posted 06-25-2000 08:14 PM            

"do your hosts still mutilate children of mixed racial heritage ? (pearl buck's writings)"
         Different country, but children of mixed racial heritage here are definitely second class citizens. My wife and I experience much the same, to some degree, she was born in this country, of the oriental persuasion, and I unfortunately am more of a WASPy Henry Hyde.
"Yah-Shoo'-ah why ? because my favorite bible teacher says it that way. although i think some of his other pronunciations really sound my cognative disonance alarm."
         For me, Yeshua/Y'hoshua because all of the professors/teachers I know with many, many years study in Hebrew and other NE/ANE languages pronounce it that way, as do all the native Hebrew speakers I have ever heard. See the link above to ORT. Unresolved contradictions such as that should make one's cognitive dissonance alarms go off.
"Samarians to the contrary my 'set' is for YHVH while most in this particular group go for YHWH...."
         I lean toward YHWH because it has historical and archaeological support. YHVH appears to come from the eastern European influence.
         Concerning Bullinger's writing and reliability.

Bullinger's Appendix 168 to the Companion Bible.
"For nearly a hundred years 2 after the destruction of Jerusalem there is a complete blank in ecclesiastical history, and a complete silence of Christian speakers and writers 3. So far from the Churches of the present day being the continuation of Apostolic times, "organized religion", as we see it to-day, was the work of a subsequent and quite an independent generation."

http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

         I also read Bullinger's appendix 162, "The Cross and Crucifixion", it too is full of misinformation.

http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app162.html

"Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber.2 And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics3"
         According to Liddell-Scott, throughout the Greek classics the only word for a + shaped cross is stauros.

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek
anastaur-oô, = foreg., Hdt. 3.125, au=Hdt. 6.30, al.; identical with anaskolopizô , au=Hdt. 9.78:--
Pass., Thuc. 1.110, Plat. Gorg. 473c.
II. in Rom. times, affix to a cross, crucify, Plb. 1.11.5, al., Plu.Fab.6, al.
2. crucify afresh, Ep.Hebr.6.6.
anastaur-ôsis, eôs, hê, crucifixion, X.Eph.4.2.

stauros, ho, upright pale or stake, staurous ektos elasse diamperes entha kai entha puknous kai thameas Hom. Od. 14.11, cf. Hom. Il. 24.453, Thuc. 4.90, Xen. Anab. 5.2.21; of piles driven in to serve as a foundation, Hdt. 5.16, Thuc. 7.25.
II. cross, as the instrument of crucifixion, D.S.2.18, Ev.Matt.27.40, Plu.2.554a; epi ton s. apagesthai Luc.Peregr.34; s. lambanein, arai, bastazein, metaph. of voluntary suffering, Ev.Matt.10.38, Ev.Luc.9.23, au=Ev.Luc. 14.27: its form was represented by the Greek letter T, Luc.Jud.Voc.12.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/lexica.html http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?

         Here is Bullinger's so-called quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica, in the same appendix.
"In the Egyptian churches the cross was a pagan symbol of life, borrowed by the Christians, and interpreted in the pagan manner. See the Encycl. Brit., 11th (Camb.) ed., volume 14, page 273."
         And here is what the real Encyclopedia Brittanica says. If the EB had sources/documentation in 1910 which showed the cross was "a pagan symbol of life, interpreted in the pagan manner" How is that 90 years later the function of crosses "is not always clear.", and no mention of either "pagan symbol of life" or "interpreted in the pagan manner."?

Cross
Cross forms were used as symbols, religious or otherwise, long before the Christian Era, but it is not always clear whether they were simply marks of identification or possession or were significant for belief and worship. Two pre-Christian cross forms have had some vogue in Christian usage. The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol of life--the ankh, a tau cross surmounted by a loop and known as crux ansata--was adopted and extensively used on Coptic Christian monuments. The Swastika called crux gammata, composed of four Greek capitals of the letter gamma, is marked on many early Christian tombs as a veiled symbol of the cross.
Before the time of the emperor Constantine in the 4th century, Christians were extremely reticent about portraying the cross because too open a display of it might expose them to ridicule or danger. After Constantine converted to Christianity, he abolished crucifixion as a death penalty and promoted, as symbols of the Christian faith, both the cross and the chi-rho monogram of the name of Christ.

         And this Bullinger is one of the guys you recognize as a Biblical authority.
         Some pertinent information regarding regaling one with Greek grammarians, i.e. Koine vs. Classical Greek, from Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Koine
The fairly uniform spoken Greek that gradually replaced the local dialects after the breakdown of old political barriers and the establishment of Alexander's empire in the 4th century BC is known as the Koine (he koine dialektos 'the common language'), or "Hellenistic Greek." Attic, . . . as the medium of communication throughout the new urban centres of Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, it absorbed numerous non-Attic elements and underwent some degree of grammatical simplification. . . Other sources of information for the Koine are the translation of the Septuagint made in the 3rd century BC for the use of the Hellenized Jewish community of Alexandria, the New Testament,. . .As the everyday colloquial language of urban Egypt, it may be studied in papyri going back to the 4th century BC. . .

The Koine replaced the Attic tt with the ss characteristic of Ionic and other dialects (e.g., glossa for glotta 'tongue') at an early date, but its main phonological characteristic is the gradual simplification of the rich vowel system of Classical Greek.

This gradual divergence from the language of Plato and Demosthenes was viewed as a species of linguistic decadence by an influential school known as the Atticists, who unceasingly castigated the use of Koine forms by writers. It was thus that the rift developed between the everyday spoken language and an archaizing, specifically written language. It became fashionable to publish manuals of "good usage" in which the Attic equivalents of Koine innovations were recommended as models for the student's imitation.

         It would appear from reliable sources that grammarians can know all necessary information, vocabulary, grammar, etc., about Koine Greek and its similarities/differences with Attic. This information does not, unfortunately, fit the presuppositions of some people.

Zaqunra'ahyahuw
Lo'Qor 'Azar Yadah

[This message has been edited by OldShepherd (edited 06-26-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 06-27-2000 03:57 PM            

ASV Amer Std…Psalms 105:1 Oh give thanks unto Jehovah (Yahveh), call upon his name;[b/] Make known among the peoples his doings. 2 Sing unto him, sing praises unto him; Talk ye of all his marvelous works. 3 Glory ye in his holy name: Let the heart of them rejoice that seek Jehovah (Yahveh). 4 Seek ye Jehovah (Yahveh) and his strength; Seek his face evermore.

8 [b]I am Jehovah (Yahveh), that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

[This message has been edited by Follower, Sar Shalom (edited 06-27-2000).]

posted 06-27-2000 05:34 PM         

yod-shin-ayin is the root from which the feminine noun "yeshuah", yod-shin-vav-ayin-hei is derived. "yeshuah" means salvation frequently with a spiritual sense. "Yeshua" is generally understood to be a masculine name related to "yeshuah". There is also a masculine noun "yesha", yod-shin-ayin that means deliverance, rescue, salvation, and victory. The idea here is more of physical well being, but the distinction is not clearcut. Since Aharon indicates that he does not follow the traditional vowels, quote

"The confusion regarding the name is due to the man-made Masoretic Vowel Marks [VM], which came into existence in the 6th century AD. We don’t always rely on these marks, for when you search, with the aid of Yah’s Spirit, you will know the truth."

I am assuming that "Yasha" is his rendering of "yesha", but that's just a guess.

