Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread.
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 298 (72785)
12-13-2003 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Amlodhi
12-13-2003 5:01 PM


Re: Reply to your simple question for Buzsaw
I guess then, if there are any other readers of this thread we shall leave it to each reader to decide as to who has refused to see what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Amlodhi, posted 12-13-2003 5:01 PM Amlodhi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:34 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 152 of 298 (72791)
12-14-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Buzsaw
12-13-2003 10:44 PM


looking at it
Well, it seems to me that there were some pretty clear statments that Jehovah was not the name of God. Even your site of post 143 says that.
And yet you had claimed it was in some posts. Didn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2003 10:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by seeker02421, posted 12-26-2003 5:23 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 155 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2003 6:51 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 157 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2003 7:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
seeker02421
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 298 (75239)
12-26-2003 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:34 AM


Re:
What evidence is there that YHWH is pronounced Yahweh?
seeker02421

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coragyps, posted 12-26-2003 6:04 PM seeker02421 has not replied
 Message 156 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2003 6:57 PM seeker02421 has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 154 of 298 (75241)
12-26-2003 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by seeker02421
12-26-2003 5:23 PM


Re: YHWH
It's not. About 37 years ago, one cold, drizzly, winter day, I was in the Student Union and decided to put all the standard English vowel sounds into the Tetragrammaton and see what came next. "Yahwah, Yahweh, Yahwih, Yahwoh...." There was a big peal of thunder, and I quit, concluding that I was getting too close. No sense pushing my luck when I wasn't even out of my teens.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by seeker02421, posted 12-26-2003 5:23 PM seeker02421 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 298 (75244)
12-26-2003 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:34 AM


Re: looking at it
Yah, Ned.........clearly unfounded, unsubstantiated and soundly refuted statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 298 (75245)
12-26-2003 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by seeker02421
12-26-2003 5:23 PM


Re:
Seeker, my suggestion to you if you're sincerely interested in the truth is to go back to my opening statement, read it and read carefully all 11 pages, taking notes on your notepad. Or if you simply want your question answered, search out the answer in the pages. The answer is there, but there's no reason to rehash it again. It's an interesting subject as you can see by this thread. May God, Jehovah, that is, bless and enlighten you via his Holy Spirit and Biblical truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by seeker02421, posted 12-26-2003 5:23 PM seeker02421 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by seeker02421, posted 12-26-2003 9:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 298 (75248)
12-26-2003 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:34 AM


Re: looking at it
Ned, the link in post 143 was cited to shed some light on how the name came to be pronounced Jehovah. I refuted afterwords the links insistence that it was misstranslated. Remember that? My clear position all along is that it is the proper modern rendering of Yahweh in English and we being English speaking people are not obligated to use the Hebrew pronunciation in reference to it no more than we are obligated to use the Hebrew in any of the Old Testament words or names. It's as silly to insist we are misspronouncing the name Jehovah as it would be to insist we are misspronouncing the name John, Judy, or words like javelin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:34 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
seeker02421
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 298 (75260)
12-26-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Buzsaw
12-26-2003 6:57 PM


Re: to buzsaw
buzsaw, in your message 138 you said:
>>>
Nor has anyone refuted that
the proper modern English pronunciation of Yehowah/Yahweh is Jehovah.
>>>
Seeker02421 says,
To some extent I agree with you, Buzsaw.
I believe that no one has refuted that Yehovah or Yehowah
is the proper pronunciation of Hebrew word #3068,
as it is preserved [over 6000 times] in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
However the fact that
the form Yehovih also occurs in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text
about 305 times,
does raise questions
as to whether or not Yehovah or Yehowah is actually God’s name.
Also it seems that since Yehovah or Yehowah only occurs about 44 times,
out of 6000+ times, in the Leningrad Codex,
again the question arises
as to whether or not Yehovah or Yehowah is actually God‘s name.
In spite of this, there are English speaking Christians
who strongly defend "Jehovah" as being God's name.
And the question still remains:
What evidence is there that YHWH is pronounced Yahweh?
seeker02421

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2003 6:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2003 11:03 PM seeker02421 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 298 (75278)
12-26-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by seeker02421
12-26-2003 9:53 PM


