Jump to content

Queen Esther

Amazing video about God's letter Y !!

Topic Summary


Last Reply



Queen Esther -
Queen Esther -

Top Posters

Recommended Posts

YAHWEH  - The  only  TRUE  GOD !  PROOF - God's Name,  YAH  Is  Written  On  Your  Face  &  Throughout  Creation !    ( Rev. 14:1  -  Rev. 22:4 )

 YAHWEH IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD:  Matthew 28:19 (KJV) Go ye therefore, and TEACH  *ALL NATIONS*,  baptizing them in THE NAME OF THE FATHER,  and of  THE SON,  and of the  Holy Spirit !

Isaiah 45 5,  I am YAHWEH, and  THERE IS NONE ELSE,  there is NO GOD BESIDES ME:  I girded thee,  though thou hast not  known me:  6 That they may know from the rising of the sun,  and from the west,  that  THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME.  I am YAHWEH,  YHWH, JEHOVAH,  and there is  NONE  ELSE...

                     ? ? ? .•*¨`*•..¸???¸.•*¨`*•. ? ? ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jehovah has still other similar names of the past....  we all know that @Kurt :)

HIS TETRAGRAMMATON,  and around these letters few more !

In my video its only going around HIS letter Y...  bec. we find this letter-sign SO often in the nature ! Thats really amazing???  this is my viewpoint,  NOT  another name of HIM ! 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point @Queen Ester ^_^

Below is a long thesis in this topic from

    Hello guest!

image.jpegRolf Furuli (our brother from Norway)


©12.22.2013 Rolf Furuli

In connection with the divine name there are two besic questions, a) how many consonants did the name have, and b) what was the original pronunciation. The first question may seem to be superfluous, because the name is called the tetragram and is written with four consonants. However, because Hebrew did not have vowel points before the middle of the first millennium CE, the consonants yod, he, and waw, and aleph were used as vowels. So, at the outset we cannot exclude the possibility that one or more of the consonants of the teragram were used as vowels. Because of the lack of vowel points, the question about the original pronunciation of the divine name, may also seem to be superfluous. However, because many proper names in the Hebrew Scriptures include the divine name, we may have some clues as to its pronunciation.

Has the divine name three or four consonants?

The form om the divine name that was mostly used from the middle ages and up to the beginning of the twentieth century was Jehovah, or a form close to Jehovah. In the twentieth century, the form Yahweh was introduced, and today most scholars favor this form. In Hebrew letters, these forms would be written as Îhwâøh?y yehowa and h™RwVhÅy yahwæ respectively. Behind the Hebrew letters we find a transcription. Transliteration means to move a word from the source language to the target language letter by letter, whereas transcription means to move the pronunciation of a word in the source language to the target language. Thus, a transliteration of the two forms would be yehowah and yahwæh, but a transcription would be yehowa and yahwæ.1 The difference is that the he is lacking at the end when the forms are transcribed, but is retained when they are transliterated. The reason for this is that this final he in both cases serves as a vowel, the vowel qamets in yehowa and segol in yahwæ. Because this he is identical with the vowel, it is not pronounced, and therefore it is lacking in the transcriptions. In most Hebrew words ending in he, this he serves as either the vowel qamets or the vowel segol. In a few cases, a final he serves as consonant, and to mark this it has a point called mappiq in its middle. This is for example the case with the short form of the divine name ;h`Dy . If the final he in the tetragram represents a vowel, it means that the divine name has three consonants, yod, he and waw, and one vowel, long aœ or æœ.2

In the oldest Hebrew inscriptions, the letter he is used as a vowel. We may use the Siloam inscription from around 700 BCE as an example: In the word hyh (haya be/become) in line 1, the word brkh (berekha pool) in line 5, and in 'mh ('amma cubit) in lines 5,6, the final he represents the vowel qamets (long aœ).3 Final he was also used for e/æ and o, but because the use as o was ambigues, the letter waw was later used for o.4 In the Hebrew Bible, final he "was used as a mater lectionis for nearly every word-terminal /aœ/." 5 Because final he in a word almost always was a vowel, there are strong reasons to conclude that the divine name consists of three consonants, yod, he, and waw, and one vowel, represented by he.
1 In my transcriptions in this paper I do not consistently differentiate between long and short vowels. 
2 F. I. Anderson, A. D. Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible, (1986) p. 38. The authors show that he also can stand for e and o. 
3 Z. Zevit. Matres lectionis in ancient Hebrew Epigraphs. 1980, p. 19. 4 Op. cit. pp. 24, 25. 5 Andersen and Forbes, pp. 61, 91, 311.
Corroborating the view that the divine name in Hebrew had three consonants and one vowel, is the widespread use of the three consonants yhw for the divine name in extrabiblical sources, as well as at the beginning and end of theophoric names. In the temple of Amenhophis III in Soleb in Sudan from the 14th century BCE., the divine name is written as yhw. The same is true in Aramaic documents from Elephantine in Egypt from the 5th century BCE; these Aramaic-speaking persons worshiped yhw. It is almost universally believed that these three letters represented the form yaho, but that is nothing but guesswork. More than 160 different persons are mentioned by name in the Aramaic documents, and many of these names are theophoric. These names are written in the same way as the theophoric names in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the three letters yhw represent the full form of the divine name, and that the pronunciation was ye-ho-wæ or ye-ho-wa. We also note that in old Hebrew, seals and inscriptions, there are 332 examples (84%) of the letters yhw, 42 examples of the letters yw (10.6%). and 21 examples of yh (5.3%). In the time before the Dead Sea scrolls were written — before the second century BCE — consonants were only occasionally used as vowels. If the last he in the tetragram was a vowel, it was implied but not written. That can explain all the examples of the three consonants yhw instead of yhwh.

Did the tetragram come from the verb hwh (hwh)?

The question is whether the divine name comes from hwh (hwh, be/become) or why (yhw) with unknown meaning. In other words, is the first yod in the tetragram the grammatical marker for 3 person masculine singular of the imperfective verb hwh in the hiphil (casuative) stem, so the meaning of the name is: "he causes to become"? Or is it the first letter of the three-radical root yhw, whose meaning we do not know? Whether the last he in the tetragram is a consonant or vowel does not matter in connection with these questions, because either possibility would fit both alternatives.

Did the verb hwh exist in Hebrew?

