|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
Hi Prozacman,
quote: I am fast approaching senior status, unfortunately however, it is not in the same sense of senior that you so kindly intended. But thank you anyway. I have combined points #1 and #4 and will deal with them last.
quote: In case you overlook my previous answer to buzsaw, I will reproduce the thought here:
quote: 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: Jah, mein Herr? Ein Gigantopithicus? Ach du Leiber!
quote: The term "baal" simply meant "master" or "lord" and was one of the generic terms used as an honorific for the Hebrew God. Because the word became particularly associated with the Canaanite gods, the practice was discontinued and names containing the term were either altered (or later edited) to reflect the change. Compare I Chr. 8:33 ". . . and Saul begat . . . Esh-baal." with: II Sam. 2:10 "Ish-bosheth, Saul's son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel . . ." II Sam. is a polyglot of earlier and later sources so I'll leave it to you to work out the implications of the comparative dating. Good luck.
quote: As I mentioned to buzsaw, this subject is extremely controversial and complex. As to #1: Basically, "-im" is a masculine plural suffix. It has been contended that it is constructed from "Eloah". The "-ah" suffix usually (but not always) indicates feminine gender. As to #4: As is the case with "baal", there are various contentions. One is that "El" was originally the Name of the God worshipped in the Semitic Middle East. Another is that "el" was a generic term for God which was later adapted as a proper name for a particular diety (i.e. El or sometimes Bull El) by some Semitic groups. Add to this the further confusion that has been precipitated by the conjectured connection between El and Allah. Though I don't read Arabic, some scholars say that Allah is constructed from "al" (the) - "Ilah" (god). Not only is there a similarity between "Ilah" and "Eloah" but also, an alternate spelling of "El" is "Il". In addition:
quote: The similarity between "aleim" and "elohim" being obvious. For further interesting information regarding these etymologies, I have included the following link from which the above excerpt was taken: Plim Report Welcome Namaste' Amlodhi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
prozacman writes: doesn't Islam confine christians & Jews to the upper levels of Hell. Don't Xtians believe Jews and Muslims are going to hell? Heck, even certain denominations of Xtians believe other denominations of Xtians are going to hell. The most interesting thing, which happens to support my initial argument, is that it is the ones who believe you can "only be saved through Jesus" that usually make such extreme claims. Hmmmmm. You mean believing and worshipping the one God, which is all that is required by the Old Testament, isn't enough to get one into heaven? Now (according to these here Xtians) what one has to do is worship Jesus, who died for our sins (and here's a cross you can idolize him by). By eating his flesh (bread) and drinking his blood (wine), or through a watery baptism, one can be cleansed of sins (ie reborn) which allows one to enter heaven. Both options are versions of older Bacchus/Dionysus/ etc etc etc religious rites. You do not see as much use of pagan rites in Islam. There is but one God. There are no intermediaries nor esoteric rites related to intermediaries. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: I don't know how much Biblical history of Israel you know or whether you are aware of the warnings God gave about when they as his people disobeyed, but it was after their decline the last few centuries BC that this paranoia about the name of God came about as I understand it. Blasphemy occurs whether or not one uses the proper name of Jehovah or another discriptive name attributed to him, so it appears to be groundless superstition. [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Do you mean to say that the custom of not pronouncing YHVH arose only a couple of hundred years ago? Looks to me like it has been the custom since about 300 BC.
Page not found - iahushua.com - ajaran bangsa israel dan yehuda / yahweh ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yahweh: From Jesus Christ and the Temple, by Georges A. Barrios: Moses had asked from God ... what was his proper name. The answer had been indirect, even elusive: "I am that I am", 'ehyeh 'ashr 'hyeh (Ex 3:14). In the third person, "I am" becomes "He is", Yahweh... "He is", Yahweh, would henceforth serve as a substitute for God's proper name, which remains unknown and unknowable...
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/Jewish/glossary.html#yhwh ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
Give it some time, maybe 500 years, I dunno; the Moslems will probably have a whole bunch of idols. What about that rock in Mecca that everyone is required to journey to once in their lives??
That's correct, but it's mostly the conservative x-ians, from my experience, who believe muslims are headed for hell. [This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
prozacman writes: What about that rock in Mecca that everyone is required to journey to once in their lives?? A practioner can probably set the record straight on exactly what the Hajj involves, but from what I understand it has nothing to do with worshipping a rock. From what I understand it is about making the same trip that M did. It's just kind of following in the footsteps kind of thing. And if I'm not wrong isn't that rock where he threw stones to drive satan away? I really doubt the tenets of Islam would allow for idolatry in any sense that Xtianity does. In fact fundamentalists are so out of their minds about that subject they blow up historical artifacts which might have had religious meaning. They do not even allow images or sounds as representations of God. About the only sucker they fall for is cults of personality. The idea of the Imam which shi'ites hold dear is very close to personality worship, ala worshipping Jesus. But even then I don't think shi'ites allow for an idol to stand in the place of the man. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Hey buz, any comments on my posts?
------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pringlesguy7 Inactive Member |
I thought the rock was where Mohammed ascended into heaven, somthing like he climbed a ladder? (im not sure) Mohammed had many wives, and I heard he had a 12 or 13 yr old wife?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amlodhi Inactive Member |
quote: I've read a book or two. We can discuss it if you'd like, but I don't see it as being relevant to this issue.
quote: P.S. The prejudicial terms and adjectives that color your rhetoric reveal much about you. Namaste' Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: I forgot to state BC and have edited the post to correct. Somewhere else where I mentioned it, I had it right, that it was BC. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: This's nonsense for the following reasons: 1. The Biblical text does not use the third person, "he." It would be improper to change the name as given in scripture in referring to the name in the text as stated by God. This's simply a spin job for those who are trying to distort the truth about the name. It's fine to say "he is" in referring to him as existing, but that's not what he said his name was. 2. The fact is that God's name is clearly stated and is both known and knowable. YHWH is not the only Hebrew word with no vowels. None of the Hebrew words have vowels and as in speaking the name of God, YHWH, the phonics of the consonents would determine what vowel sounds which would apply. So "Yahweh" would be the traditional way to pronounce the name since just as in any other Hebrew word, that is the closest phonic sound of the consonents which spell the name. Then when you translate the name into English, you use the nearest English equivalent to Yahweh, which the translators have determined to be Jehovah, since the Js and Vs have been introduced into our language. 3. There's no reason in the world why the name is unknowable. The meaning is very clearly "the existing one" or as God told Moses, the "I AM." The Hebrew word/name YHWH became the known name of their god because it was the word/name which has the meaning "I AM" (the existing one.} 4. As I've said before and I repeat, until the Jews had moved away from their close relationship they once enjoyed with their god that they developed this reluctance from speaking his name. It was not always so. It was phonically no harder for them to speak that name than any other Hebrew word, all of which consisted of only consonents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: Yah sure, and personal insultive inuendos add nothing to augment your arguments, nor do they refute my factual statements, do they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: Mohammed is believed by Muslims to have ascended into the heaven from the Dome Of The Rock, Muslim temple on the Temple Mount at Jerusalem. One of his ten or so wives, Aiesha, became his wife as a young girl and the marriage was consumated when she was nine years old. She became his favorite wife.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
quote: You're post is enough off topic, Holmes, that I'm sure admins would prefer they be addressed elsewhere. Likely they have been. All I can say is that you have all Christians in the same barrel there and some of the doctrines you've aluded to are not believed by all Christians as you have them stated there, such as the way communion works, and so forth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024