With regard it "Yah", yod-hei, the term appears much less frequently than yod-hei-vav-hei. "Yah" seems to be essentially a poetic form and a combining form found at the end of names.

The word translated "I AM" is the word "ehyeh", alef-hei-yod-hei. it is the 1st person, singular (Qal) imperfect of "hayah", hei-yod-hei. Biblical Hebrew does not have tenses in the modern English sense of the word, but aspects. The imperfect describes incomplete action. It describes action from an internal aspect without regard to beginning or end.

I have looked at Aharon's site and noted numerous mistakes with regard to Hebrew grammar. Since he generally makes no effort to justify his variation from conventional sources I would give little weigh to his statements about Hebrew, but that is just my opinion.

I hope this is of help.

B'rakhot b'shem Yeshua haMashiakh

posted 06-27-2000 06:54 PM         

>>I write: You are correct, Yahshua is not actually correct, the "waw" (oo/u sound) is missing. "oo" as in the word "two" and "u" as in the word "True."

posted 06-27-2000 11:12 PM         

Shalom Tishri,
Thanks for your thoughts and information in regards to The Sons Name.
I see that you belive The Name to be YAHUSHUA as you stated and I see what you meen in regards to The Name YAHUSHUA, That This Name Proclaims That "YHWH Is Salvation."

It looks right as it holds The Fathers Name and has YHW in it as The form YAHU.
However If I was to write this Name YAHUSHUA and also put next to it Y`HOSHUA, and hand this to a hebrew speaking person lets say a Teacher of The Hebrew language and ask them which is correct in spelling and prenounciation (I think the word I`m looking for is Translateral), I think(emphasis I Think) that he would say Y`HOSHUA is the correct spelling not YAHUSHUA due to The Hebrew grammar in regards to the prefix and suffix.

here is also a quote by ThePhysicist "The names "Yahushua" or "Yahoshua" can be supported by the consonantal text although the vowels are not traditional. I can only try to make this philosophical point that Hebrew is a language that is much different from English."
also
"Now there is no "hei" between the "yod" and "shin" so there is no source of the "h" sound. That leaves us with the choice of "Y'hoshua" or "Yeshua". "Yeshua" is the later Hebrew and Aramaic form.
also
As far as I know, anyone who can read Hebrew script and has access to a pointed Hebrew Tanakh will tell you that the written Hebrew "says", Y'hoshua or Yeshua, respectively
also
If one tries to pronounce "Yahoshua" as one word with the accent on "shu" the sound is going to come out as "Y'hoshua". I believe that the Hebrew vowel pointings are meant to be instructions on how to pronounce the language, rather that lessons in the etymology of the words. Thus, the first two syllables of "Y'hoshua" are derived from "Yahu", but because of the natural way words are pronounced they come out as "Y'ho".
unquote

________________________________________________________________________
also The following quotes are interesting ,the whole topic can be seen at ...
http://www.askme.com/SearchResults.asp?pm=va&query=The+What+does+Yeshua+mean+in+Hebrew%3F&cid=0&QA=on&image1.x=60&AnswerRating=3&AvgNumDaysToAnswerLessThan=&image1.y=13&AnswersNewe rThan=&XpertRating=&NumUnansweredLessThan=&prev=QA+&vid=1186028

here are a few quotes from the above syte
quote
Yashua is wrong because in hebrew the alphabet is only consonants. The vowels are vocalized orally and are not written thus Yeshua or Yahua would both be spelled the same.

Yud, Shin, Vav, Ayin, Hay. The difference would be a vowel sound under the Yud, we use oral vowels that are printed for clarity under letters as dots and dashes. An AH sound is a Patach dash and a soft Eh sound would be
a sheva two dots one above the other.
The word Yeshuah is allows voalized with a Sheva, and never with a Patach or even a Kamatz (a dash with a dot attached in the middle making an Oh or aoh sound) there fore from all the printed Concordances of the word salvatation it must be Yeshuah and not Yashuah. If it should be Joshua then it is Ye-ho-shu-ah altogether.
also
Jesus is an anglicized Greek or Latin name. We have no real idea what the Henrew was.

1.If it was Jesus=then it would be pronounced YESHU. As the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin was censored it recorded such a name and indivual. Many jewish scholars believe however that this is not a name at all. But an acronym which is common in Hebrew and Talmudic writing. This acronym stood for Y'mach Shmo, Ve Zichro. May his name be blotted out. A curse bestowed upon evil people. So this person's name would not be known. So we can safely eliminate that prononciation.

2. If it was Joshua, It would be pronounced Yehoshua in Hebrew.

3. If it was the name salvation a word in hebrew it would pronounced Yeshua. Not Yashua. Yashua would be incorrect because the hebrew vowel vocalization in all texts is Yeshua means salvation.
unquote
________________________________________________________________________

This is an iteresting syte as well in regards to The Messiahs Name
you can find the following writtings at..... http://www.askme.com/SearchResults.asp?pm=va&query=The+What+does+Yeshua+mean+in+Hebrew%3F&cid=0&QA=on&image1.x=60&AnswerRating=3&AvgNumDaysToAnswerLessThan=&image1.y=13&AnswersNewe rThan=&XpertRating=&NumUnansweredLessThan=&prev=QA+&vid=1193479

The form 'Yahshua`' is a later back-formation. I can find no evidence to support 'Yah-' as a prefix; in a suffix, but never a prefix.

This isn't really a question of grammar, but of usage. The particles of the Divine Name that are used in personal names are not grammatical entities. There has to be support for the form 'Yahshua`' in a significant use of 'Yah-' prefixes, and there is none. The witnesses to the fact that 'Yeshua` is the correct Hebrew/Aramaic form of Jesus' name are: the New Testament, the Septuagint, accepted usage of particles of the Divine Name, and the well-documented effect of spoken Aramaic on written Hebrew.

The main thing that strikes me about 'Yahshua`' is that it looks as if someone has taken a guess. It is probably influenced by 'Halleluyah' &c. The fact is that 'Yah-' is never (there are a few odd exceptions, but they are almost certainly mistakes) used as a prefix. '-Yah', the suffix is fine and well attested. The Classical Hebrew prefix of the Divine Name is either 'Yeho-' (vowels are shewa and waw), or 'Yo-' (vowel with waw). Under Aramaic influence there is a major vowel-shift, and the prefix becomes 'Ye-'.

This is backed up by documentary evidence from Greek transliterations from Hebrew (often the best guide to how Hebrew was pronounced). The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) transliterated the Classical Hebrew name 'Yehoshua`' as 'iEsous'. It is obvious that this transliteration represents the contemporary pronounciation of the scholars, rather than the Classical pronounciation. The same transliteration is used in the New Testament. 'Yehoshua`' and 'Yeshua`' are the same name, the latter is the pronunciation used by the LXX scholars, and NT writers. Written Hebrew would have remained as 'YHWShW`' - hence the Tiberian pointing.

The particles of the Divine Name are traditional, and not grammatical, in construction. Because the four letters also double as vowels there is considerable flexibility. Before the use of Tiberian pointing, 'he' represented a long vowel (a/o) only in the final position, in other positions it is a full consonant. The spelling 'Yahshua`' from 'YHShW`'/'YShW`' makes the 'he' a vowel - the correct pronunciation is 'Yehoshua`' or 'Yeshua`'.
Vowels in all Semitic languages are flexible - there are only really three of them! Vowels are adapted to fit the contours of consonantal shape of a word. 'Yahshua`' does not fit, has no historic basis, and is probably built on the misapprehension that 'Yah-' is always the preferred particle of the Divine Name.

