Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
46 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah, adonai, lord, elohim, god, allah, Allah thread.
Modulous
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 286 of 298 (461644)
03-26-2008 8:58 PM


Summary
Yahweh - Yahweh is clearly influenced by Marduk. The ancient deity who rose to prominence in the Middle East and became the patron deity of Babylon. The Israelites clearly modified him in such a way as to differentiate him from Marduk - but the tell-tale signs are all there. Marduk creates the world by splitting the waters and creating the firmament to hold them back.
Yahweh seems to have been a later invention as far as names go, but he clearly has associations with el (god of the wind (and the wind was upon the face of Tiamat/the waters Genesis 1)). El is a beardy guy who lives upon high (on a mountain) in a tabernacle/tent who protects patriarchs (he is the god of the father) and promises them descendants (sound familiar?)
We know that Ba'al (semitic storm god) wrestled with a giant many headed sea-serpent, a feat attributed to Yahweh in the Psalms (Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces: Psalms 74:14). Ba'al defeated el. Ba'al sits atop the clouds (Psalm 97?).

Yahwism - Yahweh seems to have been introduced as a 'name' in Exodus 3 to Moses, but whether the writer intended it to be thought of as a name is somewhat disputable, it could just be dismissiveness on the part of elohim. It seems this dispute became something of a concern to the Israelites, while the folks on the ground seemed to be worshipping their modified Canaanite deities and other Israelites, the Yahwists trying to differentiate their religious practices from Canaan as much as possible.

Christianity was spread throughout Europe in a similar fashion oftentimes as Islam. It encouraged the new converts to see local customs, ideas, spirits or deities through the lens of God to see the True Meaning of them. If that failed, the sword was employed (see Lithuania) - eventually in the end political expediency seems to do the trick in Christianizing (see again Lithuania).

Allah - well we've had plenty of attention to Allah's associations with the main deity in the area at the time, Sin. Early Muslims definitely saw the wisdom in talking in terms of Sin who was known as Allah, but like the Israelites they clearly went out of their way to differentiate themselves from polytheistic deities. As for the crescent moon connection? Nonsense. The same symbol can be found on the Epicurean emperor Hadrian's coins and it was also adopted by the Ottoman Empire after their defeat of Constantinople. The flag of Constantinople was very similar to the one we see in use in Turkey today, and I believe was adopted some 600years before Christ was said to be born by the city of Byzantium.

In short, no near-eastern religion seems to be free of being influenced by the religion of the first converts. Anybody who has changed religions is sure to recognize the phenomenon of seeing the new beliefs as superior answers to the same questions you asked in the earlier religion. Of course tales of elohim would follow some of the same paths as that of el or Ba'al and no doubt other Canaanite deities. The Israelites would almost certainly have known of these deities, so the new monotheism would have been framed in a manner that would be understandable to them.


  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 4283 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 287 of 298 (467816)
05-24-2008 5:27 PM


Names of Gods; Reply to buzzsaw
You said that you wanted a quiet discussion.
I hope you will treat me in a peaceful way.

You do not know that biblical names for the True and Living Gods.
Your suggestions come from seminaries of long ago.

1. LA = single God in Hebrew; recorded 395 times.
2. MYHLA = plural Gods (Gen 1.1); recorded 2,300 times.
3. HWHY = "He Is" (relating to "I Am" [HYHA]); recorded 6,400 Xs.
4. MWDA = Lord.
5. YNDA = Lord of [me].

Several web pages agree on the name "He Is." Search: Tetragrammaton, and they will pop up.

6. The true God had condemned the name of "other gods" (MYHLA); such as, "Allah" from about AD 600.

7. The Law of Moses proscribed "death" for Jews mentioning "other gods."

But then The Law of Moses is dead and gone!
We are in the New Covenant of the Living Gods today; see: Rev 22.1, 3.

sl33w


  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 4283 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 288 of 298 (470132)
06-09-2008 5:26 PM


God Is Teaching His Name Today
To the Forum:

Due to errors in the past, the name of God had been unknown for over 1900 years. The cause of error is in believing the Jews, who teach the name of God is unutterable.

For 1900 years the Christians have been enslaved by this error.

Jesus had condemned the cause of error, "the traditions of men."

Applying the "science of observation," I have discovered the Hebrew rules of grammar.

HWH = a participle translated, "being"; Strong's #1934.

The prefix "Y" (HWHY) is translated "He."

A verb, with a Person Indicator prefix, loses the "-ing" spelling of the participle. So then, "He-being" is properly translated, "He Is."
This correlates with "I Am" (HYHA); Strong's #1961 is HYH; "being."

