|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 2:16:31 AM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
The original Hebrew is all ran together, and the division of the letters and words are arbitrary. The same is true in regards to the asigning of the vowels to the words, where as there were no vowels originally. God's name is an exception to the rule. The, is, or that, is not part of His name. Stop dodgeing me and answer me this: Who is called HeyZeus? There are 49 places in the NIV were "Yah" alone is mentioned as Lord. No h . The three places in Ex 3:14 can not be translated as I'am. Only: I, life, living, be, was, are, am, and such as that, but not I'am.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
If I am 100% wrong, then who is Gee Zeus, and who is HeyZeus? My NIV Concordance is based upon the Masoretic and it says HaYah. "I am" is an interpretation, not a translation. God's full name is Yhwh, not hyhhwh. You do not keep the article "The or Is." You drop the articles before the verbs to form the pronown. Oh, and welcome to the message board. I hope our conversation is productive.
There is no IF about it, you are 100% WRONG!
Jesus is not related in any way to the name Zeus.
There is no article in HYH, those are the root letters of the verb!
HYH has been and continues to be the verb 'to be', "I am" is an accurate translation of the first person imperfect.
Pronouns are NEVER formed by dropping the article.
The NIV Concordance is based upon the NIV English Text not the Masoretic Text, nor is the Hebrew Lexicon (Dictionary) in the Back of the concordance is not based on any particular Hebrew text. Its definitions are suitable used for any of the Hebrew biblical texts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 2:54:27 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2911
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
The original Hebrew is all ran together, and the division of the letters and words are arbitrary. The same is true in regards to the asigning of the vowels to the words, where as there were no vowels originally. God's name is an exception to the rule. The, is, or that, is not part of His name. Stop dodgeing me and answer me this: Who is called HeyZeus? There are 49 places in the NIV were "Yah" alone is mentioned as Lord. No h . The three places in Ex 3:14 can not be translated as I'am. Only: I, life, living, be, was, are, am, and such as that, but not I'am
Michael there are a reasons that NO Hebrew or Greek scholar will support the claims you are making, please go and take a class and learn the langauge. While you are correct that in the original Hebrew there letters all ran together, you completely wrong when you make the statement that the divisions of the words are arbitrary, they were NOT. Grammar rules provided clear indications of where words are split, as did the Hebrew sophit letters.
Again, you are almost correct in your statement about vowels, but the reality is that there were almost no written vowels in biblical Hebrew. You are again incorrect when you claim that the insertion of vowels was arbitrary, again Hebrew grammar dictates what vowels are inserted when the langauge is spoken. Spoken Hebrew always has vowels, as speaking without vowels is quite impossible.
Yah, the shortened form of YHWH is not a result of dropping the first Hey, but a result of dropping the vav/yod and final hey and the addition of the prefixed Yod.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 8/31/2008 3:10:26 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 3:03:27 AM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
I was hopefull to get some answers, but my questions are mostly dodged.
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
The original Hebrew is all ran together, and the division of the letters and words are arbitrary. The same is true in regards to the asigning of the vowels to the words, where as there were no vowels originally. God's name is an exception to the rule. The, is, or that, is not part of His name. Stop dodgeing me and answer me this: Who is called HeyZeus? There are 49 places in the NIV were "Yah" alone is mentioned as Lord. No h . The three places in Ex 3:14 can not be translated as I'am. Only: I, life, living, be, was, are, am, and such as that, but not I'am
Michael there is a reason that NO Hebrew or Greek scholar will support the claims you are making, please go and take a class and learn the langauge.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 9:06:44 AM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
Michael, you're getting lots of answers...no intentional dodges that I can tell. If you are truly seeking answers, then would you like to be pointed directly to the Masoretic text so that you can see that the word is not HYH? There are also ancient manuscript images online. The word is most definitely translated "I am". There is no "interpretation" necessary in that respect.
The question I think you may be indicating was dodged was: "Who was called HeyZeus?" It was probably not answered because there is no "HeyZeus". There is simply a "IESOUS". The ending of this word is a "case ending". With this particular name, the ending is either nominative or genitive case. It has nothing to do with Zeus. And the beginning of the name was not pronounced in the Greek as "Hey". That was a later corruption in pronunciation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 9:07:33 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2911
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
While you are correct that in the original Hebrew there letters all ran together, you completely wrong when you make the statement that the divisions of the words are arbitrary, they were NOT. Grammar rules provided clear indications of where words are split, as did the Hebrew sophit letters.