I feel I'm just talking around in circles here, but do you see that no case can be made against 'Yeshua`' as the name of Jesus - spelling 'YShW`'.
Feel free to tell me some of your plans for the website (garzo@madasafish.com).
unquote
_______________________________________________________________________

The correct spelling seems to come down to the prefix and suffix in regards to Hebrew to English Grammar I have seen this stated esp in regards as to why YAHSHUA is incorrect, although in regards to YAHUSHUA I gather it would be the same.

as I see it If I proclaim The Name Y`HOSHUA which is commonly spelt YEHOSHUA (and even people are named YEHOSHUA to this day) then I am proclaming that YHWH Is Salvation.
As correct as YAHUSHUA looks to the eye in regards to the YAHU, does this make it right?
If YAHSHUA was invented in the 1930`s I gather YAHUSHUA would have been also around that same time, I emphasise "gather" !

what looks right and what is right are two differnt issues yet when layed side by side and without a bias outlook on this I think it is easy to destinquish between the two!

YHWH Is Salvation
could it be that YAHUSHUA looks right ?
could it be Y`HOSHUA is right?

Salvation
could it be YAHSHUA looks right ?
could it be YESHUA is right?

Thank you all for your information posted so far,
and look forward to anymore comments and Information in regards To The Messiahs Name

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the Elohim of love and peace shall be with you.
2Corinthians 13:11

posted 06-28-2000 01:24 AM            

OS
Whatever form the Lord's cross was i am sure it was accurately described in a roman field manual (or "field codex"). as described in Psa.22 and again in the Gospels, i see nothing that contradicts (in Scripture) either the 'T' or 'I' or even 'X' forms.
i do know that His Hands and Feet (wrists and Heels) were pierced and that
i am washed clean by The Water and The Blood that from His Wounds did flow.

here be the full context of app.168 the SUBJECT of which is the "Last 12 Verses of Mark's Gospel" and NOT the doctrines and interpretations of "The Fathers".

APPENDIX 168.

168

THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK'S GOSPEL.

Most modern critics are agreed that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not an integral part of his Gospel. They are omitted by T [A] ; not by the Syr. Ap. 94. V. ii. The question is entirely one of evidence. From Ap. 94. V. we have seen that this evidence comes from three sources : (1) manuscripts, (2) versions, and (8) the early Christian writers, known as " theFathers". This evidence has been exhaustively analysed by the late Dean Burgon, whose work is epitomized in Nos. I-III, below.

I. As to MANUSCRIPTS, there are none older than the fourth century, and the oldest two uncial MSS. (B and >», see Ap. 94. V.) are without those twelve verses. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive MSS. which contain the Gospel of Mark) there is not one which leaves out these twelve verses.

II. As to the Versions:—

1. The SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in its various forms: the " Peshitto " (cent. 2), and the " Curetonian Syriac " (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek MS. in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian " (cent. 5) and the " Jerusalem " (cent. 5). See note3 on page 136.

2. The LATIN Versions, JEROME (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses ; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and contains these verses.

3. The GOTHIC Version (A. D. 350) contains them.

4. The EGYPTIAN Versions : the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called " COPTIC " , belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the " THEBAIC " (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the " SAHIDIC " , belonging to cent. 3.

5. The ARMENIAN (cent. 5), the ETHIOPIC (cent. 4-7), and[/b] the GEORGIAN (cent. 6) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

III. The FATHERS. Whatever may be their value (or otherwise) as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual words, or their form, or sequence, their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.

There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.

PAPIAS (about A.D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. iii. 39).

JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45). Irenaeus (A. D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19

(Adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. x.). HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190-227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's

ed., 1858, p. 74). VINCENTIUS (A. D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh

Council of Carthage, held under CYPRIAN. The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes vv. 15, 1C, 17, 18

(Tischendorf's ed., 1853, pp. 243, 351). The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes

vv. 16, 17, 18. EUSEBIUS (A. D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted

by MARINUS from a lost part of his History. APHRAARTES (A. D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted

vv. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869,

i., p. 21).

AMBROSE (A. D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv. 15 (tour times), 16,17,18 (three times), and v. 20 (once).

CHRYSOSTOM (A. D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are " the end of the Gospel".

JEROME (b.331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.

AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches,

NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes v. 20, and CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.

VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A. D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many MSS. which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

IV. We should like to add our own judgment as to the root cause of the doubts which have gathered round these verses.

They contain the promise of the Lord, of which we read the fulfilment in Heb. 2. 4. The testimony of '' them that heard Him " was to be the confirmation of His own teaching when on earth : " God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of pneuma hagion (i.e. spiritual gifts. See Ap. 101. II. 14), according to His own will".

The Acts of the Apostles records the fulfilment of the Lord's promise in Mark 16,17,18; and in the last chapter we find a culminating exhibition of " the Lord's working with them " (vv. 3, 5,8, 9). But already, in 1 Cor. 13.8-13, it was revealed that a time was then approaching when all these spiritual gifts should be " done away ". That time coincided with the close of that dispensation, by the destruction of Jerusalem; when they that heard the Lord could no longer add their confirmation to the Lord's teaching, and there was nothing for God to bear witness to. For nearly a hundred years ] after the destruction of Jerusalem there is a complete blank in ecclesiastical history, and a complete silence of Christian speakers and writers2. So far from the Churches of the present day being the continuation of Apostolic times, "organized religion ", as we see it to-day, was the work of a subsequent and quite an independent generation.

When later transcribers of the Greek manuscripts came to the last twelve verses of Mark, and saw no trace of such spiritual gifts in existence, they concluded that there must he something doubtful about the genuineness of these verses. Hence, some may have marked them as doubtful, some as spurious, while others omitted them altogether.

A phenomenon of quite an opposite kind is witnessed in the present day.

Some (believers in these twelve verses), earnest in their desire to serve the Lord, but not " rightly dividing the Word of truth" as to the dispensations, look around, and, not seeing these spiritual gifts in operation, determine to have them (!) and are led into all sorts of more than doubtful means in their desire to obtain them. The resulting "confusion" shows that God is "not the author" of such a movement (see 1 Cor. 14.31-33).

1 See Col. 1, opposite. _

2 Except the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve which is supposed to be about the middle of the second century, but which shows how soon the corruption of New Testament "Christianity" had set in.

190

"wherever" you are, any there who really think that an "anschlus" will result in anything but a bath in the blood of Christian Martyrs and murdered babies is to say the least niave; i think,however, that whatever occurs elsewhere, JERUSALEM is the focus.

You mean Bullinger was not infallable ?
seriously, his work with the Hebrew acrosstics of the OT, his "outlining" of each book of the Bible... his book "How to Enjoy The Bible" and his The Two Natures in the Child of God (a Spirit filled treatise on the nature of flesh and the wonderful "amazingness" of Father's Grace).
A full copy is available via the file:
ewbdual.zip
from:
ftp.wordstudy.org or http://www.wordstudy.org/freeb.html )

anyhow...... how's this for pronunciation ?

Isa 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)

or

Matt 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(KJV)

Pronunciation is an outward sign as is physical circumcision... i am positive it is not the way we sound His Name but the inward love with which we give It utterance that "scores the points" with Father.

Acts 2:5-6
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(KJV)

Inner substance out weighs outter form.