I was excited to learn this truth, and searched the web to see if Jesus had taught this to other men. I was happy to learn that He had done this. Research "Tetragrammaton" and "Sacred Name."

"Hebrew is a language with 22 consonants and no vowels" - Encyclopedia.

So then, Yahweh and Yashua and Jehovah are fake names.

"Yahweh" was determined by translating from letter-to-letter after adding a bunch of fake vowels.

"He Is' was determined by translating word-to-word; HWH (Being) plus Y (He).

The prefix "He" (Y) is translated properly about 50,000 times in the Old Testament. The participle "Being" (HWH) is the proper name for the mythical "Eve."

sl33w


Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2008 7:58 PM sl33w has responded
 Message 290 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2008 1:17 AM sl33w has not yet responded
 Message 293 by sl33w, posted 06-10-2008 4:51 PM sl33w has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 298 (470177)
06-09-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by sl33w
06-09-2008 5:26 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
sl33w writes:

The bar will not re-connect with the beginning. This is complete BS and gibberish. Unless you think the Earth is a tiny speck on the surface of a spherical universe. But if you do think so, you need to see a doctor.

Hi. Welcome.

1. I suggest you read the thread and respond to some of my reasons why Jehovah is the proper English language rendition of the name you've cited which is the Hebrew pronunciation of the name. Most of us aren't Hebrews and we don't speak Hebrew. As with the rest of the scriptures which are translated using vowels we translate the name into understandable and speakable English.

2. As My arguments in this thread show, I take your position that in the Old Testament the name is used over 6000 times and should be translated as such rather than translating it into a completely different word, adoni, which is a generic word for lord/master.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by sl33w, posted 06-09-2008 5:26 PM sl33w has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by PaulK, posted 06-10-2008 2:37 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 294 by sl33w, posted 06-10-2008 5:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 882 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 290 of 298 (470215)
06-10-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by sl33w
06-09-2008 5:26 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
sl33w writes:

Applying the "science of observation," I have discovered the Hebrew rules of grammar.

Does your "science of observation" have anything in common with linguistics or philology?

"Hebrew is a language with 22 consonants and no vowels" - Encyclopedia.

This leads me to suspect that the answer to my first question might be "no". Which "encyclopedia" are you "quoting", by the way? Perhaps you simply misquoted -- maybe the original said something like this:

The writing system used by speakers of Hebrew consists of 22 distinct "letter" characters for consonants. There are no letter characters for the distinct vowel sounds in the language, although these can be marked using various patterns of dots (diacritics) placed below the consonant that precedes the given vowel in pronunciation; there is also a distinct diacritic mark to note the absence of a vowel, indicating that two consecutive consonants are pronounced without a vowel between them (as a 'consonant cluster'). However, in many documents, the diacritics are mostly or completely left out, and the placement and quality of the vowels must be inferred by the reader, based on knowledge of the language.

(I'm not actually quoting any specific source -- just recalling in my own words what I have learned about the language.)

Hebrew was and is a language spoken by humans. It has vowels between the various consonants -- always did and always will -- and their placement and quality ("a" vs. "i" vs "u", etc) is crucial for both articulation/perception and meaning/comprehension. In particular, a given string of consonants could be pronounced a few different ways (different placements and qualities of vowels among the consonants) and would mean different things as a result.

The fact that the Hebrews would opt for a writing system that does not explicitly display the vowels is unfortunate for those who don't know the language, but it's understandable as an economy of effort and resources for writers.

If your point is based on asserting that there were no vowels in the language, you're just making up nonsense. (And if some of the stuff that some people say about God were true, you'd probably burn in hell for that. ;) -- I'm not one of those people, I was just surprised by what seemed like a very strange assertion about Hebrew.)


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by sl33w, posted 06-09-2008 5:26 PM sl33w has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2008 6:40 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 298 (470234)
06-10-2008 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2008 1:17 AM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
Hi Otto. Thanks for weighing in with the interesting info. I'm wondering what your opinion is about my message 289.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2008 1:17 AM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 292 of 298 (470286)
06-10-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Buzsaw
06-09-2008 7:58 PM


Transliteration versus Translation.
"Jehovah" is not a translation of the Hebrew it is an attempted transliteration.

A translation attempts to convey the meaning, while a transliteration attempts to represent the sounds. (e.g. in Isaiah 8:1-3 "Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey" is a translation and "Maher-shalal-hash-baz" is a transliteration).