Let us first consider the root hwh, and ask: Did this root exist in Biblical Hebrew? According to Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament III:356, "Hebrew knows hwh as a secondary form of hyh (hayah)." But this statement can be questioned! The Hebrew word meaning be/become is hyh (hyh), and according to my Gramcord program, it occurs 3.576 times in the Hebrew Bible and 1.046 times in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The normal Aramaic verb for be/ become is hwh. This verb occurs 71 times in the Aramaic text of the Hebrew Bible and 342 times in the Aramaic text of the DSS. The problem with the statement that the verb hwh with the meaning "to be" also exists in Hebrew, is that only 10 examples of hwh is supposed to occur in Hebrew text of the Bible and in the DSS. In the DSS, my Gramcord program lists five participles, and in the Hebrew Bible, two imperatives (Genesis 27:29, Isaiah 16:4), and two participles (Ecclesiastes 2:22, Nehemiah 6:6) are listed. In addition, one finite form is listed in Excclesiastes 11:3. This form is a…wáh?y (yehu'). But this form may be questioned, because it ends with the letter aleph, which is not a part of the root hwh. There is one example of a word awh (hw') ending with aleph in Job 37:6, and it has the meaning "fall." In Ecclesiastes 11:3 the word a…wáh?y (yehu') is 3 person masculine singular imperfect qal, and therefore has a prefixed yod. In Job 37:6 the form is imperative masculine, singular, qal, and therefore lacks the prefixed yod. In Job 37:6, the meaning of the word with the consonants yh' is "fall," and interestingly, in Ecclesiastes 11:3, the verb with the

consonants yh' is parallel to the verb nafal (to fall). So the meaning of the clause regarding the tree in Ecclesiastes 11:3 can be "the place where it falls, there it falls (= there it will lie). Because of the final aleph, it is likely that the verb in Ecclesiastes 11:3 has the meaning "fall" rather than be/become. Thus, there is no clear evidence in favor of a finite Hebrew form of a verb hwh with the meaning be/become in the Hebrew Scriptures.

But will not the two imperatives and the two participles that are listed as the verb hwh in the Hebrew Bible show that the verb hwh existed in Hebrew? Not necessarily. The first point to have in mind is that both in old Hebrew and Aramaic handwriting yod and waw were quite similar, and there are numerous examples where the two letters have been confused.6 Because there are only four infinite examples of the supposed Hebrew word hwh, we cannot exclude the possibility that the waw in the four examples is a misreading for yod. This would mean that the two participles and two impertives belong to the hyh, the normal Hebrew verb with the meaning be/become. The second point relates to Aramaic loanwords. In his book, Die Lexikalischen und Grammatischen Aramäismen im Alttestamentlichen Hebräisch, (1966) Max Wagner lists 333 Aramaic words that occur in the Hebrew Scriptures.7 The word hwh hawa is listed as number 72, and Wagner refers to the five places, mentioned above, where hwh is supposed to occur in the Hebrew text. In the entry on hyh in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (1978) III, p. 371, K.-H. Bernhardt writes: "The verb hyh occurs 3632 times in the OT. Of them, 21 are niphal, 5 are aramaizing hwh (Gen. 27:29; Isa. 16:4; Eccl. 2:22; 11:3; Neh. 6:6), and 71 in the Aramaic portion are hwh." If Wagner and Bernhardt are correct, the verb hwh does not occur in Hebrew, but is an Aramaic loanword. This is important in connection with the suggestion that hwhy comes from the verb hwh with the meaning be/become. If the divine name comes from the Aramaic verb hwh, 3 person masculine singular imperfect would be hwhl (lhwh), and not hwhy (yhwh), as the form would have been if the verb was Hebrew.

If the verb hwh existed in Hebrew, it would be an anachronism to apply it to the divine name

Let us now assume that the Hebrew had the verb hwh, and that the divine name is 3 person singular masculine imperfect hiphil of this root. According to the parsing of lamed he verbs based on the Hebrew text of the Bible and found in modern grammars, this form would have been yahwæ.8 Thus, there may be some support for the form yahwæ. However, this is only seemingly, because this form is anachronistic. God gave himself his name for the sake of the human beings, so it must be as old as the human family. And in ancient times, lamed he verbs did not end with he but with yod. This is for example seen in the parsing of the lamed he verbs both in Hebrew and Aramaic, where this yod is visible. For example, first person singular perfect of the verb hnb (bnh, build) in Hebrew is ytynb (baniti) where we see a yod and not a he after the nun. Because the divine name is as old as the human family, the oldest form of the lamed he verbs would have been used. If the tetragram was 3 person masculine singular imperfect, the tetragram would have been ywhy (yhwy), and the hiphil form would have
6 If one reads a few lines of a manuscript from Qumran, one will see that in many instances it is difficult to see the difference of yod and waw.
 7 This is 4.2% of the about 8,000 different words in the Hebrew Scriptures.
 8 The last he seen in a transliteration is not seen here, because this is a transcription, and this he represents the vowel æœ.
been yahwi. This would mean that the ending -e(h) in Yahweh hardly would be possible, because there was no final he. But what about the supposed first closed syllable yah-? If the root was hwy, the imperfect in the basic stem qal would have been yih and not yah, and the full form would have been yihwi. In the causative hiphil stem the first syllable could have been yah, and the full form would have been yahwi. But the problem is that neither the Hebrew verb hyh (be/become) nor the Aramaic verb hwh (be/become) occur i the Hebrew causative stem hiphil or the Aramaic causative stem aphel/haphel. So, even if hwh — coming from hwy — was a Hebrew verb in the Hebrew Bible, and the tetragram came from it, the pronunciation yahweh would not be possible. Moreover, the four letters of the divine name would then be yhwy and not yhwh. To claim that yhwh comes from the verb hwh, therfore, is an anachronism, because hwh is a younger form of hwy.9 The conclusion is that yhwh could not have come from a verb hwh, that either did not exist in the oldest form of Hebrew, or if it existed, would originally have had yod as the last radical. So, we cannot say that the divine name is derived from any other word, but we can say that it probably from the beginning had the three consonants yhw and a vowel expressed by the consonant he.