In Jesus Precious Name

philip

posted 06-28-2000 12:16 PM         

The following site is the best site that I have found on the internet for Biblical Hebrew:

www.bible101.org/hebrew/home.html

It is actually a set of class notes to accompany Kelly's book and as such is short on examples and exercises. It does have a quiz for each chapter. This is a way to learn REAL (as it is actually written and understood!) Biblical Hebrew for free. Although following the links from this site reveals a denominational connection, that has had no influence on the material taught. That's intellectually honest and very refreshing! Also, the site is complete (all 31 chapters), i.e. not UNDER CONSTRUCTION, but it is updated frequently.

I recommend this site to anyone who SERIOUSLY wishes to begin a study of Biblical Hebrew.

B'rakhot

ThePhysicist

posted 06-28-2000 07:35 PM         

Shalom ThePhysicist,
Thanks for the url (Biblia Hebraica) I have not long been using this syte myself it seems to be one the best sytes Ive comeacross in regards to learning The Hebrew Language on the net.
another favourite of mine is at.....
http://www.homestead.com/learnhebrew/Alephbet.html

here are a few more sytes In regards to learning The Hebrew language for anyone that is interested.....
http://www.reslight.addr.com/biblehebrew.html http://hebrew.about.com/homework/hebrew/library/blgrammarindex.htm http://www.messengers-of-truth.org/Dictionary.htm http://www.mkmm.com/Yesh/page02h.htm http://www.netwaysglobal.com/hebrew/intro.html#variations http://www.nyu.edu/acf/multilingual/hebrew/helearn.html http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html http://www.nd.edu/~gtu/resource/foreign_lang/hebrew_aids.html http://bible.ort.org/bible/index/inx_tora.htm

also Old English..... http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/courses/handouts/oealpha.html

also The Hebrew Names and The 12 Tribes..... http://www.messengers-of-truth.org/Alphabet/Names_n_Tribes.htm

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing". 1Corinthians 13:2

posted 06-29-2000 04:50 PM         

Shalom baYHWH,

Someone sent me a post, and I was asked to reply to it. I hope this
information is helpful; please do test it and do not take my word for
granted. As scriptures say, "Test all things" and remember that if we seek
we will find; knock and the door shall be opened, ask and it will be given
to us.

Here are some reasons why Messiah's name is YHWSh' and is properly
pronounced "Yahushu'a" :

. Messiah's earthly name was YHWSh' [Yod-He'-Waw-Shin-'Ayin]. Just a few of
the many facts to validate this are:
1.) The Toledoth Yeshu says Messiah's name was changed from YHWSh' to
YShW (an acronym meaning, "May his name and memory be blotted out)
2.) The Shem Tob Hebrew Mathithiyahu text bears evidence of a name
change in Matt 1:21,25.
3.) Messiah's name in the Greek (Iesous) NT is the same name used of
Joshua (Yahushua) ben-Nun in the NT. The nomina sacra used for Messiah is
used also for Joshua in the texts in which he is mentioned (Heb 4:8 and Acts
7:45).
4.) The nomina sacra used for Messiah (often IHS) is applied to
"Joshua" ben-Nun in some LXX copies of HaDebarim (Deuteronomy).
5.) The parallels between ben-Nun (i.e. deliverer of YHWH's people from
the wilderness through the river into the promised land where they are
circumcised and the law is reiterated) with the function of Messiah are
uncanny. Numerous church fathers say they had the same name.
6.) Messiah is a fulfillment of Yahushu'a the High Priest. The prophecy
of Zech 6:11-13 can be applied to Messiah, connecting the name YHWSh' with
the Branch (which was Messiah).

. The trigrammaton (YHW) is pronounced as, "Yahu" with a silent He' (the H
in YHW).
1.) The MT contains -yahu
a.) The He' was originally silent in Hebrew, thus yahu is "Ya-u"
b.) Evidence that YHW is "Ya-u" can be found in the drop of the He
' in Yhwhistic theophoric elements in the northern kingdom (i.e. Yisra'
el/Samaria). Thus names like YHW'L became YW'L and names like 'BYHW became '
BYW (unlike the MT, in archeology the use of -YW at the end of the name is
very prevalent).
c.) we can be sure that Y'ho- at the beginning of names is errant
from other transliterations validating "Yau" (see below) and is the
assimulation of the 'adonay/'elohim vowel points added to the name YHWH (MT
Y'howah / Y'howih).
2.) Ancient cuneiform inscriptions strongly support Yau (Yaukin,
Yauazi, Khazakiau, Yaua, Yaudu, Yaubidi, etc...)
3.) 5th century Aramaic texts from Nippur begin names with "Yahu".
Scholars argue (like Cowley) the He' is silent, thus it would be "Yau" in
Aramaic.
4.) At Ebla is found "Iau".
5.) The Greek retains Iao and Iaou (and the transliterations of YHWH,
like Iaoouee and Iaoue retain an "Yau" sound for the fiurst 3 letters of
YHWH).
6.) The Latin form IAUE for YHWH supports "Yau" for the trigrammaton
YHW.
7.) YHW can not be "Yaho" because Waw did not make the o sound
anciently. He' took this original distinction (it is not uintil after the
exile until we see W used as an "o" marker). Words like Shlomoh and Far'oh
are evidence of this.

. 'Ayin is not a vowel letter. This is evident by:
1.) it is never used as a metres lexionis (vowel letter).
2.) "Gomorrah" is 'Amorah ['MRH] in Hebrew but Gomorrha in Greek. The
name "Omri" is 'amri ['MRY] in Hebrew but Khumri in Akkadian. This it is
clear an 'Ayin originally was pronounced.
3.) Since 'Ayin is not a vowel letter, the contruct -Sh' must be CvCv
or CvC. YHWSh' is twice found as YHWShW' in the MT text of the Hebrew, and
is vowel pointed as -shu'a, thus indicating -Sh' is properly pronounced
"shu-'a". This is validated by the Latin "Iesu" and Greek "Iesous" and the
Aramaic redaction "Yeshu'a" and Hebrew Matthews "YShW[']".

Some points:

YW was originally pronounced "Yau". Most scholars agree with this now. This
is also evident in the fact names in the MT are spelled both ways (i.e.
YWNTN and YHWNTN) for the same person, and in ancient pre-exilic archeology
we find that regardless if a name is spelled YHW or YW they are
transliterated as Yau. Since YH- does not appear at the beginning of names,
but at the end of names it would seem that the influence of local Canaanite
dialects that did not use final vowel markers (i.e. no final vowel letter
was ever used, and many of these languages never used vowel letters period)
may have possible influneced the northern kingdom (where -yh is most
prevalent in archeology), thus -YW should be understood also as Yau. The
fact names are paralleled in the MT (like BNYH and BNYHW) and the fact names
are still transliterated as "Yau" by neighboring nations indicates this is
almost certainly the case. The Baruch seal (the scribe of Yirmiyahu) has,
"Baruchyahu son of Neriyahu" while the MT has "Baruch son of Neriyah".
Whether -YH is a redaction or a phonetic device (like YW) to retain the
pronunciation of Yau, we still must stand by the weight of pre-exilic
evidence that it must have been pronounced "Yau" as was YW.

