What's the True Name of God?

[Ne'arYah]

Shalom Vic,
Though you didn’t answer the question directly you did give me enough that I could go back and follow your words clearly. I still haven’t had a chance to re-read all of your post for a fifth time (I’m not joking). I think I follow what you’re saying.
So before I begin I would like to state the following based from scripture, as to why I feel this should not be taken as a definite from anyone’s perspective.
1Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city! She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God. Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law. The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant. I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings. Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

So why do I post? Because no good moreh is going to tell you that their way is the right way, much like you adamantly have done on these boards through using the name Yeshua as being acceptable, or Yehovah (if I’m understanding you) to be the correct form. It is literally impossible to be 100% sure of.
Now, what we can do as believers is do our best to figure out what is what, and why some say it Yahweh, Yehovah , Alahiym and others Elohim. With that in mind I will do my best to stick with the Strong’s since it seems to be your source of “go to” information. Then we can work our way backward starting with your last informative post. My last question that was asked to you was could you please explain how you get yah to yeh when using the reference number to strong’s 3050. Your response is the following.

(04-25-2011 07:10 PM)Vic Wrote:  Actually Nearyah, I don't have to prove anything beyond that scholarship, provable facts and Scripture. It is you that has failed to prove anything, other than present an opinion which you expect to be taken as gospel so to speak. Holman Christian Bible is now your proof of paleo hebrew being the actual hebrew aka the actual true scriptures or source for the name? It's based on the same sources as NIV, etc. Nestle Aland, Metzger, Wescott and Hort, etc manuscripts. And that is your research?

Since you asked a question that deserves an answer here it is. No, its not my research I use this bible, a Jewish bible, Aramaic bible, Paleo Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls by Martin Abegg, and Nehima Gordon who is a Kariate Jew an almost associate (not friend) that I’ve spoken with 3 to 4 times, along with some of the sources you mention created by people such as J. Benner. These are only the sources that I think you would be familiar with. In other words this is only the more popular list of names and tools that I feel the average American Western Christian uses (no offense).

Personally, I don’t see why or how this has any burden on the conversation because anyone of us could be wrong on the topic, as I’ve already given you through what Yahuah (God) said through scripture. The following line proceeds with your comments.

Quote: [color=#1E90FF]
I use Strong's, Thayer's, BDB and similar for presentation in the forum or my articles for readers. Higher Truth also sourced the codexes-and gave links to them, dead sea scrolls, B-Hebrew scholars, etc. I would be so bold as to suggest Ginsburg knew quite a bit more than you. Just a feeling I get.

I have a small problem with this, which will become more evident as the conversation goes beyond this post. I guess for now my question with the reference I provided before this post being
(Holman Christian bible)

Are the people you posted some how better? Are they more touched by the spirit, or is it more acceptable, because somehow you said so? Again, this means nothing when it comes down to it we need more. Are you aware that the sources you just mentioned have nothing to do with the original Hebrew in Paleo. I don’t know if you’ve actually read the Dead Sea scrolls but it does not have Yah or Yeh in it at all. The reason for it is because it was not written in the modern day Hebrew.

What does this mean?

I’ll do my best to explain. When Ginsburg tries to back his claims up by saying that his research is supported and it shows the name to be Yeh or whatever. He cannot be telling you the truth in the way “you assume”. What he can tell you is that the same base of the word is there in the Paleo. Meaning that the accuracy that he is referencing is not based on what you’re saying or taking from the Qumran. Another way to put it is like this…His accuracy is not detailed in the sense that it’s based on vowel pointing system by any group - his accuracy is more based on the basic form of words, which is very important. This means that what we are seeing as being accurate is simply the organic form of the word, not vowel pointing. We know this because the original Hebrew (paleo) had no vowel points.

If I’m wrong I’m sure you will correct me.


So this introduces us to why I ask what I did. Your response

Quote:
So the issue is that you don't understand how Yeh became Yah, or Yehovah can be contracted to be Yah, 52 times in the KJV?

Well, as was explained, the Name was being protected by those entrusted with keeping the Scriptures. It was well used in Temple times and by the Jews themselves. If the contracted form of Jehovah was inserted --aside from it may just as easily have been written as such in the originals, but, to some it may have made sense to protect it's wrong use by doing a contraction, just as they contracted some of the theophoric names. The thing is, we still see both versions in the Scriptures, just as we see the contracted and not contracted theophoric names. It's not all been hidden away. No big mystery about it. I personally believe that it was not changed but rather, it is what God intended it to be.

[b]One could easily see that Yehovah could be contracted down to Yah by removing 'ehov'.

Now you want proof that Yah or Jah and Jehovah are interchangeable, and Yah/Jah is the contraction of Jehovah?

Keeping in mind that 3050 is Yah and 3068 is Yehovah
3050 > yhh
יהּ
yâhh transliterated and phonetic spelling yaw

3050 or the contracted form was used 52 times in KJV
only once as Jah > in Psalm 68:4
one time as vehement in Song of Solomon 8:6
the rest -49 times -- it appears to be translated into English as Lord. Of that, only four of those times are found anywhere other than the Psalms. The other times were in Isaiah.