Exodus 3:14 suggests that the divine name does not come from hwh

The words h¡RyVh`Ra r?RvSa h™RyVh`Ra (ehyæ asher ehyæ) in Exodus 3:14 can be translated, "I will be what I will be." These words show that God has a purpose that he will fullfill. This means that the words tell something, or give a characteristic, of God. We note that the verb hyh, which is the normal Hebrew verb for be/become, is used. It would be strange if God used hyh to describe himself, and then used another verb, hwh, as a basis for his personal name. Moeover, when God describes himself in Exodus 3:14. he uses 1 person. It would have been strange if he in his personal name used 3 person. In his book dealing with the divine name, Parke-Taylor refers to a number of different explanations of the origin of the divine name.10 All these are highly speculative and lack any foundation. The same is true with the view that yhwh comes from the verb hwh; no evidence in favor of this exists! But evidence against it do exist.

So far we have seen what the origin and pronunciation of the divine name is not. Let us now try to find clues as to what it is.

Can the phonological rules of the Masoretes be used when we look for pronunciation clues?

The clues we have regarding the pronunciation of the divine name are primarily based on the orthography of the Hebrew Bible and the phonological rules of the Masoretes. But, can we trust this orthography and phonological rules, or will the use of them in connection with the divine name be anachronistic? The vowel points were invented after 500 CE, and the question is whether the phonological rules and the pronunciation of the words are older. The manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls give an answer. They abound with plene vowels, that is, consonants used as vowels, and when we compare these plene written vowels with the Masoretic text, we see that the plene
9 A scholar who basically endorses the points discussed above is R. L. Harris. "The Pronunciation of the Tetragram," in J. H. Skilton ed, The Law and the Prophets Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1974, pp. 214-224. 
10 G. H. Parke-Taylor. Yahweh:The Divine Name of the Bible. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Lauries University Press. 1975, pp. 18-62.
vowels confirm the phonological rules of the Masoretes.11 Thus, this orthography and these rules are about the same as the orthography and rules in the two last centuries BCE.

There is even older evidence that has a bearing on the pronunciation of names, so we can argue that the Masoretic orthography and phonological rules are older than the DSS. F. I. Anderson and A. D. Forbes studied the spelling of words in the Hebrew Bible. Regarding the Masoretes they concluded:12 "It can be inferred that the tradition of spelling in Masoretic texts comes from the period during which the Hebrew Bible was taking final shape, that is, between 600 and 300 BCE. Since, however, its spelling is noticably more advanced than that of the lastest pre-exilic inscriptions (early decades of the sixth century) and noticably more conservative than the earliest manuscripts (second century BCE), this inteval may be narrowed to 550-350 BCE or more particularly to the Persian period."

Our conclusion must be that on the basis of the data we have, we have a good basis for claiming that the text of the Hebrew Scriptures and the phonological rules of the Masoretes can give us some clues as to how the divine name was pronounced in the first and second part of the first millennium BCE.

How different theophoric elements are used in proper names

Different divine names are included in proper names in the Hebrew Bible. When such names are used, we see that the theophoric element closely resembles the name of the god. For example, in Judges 6:32 we find ye-ru-ba-'al where ba'al is written as when the name stands alone. In Ruth 1:2 we find the name 'e-li-me-lekh where both 'el and melekh are written as when they stand alone. In 1 Kings 1:8 we find the name 'a-do-ni-ya-hu where 'adon is written as when it stands alone. In 2 Samuel 8:3 we find the name ha-dad-'æ-zær where hadad is written as when it stands alone. The pattern is that when the name of a god is a part of a proper name, it is written and pronounced as the name is written and pronounced when it stands alone. There are no reasons to believe that the name of God was pronounced in one way and written in another way when the name was a part of a proper name; we have all reasons to expect that God's name would be treated in the same way as other divine names.

The first syllables of theophoric names

In the theophoric names, such as N%DtÎnwøh?y (ye-ho-na-tan), and MyóîqÎywøh?y (ye-ho-ya-kim), the theophoric element is at the beginning, and this element is ye-ho. The vowel o is written plene, with the consonant waw. This shows that this vowel sound is independent of the phonological rules of the Masoretes, because the consonant used for this plene writing (here waw) cannot change. But what about the short e (shewa) in the first syllable? The vowels beneath the three radicals (consonants) of a word may change. This change is dependent of the number of syllables in the word, whether a syllable is open (consonant-vowel) or closed (consonant-vowel-consonant), and on which syllable the stress is. In a word with several syllables, the stress is not on the first syllable, but in most cases on the last syllable, or on the next last syllable. The name N$DtÎnwâøh?y has three open syllables (ye-ho-na) and one closed syllable (tan), and the stress is on the last syllable. Because the first syllable is far away from the stressed syllable, its vowel must be shewa (short e).
11 See: J. Barr. "Vocalization and the analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translators," Hebräische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum 80 Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner, Vetus Testamentum, Sup. Vol XVI, 1967, pp. 1-11. The short e (shewa) is never written plene in the DSS. 
12 F. I. Anderson and A. D. Forbes, p. 319.
We have already seen that the Masoretic spelling accords with the spelling from 550 BCE onward. Cuneiform tablets which contain the names of Jews that were exiled in Babylon show that the spelling of theophoric names is even older. In these documents we find the forms Ia-a-hu-u-na-ta-nu (Jehonatan), and Ia-hu-na-ta-nu.13 The sign for the syllable hu can also be read ho, and the sign for the syllable ia can also be read ie.14 The opening of the mouth and the place of articulation of vowels in the mouth can be slightly different in different languages, even in dialects of the same language. There are indications in the Masoretic literature that shewa, which is transliterated as e, could lean a little towards the sound a—having a sound between e and a. The first two syllables in the first Akkadian transcription above could be read as ia-hu or ia-ho, and the first two syllables in the second transcription could be read as ia-hu, ie-hu, or ie-ho. The cuneiform writing of the name shows that Jehonatan had two open syllables at the beginning. The phonetic value ho of the second syllable is confirmed, and the ye of the first syllable may also be confirmed. Thus, the cuneiform evidence confirms that theophoric names had two open syllables at the beginning, and that these syllables were ye-ho or something similar. This is also evidence that the Masoretic pointing and phonological rules have a sound foundation.

Could the two syllables ye-ho be based on the prounciation yahwæh?

We have seen above that when different divine names are used as theophoric elements in proper names in the Hebrew Bible, they are written in the same way as when they stand alone. As already mentioned, there is no reason why the name of Israel's God should be treated differently. There is a clear difference between yahwæ and ye-ho, but could there be a relationship based on vowel change?