Again, you are almost correct in your statement about vowels, but the reality is that there were almost no written vowels in biblical Hebrew. You are again incorrect when you claim that the insertion of vowels was arbitrary, again Hebrew grammar dictates what vowels are inserted when the langauge is spoken. Spoken Hebrew always has vowels, as speaking without vowels is quite impossible.
Yah, the shortened form of YHWH is not a result of dropping the first Hey, but a result of dropping the vav/yod and final hey and the addition of the prefixed Yod.
Michael,
That was a very dishonest reply. The original post had answers to most of your questions, but you simply deleted them from your reply, and the questions that were not answered in this last post had already been answered by myself and others in the last few pages of this thread. From what I can tell are not interested in getting answers, but are merely hoping to find support for the position you have taken, and when you get answers that demonstrate your position is in error, you simply dismiss them. It seems pretty clear to me that no facts are going to dissuade you from your mistaken beliefs no matter how compelling the facts are that demonstrate your "theory" is in error.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 9:09:20 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2911
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Haran
Michael, you're getting lots of answers...no intentional dodges that I can tell. If you are truly seeking answers, then would you like to be pointed directly to the Masoretic text so that you can see that the word is not HYH? There are also ancient manuscript images online. The word is most definitely translated "I am". There is no "interpretation" necessary in that respect.
The question I think you may be indicating was dodged was: "Who was called HeyZeus?" It was probably not answered because there is no "HeyZeus". There is simply a "IESOUS". The ending of this word is a "case ending". With this particular name, the ending is either nominative or genitive case. It has nothing to do with Zeus. And the beginning of the name was not pronounced in the Greek as "Hey". That was a later corruption in pronunciation.
It looks like you and I had almost the same thoughts at the same time. When I posted my reply, I found you had posted nearly the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 2:46:42 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
It looks like you and I had almost the same thoughts at the same time. When I posted my reply, I found you had posted nearly the same thing.
It's alright. I didn't really write much that you haven't already written. I'm impressed with your knowledge. I like your avatar, too. I'm not particularly familiar with modern cursive Hebrew, but I can tell what it is, BenElChi. 
What do you do that you have had such extensive training in Hebrew, if you don't mind me asking? It seems (however unfortunate) to be less commonly learned amongst Christians than Greek.
By the way, Michael seems interested enough to have learned the letters and some words. I just wonder if he realizes the good opportunity that he has here and now in this thread to learn more about Hebrew and Greek.... I see at least two potential roadblocks for him, however. (1) He must humble himself a bit and realize that use of the NIV exhaustive concordance without having learned the languages will not give him a true understanding. And, (2) he must recognize and be willing to admit and part with some of his errors in order to learn and grow. He seems honestly to want to follow God (...Yahweh), and I think God would certainly approve of him testing his knowledge and humbling himself to correct errors and learn more when given the opportunity.
< Message edited by Haran -- 8/31/2008 3:33:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 3:07:50 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
Michael, let me know if this makes more sense to you....
HYH is a verb like English 'to be'. Verbs are conjugated in English... One doesn't correctly say "I be." They say "I am". Similarly, to say "I am" in Hebrew the verb is conjugated (i.e. modified) to the form "ehyeh" (which is what the actual Hebrew Masoretic text reads in the Exodus passage you've mentioned several times).
So, in English you'd say:
"to be"
I am
He/She is
You are
We are
Note how the form of "to be" changes in English.
In Hebrew, it would look like this:
"HYH" - "to be"
ehyeh - I am
yihyeh / tihyeh - He / She is
tihyeh / tihyih - You are
Nihyeh - We are
This is just a simple example for you, but hopefully you can see the difference. So, if you grab the Masoretic Hebrew text and read your verse in Exodus, you will find the 1st person singular conjugated form of HYH and it is ehyeh, meaning "I am". As BenElChi has pointed out, this is also why every translation I know of reads "I am".
Hope this helps. I'll see if I can find a quick link to the Hebrew text for you.
< Message edited by Haran -- 8/31/2008 3:31:52 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 3:29:34 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
Ok, Michael, here are a couple of links directly to the Masoretic Hebrew text that should help you if you are sincere in your search.
Exodus 3:14
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Exd&chapter=3&verse=14&version=KJV#14
Hopefully, if you follow this link, you'll see the Hebrew text followed by a concordance (that you're used to). (If not, then click on the box containing the "c" at the left of the verse.)
Now, if you look at the concordance, you'll see HYH, right? So, BenElChi and others must be wrong, right?  Wrong. Look at the top of the concordance column and you'll read "Hebrew (root form)". Notice "root form". Now look above the concordance at the continuous Hebrew text in the scroll. The words we're all interested in are the last word on the first line and the second word on the second line. I think you are familiar with Hebrew letters, so what you'll see is the four letters aleph, he, yod, heh in both places. This is the 1st person singular conjugated form of HYH, ehyeh, and it literally means exactly what the translation above reads..."I am".