Re: to buzsaw
I appreciate your input here Seeker. I had your post all answered in detail but lost it accidently, so here goes again:
buzsaw, in your message 138 you said:
>>>
Nor has anyone refuted that
the proper modern English pronunciation of Yehowah/Yahweh is Jehovah.
>>>
Seeker02421 says,
To some extent I agree with you, Buzsaw.
I believe that no one has refuted that ?Yehovah or Yehowah?
is the proper pronunciation of Hebrew word #3068,
as it is preserved [over 6000 times] in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.
However the fact that
the form ?Yehovih? also occurs in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text
about 305 times,
does raise questions
as to whether or not ?Yehovah or Yehowah? is actually God?s name.
Also it seems that since ?Yehovah or Yehowah? only occurs about 44 times,
out of 6000+ times, in the Leningrad Codex,
again the question arises
as to whether or not ?Yehovah or Yehowah? is actually God?s name.
In spite of this, there are English speaking Christians
who strongly defend "Jehovah" as being God's name.
And the question still remains:
?What evidence is there that YHWH is pronounced Yahweh??
seeker02421
I believe these texts were highly influenced by the mindset of the Messorites as well as other scribes all the way back to the latter centuries BC who had the phobia of speaking the name. Imo, they can't justify the usage of Adonai as Yehovah when the consonents aren't even close to the same sounds, so just as in the King James text which has a few "Jehovahs" in it, what renderings of Yehovah they did use had to propherly come from YHWH.
2. Why is Yahweh the correct pronunciation of YHWH? As I understand, the phonic sound of the consents spoken together determines the vowels to be used and this fits the ticket just fine, as agreed by most scholars.
3. Nobody has come up with a better modern English translation of YHWH than Jehovah, again as most translators and scholars who should know have attested since the Js and Vs came into usage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by seeker02421, posted 12-26-2003 9:53 PM seeker02421 has not replied

  
NadirAhmed
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 298 (75792)
12-30-2003 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by PaulK
10-08-2003 3:42 AM


Moon God nonsense
the man who invented the whole Moon God thing has been discovered to be a liar, by both Muslims and Christians:
Christian Source: Robert Morey and Faith Defenders - religious cults, sects and movements
Quote:
"He made false and ignorant accusations, and
tried to justify them by misquoting texts
from the Quran"
Muslim source: http://www.examinethetruth.com/morey_challenge.htm
Quote:
"If Dr. Robert Morey can prove my evidence as
false by showing that his statements against
Islam are true, I will offer him CASH awards
(which is $500.00)"

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

  
Frank4YAHWEH
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 298 (79844)
01-21-2004 2:53 PM


Consonants Or Vowels?
Page not found | Hypeddit ?

(ALL) Praise Be To YAHWEH! "HalleluYAH(WEH)!" YAHshua said, "But I do not seek My own esteem; there is One Who seeks it, and He judges." (YAHchanan [John] 8:50)

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AdminNosy, posted 01-21-2004 7:06 PM Frank4YAHWEH has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 162 of 298 (79895)
01-21-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Frank4YAHWEH
01-21-2004 2:53 PM


Bare web sites
It is not appropriate to post bare websites without your own comments and, perhaps, selections explaining what is relevant about the site. They are used as backup for your arguements not as a replacement for them.

What goes? The Nose Knows!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Frank4YAHWEH, posted 01-21-2004 2:53 PM Frank4YAHWEH has not replied

  
factorfiction
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 298 (126278)
07-21-2004 1:00 PM


It looks like this thread is long since dead, but for what it's worth, it doesn't look like any of you have really done your homework concerning the Christian use of Icons and Idols. The traditions of the Catholic Church, or any other religious heirarchy for that matter, have very little if any bearing on the true intent of the Christian faith, whose sole authority and inspiration is the Bible. It is easy to look at the ridiculous state of the organized Christian religion and make snide remarks. However when you look at the context of the Christian faith as outlined in Scripture you will hopefully see the truth. However we all see what we want to, so maybe the truth will once again elude you...

  
Fist of Fury
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 298 (323886)
06-20-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
12-02-2003 11:06 PM


The Qur'an states: "
And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him." (Qur'an 41:37)
Note: The Quran proclaims that Muslims should not prostrate (worship)the moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 12-02-2003 11:06 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-20-2006 1:23 PM Fist of Fury has replied

  
Fist of Fury
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 298 (323889)
06-20-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Fist of Fury
06-20-2006 1:21 PM