Those who use Yahshua have no textual support. This is a very sad and
frustrating situation. How can SN teachers so proudly proclaim, "His real
name is Yahshua" when they have yet to muster enough evidence to thoroughly
back this? No where does anyone state Messiah's name is YHSh', and YH- is
not used at the beginning of names (there is a lot of debate surrounding
YHD[H] in archeology, some suggesting it may refer to a border town). But
even the patriarchal name YHWDH is pronounced as Yauda in archeology
(Akkadian, Egyptian). YHW is most certainly pronounced "Yau" and not as
"Yah". The name "Yahshua" came from eager (but misguided) early name users
who did not take into account the entirety of evidence (this is very
reminiscent of Jehovah, which eager, but misguided, scribes "invented" a
word out of nothing due to ignorance). The familiarity of "Yah" among most
believers made it an easy translition to say, "Yah saves" in contrast to the
"awkward" "Yahu saves". There is no president in scriptures for Yah-shua or
in archeology. Much like Jehovah, it is a man made construction and a
tradition of men the sacred name movement has held closely to in the face of
clear evidence that contradicts it. It is hypocritical of the SN movement to
tell people to use the "correct" name of Messiah when it is well known fact
Yahshua has no scholastic merits. The fact is, the use of this form should
be a sign of shame, seeing that we often find ourselves pointing out other's
hypocricy of following traditions of men - when infact the mass majority of
those consisting of the SN movement use "Yahshua". Though the MASS majority
are very sincere in this issue and ignorant of the facts, many "leaders" in
the movement have been "comfortalbe" with the form Yahshua because of its
traditional use and ease of comfort to new believers. And instead of seeking
the issue out they have been content with what "works". Unfortunately, this
is not how YHWH intends "truth" to work.

As for YHWHshua and other forms that incorperate the full name YHWH. No name
ever appears with YHWH at the beginning or end of the name. It is rediculous
to believe that a man would have walked around with the name YHWHshua.
He/his parents would have been killed. His earthly name was never one of
conflict, thus this can be ruled out (ontop of all the evidence that stands
against it). The contention is that Messiah's name supposedly saves, but the
Tanakh is clear the name YHWH saves. The earthly name of Messiah never saved
(for now we not only have more than one name of salvation and scriptures is
clear there is only one, but that also means calling on any name with Yah or
Yahu would also save, which is clearly not the case). Acts 4:7-12 is often
taken out of context. Both prior to this (Acts 2:21) and later (Rom 10:13)
it is confessed that the name YHWH "still" saves. Seeing that YHWH does not
change, and the Tanakh teaches 1.) YHWH is our savior 2.) YHWH is the ONLY
savior 3.) salvation can be found by calling on the name YHWH it would stand
that this still holds true. The often "missing" link is that Messiah has
inherited a new name that is above all other names (Phil 2:9-11; Heb 1:4;
Rev 3:12; see Rom 10:9-13 and 1Cor 12:3 and Phil 2:9-11 for confession of
Messiah as YHWH; also the Tanakh teaches clearly YHWH is the only exalted
name). This is called metonymy (or G'zerah Sheva or equivalence of
expression; scriptures of full of this). The same holds true for immersion,
where we find that Matt 28 and Acts disagree on the "name" of immersion. It
is only "errant" at a superfiscial level; the truth is both accounts are
correct, but stating the same thing in different ways.

I belong to no assembly so I have no bias in this area in relation to
worship and/or influence. Whether his name was Yahushua, Yahshua, Yahoshua,
Yeshua, Y'shua, Y'shu, Yahshuah, Yeshuah, Yasha, YHWHshua, Iesous, Iesu,
Jesus, etc... (Yes, I have seen them all as I have studied this issue quite
indepthly to prove to myself what his name was, as it is an important
question, "What name did YHWH give his son on earth" there is an entire
account in scriptures about this, so it is "kinda" important). I could have
cared less what of the many forms it could have been. What did matter to me
is 1.) I learn his correct name and 2.) I use it.

I know this reply probably has many ears burning and red, especially those
who use Yahshua. I wish I could apologize for being so blunt, but the facts
remain that Yahshua is a man made construction that never existed. Its *lack
of merits* and *glaring faults* have long been pointed out, but the sn
movement has made no movement in this area to rectify this. Unfortunately,
the only thing MORE embaracing to the SN movement having to eventually
state, "While we taught his true name was Yahshua, we were wrong; his name
was not Yahshua but was Yahushua" is the fact they still cling and proudly
teach Yahshua is his "real" name even though they lack evidence to strongly
support this. It has been long challenged for an exhaustive proof that his
name was Yahshua, but out of the many groups that use it none of brought
forth any scholastic or firm evidence to support their claim. More often
than not arguements of justification for the tradition have been presented
instead of firm and hard facts to advocate their practice (we are called to
be ready to testify of our faith at ALL times and to PROVE all things) or
left field statements in hope to confuse the issue even more (instead of
evidence to support their own usage).

I hope this helps. It is doubtful that there will ever be any unity on this
issue in the SN movement - though I do pray someday there is. The fact so
many forms are used with no firm backing shows that most people have not
really tested the issue and unfortunately have not learned to rigorously
test and establish all things. This is scarely because of the calling YHWH
has given each and every single one of us. One of the first contentions any
of us would have with a normal person would be what is his name (as we use
another name other than "Jesus"). If we can not even prove this issue, well,
I guess all would agree we are in a sad state of affairs. Unfortunately,
this issue has gone around and around the table - it seems most people are
comfortable with what they have been taught and leave it at that. Maybe once
I (I have been working on this for a very long time and will eventually have
something forth coming, but am currently working on the name YHWH and its
pronunciation for a friend; www.yahweh.org has a book called, "The Sacred
Name YHWH" by Rick Clover, chpt. 9 being the best work by far on the issue
of pronunciation of the name YHWH though I have uncovered a lot that backs
and adds depths to his arguement for the sound Yah-oo-eh as I have yet to find a single individual who sees
the form "Yahweh" and pronounce it correctly, and that would be the point of
a spelling, I prefer Yahueh/Yahueh or YHWH (YHWH Heb.> reminding us of the sacred letters and the 4 vowel nature of the
name)) or another person releases more firm/documented evidence it will
persued many, we will just have to wait and see. I have discussed this on
numerous forums before many times, and unfortunately it has met with little
to no constructive excitement and often been ignored. While we have a
responsibility to the body, or first and foremost calling is always to
remain true and pure before Abba first and foremost (as the Sh'ma' teaches).
So test the issue, and prove yourself. You must do that first. Only from
there can you hope to persued others. Again, prove all things and seek
YHWH's face on this and all issues.

Shalom baYHWH, and I hope my bluntness has not offended - Joshua

posted 06-30-2000 01:46 AM         

Shalom Tishri
Thankyou for passing on The above information/quote that you recieved of your friend Joshua.