As mentioned, the vowels of Hebrew words may change, depending of the number of syllables, whether the syllables are open or closed, and where the stress is. In yahwæ, the last æœ represented by the consonant he could fall away (—> yahw); this is particularly the case when the stress is moved to the first syllable. The consonant waw may be used as the vowel o, and the last w of yahw could be taken as this vowel (—> yaho). The a in yaho could be changed to shewa (—> yeho); this is particularly the case when the first syllable is open and does not have the stress. The mentioned changes may occur in different words under different circumstances. However, such changes are based on the phonological rules of Hebrew, and if, for example, it is claimed that yahwæ were changed to ye-ho, one has to point out on the basis of which rules the changes took place. As I will show below, there are no phonological rules that would change yahwæ to ye-ho at the beginning of a proper name. To the contrary, the mentioned possible changes of the different parts of yahwæ with the end result yeho are mutually exclusive. This is so because such changes would require that the stress was moved to different syllables, but the stress can only be on one syllable in each word.15

In order to illustrate the situation, let us look at some names. We start with the short name Yehoram. If yahwæ was the pronunciation of the divine name, and it was the first element of the name, could this name have been written as yahwæ-ram? Yes. the last consonant he of yahwæ could have been elided to avoid the collision of the two cononants he and resh, which would have resulted in an extra syllable, as in
13 R. Zadok The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian periods: according to the Babylonian sources. Studies in the history of the Jewish people and the land of Israel: Monograph series; v. 3. 1979. Haifa: University of Haifa. Akkadian did not have the strict phonological rules as Classical Hebrew has. 
14 R. Labat and F. Malbran-Labat. Manuel d'Epigraphie Akkadienne. 1963. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Guethner S.A., p. 101. 
15 Words with several syllables can have a secondary stress. But here we are talking about the prinary stres.
yahwæharam. In yahwæram the first syllable is closed, the second is open, and the last, which has the stress, is closed. There are no phonological reasons why yah-wæ in this name should be changed to ye-ho. We may use the substantive JKRl¶Rm melekh (king) as an illustration. In Deuteronomy 7:24 we find the form MRhyEkVlAm malkhehæm (your kings). The first syllable is closed, the second is open, and the third, which has the stress, is closed. This is an exact parallel to yah-wæ-ram, and it shows that a closed syllable as the first syllable of a word (mal and yah), and a second open syllable (wæ and khe) do not need to be changed. The situation is exactly the same when a word has four syllables, as in Yehonatan. If yahwæ was the pronunciation of the divine name, this name could have have been written as yah-wæ-na-tan? The first syllable is closed, the second is open, the third is open, and the last syllable, which has the stress, is closed. There are no phonological reasons why yah-wæ in this name should be changed to ye-ho.16 Therefore, the view that the pronunciation of the divine name was yahwæ is contradicted by the evidence. 17

Whereas the form yahwæ has no phonological backing whatsoever, the form yehowa would excellently fit the graphic presentation of theophoric names and the phonological rules of the Masoretes. If the full form of the divine name had been used in connection with na-tan, the result would have been ye-ho-wa-na-tan. This is a long form, and to shorten it, the vowels of the syllables ho and wa could have been elided, with the result that the two consonants y and h remained. Then the consonant w was taken as the vowel o, and the result would have been the syllable ho and the form yehonatan. The name ye-ho-na-tan could also have been viewed as too long, and further abbreviations occurred as in the form N$DtÎnwâøy (yo-na-tan). In this case, the vowel of the first syllable ye and the he in the second syllable were elided. Of the divine name at the beginning of the theophoric name, only yod and waw remained; the waw was taken as a vowel, with the result that only the single syllable, yo remained. The conclusion is that the theophoric element ye-ho comes from the divine name with the pronunciation yehowa where the last syllable is elided.

Theophoric elements in the middle of a name

In most cases the theophoric element occurs at the beginning or at the end of a proper name. But in 1 Chronicles 26:3 there is a name where the theophoric element occurs in the middle. This is the name y™AnyEowøh?yVlRa 'elyeho'enai ('el=toward), (yeho =theophoric element), [are] ('enai=my eyes). When yeho occurs at the beginning of a name, a shewa is required beneath the y (ye), because the first syllable is far away from the syllable that has the stress. When the theophoric element is in the middle of a word, there is no such requirement. Let us compare the name y™AnyEowøh?yVlRa 'elyeho'enai with the name Ao…wävyIlTa 'elishua' (god [is] salvation) in 2 Samuel 5:15. The name 'elishua' is made by the word l?Ea 'el (god) and the word h°Do…wv?y yeshu'a (salvation), whereas the first part of 'elyeho'enai is made by the word lRa (toward) and the theophoric element yeho. The similarity between the first part of the two words is that when l?Ea (god) is put together with h°Do…wv?y, there will be a shewa quiescens
16 The name M(y)qywhy yehoyaqim is found in line 3 of ostracon 31 from Lakish (the end of the 7th century BCE). No one will argue that the divine name was not pronounced at this time, yet the first two syllables in the name evidently is ye-ho. This shows that the theophoric element ye-ho is old. We may also refer to dRb§Rkwøy (yokhæbæd), the mother of Moses, where the theophoric element ye-ho is shortened to yo. This name shows the great age of theophoric names.
 17 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, Vol 6, p. 2011 says that, "the pronunciation of yhwh as Yahweh is a scholarly guess." R.L. Harris. "The Pronunciation of the Tetragram," p. 220 says: "The form Yahwêh is an incorrect hybrid form with an early w and a late -êh."
beneath the l. This means that one shewa mobile, the shewa beneath the y of yeshu'a follows the shewa quiescens beneath the l of 'el. When such a situation happens, the two shewas are changed to the vowel hireq (i). There are hundreds of examples of the change of two shewas to hireq in the Hebrew Bible. But there is no example of a word where 'el is followed by yod and where there are two shewas except in 'elyeho'enai. This change to i occurs in 'elishua' but not in 'elyeho'enai, which may, if the rule was followed, have been written y™AnyEowøhyIlTa 'eliho'enai. Why did the word 'elyeho'enai have a shewa quiescens followed by a shewa mobile? The reason may have been that the first part of the divine name was pronounced yeho, and that those who gave the name and used the name would not change the vowels of this divine element, even though the phonological rules would require that the two shewas were changed to one hireq.18 If the divine name had been yahu with qamets (long a) as the first vowel, the name could have been written as y™AnyEowøhÎyVlRa V'elyaho'enai, which is similar to the pattern of the name oä?dÎyVlRa 'elyada' (2 Samuel 5:16) where ya follows the element 'el. But this is not the case. If the divine name was pronounced as h™RwVhÅy yahwæ, the name could have been written as y™AnyEo™RwVhÅyVlRa 'elyahwæ'enai, which is similar to the pattern of the name ‹aD;bVjÅyVlRa 'elyah?ba19 (2 Samuel 23:32). The conclusion is that whereas the shewa in the syllable ye of yeho at the beginning of a name either can be original or represent a shortened vowel, there is no phonological reason why the shewa in the syllable ye in yeho in the middle of a name, should not be original. So, this is an argument in favor of shewa being the original first vowel of ye-ho and not only a short vowel derived from another vowel