In other words, the Psalms or songs used the contracted Hebrew form for 47 of the 52 times. The use almost appears related to what worked for singing the songs. The Levites of the sons of Kohathites and sons of Korah were given responsibility according to 2 Chronicles 20:19, to sing the songs or hymns of worship and praise of God. David brought in the worship in song, so we can assume, since he wrote a majority of the psalms, it was approved by God. As most would understand, rhythm is necessary in being able to sing something and words, syllables and pauses have to be part of that rhythm. For the contraction to be used mainly in the songs, suggests a plausible reason for it's use.

And please notice that interchangeableness of Jah/Yah the contraction with Jehovah, and notice the various Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Christ in these verses.

I erased the many quotes of Psalms, and more that you gave because they all contain to the above point.

So if you remember I came into this conversation with one question. How did you get to yeh? In Paleo the root of the word is an ahh sound, right?

Well look at what you just told me through strong’s concordance

Quote:Keeping in mind that 3050 is Yah and 3068 is Yehovah
3050 > yhh
יהּ
yâhh transliterated and phonetic spelling yaw

My comprehension tells me that the yah is more sounding like yahh which is what the “B” for Yehovah comes from.

I’m not sure if you agree, but this is starting to press the button on what I’m saying…
Phonetic means spelling a word the way it sounds. So if Strong’s is telling you that the root word for the word is Yah or phonetically spelled yahh, it is literally impossible to leap over and make a Yeh phonetic sound that sounds like Yeh, unless you use something.

At this point I guess it’s a good to mention the fact that Strong’s must have used a vowel pointing system to get to the “ehh” not ‘ahh’ sound. And attached Yah to Yeh. Though words can change or be interchangeable, I find that pretty difficult to do with Paleo because of how it is created through the root word form or sound of the first three letters. I will admit the idea of this seems very possible because we do it in modern times with our language, but our language is not Hebrew, more importantly it is not ancient Hebrew. So then you wrote the following

[/quote]
God >H410
אל
'êl
BDB Definition:
1) god, god-like one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
[/quote]

Again, we’re dealing with root words, and then building from there. But when I was in my ignorance I looked up the term hovah in Strongs because most names in the Paleo spell out something. So starting with the Greek source (Strong’s) I looked “hovah” up.

Strongs # 1943

1942 havvah hav-vaw' from 1933 (in the sense of eagerly coveting and rushing upon; by implication, of falling); desire; also ruin:--calamity, iniquity, mischief, mischievous (thing), naughtiness, naughty, noisome, perverse thing, substance, very wickedness.

1943 hovah ho-vaw' another form for 1942; ruin:--mischief.

We haven’t even gotten to the reason as to why I choose yah and no way shape or form would ever attach “hovah” to his name. This is all coming from a greek source. What do I mean greek source.

Strong’s is only good for the King James Version for starters, which is why most scholars use it. The King James Bible has been the better known issued bible and Sir James made good sense and cents ( get my drift) to create his wording system to assist those who purchased the King James version.

The issue with this is that it was created from the Masoretic text. I’m not one to claim that they did anything because there is evidence outside of them that shows us more use of the name and what it could be, but in reflection of what we are told through Zeph 3:9, it’s still not wise to say we are 100% sure its this way because some idiot said so, which we all are in comparison to Yahuah’s (God) wisdom.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Encylopedia Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia Judaica, Babylonian Talmud, and Flavius Josephus Against Apion, and the Life of Josephus all say that their name is wrong and a fraud. So if Ginsburg claims that the use of the name is now used among all. Why don’t they use it at the Day of Atonement at the wall? Granted this is getting personal and you can’t prove me wrong, but I don’t mind sharing. I have a friend that keeps Yahuah (God’s) feast and he was able to make it back home for the Day of Atonement. He says that the name he heard whispered was Yahweh not Yehovah. I’m not even trying to say you spell it that way, nonetheless, I can see how that phonetic spelling could work based on the 3 letters in the root of the word yah, not yeh.

So looking at the word hovah (Strongs # 1943) does that really sound like we can squeeze salvation out of that, it seems like if we can, than we would be making Yahuah (God) sadistic, but again these are just my opinions? I have more but I’m at work, by no means did I want you to think I was holding out on you.

Purpose of the delayed response

[Moderation note per forum rules, although post left intact. You have an issue with me, Ne'aryah, you take it private. Here's the forum rules, please read them. http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=2 >> http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=228 Thank you. Vic]

For the record I’m asking you politely to tone your tone down with the personal unneeded insults and horrible assumptions. It took me a moment to figure out what a HR is because as I have explained time and time again with many here already ( I hate titles). I’m not sure what faith you are, but as I discussed with Mary and Rose the root of mine is love, it is to be the means that we communicate even to the children or hard-hearted. If you can’t present yourself in that manner than you can continue to make this site what is without the participation of those like myself, which seek understanding through the spirit. I read each of your comments and not one of them failed to have a negative remark. So that is what the Wow was for it was more so toward your hostility and arrogance. The reason why I’ve read your post several times before responding is to make sure my spirit didn’t detect any hidden intent through your words. So I waited till today when I would have time to explain myself fully. So no I’m not telling you how to write, I’m calling out the brotherly love that is suppose to be apart of your walk as a believer not, as a dictator of a computerized site. The decision is up to you considering your response I may not respond at all. So I say to you in advance. Yah Bless you



Shalom!