Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

Name vs. Person

no no no no no nono This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there? (Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.169.184 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean such as God in Judaism and God in Christianity? - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)

I don't think it would be possible to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself). The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Septuagint (LXX) translators?

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

Foreign spellings of "Yahweh" and "Jehovah"

Afrikaans	Jehóva
Arabic	-	Awabakal	Yehóa
Bosnian	Jehova
Bugotu	Jihova
Bulgarian	Йехова
Croatian	Jahve / Jehova
Czech	Jehova / Jahve
Danish	Jahve (/ Jehova)
Dutch	Jahwe(h) / Jehovah
Efik	Jehovah
Ewe (Ʋegbe)	Yehowah
English	Jehovah / Yahweh
Fijian	Jiova
Finnish	Jahve / Jehova
French	Yahvé / Jéhovah
Futuna	Ihovah
Galician	Xeova
German	Jahwe / Jehova
Greek	Iehova / Yiahve Ιεχωβά / Γιαχβέ
Hungarian	Jahve / Jehova
Igbo	Jehova
Indonesian	Yehuwa
Inuktitut	Ayaaya / Ajaaja / YAHYAH
Isoko	eJehova
Italian	Geova / Jahve
Japanese	EHOBA/YAHAWE エホバ / ヤハウェ
Korean	Yeohowa 여호와 / Yahwe 야훼
Latin	Iahveh
Latvian	Jahve
Lithuanian	Jahveh,Jahvė
Mandarin in Traditional Chinese	Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和華/雅威/雅巍
Cantonese	Yewowha 耶和華
Min Dong	Ià-huò-huà 耶和華
Mandarin in Simplified Chinese	Yéhéhuá / Yǎwēi / Yǎwēi 耶和华/雅威/雅巍
Maori	Ihowa
Motu	Iehova
Macedonian	Јахве
Narrinyeri	Jehovah
Nembe	Jihova
Norwegian	Jahve / Jehova
Petats	Jihouva
Polish	Jehowa / Jahwe
Persian	يهوه
Punjabi	yahova / ਯਾਹੋਵਾ
Romanian	Iahve / Iehova
Russian	Иегова / Яхве
Samoan	Ieova
Serbian	Јахве / Jahve / Јехова / Jehova
Sotho	Jehova
Spanish	Yavé Yahveh /Jehová
Swahili	Yehova
Slovak	Jahve,Jehova
Slovenian	Jahve,Jehova
Swedish	Jehova / Jahve
Tagalog	Jehova/Yahweh
Tahitian	Jehovah
Tongan	Jihova
Turkish	Yehova
Venda	Yehova
Xhosa	u Yehova
Yoruba	Jehofah
Zulu	u Jehova

Coin

See [1]. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be waw, but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a dalet to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ?

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.130.150 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with YHWH being the personal name of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this Point of View..YHWH Template:Hebrew is NOT a "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am Template:Hebrew]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .Template:Hebrew…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. Template:Hebrew]…NOT… [YHWH …Template:Hebrew]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ Template:Hebrew ]..and forever [ Template:Hebrew ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …Template:Hebrew] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.

The Question is.. HOW the word [YHWH …Template:Hebrew]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…Template:Hebrew… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …Template:Hebrew]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14  ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am…Template:Hebrew is the personal name of god.

We read in Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty Template:Hebrew, but by my name [YHWH Template:Hebrew] was I not known to them.

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:-

1) Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place Template:Hebrew“ is Proplamatic..Since Abraham himself called the place Template:Hebrew“ … whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide” Template:Hebrew see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice Isaac ..YHWH provide after a Ram been given to him instead.

2 ) All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH Template:Hebrew in Exodus 6:3 say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH Template:Hebrew]..let alone built an [Alter Template:Hebrew] and in the [name Template:Hebrew] of [YHWH Template:Hebrew] as Gen26:15 say.

3) Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH Template:Hebrew] in Exodus 6:3 say that Jacob Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH Template:Hebrew]..let alone Jacob see [YHWH Template:Hebrew] and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc.. and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God……?

This Problems have to be solved .217.44.222.210 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.222.210 (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer. Seeker02421 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

' I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)'

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see Parmenides), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—The Jewish Encyclopedia.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—The Catholic Encyclopaedia.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—King James Version Study Bible.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—The New Bible Commentary.

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—New Nave’s Topical Bible.

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

--Vassilis78 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time, [...] and tell them, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, "Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--Vassilis78 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be" etc… אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL , Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

YHWH personal name discussion cont.

Hi vassilis

By saying...."As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a Direct response from God himself to Mosses's Question. And he continued , 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, [What is his name]?' Then what shall I tell them?"

The Ansewer is.....God said to Moses, "I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "Exodus 3:14

This Name ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..'''Further/also ... Exodus 3:15 God "further"'' said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc'.

This word [ Further עוד ]means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, "that is the Personal name of the lord",in which God answerd him by saying .. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ " Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that YHWH .יהוה‎ , not I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎..to be the Personal name of GOD for a while ......WE read ..Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice Isaac and received the "Ram" Instead ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14 , …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said .....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—The Anchor Bible Dictionary.... ..The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…....it is in the bible Too..and how many times Word EL , Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...like Abraham. Jonah..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about Plato, the zealous, Protestants, The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia ....The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx 86.147.252.237 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea. The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”. Please read the comments below:

“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.”—New Bible Dictionary.