The final syllables of theophoric names

It is often said that in theophoric names, the elements at the beginning are ye-ho, and the element at the end is yah. This is correct, but it is not the whole truth. In Ezra 8:7 we find the name h™DyVo`Av?y (ye-sha'-ya); the last he is a plene writing of the vowel qamets. But in Isaiah 1: 1 we find wh?DyVo`Av?y (ye-sha'-ya-hu). In the long form we find the three consonants of the divine name yhw. So, the three letters yhw are found both when the theophoric element is at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of a name. How can we explain the difference in vocalization—e-o at the beginning and middle versus a-u at the end of a name? And, how would the pronunciation yahwæ and yehova fit the ya-hu at the end of theophoric names?

We may use ye-sha-ya-hu as an example. If the divine name was pronounced yah-wæ, we would first get the form ye-sha-yah-wæ. Because the closed syllable yah would get the stress, it would be transformed into the open syllable ya, with qamets, long aœ. The end would then be -h-wæ, and because of the stress on ya, this ending must be shortened. This could happen in two ways, 1) the h could be elided, and the result would be ya-wæ (ye-sha-ya-wæ), or 2) all the three consonants yhw could be retained, and the w could be taken as the vowel u. The result could then be ya-hu (ye-sha-ya-hu). If the divine name was pronounced ye-ho-wa, the shewa in the first open syllable ye would be changed to qamets, long aœ, because this syllable has the stress. In that case the ending must be shortened, and that could happen by retaining all the three consonants yhw, and the w could be taken as the vowel u. The result could then be ya-hu (ye-sha-ya-hu)
18 The shortened form y§AnyEowøyVlRa 'elyo'enai (Ezra 10:22) does not contradict the arguments above, because the shortening of a word would give different vowels and a different pronunciation compared with the full form of the word. 
19 Even though a h?et follows the yod in 'elyah?ba and a he follows the yod in 'elyahwæ'enai, the pattern is the same, because a patah in a closed syllable follows the shewa quiescens of the lamed in 'el in both instances.
Because of the phonological rules regarding the position of the stress, and the tendency to shorten the endings of long words, both yah-wæ and ye-ho-wa could have been the original theophoric element at the end of theophoric names. But at the beginning and in the middle of theophoric names the original theophoric element could only have been ye-ho-wa and not yah-wæ, because there is no stress at the beginning or in the middle of theophoric names.

The short form yah

The form ;h?ÃŽy (yah) occurs forty-nine times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The form has one syllable which is closed, and such forms usually have a long vowel and not the short vowel shewa. The form probably includes the two first consonants of the divine name, and it occurs almost exclusively in poetic settings. It is perhaps a diminutive form of yhw that expresses the affection of the writer towards God.

The Greek phonemic transcription iaw (iao)

Can there be any connection between the Hebrew letters yhw and the Greek transcription iao? First we note that both have three letters. The Hebrew letters yod he, and waw have no counterparts in Greek, except that a rough breathing at the beginning of a word represents the letter h. Origen transcribed Hebrew words in his Hexapla, and how he did this may illumiate the issue. The Hebrew letter yod can represent the Hebrew vowel hireq (i), and Origen often transcribes yod with iota. The letter waw is in most cases transcribed by Origen as ou (ou/oy), but it is also transcribed by w (long oœ). Origen did not transcribe the Hebrew letter he, but when the Hebrew text had this letter, he only transcribed the vowel that was beneath the he. Hebrew laryngeals have a preference for the a-sound, and the Hebrew vowels that is mostly used beneath he are patah and qamets, both being a-sounds. That may be the reason why alpha was chosen as the middle letter in iao where the Hebrew has he. I suggest the following similarity: yod=iota — he=alpha — waw=omega. If this is correct, the Greek form iao may be viewed as a transcription of the divine name expressed by the three letters yhw.

It is often claimed that Theodoret and other so-called church Fathers used the transcription iabe for the Hebrew divine name. We should note that Theodoret says that the Samaritans pronounced the divine name as iabe, but the Jews pronounced it as aia. Therefore, Theodoret speaks against the pronunciation iabe, as far as the Jews were concerned. One explanation of the form aia, is that the first a represents a prosthetic aleph. There is evidence that an aleph was added at the beginning of many Hebrew words in order to ease their pronunciation. It this explanation is correct, the witness of Theodoret is that the Jews pronounced the divine name as ia, which may be the same as iao, the transcription of the divine name represented by the three consonants yhw.


The linguistic and philological evidence suggest that the divine name consists of the three consonants yhw and one vowel represented by the consonant h. When the divine name is used as a theophoric element in proper names, the consonants yhw occur when the divine element is at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the name. The consonants yhw are found in Soleb in Sudan, in Elephantine in Egypt, and in 332 old Hebrew seals and inscriptions. The Greek form iaw may be a transcription of the three Hebrew consonants yhw.

The evidence do not support the view that the divine name is 3 person singular masculine imperfect hiphil of the verb hwh.
# It can be questioned whether Hebrew had the verb hwh. The four or five supposed Hebrew examples may be Aramaic loans or the letter waw may have been confused with yod, so the verb is hyh.

# The divine name is old, and the older form of hwh was hwy. So if the dinive name is 3 person singular masculine imperfect hiphil, it would have been yhwy and not yhwh.

# If the verb hwh is Aramaic and not Hebrew, and Aramaic has l where Hebrew has y in 3 person singular masculine imperfect. So the younger Aramic form woud have been lhwh, and the older form would have been lhwy.

There is no linguistic or philological evidence supporting the view that the pronunciation of the divine name was yahwæ.

# The æ(h) -ending of lamed he verbs is young, and as mentioned above, the older ending would have been i(h), which does not fit yahwæ(h)

# There is no evidence that the first vowel of the divine name was a, and that this a occurred in the closed syllable yah. This view is based on the guess that the pronunciation of the divine name was yahwæ.