A friend of mine from the Islamic faith e-mailed me the following imformation.Focus particular attention to the interesting comments in subtiele:"Not a contraction of Al and ilah" that appear to contradict Buzsaw's views about the origin of the name Allah. Please refer to detailed Islamic responses to Robert Morey's theory about Allah = Moon god at the end of the post.
cheers,
Fist of Fury
Allah:
The word Allah, according to several Arabic lexicons, means "the Being Who comprises all the attributes of perfection", i.e. the Being Who is perfect in every way (in His knowledge, power etc.), and possesses the best and the noblest qualities imaginable in the highest degree. This meaning is supported by the Holy Quran when it says:
"His are the best (or most beautiful) names." (17:110; 20:8; and 7:180
Not a contraction of Al and ilah:
Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god').
Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do.
Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities:
"Allah ... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the true god ... the al being inseparable from it, not derived..." Allah is thus a proper name, not derived from anything, and the Al is inseparable from it. The word al-ilah (the god) is a different word.
Not a pagan god / Al-Lat:
An objection answered.
The following objection has been raised regarding the name Allah:
Al -'The', lah - 'God'. It means the God. It was one of the gods worshipped by the Arabs. His female equivalent was Allat, al- 'the', Lat 'goddess'. Muhammed's followers did not like the concept of worshipping a female deity.
Answer:
[We know the Arabs before Islam traced their roots to Abraham, whom they regarded as a Monotheistic teacher. However, in due time, they began to believe they needed intermediaries (idols) to have close contact to God, as they believe they weren't as holy enough to reach God directly, as in the case of the Prophet Abraham.
And the pagans even advanced this forth as an argument, mentioned even in the Qur'an]
"Allah" was NOT "one of the gods" of the pre-Islamic Arabs, but was recognised by them as the supreme, abstract God. There was no idol which they called "Allah". The Quran quotes the idol-worshippers as presenting the argument that:
"We worship them (i.e. the idols) only so that they may bring us nearer to Allah." (39:3)
Obviously then, "Allah" was not just one of the gods.
It is also entirely wrong to say that Al-Lat was a feminine form of Allah. Besides Allah, the different tribes of the Arabs believed in their tribal gods. "Al-Lat" was the tribal god of the Thaqeef tribe who lived in the city of Taif (where there was a shrine with an idol of Lat). The Quraish worshipped Uzza as their tribal god, and similarly with other tribes.
So it is simply incorrect to say that the Arabs regarded Lat as being a female equivalent of "Allah". "Allah" was, as said above, regarded by them as their supreme God. Lat, Manat etc. were believed in as tribal gods.
Moreover, Lat, Manat and Uzza were believed by them to be daughters of Allah, as the Quran says:
"Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females" (53:19-21).
The Quran is here pointing out the contradiction in their beliefs, that they ascribed daughters to Allah, but preferred to have sons themselves! So Lat being believed as a daughter of Allah, could not possibly be regarded by them as the female equivalent of Allah.
In Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon the words ilah (god) and Allah occur under the root A-L-H, but the word Al-lat is given under an entirely different root L-T. Therefore, "Al-lat" is not the feminine form of the word Allah (for in that case it would occur under the same root as for "Allah"), but is derived from a completely different root with a totally different meaning.
The root from which al-lat comes means (among other things) "to moisten". Lane quotes several reports on how the idol came to be so called. It is named after a man called Al-Lat. Sometime before Islam, there was a man who used to give pilgrims a barley meal (known as saweek), moistened with either water or clarified butter. He thus became known as Al-lat. After he died, the rock where he was buried came to be worshipped and was known by his name. And thus there came to be the idol named Al-lat.
Does NOT have three daughters:
Does Allah have three daughters? Did Muhammad (pbuh) really compromise with idolatry?
This is another bogus allegation, as we know it was the pagan Arabs whom ascribed daughters to God (in much the same way Christians ascribe a Son to God), and this was highly condemned.
As the Qur'an says: "Have you then considered Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat? Are the males for you and for Him the females. This indeed is an unjust division!" (53:19-22).
"They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers -- Allah has sent no authority for them. They follow but conjecture and what (their) souls desire. And certainly the guidance has come to them for their Lord." (Qur'an 53:23)
Maulana Muhammad Ali says:
Verses 19-21 are made the basis of the false story of what is called the “Lapse of Muhammad” or “Compromise with idolatry” by western writers. Certain reports narrated by Waqidi and Tabri are the sole authority for this charge against that incessant preacher against idolatry, every incident of whose life condemns it as a bare falsehood. Muir asserts that “Pious Muhammadans of after days, scandalized at the lapse of their Prophet into so flagrant a concession, would reject the whole story” as if the earlier Muslims were not as pious as the latter. The fact is that the story was quite unknown to the earlier Muslims. There is not a single trustworthy hadith that lends support to this story. Muhammad ibn Ishaq who died as early as 151 AH, does not mention this incident, while Muirs earliest authority, Waqidi, was born more than forty years later. It is stated in the Bahrain that when questioned about it, Ibn Ishaq called it a fabrication of the zindeeqs. And the famous Bukhari, them most trustworthy authority on the sayings of the Holy Prophet, was Waqidi’s contemporary, and his collection of sayings contains