The next websites are well known and well used Jewish websites which present the Hebrew text. BenElChi may have seen these before, but if not, he may find them of interest as well. So the following links may prove more interesting to him, since one really needs some ability to get around in Hebrew to navigate and understand these all- and mostly-Hebrew websites.
Home Page
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/
Exodus 3:14
(The Hebrew name for Exodus is "Shemot" or "Names" and is drawn from the first words of the book of Exodus...."And these are the names....".)
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/tr/t0203.htm
(In the link above, one must look for yod dalet, which is the number (verse) 14 in Hebrew. By the way, if I recall correctly, the Masoretes are the ones who came up with the vowel pointing that you will see in the above text, so again, the correct pronunciation according to the Masoretes is "ehyeh".)
Mechon Mamre Home Page
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/
Exodus 3:14 at Mechon Mamre
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0203.htm
I sincerely hope this all helps you in your life-quest, Michael.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 8/31/2008 3:58:24 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
By the way, there are two major Masoretic manuscripts that underlie the text of the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia - a critical edition of the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Bible that underlies most modern English translations of the Bible). They are the Aleppo Codex, which dates to around the 9th/10th century, and the Leningrad Codex, which dates to the 11th century.
Awesomely, images of the Aleppo Codex are actually online! Unfortunately, this codex no longer contains Exodus....
Aleppo Codex
http://www.aleppocodex.org/
The Leningrad Codex does contain Exodus, unfortunately I haven't been able to find images of the entire codex online. BenElChi, do you or does anyone know if images of the entire Leningrad codex exist online somewhere?
Regardless, there is an effort to put the codex into unicode. So, yet one more time, you can't get much better proof than this, Michael, directly from one of the oldest Masoretic manuscripts in existence....
http://www.tanach.us/Tanach.xml#Ex3:14-3:14
And it says..."ehyeh", "I am".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/1/2008 4:07:21 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
haran:
Anyway, I enjoy Greek and Hebrew as a hobby
welcome-welcome,friend
Nice to see true Hebrew hobbyists, even if virtual reality only. lately all i meet are Shebrew hobbyists in disguise (and in active pursuit of the abovementioned), just my luck :)
So, dear Haran and Ben -I feel compelled to tell you, gentlemen, you rock!
I agree with you of course, but would emphasize the distinction b/n modern/Biblical/Rabbinical/old literaturial Hebrew versions, and respective grammatical differences.
You know what i mean? So not to create unrealistic expectations in people :) Taking some classes of modern conversational Hebrew usually gives an aspiring future scholar-to-be just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
quote:
I sincerely hope this all helps you in your life-quest, Michael.
michael, i'll throw in a good dictionary
quote:
The Leningrad Codex does contain Exodus, unfortunately I haven't been able to find images of the entire codex online. BenElChi, do you or does anyone know if images of the entire Leningrad codex exist online somewhere?
this? I ‘d say keep the one page layout, full screen, and zoom in to good readability, I think its just fine.
Decent book, nice preview,and the whole codex included.
The small handwritten note in the first pages (in Russian) states the amount of pages in the manuscript (491)
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/1/2008 5:26:52 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
this? I ‘d say keep the one page layout, full screen, and zoom in to good readability, I think its just fine.
Decent book, nice preview,and the whole codex included.
The small handwritten note in the first pages (in Russian) states the amount of pages in the manuscript (491)
Thanks much, Odeliya! I did not realize the Leningrad Codex was actually online. And there is 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' (I am who/that I am) on page 76 of the book (pg. 33 of the online preview) in the leftmost column towards the bottom.
And your point is well taken about study of Hebrew and its different chronological/geographical forms (not to mention Aramaic and its different flavors). Even a couple of years of Biblical Hebrew training in seminary or self-study can still be a 'dangerous' thing, especially when one begins to think they see something in the Hebrew that no previous translators ever seem to have noticed before.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/1/2008 8:23:54 PM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Yah.
Exodus 23:21. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
Psalm 68:4. Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds his name is Yah and rejoice before him.
John 5:43. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
Yahshua means: Life Savior. And a interpretation to that is: God's Salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/1/2008 8:37:40 PM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
If what I have said makes good sence to those in the Middle East, but not to you guys, then I have to ask; Are you guys members of some secret society?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/1/2008 9:59:08 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel
Yah.
Exodus 23:21. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
Psalm 68:4. Sing to God, sing praise to his name, extol him who rides on the clouds his name is Yah and rejoice before him.