There is evidence that the first two syllables of the divine name was ye-ho and that the last syllable was wa or wæ.

# A great number of theophoric names begins with ye-ho, and there is one example of ye-ho in the middle of a word. There are no phonetic rules that would transform yahwæ to ye-ho in the beginning or middle of a word. But the elision of the last syllable of of ye-ho-wa would give the syllables ye-ho.

# The ending ya-hu in theophoric names could both come from yahwæ and from yehowa.

# If the last he of the tetragram represents a vowel, this vowel was either aœ or æœ. Together with the evidence that the first two syllables were ye-ho, this means that the evidence suggests that the pronunciation of the divine name was either ye-ho-wa or ye-ho-wæ.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point @Queen Ester ^_^


The writing:THE PRONUNCIATION AND MEANING OF THE TETRAGRAM (There was no criticism for you, it was for general information only)9_9

Anyway I had the time to read it, maybe someone else too?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Queen Esther  In post a photo you can include as much text and replies as you want. 

It was the Gallery that is not designed for long articles.

Please don't ever discourage people from discussing topics even if you post them yourself. If you think there is a problem just ask me to take a look.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.  -   But  thats  your  opinion  and  wish,  dear @The Librarian  :)   I  really  know,  more  members  like  it  here  with  NOT  so  much  text,  bec. JW  often  have  not  so  much  time,  running   'post a photo'  >>>>>>>>>    In  other  and  special  topics mostly  more  text,  I  know  that !   Ok.  people  can  post  &  comment  so  long  texts  they  want  here :D  NO  problem !

