/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Yahweh means I am that I am. It is an expression of God's uncreated, unconditioned existence and has been interpreted as such since before Christ even came. Jesus himself used the phrase I Am eight times in the Gospel of John to indicate his divinity. Whatever name God chooses to take for himself is his name, through and through, and both the Israelites and those who came after have recognized the depth of its meaning in scripture and have revered as an expression of God's nature onwards.

Please do not blaspheme it, as blasphemy is the gravest of sins.

>>657046

I'm describing the rough philosophical meaning of the name as sacred tradition holds it; I've read like half a dozen grammatical arrangements of it and picked one at random. Phonetics has nothing to do with the post. Don't act so uncharitably towards others in the future, even little bit like that will have to be accounted for in the end.

Our Father, who art in Heaven

Hallowed be Thy name

>>657046

>Meta—

Discarded.

Tounges is described as "us each hearing in our own language"

As such, the name could be both YHWH and I AM WHO IS. In that God probably doesn't care what language you speak, because he's beyond human words.

It's about meaning. I don't speak Aramaic, so I have no reason to pronounce either version.

>>657048

Ok, maybe I got a little overzealous at the end there. These are grave matters of the faith that are being tampered with.

Like it says in Psalm 9,

And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

>>657023

You dare take the name of the Lord in vain!!!??? Repent heathen!

>>657046

"Jehovah" is literal word salad created by taking the vowels from one nae, "Adonai", and inserting them into YHVH.

As stated by >>657029 and >>657058, the third-person of the statement "I AM" is His proper title. YHVH is not a pagan deity at all, that's an assertion of (((academics))) who wish to discredit the Bible. If anything, Levantine pagans took the name from the Israelites.

In America, there's like a whole subculture of prots larping as jewish messianics. It really caught me off guard the first time I heard some midwestern yokel say Jesus.

>>657104

Why is Yesh ua wordfiltered?

>>657105

That must be some very old word filter. It is here probably because larpers mentioned by you made their way into this board at some point.

>>657101

Hey if you want to take Jewish scroll reading practice into account of how you study God's word, go ahead, but don't pretend you're not. How (((they))) tell you to read things shouldn't be considered legitimate, that's where scholarship slipped up bigtime.

>>657118

"They" would be legitimate Christian Biblical scholars, not Jehovah's Witnesses playing word games.

>>657104

Is there a central location for arguments against these types? I have family that has gotten involved in it and their defence for certain doctrines, such as Saturday worship and kosher eating is to basically say "nuh uh", and then go into a wild ride of navel gazing.

>>657104

Here's an example of this (skip to 10:08). This family might be in some cult, though.

Is there a Bible translation that has all the Hebrew names transliterated or is this guy actually substituting them on the fly? If the latter then that's some next level larping.

Stop resurrecting stupid threads.

This is copypasta. Seen this exact message many times on halfchan pol as well. Ignore please

>>664295

I don't know if there's anything wrong with it per se, but it's certainly bizarre. What would motivate people to adopt such facile judaization? I wonder how far they take it. Do they call King Solomon King Schlomo?

>>657101

Iehovah in latin sounds more like iao than yahweh, and iao is what 1st century hellenistic jews were calling god (hence: iao sabaoath – yhwh of the hosts). in jesus' time period, the name was said as iao, and iehovah is basically iaoah, an accounting for the consonants in yhwh.

>>664304

This.

Besides, the whole argument is fairly moot since >>657101 gets it down pat anyways.

ADONAI

>>664409

>Now let us translate this to Aramaic.

Do you even know what you're talking about? "Scholars" call at least three completely different things by that name, none of which is even comparable to the other. First is the primitive Syriack-Chaldee as found in the OT, second is Mishnaic Hebrew found on the post-NT targums, and third is a dialect they made up out of whole cloth based purely on their conjectures about language that the Jews of that time "couldn't" speak Hebrew, despite what the NT says in Acts. The sayings ascribed to Jesus in the NT is not enough to construct a dialect called "1st century aramaic" and to use the later writers of Talmud (Mishnaic Hebrew) to interpret 1st century languages is to legitimize the false claims of the Talmudists and take all their claims as fact (which the "scholars" do).

You can't confuse any of those languages, with the third one even being an artificial construct which was only made assuming the writers of the Talmud were correct. You also can't confuse Syriack-Chaldee spoken in OT Babylon and in the OT (Daniel etc.), with Classical Syriac which came later or its later descendants, which do not appear anywhere in the Bible.

>So יהוה is not Yahweh, nor it is Jehowah.

Correct, that's the incomplete name with the pronunciation missing. יְהוָה is the form being found in the source text.

>>664448

There appears to have been literary dialects of post-Achaemenid Aramaic similar to Imperial and Biblical Aramaic which were used from Qumran to Babylon.

What were local vernacular dialects though are divided into eastern and western branches which include the languages such as Syriac, Mandaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene and the Aramaic dialects of the Palestine/Judea and Jordan region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Aramaic_language#Imperial_Aramaic

>>657023

>Not realizing when the Hebrews translated YHWH into the Greek they used "Theos", which means "God".

Womp womp

>>664448

>The sayings ascribed to Jesus in the NT is not enough to construct a dialect called "1st century aramaic" .

Huh? Nobody even cares about the sayings ascribed to Jesus. There are enough sources to reconstruct plausibly the general picture of the evolution of Aramaic and its dialects during a period of 3000 years.

>>664696

>There are enough sources to reconstruct plausibly the general picture of the evolution of Aramaic and its dialects during a period of 3000 years.

Show us what sources you have for 1st century from the province of Judea then. Exclude conjectures.

>>657023

Please don't tell me what to do.

>>664713

>Exclude conjectures.

Everything in science is a conjecture. Just a plausible one.

As for sources, you can look at any comparative or historical grammar of the Semitic languages. You won't find anything specific as "Aramaic in 1st century Judea" but this is really unnecessary. If you learn the general principles, then you yourself will be able to deduce the approximate state of Aramaic or of any other Semitic language at any specific year. In case something is unclear, just consult another book.

>>664956

Alright, what if the commonly accepted theory about who spoke what is all derived from sources like the Mishnaic Hebrew written on targums of which many extant sources exist, and if the field is dominated by people with a belief that it must be the same people before that, propped up by others who made the same assumption. I'm saying the people who wrote the targums might be completely different people than people from either 1st century Judea or Galilee. Scholars can't assume on no evidence that the targum writers' claim to be the succession to those people is true, they might be an unrelated people descended from somewhere other than the traditional claim. I've also seen a lot of assumptions regarding who could or could not speak Greek or Hebrew in that time, and its always premised on looking at the same targums. And yet, at the same time, preconditionally ignoring the NT itself for… who knows what reason?

>In case something is unclear, just consult another book.

I have.

>>664964

>Mishnaic Hebrew written on targums of which many extant sources exist, and if the field is dominated by people with a belief that it must be the same people before that, propped up by others who made the same assumption.

You are correct. I've noticed that there are some biases in the research about Hebrew and related fields, especially in the past. But thats why I suggested a book about the Semitic languages in general. I've noticed that researchers who work in the general field of the Semitic linguistics and not specificly on Hebrew are totally diffenent kind of researchers, if I may say. There are some general laws how a language evolves, so sometimes even very small pieces of information (like few words transcribed in Greek or cuneiform) can help you make an educated guess about the state of a language in a particular place and time.