John 5:43. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
Yahshua means: Life Savior. And a interpretation to that is: God's Salvation.
I don't understand, Michael. You go through all those proofs that God's name is in Jesus' name (which is correct, by the way, as the name is a theophoric name), and then you actually translate his name as "Life Savior"??
Yehoshua / Yeshua / Yehsu all mean "Yahweh is salvation" or "Yahweh saves".
You go on to say that "a interpretation" is "God's Salvation". Well, I suppose that's true in the sense that Yahweh is our God and the name literally means "Yahweh is salvation". However, technically, "My God is salvation" is the name of Elisha (Elishua).
< Message edited by Haran -- 9/1/2008 10:20:47 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/1/2008 10:17:04 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel
If what I have said makes good sence to those in the Middle East, but not to you guys, then I have to ask; Are you guys members of some secret society?
Michael, really, none of what you have written makes any sense to anyone in the Middle East because it is incorrect Hebrew. I'm going to chalk your "secret society" question up as an attempt at a joke, because if I thought you really believed that, then there is certainly no point in anyone continuing this discussion at all. This most recent post of yours has me extremely close to believing that you are not at all searching for truth or interested in learning.
You have just been given a significant amount of helpful information. Did you read over it? Did you see where your errors were specifically pointed out? I'd honestly like to help you see, because it can be rewarding...but that depends upon whether you want to see truth. What do you say? Do you need help, or are you going to continue insisting that use of an NIV Exhaustive Concordance and faulty translation and interpretation trumps knowledge of a language?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/2/2008 9:29:48 AM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Pages ago I shortened one of your quotes to focus on a subject. Is that what you are talking about?quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
While you are correct that in the original Hebrew there letters all ran together, you completely wrong when you make the statement that the divisions of the words are arbitrary, they were NOT. Grammar rules provided clear indications of where words are split, as did the Hebrew sophit letters.
Again, you are almost correct in your statement about vowels, but the reality is that there were almost no written vowels in biblical Hebrew. You are again incorrect when you claim that the insertion of vowels was arbitrary, again Hebrew grammar dictates what vowels are inserted when the langauge is spoken. Spoken Hebrew always has vowels, as speaking without vowels is quite impossible.
Yah, the shortened form of YHWH is not a result of dropping the first Hey, but a result of dropping the vav/yod and final hey and the addition of the prefixed Yod.
Michael,
That was a very dishonest reply. The original post had answers to most of your questions, but you simply deleted them from your reply, and the questions that were not answered in this last post had already been answered by myself and others in the last few pages of this thread. From what I can tell are not interested in getting answers, but are merely hoping to find support for the position you have taken, and when you get answers that demonstrate your position is in error, you simply dismiss them. It seems pretty clear to me that no facts are going to dissuade you from your mistaken beliefs no matter how compelling the facts are that demonstrate your "theory" is in error.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/2/2008 9:34:33 AM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
The translation is based upon both the Aramaic and Hebrew from about 1200BC to 600BC. There is a link posted in the begining of this post to the subject.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Haran
quote:
ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel
If what I have said makes good sence to those in the Middle East, but not to you guys, then I have to ask; Are you guys members of some secret society?
Michael, really, none of what you have written makes any sense to anyone in the Middle East because it is incorrect Hebrew. I'm going to chalk your "secret society" question up as an attempt at a joke, because if I thought you really believed that, then there is certainly no point in anyone continuing this discussion at all. This most recent post of yours has me extremely close to believing that you are not at all searching for truth or interested in learning.
You have just been given a significant amount of helpful information. Did you read over it? Did you see where your errors were specifically pointed out? I'd honestly like to help you see, because it can be rewarding...but that depends upon whether you want to see truth. What do you say? Do you need help, or are you going to continue insisting that use of an NIV Exhaustive Concordance and faulty translation and interpretation trumps knowledge of a language?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/2/2008 2:50:22 PM
|
|
|
Haran
Posts: 26
Joined: 8/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel
The translation is based upon both the Aramaic and Hebrew from about 1200BC to 600BC. There is a link posted in the begining of this post to the subject.
No, it is not. It is not based on Hebrew of any time period and is, in point of fact, wrong.
At this point, I can see you are not interested in anything other than your erroneous views for whatever reason. Should you change your mind. Feel free to PM me and I don't mind helping you out.
Otherwise, I hope that someone has learned a little from the previous contributions of BenElChi, Odelyia, and myself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/2/2008 4:29:27 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Even a couple of years of Biblical Hebrew training in seminary or self-study can still be a 'dangerous' thing, especially when one begins to think they see something in the Hebrew that no previous translators ever seem to have noticed before.