By  any  difficulties  I  will  come  to  you.  DANKE  -  Agape :x

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By indagator
      I thought about posting this on the recent thread "Early Christians, the New Testament and the Divine Name," partly because of a question someone posed there on the earliest evidence for Jewish disuse of the name. However, the issue merits its own thread. There is a book published a few years ago on the Greek form of the tetragrammaton, iota-alpha-omega (Ιαω), that is on-topic, yet that seems to have escaped the attention of non-scholars, and for that matter, many scholars as well. It's dense reading to be sure, but worth the effort. It's written by one of the scholars who has penned reviews of Robert Wilkinson's monograph on the tetragrammaton, Frank Shaw. Its title is The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of the Iao (the last word in Greek script Ιαω), volume 70 of Peeters Press's series Biblical Exegesis and Theology (Leuven 2014). In fact, Shaw's expertise on the name is no doubt why the editors of Oxford's Journal of Theological Studies asked him to review Wilkinson's book.
      Shaw's point of departure is the finding among the Qumran documents of a LXX manuscript of Leviticus that has Iao for the Hebrew text's Yhwh. What he attempts to do is gather together all known evidence for this Greek form of the name not used in magic or among Gnostics. His findings are surprising to most people who know something about the issue, whether a layperson or a scholar. It seems that this form of the divine name, vocalized as "Ya-ho," was the active pronunciation of the divine name when Jesus and the apostles lived. There is considerable evidence for this, a point that had been briefly made some years earlier in Sean McDonough's book, YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting (Mohr Siebeck 1999). Indeed, Shaw corrects some of McDonough's errors. Among other things addressed is the question of when the name began to be disused by Jews in the BCE period, and how use and non-use coexisted for many centuries until some time into the Christian era when disuse totally won out. Shaw offers a strong rebuttal of some Evangelical scholars, notably Albert Pietersma and Martin Rösel, who continue to contend against the mounting evidence that kyrios was originally used by the LXX's translators instead of a real form of the name. He also brings up a point made at this forum by JW Insider that "a problem with the JW position is that the use of a Hebrew YHWH in the middle of a Greek manuscript is an indication that it was not to be pronou[n]ced." What Shaw proposes is that within the Judaism into which Jesus and the apostles were born, there was diversity among the people regarding using the name. The upper class who provide most of our existing documentation of that society, and who are responsible for the LXX manuscripts that have come down to us that have the Hebrew tetragrammaton amid the Greek text, did not want to vocalize the name for multiple reasons, but the masses, among whom Jesus worked and from whom came the apostles and other disciples of him, freely used the name as Yaho in Aramaic. This then shows up as Iao in the written Greek sources.
      Shaw also calls out NT textual critics for largely ignoring the findings of, and theory of, George Howard regarding the many textual problems of dozens of NT passages where the Father is referred to. This is also one place where he criticizes McDonough who seems again, like Pietersma and Rösel for the LXX, to have represented Evangelicals who want to downplay these NT textual variants. Shaw modifies Howard's notion that the original NT documents likely did not have mainly Yhwh/יהוה in them, but instances of Iao/Ιαω instead. Another noteworthy thing he does is date just when this Greek form of the name began to appear in mystical sources. Scholarship had never before done this, and there have been very sloppy and erroneous assumptions made regarding this matter, including again McDonough. As it turns out, the evidence points to the use of Iao/Ιαω among magicians and mystics dating to the beginning of the second century CE. Shaw even proposes that these types picked up on this form of the name due to the earliest Christians using it in their preaching work. Later Christians then had reason to remove the name from their documents (LXX and NT) because the "pernicious heretics" and magicians were using it with more and more frequency.
      There are many other interesting points in the book, but this post has already gotten longer than I'd planned on. For those who have the stamina to work through it, the book is well worth what you will learn from it.
    • By JW Insider
      I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion. The Amazon link to his book is here:
      The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah
      A subset of that same material is also found here:
      Gerard Gertoux has responded that it would be better to use  https://www.academia.edu/14029315 as it is a free version that all of us can download, and it has no copyright.
      Since this topic comes up now and then, under various topic headings, I hope that some might find it useful to understand the basics of his argument. He assumes a lot of background and expertise that many do not have, but the material is accessible enough so that we can all learn a lot about the topic and even about the related background material at the same time.
      Out of respect for the author's wishes, let's not make extensive quotes from the book or the "areopage.net" link above except where fair use might allow. And even the "academia.edu" content should only be quoted in reasonable portions to the extent that it is needed for discussion. I have also mentioned to the author that I will do my best to keep the topic from devolving into a discussion of the Trinity. I will try to keep the discussion on topic, which also means that it should not become a free-for-all with critiques of the New World Translation or the persons who may have worked on it.
      The topic will not revolve only around Gerard Gertoux's writing, but it's a good place to start. Feel free to bring in evidence from other authors and researchers if it is related to the questions. As a reminder the evidence we discuss should focus especially on the following questions:
      Did Jesus and the apostles and disciples of the first century use the Divine Name? Did they read it aloud when they came to it in the OT Scriptures? Did they include it (and therefore expect it to be used aloud) in the writings of the NT? [And, of course, feel free to use the terms OT and NT as abbreviations for "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" respectively.]
    • By Anna
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      It is to be noted that both Rolf Furuli and Gerard Gertroux are both Jehovah's Witnesses.
    • By Micah Ong
      YAHWEH is NOT a HEBREW NAME. It is ARAMAIC, which is closely related to HEBREW.
      Aramaic replaced ancient Paleo Hebrew and nearly all the existing manuscripts, including the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in the Babylonian Aramaic alphabet.
      These four letters YHWH are Babylonian Aramaic. They are NOT SACRED and they are NOT HOLY. They come from the very root of Babel, confusion, and babble and are profane! According to the Jews who teach about these four letter, the god of this name is a bisexual. He is said to be androgynous (being both male and female). He is said to be androgynous (being both male and female). This god is a devil god. He is NOT the TRUE God of the ISRAELITES.
      Two Catholic monks invented the guess names of JEHOVAH (1270AD) and YAHWEH (about 1725AD). They should not be in any Bible since they did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
      The antichrist Concision (Law keepers, Noahides) who worships the Tetragrammatons’ YHWH, hail the Aramaic alphabet letters of Mystery Babylon to be sacred and holy and the guess names Jehovah and Yahweh derived from them to be the sacred name(s) of God.
    • By Micah Ong
      Thanks for helping me research more.
      (V = U), (UV = W), (I = J), (J SUBSTITUTE for Y), the name YHWH/JHVH was injected into the text of the Old Testament by the Pharisees and others who practiced Babylonian Satanism (the precursor to Cabalism and Talmudism). For those who don’t believe the Talmud is Satanic it proclaims that Christ is in Hell boiling in excrement and semen.
      An agreement was forged between the Jewish Masoretes and the Catholic Church c. 1000 A.D. to change the name of AHAYAH in the Hebrew Old Testament to the pagan name Yahweh/Jehovah via the Tetragrammatons’.
      This explains Rosenthal’s saying, “We are amazed by the Christians’ stupidity in receiving our teachings and propagating them as their own”.
      In Henry Ford’s words. “The Christian cannot read his Bible except through Jewish spectacles, and, therefore, reads it wrong”.
      The demonic disdain for humanity exhibited by the Luciferian Jew, Harold Rosenthal, typifies the end result of a lethal amalgamation: Jewish religious ritual combined with the worship of knowledge and self. The Jews as a people, by rejecting God and/or accepting Jehovah, have been given over “to a reprobate mind…Being filled with all unrighteousness…” (Romans 1:28-31).
      Of course, Mr. Rosenthal was a member of an elite, openly satanic minority among the Jewish people. Everyday Jews do not know that the god of their faith is in fact Satan hiding behind a mystical name. It is of no consequence to Satan whether he is worshipped deliberately or through subtle lies and deceptions. (Genesis 3).
      The wise Solomon ask, “what is [God’s] name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Proverbs 30:4). God’s name is AHAYAH (sometimes transliterated Ehyeh) meaning I AM. This is the name given to Moses along with the law. “And God sad unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you…this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:14-15). “I AM the Lord thy God…thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 32:4-5).
      Originally these four Consonants in(YHWH)represented the four members of the Heavenly Family:
      Y – represented EL the Father
      H – represented Asherah the Mother
      W – represented He the Son
      H – represented the Daughter Anath
      The Jewish name for god is represented by the Tetragrammatons’ (YHWH/YHVH) can be pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah. The significance of God’s name is repeated emphasized throughout the scriptures.
      “Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”
      When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. “Yah” (#H3050) means “god”. “Hovah” (#H1942) translates to “eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness.”
      Jehovah is synonymous with Baal:
      “Baal (#H1180) from ba’al with pron. Suff.; my master; Baali, a symbolical name for Jehovah — Baali.”
      The Jewish encyclopedia (“Adonai and Ba’al”) reveals: “The name Ba’al, apparently an equivalent for Yhwh.”
      Since the days of Jeremiah, the Jews have forgotten their god’s name and replaced it with the title “Baal” or “YHWH/YHVH”: The lying prophets “Which think to cause my people to forget my [God’s] name…as their father have forgotten my name for Baal.” (Jeremiah 23:27).
      YHWH/YHVH and Ba’al both represent the god of sexual perversion and wickedness, Satan.
      However, Jews claim that this name (YHWH/YHVH) is not to be spoken aloud, despite God’s command to declare His name throughout the earth (Exodus 9:16). Why ignore this commandment?
      By reverencing their name of God (YHWH/YHVH) by not speaking it, Jews create an air of mystery and holiness around the name while enhancing the curiosity surrounding its pronunciations and power.
      When curious Jews and non-Jews alike see the “sacred” Tetragrammatons’ being used in occult practice, they are intrigued by the prospective that these sorcerers have harnessed the mystical powers of the name. Wicca, Satanism, Tarot, occult Catholicism, Masonry and Cabalism use their knowledge of the “scared” name of god” as bait to recruit cult members. If the name were not hidden, these cults would lack a critical tool in their recruitment processes.
    • By JW Insider
      How good is the evidence that the Christian Scriptures contained YHWH or some variation of that Divine Name?
      There are probably some non-JWs who believe that there is absolutely no reason at all to even entertain the possibility, and there are probably some JWs who believe manuscripts have already been found with YHWH in the NT.  For most of us, the real answer lies somewhere in between. There is a lot of good research on the issue, and this research might be interesting to some of us, whether or not it is compelling enough for anyone to change their mind.
      A previous discussion on the topic became very long and veered off into other topics, too. Hopefully, this attempt will not result in multiple topics or judgmental attitudes about people, and we can focus on the validity of the research itself.
      If anyone wishes to participate, they should feel free to copy anything they wrote in a previous thread. A topic about YHWH in the NT will likely also include topics about the pronunciation of YHWH, YHWH in the OT (LXX, Masoretic, DSS, and other manuscripts), the earliest NT and OT meanings of "name," historical linguistic trends, Greek abbreviations, NT translations, usage by early "Ante-Nicene Fathers," and the various alternatives to YHWH, and comments made by anyone else that might seem partly relevant or interesting (Philo, Josephus, Ebionites, Talmud, Gnostics, etc.). It's still a big topic.
      The arguments that many find relevant are found in Gerard Gertoux, which can be seen here:
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. He references G. Howard, of course, which might even be a better place to start. (HOWARD, Biblical Archaeology Review Vol IV, No. 1). His ideas can be found online here:
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
    • By Bible Speaks
      According to researchers of the Jewish culture, the human gene would have the signature of the name of God, with the 4 letters of the Tetragrammaton.(Yod) ה (heh) ו (vav) ה (heh), Tetragrammaton .....Hey vau, = 5 = 6, beats = 5;10 + 5 + 6 + 5
      But the TV showed scientific research mixed with Jewish cabal research. These are theories that involve data from scientists mixed with Kabbalah, tradition, Jewish philosophy,,Not trustworthy. Part of the report is serious, but when it moves to Jewish tradition and philosophy, it took the credibility of part of the report,.
      Scientists are questioning the origin of life and show the existence of a higher being. A new line of research, known as intelligent design, believes that the complexity of life and perfection of nature prove the existence of a higher being. At the core of research in science, faith and society, newly opened by one of the largest universities in São Paulo, in partnership with American institutions, scholars discard the creation of the world with a simple chance and analyze genetic codes as a sort of ' signature God '. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