I was wondering since the name Yahshua was first written in the 1930`s I thought Yahushua would have formed around the same time, so I done some digging and this is what I found in regards to The Name "Yahushua"

_____________________________________________________________________________________
~Quote~
: This revelation from authoritative sources was a confirmation of what the Spirit revealed to some of our brethren and sisters many years ago. We realised how we have resisted the guidance of the Ruach ha Qodesh, who revealed the Name Yahushua through a young little sister and her elder brother in 1942, speaking in tongues, here in South Africa. Later the Name Yahueh (Yahuweh) was revealed to another set-apart sister in the same house.
~Unqote~

*Me*
thought You might find the above statement interesting!
the full writting in regards to this statement can be found at http://www.eliyah.com/forum/messages/3416.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

~Quote by Joshua~
3.) Messiah's name in the Greek (Iesous) NT is the same name used of
Joshua (Yahushua) ben-Nun in the NT. The nomina sacra used for Messiah is
used also for Joshua in the texts in which he is mentioned (Heb 4:8 and Acts
7:45).
~unquote~

*Me*
If you where to write in those brackets the Name of Joshua in The hebrew to English form before the 1942 revelation of the name Name Yahushua
wouldn`t it read (Yehoshua)?
________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
~Qote by Joshua~
c.) we can be sure that Y'ho- at the beginning of names is errant
from other transliterations validating "Yau" (see below) and is the
assimulation of the 'adonay/'elohim vowel points added to the name YHWH (MT
Y'howah / Y'howih).
~Unquote~

*Me*
I would like to hear your thoughts on this statement OldShepherd, YHWH willing!
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
~Quote by Joshua~
Those who use Yahshua have no textual support. This is a very sad and
frustrating situation. How can SN teachers so proudly proclaim, "His real
name is Yahshua" when they have yet to muster enough evidence to thoroughly
back this? No where does anyone state Messiah's name is YHSh', and YH- is
not used at the beginning of names (there is a lot of debate surrounding
YHD[H] in archeology, some suggesting it may refer to a border town). But
even the patriarchal name YHWDH is pronounced as Yauda in archeology
(Akkadian, Egyptian). YHW is most certainly pronounced "Yau" and not as
"Yah". The name "Yahshua" came from eager (but misguided) early name users
who did not take into account the entirety of evidence (this is very
reminiscent of Jehovah, which eager, but misguided, scribes "invented" a
word out of nothing due to ignorance). The familiarity of "Yah" among most
believers made it an easy translition to say, "Yah saves" in contrast to the
"awkward" "Yahu saves". There is no president in scriptures for Yah-shua or
in archeology. Much like Jehovah, it is a man made construction and a
tradition of men the sacred name movement has held closely to in the face of
clear evidence that contradicts it. It is hypocritical of the SN movement to
tell people to use the "correct" name of Messiah when it is well known fact
Yahshua has no scholastic merits. The fact is, the use of this form should
be a sign of shame, seeing that we often find ourselves pointing out other's
hypocricy of following traditions of men - when infact the mass majority of
those consisting of the SN movement use "Yahshua". Though the MASS majority
are very sincere in this issue and ignorant of the facts, many "leaders" in
the movement have been "comfortalbe" with the form Yahshua because of its
traditional use and ease of comfort to new believers. And instead of seeking
the issue out they have been content with what "works". Unfortunately, this
is not how YHWH intends "truth" to work.
~Unquote~

*Me*
what are your thoughts on The 1942 statement? http://www.eliyah.com/forum/messages/3416.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________
~Quote by Joshua~
As for YHWHshua and other forms that incorperate the full name YHWH. No name
ever appears with YHWH at the beginning or end of the name. It is rediculous
to believe that a man would have walked around with the name YHWHshua.
He/his parents would have been killed.

*Me*
It reads, YHWSHUA not YHWHSHUA, yes I also see no H after the W in The Name either.
I did think the following Name was YHWH ANAN, but it seems to be YHW HANAN my apologies for the missunderstanding there from a previous poast
.
( YHWH Has Shown Favour/Grace)(YHWH He Is Merciful)
YHW HANAN...http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/960959463.html

~Quote from strongs~
HANAN =02605 Chanan {khaw-nawn'
from 02603;; n pr m

AV - Hanan 12; 12

Canan or Hanan = "he is merciful"

-------------------------------------------------
03076 Y@howchanan {yeh-ho-khaw-nawn'}
from 03068 and 02603;; n pr m

AV - Jehohanan 6, Johanan 3; 9
Jehohanan = "Jehovah has graced"
~Unquote~
________________________________________________________________________

*Me*
If there was a Name for The Son that I was to choose in regards to The look and meanning it would be YAHUSHUA, because to my eye I see YHW as in YAHU and SHUA combined gives us YAHU( short form of YHWH) Shua (Salvation) gives us YHWH Is Salvation, for example The YAHU on the end of the name Eli YAHU, although what gets me is that why would the Hebrew speaking people be wrong, and there teachers, whom when they spell Joshua they spell it as spell it as YEHOSHUA (YHWH Is Salvation) it is even a name some are called to this day. Not a Name made up in the 20th century.
From what I can see so far is that if it wasn`t for The "prefix and suffix" issue one could use The Spelling YAHUSHUA but because of this we cannot, nor do the Hebrew speaking people use YAHUSHUA when they spell the Name Joshua (YEHOSHUA)

Blessings Always,
WAYne

posted 06-30-2000 03:35 AM            

         Since I have been asked for my views. Joshua, in the earlier post, makes a lot of assertions, without any documentation.
"7.) YHW can not be "Yaho" because Waw did not make the o sound anciently. He' took this original distinction (it is not uintil after the exile until we see W used as an "o" marker). Words like Shlomoh and Far'oh are evidence of this."
         Sez who? What are his sources for this statement? I'm sure he didn't live during that era and I'm equally sure he does not have a time machine. Is there some sort of document, scroll, etc. on which he is basing his views?
"YW was originally pronounced "Yau". Most scholars agree with this now."
         Another assertion with no documentation. Which scholars? Which resources? BDB and TWOT do not use this pronunciation. Hebrew speaking groups, such as ORT, (see URL my previous post) certainly don't use this pronunciation.
"the Ruach ha Qodesh, who revealed the Name Yahushua through a young little sister and her elder brother in 1942."
         David Koresh and Jim Jones also claimed to rely on the Holy Spirit.
"c.) we can be sure that Y'ho- at the beginning of names is errant from other transliterations validating "Yau" (see below) and is the assimulation of the 'adonay/'elohim vowel points added to the name YHWH (MT Y'howah / Y'howih)."
         How can we be sure? More assertions and still no documentation.
Isaiah 62:11 Indeed the Lord has proclaimed To the end of the world: "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Surely your Yeshua is coming; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.'"
         At the first of these two URLs is a photograph from a tomb in Jerusalem dated 41 AD with the Hebrew name Yeshua, clearly visible. The second is a companion article relating to inscriptions in Greek "to Iesous who ascended", in the same tomb.

www.securesite.net/ss2ad/past/main92.html www.securesite.net/ss2ad/past/main96.html

         On the "Hebrew Calendar" thread Samo, posted "It seems unlikely that EVERY Jew in EVERY nation would SIMULTANEOUSLY FORGET which day is Shabbat."
        A very perceptive answer. And I wonder if the same reasoning holds true for Hebrew words and names? Since YHWH has reserved faithful believers in every generation, is there any reason to doubt that there has always been a Hebrew speaking remnant, whose works and writings have come down to us. Or is it YHWH's intent that we rely on the highly questionable 1942 "visions" of two children in South Africa, who spoke no Hebrew? Bear in mind the Fatima legend and the Salem witch trials were both results of childish "visions."
1 King 19:18 Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."
Rom 11:4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Zaqunra'ahyahuw
Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia

[This message has been edited by OldShepherd (edited 06-30-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 06-30-2000 04:20 PM         

It seems like this is a subject that will never end!

In order to deal with Joshua's points a whole lot more explanation and supporting documentation needs to be given.

He says things such as: vav was not a mater at an early date. But as a matter of fact we find its use that way in some of the eariest verses in the Torah. Do these occurrences indicate an "updated" spelling?

He also says hei was at one time silent. How does he know? Presently hei is only silent when it is a mater at the end of a word.

