one and the same as the Biblical god so as to make it palatable for Christians and Jews to convert to Islam and for his religion to be acceptable to all in his drive to herd all of humanity under the umbrella and the domination of his doctrines and his god, Allah.
It is quite obvious that Judaism has done the same thing with past religions, and so has Xtianity many times over (especially when one considers the Catholic church).
How does one view this as M trying to convert Jews and Xtians to a pagan god, rather than his converting his pagan friends to the singular Judeo-Xtian god?
There is no evidence for M slowly getting adherents to change over to a pantheon and disregard Abraham or Jesus as prophets? While they obviously have issues with the Jewish religion, it is more along the lines of a schism which one can equally observe throughout Xtian history (most notably the bloody divide between protestant and catholic).
As has been mentioned, and you have not addressed, modern adherents of Islam believe they are worshipping the same god. If they believe this then how is it not so? If you are correct about M's intentions, perhaps you get the last laugh buz. It appears that rather than converting Xtians to pagans, he opened up a road and the opposite occured.
If they believe they are worshipping the same god, and pray to that god, do their prayers not go to that god?
If anything buz, M was a bit more on target than your Jesus (or his pals). Not only is the story of Jesus a cobbling together of other, much older, pagan deities, but it introduces idolatry in a form not seen in either Judaism or Islam.
Using your own logic why are we not to believe that early Xtians were trying to convert Jews to worship the pagan gods of bacchus/dionysus/etc etc, by simply saying they are the same (son of God in fact)... their insidious plan including the very real introduction of an idol one can worship (the cross) which symbolizies his sacrifice to cleanse you of worldly sins (an almost exact copy of dionysus, etc etc).
Truly, if you want to go down this road with Islam, Xtianity is going to take a much harder hit. Islam has no pagan idols, nor cannibalistic sacraments of blood and flesh. There is but one god and that is allah. Just like the original Judaic faith.
Judge not lest ye be judged...
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2003 9:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Prozacman, posted 10-08-2003 2:38 PM Silent H has replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 298 (60127)
10-08-2003 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Silent H
10-08-2003 2:13 PM


OK, I think your points are well taken, but doesn't Islam confine christians & Jews to the upper levels of Hell. That's what I've heard, or was I misinformed(again)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 10-08-2003 2:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Silent H, posted 10-08-2003 4:38 PM Prozacman has replied
 Message 67 by Primordial Egg, posted 10-10-2003 2:28 PM Prozacman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024