    • By Micah Ong
      Yes our obedience to our almighty heavenly father is definitely an individual thing but why associate with an organisation that holds highly God's name, yet uses a hybrid name "Jehovah" which is made using the Tetragrammaton and then inserting vowel points using the vowels of Adonai?  This was popularised around the 1200's by a Catholic monk Raymundus Martini.
      Imagine God's name was Tony and then every stopped using it and then 1500 years later they forgot his name but knew it had the letters TNY.  They then inserted a,o,i and get the name Tanoyi - a totally different name.
      We know that no vowel points were made known to us and therefore it is a made up name.  The army and over 50 religions use that same name.  If God's name is so holy why just guess what his name is?  
      The Christian Greek scriptures do not even contain the divine name.  Run a search on "Jehovah" in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation on the JW Library app and you will find it comes back with '0' occurrences. 
      Yet the Watchtower takes it upon themselves to take away and add to what was already established in Koine Greek the original.
      We know God's name ie his love, reputation, nature, power, plan ect is what was and is still important.  YHWH was the name he made known to his covenanted people back then.  So it seems that if he wanted that name to be known with the new covenant then he would have made it known all the way down today.
      It is no secret that the New World Translation Translation uses Johannes Greber to back up doctrine in the NWT.                   
      Johannes Greber was a Catholic priest turned spiritist who translated the New Testament with the help of God’s “spirits.” He used his wife, who was a spirit-medium, to channel spirits to help translate difficult verses in the bible. His experiences with spirits and their communications with him are related in his book Communication with the Spirit World, published in 1932.
      Wouldn't he be considered to be apostate!?
      The Word
      A translation by a former Roman Catholic Priest, Johannes Greber, and (1937 edition) renders the second appearance of the word “god” in the sentence as “a god.”
      –  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. , p. 1669
      "Keep testing whether you are in the faith"
      Agape Love
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By ARchiv@L
      hello everyone.
      perhaps you had noticed that screen on the january broadcasting program.

      I searched the internet to find that papyrus, so I like to share the information with all of you.

      can anyone tell us, where is that from the bible ?
      thank you.

      (and for those who like the greek letters),
      can you see those 3 words ?

      [my greetings to all]
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      ¿Y que hiciste del amor que me juraste?
      ¿Y qué has hecho de los besos que te di?
      ¿Y qué excusa puedes darme si fallaste?
      Y mataste la esperanza que hubo en mí
      Y qué ingrato es el destino que me hiere
      Y qué absurda la razon de mi pasión
      Y qué necio es éste amor que no se muere
      Y prefiere perdonarte tu traición
      Y pensar
      Que en mi vida fuiste flama
      Y el caudal de mi gloria fuiste tú
      Y llegué a quererte con el alma
      Y hoy me mata de tristeza tu actitud
      ¿Y a qué debo dime entonces tu abandono?
      ¿Y en qué ruta tu promesa se perdió?
      Y si dices la verdad yo te perdono
      Y te llevo de recuerdo junto a Dios
      Y pensar
      Que en mi vida fuiste flama
      Y el caudal de mi gloria fuiste tú
      Y llegué a quererte con el alma
      Y hoy me mata de tristeza tu actitud
      ¿Y a qué debo dime entonces tu abandono?
      ¿Y en qué ruta tu promesa se perdió?
      Y si dices la verdad yo te perdono
      Y te llevo de recuerdo junto a Dios

    • By The Librarian
      Examining the rules of pronunciation and grammar as it applies to the name יהוה.

      Addendum #1: Another passage that is frequently used in the discussion of the name YHWH is "call upon his name" as can be seen in Psalm 105:1. The Hebrew word translated as "call" is קרא (QRA), which can mean "call," but is the same word meaning "meet." And as discussed in the video, the word "name" can mean "character," so the phrase "call upon his name," can also mean "meet with his character." Also note that the phrase following this in Psalm 105:1 is "make known his deeds among the people." This is a parallel (a common form of Hebrew poetry found throughout Psalms) with "meet with his character," much more so than "call upon his name."

      Addendum #2: DasWORTanDICH called me on my claim that the character of YHWH can be summed up with the word "unity" (Good job DasWORTanDICH) In Zech 14:9, the end of the verse literally reads "and his name/character is one." The Hebrew for "one" more literally means "unit" or "unity." Throughout the Bible we see God working in unity with himself, even when his actions are in opposition to each other. For instance, in Genesis 1 we see God "creating," but in Genesis 6 we see God "destroying." Two opposites, but working together in unity to bring about order. In the desert God is seen as a cloud by day (bringing coolness and shade), but at night a cloud by fire (bringing heat and light). These two manifestations are in opposition to each other, but work together to protect the people.
    • By Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης
      Hi am writing from Greece. i read the bible so many times, both Hebrew and Greek and i cannot find the name Jehovah... just four letters YHWH. How can we be sure that Gods name isnt Yahawaha? i read in wikipedia "The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes"
    • By Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης
      Hi am writing from Greece. i read the bible so many times, both Hebrew and Greek and i cannot find the name Jehovah... just four letters YHWH. How can we be sure that Gods name isnt Yahawaha? i read in wikipedia "The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes"
  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    Total Members
    Most Online
    Newest Member

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.