13 Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?" Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name. Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?"
14-15 God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses. The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite. Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary.

--Vassilis78 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassilis

We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid " biblical text " evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by "exhausting us " with documents "Duck and dive tricks" that leads to Shatter,and diversify the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

[The First Point]

You have said and I quote {Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, [What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]?' Then what shall I tell them?"

God's answer was.....God said to Moses, "I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..'''Further/also ... Exodus 3:15 God "further"'' said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc'.

This word [ Further עוד ]means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, "that is the Personal name of the lord" ,in which God answered him by saying .. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.

[The second Point]

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary ..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }..Answer is..that is absolutely WRONG.

The word Mi מי in Hebrew means “ who”…e.g Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?") e.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew is Not the same as the word “[What.. מַה ]...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be gobbledygooks...Therefore..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ... ..when you ask people's name or about anything's name , you use the word "what", and start the question with the word [What. mah. מַה ] not [who.. מי]..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..or the meaning of his name , ..but his Personal name.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. [What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13'.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you , and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

[The Third point]

You said and I quote {you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

Answer ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor otherwise why don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh) , and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote “On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”.' ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

[scientific community] totally disagree with the "alleged "religious scholars whom keep saying that Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these "alleged religious" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all.

But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by these "alleged scholars" only function as [Building up Confidence ], [only] when they are supported by Literal biblical texts ,and [comply] not clash with the already testable proved Scientific evidences available with us.

In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present , want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too .

[Fourth point]

You have said and I qoute {you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot about Free THINKING and VALIDITY"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to Challenge this point of view by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

[Final point is the Summary ]

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks86.149.105.178 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards,
--Vassilis78 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassilis

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page , but please at least give me my RIGHT as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by " strong Literal biblical texts itself" not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.217.44.81.160 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word mah:

1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites. Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn. That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—Insight on the Scriptures.

I hope this information be helpful.

--Vassilis78 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14 ..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15 means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14 , it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question. We have been in to this discussion before

You said in regard to proverb 30 "The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning". ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for "who Mi מי "is behind all these creation , and What.. מַה " is his name , since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. "Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".  ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear distinction between the word (who mi מי)and the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just discussed before (mi and Mah). 217.44.81.160 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--Vassilis78 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood217.44.81.160 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη;
—Κουκιά σπέρνω...
--Vassilis78 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mr/Mrs 217.44.222.210 / 86.147.252.237 / 86.149.105.178 / 217.44.81.160, if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. -- pvasiliadis  16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr "lord jealous is a free thinker" This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--Vassilis78 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord Jealous is a free thinker,

• Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
• You must keep in mind that according to Wikipedia's rules, "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "to destroy your answers" and "make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood"! -- pvasiliadis  08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this point of view to be in Wikipedia article page, but just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged,and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards Lord Jealous is a free thinker 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the bold text and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--128.221.197.21 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had said it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?. Ferju 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging

First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

There is a discussion going on over at Talk:Jehovah which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include Jehovah, Yahweh and Tetragrammaton. Please express your opinion in the discussion. --Richard 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article missing information on historical origin

Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. Crimsone 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting Tetragrammaton to Yahweh

User:Anthony Appleyard redirected Tetragrammaton here because he has merged all of the content in Tetragrammaton here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having Tetragrammaton redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have Jehovah and Yahweh merged into Tetragrammaton. Among other issues, if there is no Tetragrammaton article, how do we link to Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton?

I don't object to there being separate articles on Jehovah and Yahweh but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the Tetragrammaton, I think we should keep the Tetragrammaton article even if it doesn't discuss Jehovah or Yahweh in much detail.

--Richard 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton is the neutral term, Yahweh and Jehovah are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.213.84.53.62 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain (Yahweh) but to the first redirect target which is this. This is broken. Either YHWH should redirect to Yahweh or it should redirect to Tetragrammaton and there should be a real article at Tetragrammaton. I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option. The current situation is unacceptable.

--Richard 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles. Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --Elonka 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the discussion, see Talk:Jehovah. 213.84.53.62 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --Eliyak T·C 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file Yahweh, which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name Jehovah out onto another file. Before we split off a page Tetragrammaton, we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file Yahweh should be split off into file Tetragrammaton. Anthony Appleyard 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of Yahweh to Tetragrammaton and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under Yahweh. 213.84.53.62 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. Yahweh should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. Tetragrammaton should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under Yahweh belongs under Tetragrammaton, and almost all that should be Yahweh has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. 213.84.53.62 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for User:Anthony Appleyard who did most of the recent work on the Yahweh article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --Richard 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off Yahweh and put into Tetragrammaton. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into content forking again. Anthony Appleyard 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --87.114.151.202 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for the move to Tetragrammaton

• A considerable portion of the intro.
• ==Pronunciation of the Name==
• ==Usage of YHWH==
• Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in Yahweh, I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to Amputechture for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 User:130.13.32.200
  • I have put a hatline on page Yahweh about this other meaning. Anthony Appleyard 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

• (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the discussion page on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

• (1) Tetragrammaton, as an article in its own right, should be restored. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.