Jehovah - especially pronounced in English is - not a good transliteration. It was devised by Germans who would pronounce the initial "J" as an English-speaker would pronounce "Y". Worse, as has been pointed out it was based on vowels which were not part of the name at all. When the Jews who added the vowels (Biblical Hebrew is written without vowels) they used the vowels for "Adonai" as a reminder that when reading out loud that word should be substituted for God's name.

"Yahweh" is the best available transliteration, and therefore has a far better claim to be God's name than "Jehovah" which was simply a mistake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2008 7:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 4283 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 293 of 298 (470321)
06-10-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by sl33w
06-09-2008 5:26 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
Reply to buzsaw

"He Is" has vowels and is understandable.

"I Am" has vowels and is understandable.

How do you translate, "I Am"? HYHA.

The prefix "A" = "I" (about 50,000 times); and the prefix "Y" = "He."

sl33w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by sl33w, posted 06-09-2008 5:26 PM sl33w has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2008 9:35 PM sl33w has responded

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 4283 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 294 of 298 (470322)
06-10-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Buzsaw
06-09-2008 7:58 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
Reply to otho

Thank you for thinking that I am not bound for Hell.

Nice to hear from you.

Now then, let us separate Fact from Fiction.

The Hebrew text was canonized, in AD 95, at the Council of Yabneh, Israel.

According to the world famous Jewish writer, and editor of the Masoretic Text, Aaron Dotan -- Masoretic vowels began to be invented about AD 750, and were finished about AD 950. [Several on this forum had posted these dates.]

"The stated goal" was to make Hebrew a spoken language -- AGAIN -- after 650 years.

"ALL" encyclopedias define Hebrew, "A language with 22 consonants and NO vowels."

sl33w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2008 7:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 298 (470377)
06-10-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by sl33w
06-10-2008 4:51 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
sl33w, "he is" or "the existing one" is what the name means. It is not the correct English translation of YHWH. Jehovah is the modern English correct translation of the name of HYWH. All proper names have meanings. That doesn't mean you communicate in and about them by what their names mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by sl33w, posted 06-10-2008 4:51 PM sl33w has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by sl33w, posted 06-11-2008 5:07 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
sl33w
Member (Idle past 4283 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 05-23-2008


Message 296 of 298 (470648)
06-11-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Buzsaw
06-10-2008 9:35 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
To: buzsaw

Quote: "The meaning is not the proper translation."

What a laugh!

The translation of "Joshua" into Greek was "Iesous."

What it meant was a Greek form of "Joshua."

But, it was also translated, "the Greek form of Joshua."

sl33w


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2008 9:35 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Buzsaw, posted 11-25-2008 7:05 PM sl33w has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 298 (489267)
11-25-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by sl33w
06-11-2008 5:07 PM


Re: God Is Teaching His Name Today
sl33W writes:

What it meant was a Greek form of "Joshua."


No. Jehovah means "the I am" or "the existing one."

Joshua means "Jehovah saves".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by sl33w, posted 06-11-2008 5:07 PM sl33w has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2545 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 298 of 298 (489431)
11-27-2008 1:27 AM


Words from a cunning linguist
Resurrected (:-p) from a past thread:

Yahweh is 'Elyon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to throw another spanner in the works. Salibi on mistranslations (I can`t do the accents so they are missing) :

‘The traditional reading of Genesis 14:22 has long assumed that Abram the Hebrew, in an oath, identifies his own god, Yahweh, with the El ‘Elyon of the king of ‘Salem’. The Hebrew text of Abram`s oath, (hrmty ydy ‘l yhwh ‘l ‘lywn), has normally been taken to mean ‘ I have sworn (literally, raised my hand) to Yahweh El ‘Elyon (in RSV, ‘to the Lord God Most High). Actually, the Hebrew yhwh here (as in examples cited earlier) must be read as the archaic imperfect of the verb hyh-‘be’. Hence, the oath must be read as: ‘I have sworn, El ‘Elyon being a god’ or ‘I have sworn (as) El ‘Elyon is a god (‘l yhwh ‘l ‘lywn)’, the recognition of the divinity of El ‘Elyon being presented as testimony to the truth of the oath. In Psalm 7:18, however, ‘Elyon is unequivocally mentioned as a name of Yahweh (sm yhwh ‘lywn. ‘the name of Yahweh is ‘Elyon’). Yahweh is also called ‘Elyon in Psalm 47:3. Moreover, ‘Elyon rather than Yahweh is cited as the name of the God of Israel in more than twenty other passages of Biblical text where it is commonly rendered in translation as ‘Most High’. (The Bible came from Arabia - p147)


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020