He also goes to some lengths to show that ayin is not a mater, but I have never seen a source that says it was. I think it is also known that ayin is not strictly silent, but is a "rough" stop. It is just hard for not native Semitic speakers to get the sound "right".

Well, those are some things that caught my eye. I suppose I could find more if I looked harder. I may be moving in the direction of Philip's "straining at gnats" philosophy. I am satisfied to learn Biblical Hebrew as presented in the standard texts. At least I will be able to talk about the subject with people who have done the same.

B'rakhot

posted 06-30-2000 05:03 PM            

Shalom baYHWH everyone, I do not have a lot of time to muddle through every aspect of this issue right this second (hopefully soon) but I would like to answer Os's questions he did give. I hope this helps to show I am not blowing smoke out my ears.

OS said:
========================
Since I have been asked for my views. Joshua, in the earlier post, makes a lot of assertions, without any documentation.
========================

I am actually writing on pronunciation issues right now, so I don't have a ton of time. I had noted to the person who asked me about this that I did not have a ton of time and will eventually prove all of this fully documented - unfortunately I am working on other things this exact moment. I was not aiming to set out and prove/document every statement, though the points made cuold be substantiated by either asking me or going to a library. Much of it is easily accessible; but I agree we are called to prove all things and give witnesses, so here is some documentation. I hope it suffices to at least establish I am not making up what I say, and is a fair "peace" offering in the meantime until every "stone" can be unturned and examined:

I said:
------------------------
"7.) YHW can not be "Yaho" because Waw did not make the o sound anciently. He' took this original distinction (it is not uintil after the exile until we see W used as an "o" marker). Words like Shlomoh and Far'oh are evidence of this."
------------------------

OS said:
========================
Sez who? What are his sources for this statement? I'm sure he didn't live during that era and I'm equally sure he does not have a time machine. Is there some sort of document, scroll, etc. on which he is basing his views?
========================

DOCUMENTATION:

• Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman "Studies in Ancient Yahwisitc Poetry"
-Both are very reputible scholars who have also written a book on Early Hebrew Orthography.

"The final vowel i was represented by yodh
The final vowel u was represented by waw
The final vowels a, e, o were all represented by he." (p. 22)

"The later phases in the evolution of Hebrew orthography are more complex then the earlier ones. From the exile to the herodian period there was a general increase in the use of internal matres lectiones. With the contraction of unaccented medial diphthongs, yodh and waw (preserved by hisotircal spellings) received the new values ê and ô respectively, the use of waw with this value was extended to the final position, where it gradually replaced he as the sign for ô." (p. 23)

"The final he in par‘ô [Heb. FR‘H] is a vowel letter. He... represented all final vowels except î and û." (p. 40)

• David Noel Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen "Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography"

"The system [matres lectionis; i.e. vowel letters] was briefly as follows:
(a) waw for û
(b) yod for î
(c) he for â
In the final positio, ê and ô were also represented by he. While the case for these equations is reasonable, it has also been claimed that waw uis used for ô aqnd yod for ê. The arguement is ased entirely on the contention that the dipthong aw and ay had been contracted with the retention of the original consonants as vowel letters, i.e., historical spellings. Ultimately, contractions occurred at a different times in different dialects of NW Semitic and there is no unequivocal evidence for it in the early period, apart from Phoenician" (p. 6)

"It is precisely in thwe use or nonuse of waw for ô that MT itself shows the widest variation and instablitiy, in contrast to its almost uniform use of waw for ô and yod for î was imposed by authroity (it was also of long standing), while the use of waw for ô remains more open. 4QSamb bears the impress of the former, but totally lacks the later. 4QSamb thus marks the watershed, and suggests that whereas the changeover from pre-exilic to post-exilic spelling of ô and î was deliberate, systematic, and official, and took place before the third century, the spelling ô with waw remained arbitrary, and did not manifest itself fully until after the thrid century" (p. 210).

• Ernest Klien, "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language"

On p. 189 when discussing the root of W (Wâw) he notes the relation between Wâw and the Akkadian u-

• Anson F. Rainey, Professor of ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics, Tel-Aviv University, written to Bible Archeological Review (BAR Sept/Oct 1994.)

"The theophoric component in Northern Israelite personal names, written -YW on epigraphic texts, was never pronounced -yô! The final W did not come into use as a final marker for a final ô vowel until the post-exilic period".

There is more, but I think this will suffice.

Like I said, the Tanakh contains "older" spellings like:
-Far‘ôh [Heb. FR‘H; Eng. Phaoroh]
-Shlomôh [Heb. ShLMH; Eng. Solomon]
-’Elshethmôh [Heb. ’LShThMH; Eng. Eshtemoh]
-B'rê’ôh [Heb. BR‘H; friends]

To name just a few (I can not find my list right this second, but the fact these very old words contain, what clearly breaks later Hebrew rules, H=o shows that final Hê’ was used for "o" and not Wâw). The fact YHW is found as "Yahu" in archeology AND the fact Wâw did not make the sound "ô" make Yâhô impossible as an original rendering. This is a very documented fact and not my own conjecture. This makes the form "Yahoshua" and "Yehoshua" implausible.

* * * * *

I said:
------------------------
"YW was originally pronounced "Yau". Most scholars agree with this now."
------------------------

OS said:
========================
Another assertion with no documentation. Which scholars? Which resources? BDB and TWOT do not use this pronunciation. Hebrew speaking groups, such as ORT, (see URL my previous post) certainly don't use this pronunciation.
========================

DOCUMENTATION:

First, BDB is almost a hundred years old. While I often use it, per the realms of pronunciation of pre-exilic Hebrew it is of little to no value. It squarely deals with the MT text and Tiberian spellings of the scriptures. One should not expect to find information per this subject there. It would be like looking for information on how to bake chocolate chip cookies in a breakfast cookbook. Yes, they are both foods you cook but they require different sources for the correct information. In the same, while Biblical hebrew and pre-exilic Hebrew are similar, they still require different sources because of the varied nature of these different "animals".

As for Hebrew speaking groups, there is no need to venture there. Samaritan, Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Modern, etc... Hebrew bears very little similarities to pre-exilic Hebrew. They have all altered it via (1) other linguistic influences from other lands and (2) ammended the texts with either vowel points or letters to fascilitate teaching and reading of the texts. They function and act differently than ancient Hebrew, so inquiring of them is of little to no value. It would be equivalent to using 10th cent. CE English to "state" how modern English is pronounced and used. It may be interesting, but ultimately a fruitless endeavor for a firm and accurate conclusion of any type.

I have found numerous scholars following this rendering system for -YW and YW- names (e.g. "Recent Archeological Discoveries and Biblical Research" p. 142 William Dever; "Archeology of the land of the Bible" by Amihai Mazar p. 448; "Ancient Near eastern Texts" p. 321 by James Pritchard). While being accepted by many scholars, the fact (1) in archeology we do NOT find "Yo" or "Ya" until post-exilically, but only find "Yahu" and (2) the Hê’ was originally very soft, if not silent (Rainey and Driver note this, among others) (as in Akkadian, and most likely Aramaic) would indicate that its drop would produce YH(Yâh)W(û) => Y(Yâ)W(û); i.e. Yâhû => Yâû. Same word, same pronucniation. A. H. Sayce in "Higher Criticism" notes on p. 87 "In the cuneiform texts Yeho [YHW], Yô [YW] and Yah [YH] are written Yahu, as for example in the names Jehu (Yahu-a), Jehoahaz (Yahu-khazi) and Hezekiah (Khazaqi-yahu)". Again, this can not be ignored. The fact YW names are found as "Yahu" in transcriptions is a clear evidence YW=Yau. The later derividation of YW (YHW being orignal, adn known to be pronounced as Yahu) would suffice to show the phonetic usage of YW for Yahu, especially if the use of Hê’ changed, is not only likely but the accepted scenario.