no mention of the story. As regards Waqidi, all competent authorities entertain a very low opinion of his trustworthiness. The Mizan speaks of Waqidi as unreliable and even as a fabricator of reports. As regards Tabri, Muir himself represents him as guilty of “indiscriminate reception”. As against these two unreliable authorities, “those who reject this story are highly learned men” (Ruh al-Ma’ani). This six collection of reports known as the Sihah Sittah (or the six reliable works), do not mention it at all, and contain instead a report which essentially contradicts the story of the so-called compromise. Internal evidence, too, is wholly against this story. We are told that instead of v. 21 the Prophet read the words: Tilk al gharnaiq al ula wa inna shafa’ata-hunna la-turtaja, ie. “These are exalted females whose intercession is to be sought” But the insertion of these few words in a chapter which is wholly directed against idolatry is quite out of place: v,. 23 condemns idols, v, 26 denies their intercession, v. 28 condemns them giving of names of female deities to angels, and so on. It is further asserted that 22:52 was revealed in connection with this change, but it should be noted that a period of at least eight years must have elapsed between the revelation of this verse and that of 22:52. Moreover, if the Prophet has made any such compromise, it could not have been a sudden event, and traces of it would have been met with in other chapters revealed about the same time. But a perusal of these shows clearly that the Qur’an’s condemnation of idolatry was never marked by the slightest change.
“So bow down in prostration before Allah and serve (Him)” (Quran 53:62).
Here is a command to prostrate oneself, which is literally obeyed by all Muslims when reciting the Qur’an or hearing it recited: This chapter when first revealed, was read in a large assembly, containing Muslims as well as disbelievers. When the Holy Prophet prostrated himself in obedience to the command, not only did the Muslims prostrate themselves but even the idolaters were so overawed that they prostrated themselves, with the exception of Umayyah ibn Khalf, who raised some gravel to his forehead. This man was afterwards killed, dying a disbeliever, says the report, evidently implying that all others were gradually converted to Islam (B. 17:1). It should be further borne in mind that the idolaters did not deny the existence of God the Supreme, Whom they believed to be above their idols, who were recognized only as minor deities, and therefore there is nothing strange in their joining the Muslims in their prostration.
It is this simple incident which is connected with the story of the so-called “lapse” and is adduced as proof of its truth. But it will be seen that the prostration was made in obedience to the direct Divine command of prostration and had to the grandeur and majesty of Allah and to the destruction of the wicked, are so impressive that the idolaters could resist prostrating themselves. It is possible that the story of the prostration reached Abyssinian exiles, some of whom might have returned under the impression that the disbelievers no longer opposed the movement.
Moon God?:
Why are Muslims accused of worshipping a “moon god”? How do you know you aren’t?
Now, any Muslim knows, that the gravest sins in Islam is to associate any partners to God; to worship anything other than the Most High - God.
The Qur'an states:
“Say: We believe in Allah and that which is revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit. (Qur’an 3:84)
Thus, Muslims believe in the One God of all the Prophets - of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, etc - peace be upon them all.
The Qur'an also states: And from among His Signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Prostrate not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate to Allah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him. (Qur'an 41:37)
What is the significance of the crescent moon?
They ask thee of the new moons. Say: These are signs to mark fixed periods of time for mankind and for the pilgrimage (Qur’an 2:189).
He is the Cleaver of the daybreak; and He has made the night for rest, and the sun and the moon for reckoning. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knowing (Qur’an 6:96).
He it is Who made the sun a shining brightness, and the moon a light, and ordained for it stages that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning. Allah created not this but with truth. He makes the signs manifest for a people who know (Qur’an 10:5).
Shabir Ally says: No, the symbol of a religion is not necessarily an object of worship.
The symbol of Daoism is the ying-yang symbol, but Daoists do not worship it.
The symbol of Buddhism is the eight-spoke wheel, but Buddhists do not worship it.
Muslims also do not worship the crescent moon, just as the early Christians also did not worship their fish symbol.
And many present-day Christians do not worship the cross although they display it everywhere.
It is another question as to how the crescent became the symbol of Islam. The Qur’an and the hadith do not give this significance to the crescent moon. And for the first several centuries of Islam the crescent was not a symbol of Islam.
In both the Bible and the Qur’an religious festivals are regulated by the lunar calendar. Jews and Muslims have kept to these regulations which they believe to be from God. Why does Christianity follow a solar calendar?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/...rces/Allah/moongods.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/...urces/Allah/moongod.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/...Sources/Allah/hubal.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/...Sources/Allah/rhmnn.html
Edited by Fist of Fury, : No reason given.
Edited by Fist of Fury, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-20-2006 1:21 PM Fist of Fury has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Fist of Fury, posted 06-20-2006 1:34 PM Fist of Fury has not replied
 Message 255 by reletomp, posted 09-07-2007 11:57 AM Fist of Fury has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024