Thanks!
you are so welcome, and yes, the "right translation" is often only exists in the eye of the beholder, who nevetherless would passionately argue it. You came a bit later, but me and Ben also talked before about people make amazing new discoveries previously missed by translators –all that while armed with unlimited amount of enthusiasm and latest Rosetta Stone of Hebrew/Geek,( which is generally designed to provide just enough knowledge to get yourself check into a hotel without interpreter’s help)
People find anything and everything, nothing is surprising al that much. Impossibility to obtain a native speaker of Aramaic/Hebrew opens the door not to all kinds of speculation and charlatanism even in academic circles.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/3/2008 2:21:37 AM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Very well then, for you guys God's name is Jahovah.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
Even a couple of years of Biblical Hebrew training in seminary or self-study can still be a 'dangerous' thing, especially when one begins to think they see something in the Hebrew that no previous translators ever seem to have noticed before.
Thanks!
you are so welcome, and yes, the "right translation" is often only exists in the eye of the beholder, who nevetherless would passionately argue it. You came a bit later, but me and Ben also talked before about people make amazing new discoveries previously missed by translators –all that while armed with unlimited amount of enthusiasm and latest Rosetta Stone of Hebrew/Geek,( which is generally designed to provide just enough knowledge to get yourself check into a hotel without interpreter’s help)
People find anything and everything, nothing is surprising al that much. Impossibility to obtain a native speaker of Aramaic/Hebrew opens the door not to all kinds of speculation and charlatanism even in academic circles.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/3/2008 11:10:29 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2380
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Very well then, for you guys God's name is Jahovah.
Magniv.
excellent, brother, i am not denying you the right to have your opinion, hon.
that is what i, if you kindly read my posts, insist on, briging up the variety in positions among scholars. ALL are intitled to entertain their own guess( preferrably in a more or less reasonable grammatical realm , if possible)We wont be judged by what you call God but by what we do for him and our obedienceRemember in matthew? those who call me Lord, Lord...
Are you married? If, lets say, you regularly park your socks under bed and act as a general slob ,calling Mrs "my precious flower, love of my life, my sunshine..".plaguarizing half of Song of Solomon will help your position none!!
Demagoguery and deeds are two different things.
Talk is cheap. Therefore i see no harm( no benefit either) in speculation on personal names, its an endless game, for as i said we have lack of ancient speakers that can shed the true light.
I am against the final goal of your game - denying Trinity.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/3/2008 1:14:55 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4099
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel
Who is called HeyZeus?
You keep asking this question and I have no clue where you even get that term. That makes it a bit difficult to answer.
Please remember because a word or syllable means something in one language does not mean the same word or syllable used in another language is somehow tied to it.
EXAMPLE: there is a somewhat common personal name used in VietNamese culture that sounds just like the English obscenity that starts with an F. If I spell out the name in roman characters the auto-censor will probably just give you *****. Can someone say that the person is named after an obscene word or that he is somehow connected to illicit sexuality? Of course not. These argumemts of yours fall into the same category.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/3/2008 6:11:28 PM
|
|
|
MichaelTheeArchAngel
Posts: 206
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Thank you for the kind reply. If I ever finnish some key points then I will post them. Most of my life I did believe in trinitarism, but not anymore. I do not think that it is allowed to post the reasons. The name Yahwah says something where as the name Yahweh, no one knows. And remember, the Jewish Priest believe that it is their duty to conceal the name of God from the public. Like I have said from the begining, my conclusion is based upon the definations given in the Aramaic along with the Hebrew.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
Very well then, for you guys God's name is Jahovah.
Magniv.
excellent, brother, i am not denying you the right to have your opinion, hon.
that is what i, if you kindly read my posts, insist on, briging up the variety in positions among scholars. ALL are intitled to entertain their own guess( preferrably in a more or less reasonable grammatical realm , if possible)We wont be judged by what you call God but by what we do for him and our obedienceRemember in matthew? those who call me Lord, Lord...
Are you married? If, lets say, you regularly park your socks under bed and act as a general slob ,calling Mrs "my precious flower, love of my life, my sunshine..".plaguarizing half of Song of Solomon will help your position none!!
Demagoguery and deeds are two different things.
Talk is cheap. Therefore i see no harm( no benefit either) in speculation on personal names, its an endless game, for as i said we have lack of ancient speakers that can shed the true light.
I am against the final goal of your game - denying Trinity.
< Message edited by MichaelTheeArchAngel -- 9/4/2008 1:47:30 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Yahwah - 9/3/2008 6:35:02 PM
|
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
