Talk:Names of God in Judaism

Plurals of majesty:

I changed the word "fact" to "hypothesis" in the statement that plurals of majesty only appear in late Hebrew. They may only have become common in late Hebrew, but they do appear occasionally in biblical Hebrew- i.e. "Behemoth" would mean "animals," but as it is used in the Book of Job, it refers to a single animal of immense size.

Elah

Judging by the sources stated at Elah, that name should be included on this page. I know practically no Hebrew and so cannot judge whether it should be included under El or Elohim, or as a separate section. Please would someone merge the info here. The entry at that page should then be linked to sourced information here, and the refs removed since that is a disambiguation page. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh citation requests

I want to clarify exactly why I have felt it so important to mark two sections of this section as needing citation. In the first instance the article makes the strong claim that "usually" such and such but without any real grounds for saying this. Given the fact that there are some significant theological differences between [religious] traditions [...] over this issue it becomes important for NPOV to be sure of what we are saying and why. In the second instances the very strong statement says that "better renderings might be" without saying who considers them better or why. In the interests of accuracy, good citation and NPOV I have flagged these for editorial action. --Lord Matt (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC) [edited by author to remove irrelevant points --Lord Matt (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)]

*Adonai*

The vowels only respresent the hebrew name of HaShem when read backwards, *as if it were in hebrew* I A O A.

Ih-Ah-Oh-(Omitted - Hebrew is a phonetic language, regardless of how it is spelled/Transliterated in English, the phonetic must remain constant and perpetual, this is the nature of the Pheonician/Hebrew language - cross referrence Sefer Yetzirah)

This should be clarified in the main article.

As the vowel order in the english - Adonai - To not represent the vowels of Adonai, moreover, the Nikkud depicted in the Double Yiddish Yod - which is spoken as Adonai - does not actually translate to *adonai* the word depicted in the article (similar to the man named Adoni-ah (written as Aleph,Dalet,Nun,Yod,Heh,Vav) in I Kings(which is not represented by the Yiddish double yod (with Nikkud - spoken "Adonai").

The name: ADONAI - meaning Lord differs from that represented in text containing the prayers/invocations of HaShem(Heh, Shin-Mem sofit). So this is very confusing as labled in the main article, as Adonai is (Alev, Dalet, Nun, Yod), each of those containing their own Nikkud, and as such the name "Aleph,Dalet,Nun,Yod" bears little resemblence to the actual name of God, other than being attributed by definition "Lord".

When the Adonai referred to that is HaShem (again two words, as stated above, and should be represented to accord as such in English Transliteration for clarities sake as Two seperate words, if not divided by more than a capital letter.) HaShem appropriate when referred to as Adonai, again is represented in Hebrew by the Yiddish Double Yod, with appropriate nikkud for the two vowels (after Yod, and after Waw/Vav - the Heh/Ha in itself is fairly well self evident in prononciation.

This should be clarified by a more one with greater patience and understanding than I.

65.102.21.197 (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Source comparison: prayers used in service, in addition to the Torah, Kethuvim, crossreferenced the spoken/verbally invoked - and that which is read from.

In otherwords the information in the main article is definately misleading, unless one is unawares of context/syntax, In addition the actually Spelling of that which is Spoken.

Peruse carefully writing composition is not my strong suite.

65.102.21.197 (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Post Script/Afterthough/Clarity.

The name mentioned from Kings contains the root "Adonai" (Adoniyah in Kings is not a representation of the name respresented by the (Heh-Shin-Mem Sofit (HaShem), but is a name of the person who is obviously tied to the Ruler/King/Lord (connected with David as well as HaShem, (Aleph-Dalet-Nun-Yod & Hah-Waw (a name of God)) 65.102.21.197 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Transliteration of the Tetragrammaton?

Is is YHVH or YHWH? It appears with both spellings in the first section without discussion of the difference - this should be clarified. Hugetim (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I see the discussion now. I will standardize the use of YHVH throughout the appropriate sections since that seems to be the predominant version. Hugetim (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Biblical Hebrew page lists the relevant letter as 'waw,' so I'm going with W instead of V (which seems to be the modern way to pronounce the letter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugetim (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Original Qere-Kativ as Sh'ma rather than Adonai

I have heard some remarks that the original Qere-Kativ substitution for the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton may have been Sh'ma (in the Aramaic meaning of His Name rather than the usual Hebrew meaning, given that Aramaic was prevalent when the original ban on speaking the Name in public began. This would explain the most common set of vowels in the Aleppo, WLC, and Cairo codices, which are grammatically improper because they lack a vowel for the first hey in the Name. If the original substituted pronunciation were Sh'ma, the vowels agree and the missing vowel is explained. However, all of my sources on this are anecdotal. Is anyone aware of sources which support or refute this view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.25.2 (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Work needed

This article looks like a stomach-churning essay type of writing. As time allows, I'll clean it up, removing no cited facts or significant facts. Please comment here on the talk page with any input or with other issues. Otherwise, what are these talk pages meant to do for us?Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 02:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This article reads like a religious tract, not an objective presentation of data, concepts or issues. Phrases such as the one true God used in "Elah is used to describe both pagan gods and the one true God." need to be restated in ways that don't make them sound so preachy, for example, by italicizing the debatable allegations of oneness and trueness (and removing the capital letter from "God", which doesn't make sense in this phrase, as capitalized "God" is a proper name and [other than in such proselytizing statements] doesn't take the definite article), or by stating it in such a way that it is clear that such a belief/statement is related specifically both to the context from which it was drawn and to the article in which it appears. --76.184.143.178 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I can feel the arguments coming even now. You need to find a better way to restate your ideas: this is an article with a solely religious basis. As I say, I agree with all your points. But I've run into these battles in the past on other articles. We are not likely to win....Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 15:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)