There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons: (i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'. (ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!)

So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals. With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--87.114.151.202 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at Tetragrammaton. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc. Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever. But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - JasonAQuest 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.213.84.53.62 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--87.115.6.26 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you pronounce Yahweh?

The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --Vuo 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". Anthony Appleyard 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which used to be the long i. The other vowels we call long vowels are really diphthongs. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite long enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=father ā=pat ě=pet. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?

• USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. Anthony Appleyard 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "narcotic" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. Anthony Appleyard 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that Word Perfect's spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". Anthony Appleyard 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing. One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables. Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. 213.84.53.62 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it Your-way! 68.36.214.143 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.

Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.

Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.14.154 (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European

I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources:[2] [3]) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally Being, synonymous to less literal I Am and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing Proto-Semitic with Proto-Indo-European.

83.19.52.107 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See this LifePiCo 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" Wikinger 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. Wikinger 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".213.84.53.62 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.213.84.53.62 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

question

his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?) If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

Yahweh = I AM????

It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--Vassilis78 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--Vassilis78 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. PiCo 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--Vassilis78 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.

Seeker02421 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

It is interesting that the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "Iαουε."

Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. Iαου"

It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "Iαου" not "Iαουε."

It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαου", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iαουε."

I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.

Seeker02421 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.213.84.53.62 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62.

To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.

It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.

I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".

Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.

Seeker02421 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.213.84.53.62 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.213.84.53.62 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.

User 213.84.53.62

The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.

Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?

Seeker02421 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. 213.84.53.62 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? Calgary 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD's (Articles for Deletion)

Any body interested?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)

SV 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.

So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information. There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--87.115.6.26 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered. The trick is where to put it. If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing. But if so, it would have to be consistent. The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps. The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent. Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus. In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."

Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.Tim (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago. The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that Jehovah, the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God". Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc. So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.84.53.62 (talk) 20:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

User 213.84.53.62

You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.

If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, who is?

If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,

or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],

where does it come from?

Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?

Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",

or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?

I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.

Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"

Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,

before the BDB Lexicon was written.

Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.

Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"

or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".

In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,

as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".

as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"

Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"

Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,

or in an early use of the English spelling "Yahweh"?

Seeker02421 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeker,

Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?

I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. 213.84.53.62 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62 I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text. Seeker02421 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro (2)

Anthony Appleyard, I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times. Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. 213.84.53.62 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62

Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.

While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that the "Moderator approved" title of this article is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!

I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,

which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.

The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.

The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.

However,

Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,

rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.

Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!

Seeker02421 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since "Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton, based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb hawah (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--Vassilis78 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Best leave it at Yahweh. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

The online link reference is inconsistent with the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that so difficult?

My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova) DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater) IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove) SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.27.84 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences

Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic. That's all this page could need. Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence. 77.249.45.145 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Derivation: Jove

It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.248.107 (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.213.84.53.62 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?

Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See: the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 

This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Psalms (KJV)

Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yahweh? No way.

The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses Project

I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.65.90 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image

In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciationYahweh because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form Yahweh". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: יַהְוֶה = "Yahweh".

Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.

The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from יַהְוֶה.

I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from יַהְוֶה, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.

Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.

Seeker02421 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean article up, please...

The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — RaspK FOG (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! Davidamos (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidamos (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Davidamos (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? Davidamos (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. Davidamos (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!

Removal of links

Metatron as the Tetragrammaton < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

195.91.64.52 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image edit warring

Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.

The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH"(The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?

Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.77.53 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against WP:NOR. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on User talk:Teacherbrock, with reference to Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font semear.ttf (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article Proto-Canaanite_alphabet in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת , as I've said before) and what is more speculative... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from JEHOVAH?

In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--Lepton6 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 DoneFixed.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moved from top of page. --Eliyak T·C 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, Eliyak T·C 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish 67.180.39.64 a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence. I see how the land lies. Thankyou. For the record I do not retract my statement. Block me if you wish. Your loss - not mine. --JohnArmagh (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user 67.180.39.64 for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves. And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response. I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --JohnArmagh (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for. They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken. However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time. But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment. IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia. So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous. I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all. But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --JohnArmagh (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it? I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting. You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised? I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous. Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address. Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous. For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout. Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities. Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --JohnArmagh (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack. My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool". On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yahweh is the Name of "God"?

From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".VatoFirme (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation Template:Hebrew might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name. [4]

Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation Template:Hebrew.

This same proposed Hebrew punctuation Template:Hebrew is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905. [5] where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".

Template:Hebrew is preserved in NO extant Hebrew Manuscript.

There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.

By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]

Seeker02421 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.

It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this true?

During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead. This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --86.88.18.236 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yhw in the land of the Shasu

The article History of ancient Israel and Judah notes an Egyptian inscription of Amenhotep III, at the Soleb temple, "Yhw in the land of the Shasu", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? Jheald (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)