The equivalent usage of YHW and YW in the Tanakh AND archeology shows a very close relationship, if not identical pronunciation. Since "Yau" is the only form we find pre-exilically in transcriptiosn (regardless if the name has a "YW") it is safe to assume (based also off the evidence of a more emphasized vocalization of Hê’) that YW = Yau.

• Anson F. Rainey, Professor of ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics, Tel-Aviv University, written to Bible Archeological Review (BAR Sept/Oct 1994.)

"The theophoric component in Northern Israelite personal names, written -YW on epigraphic texts, was never pronounced -yô! The final W did not come into use as a final marker for a final ô vowel until the post-exilic period. In the 8th and 7th centuries when we have these personal names ending in -YW, the W was a consonant and the pronunciation was yaw (or yau). So anyone can see that the difference between northern -yaw and southern -yâhû is not that great, especially since the -h- in the southern form was fairly weak."

As I stated in my first post, we have "Jehoiachin" is found in the Tanakh as YWYKYN, YHWYKN, and YHWYKYN but we known from cuneiform inscriptions to be called not by "Yo-" or "Yeho-" but "Yau-". Amihai Mazar in "Archeology of the Land of the Bible" states that -YW was the norther spelling and -YHW the southern spelling (p. 410, 449) as the data I have collected from "Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions" by G.I. Davies on names with the Yhwhistic theophoric element shows (there are hundreds upon hundreds of names found in archeology). Even when the form YW- was very prosperous (i.e. post-exilically) whe know that at least duriong the 4th and 5th centirues it was still pronounced "Yahu" from the Murashu Arm. texts.

Thus, when I said: "YW was originally pronounced "Yau". Most scholars agree with this now." it was a statement of proven fact (I thought the example of a YW- name pronounced by foriegn people as "Yau" would have sifficed) and it is true many prominent scholars now use this when transliterating pre-exilic Hebrew names with YW. This must be measured as a monumental change, because of the "weight" of the MT vowel points and tradition of "Yo". Scholars usually do not make such a large shift if there was not substantial evidence to confirm it.

* * * * *

I said
------------------------
"c.) we can be sure that Y'ho- at the beginning of names is errant from other transliterations validating "Yau" (see below) and is the assimulation of the 'adonay/'elohim vowel points added to the name YHWH (MT Y'howah / Y'howih)."
------------------------

OS said:
========================
How can we be sure? More assertions and still no documentation.
========================

DOCUMENTATION:

My statement that Y'ho was erronious, backed by the ancient trasnliterations (as shown below on that post) is a point that can not be ignored as an assertaion. As for the vowel point issue:

' = shewa
ô = cholem
â = qamets
î = chireq

We find YHWH alone as Y'howâh ('_o_â) in the MT and as Y'howîh ('_o_î) when found next to 'adonây.

Now, it is a fact Jewish believers, when readining the text, say:

• 'adonây => when they see => Y'howâh
• 'adonây ’elohîm => when they see => 'adonây Y'howîh

Please note:

• 'adonây ('_o_â) is said when Y'howâh ('_o_â) is read.
- the vowel points are the same.
• 'elohîm ('_o_î) is said when Y'howîh ('_o_î) is read.
- the vowel points are the same.

If you need a ton of scholastic references for this I can get them, but they are all over the place. I know people have posted on this issue before.

Now, we know from archeology YHW is pronounced as Yahu. The MT agrees with this at the end of names (i.e. -yâhû; e.g. 'Eliyahu or Yesha`yahu). Ironically, the MT records _Y'ho_ ('_o) at the beginning of names. NOTICE:

• YHWH => ('_o_â) and ('_o_î)
• YHW- => ('_o)

It seems VERY clear that YHW- names are an assimulation of the vowel point glossing of the name YHWH.

Now, we know there has been some tampering with the texts in relation to the name. The errant vowel points is one indication. The 134 changes found in the Massorah (Ginsberg 107:15; I have the massorah and this typed up if anyone wishes to see it) is another big one (plus the 18 emendation of the sophrim). The fact YW is found at the end of names many many times in archeology but NEVER in the Tanakh is a clue of full scale textual manipulation. Names like Ahaz (Yahuachaz), Shbna (Shebnayahu), Baruch (Baruchyahu), Neriyah (Neriyahu) in archeology show to an extent names were not "exempt" from tampering. So, to claim that _Y'ho_ is false vowel pointing is not a stretch or slanderous. The fact is:
(1) it agrees with the vowel pointing of Y'howîh/Y'howâh and
(2) is contradicted by the MT ending of -YHW and archeoligical names with YHW-

It is beyong conclusion that _Y'ho_ is not only a false vowel pointing, but that it is a false vowel pointing related to the false vowel pointing of the name YHWH. Identical vowels is the first key. The fact -YHW names totall disagree is the next. And the fact _Y'ho_ is NOT attested to anciently is a clear indication it is a man made construction.

(Note: somtimes the cholem is dropped in the vowel pointing of the name YHWH in some MSS, and the 'elohîm and 'adonây are technically Hatuf vowels (i.e. shewah with a vowel), but this is following the gramatical rules and are 2 separate discussions altogether).

* * * * *

I hope that answers your questions. My statements were statements of scholastic and textual fact. They are/were readily documentable. They are not my own assertions or beliefs, but assertions not only of scholars but of ancient texts and archeology.

OS, you said in the post I got, "Isaiah 62:11 Indeed the Lord has proclaimed To the end of the world: "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Surely your Yeshua is coming; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.'""

The word you translate "Yeshua" is Yish‘êk [YSh‘K] = "your salvation". First, the word is rooted in YSh‘. It would be more accuarate to say, "Your yash‘a is coming". Second, you cannot "just" translate this as "Yeshua" - this type of "hermenuetic" would dictate anytime you see a word rooted in YSh‘ or YShW‘H you could freely interpret it as the name "Yeshua". This is personal interretation and has no foundation in the text. Furthermore, Yish‘êk is not a name as you suggest. Names can not take on verbal morphology. You would never find for Ya‘aqob "Ya‘qaobêynû" (our Ya‘aqob) or for ’Abrâhâm "’Abrâhâmkem" (your ’Abrâhâm). Surely Yish‘êk can not be a name here, and to present it as such is innaccurate. "Your salvation" is coming is like saying "your redemption" or "your protection" is coming, "Your soveriegn" or "Your king" or "Your redeemer" etc... is coming would be a HUGE stretch (let alone to make it into a proper name is not supported at all by the text). The text never says that this is a name or person (though the coming salvation is through YHWH's redemption in v.12, so the "He" referd to isa obviously YHWH), and it is clear in the passage it is not one. That would be like me translating every occurance of HYH as "YHWH" because of the relation of the words. So anytime it says "he" in refernce to HYH, I can just change that to his name? If it had said, "Surely your power is coming; behold his reward is with him" could I change "power" to ’êl? I don't think this is a very accurate hermenuetic. And in relation to Messiah's name it gives no proof (it is not a direct statement, or even a proper noun, but is a verb here and is not even the form you suggest).

I hope this helps. I don't have a ton of time, but you can e-mail me at Joshua@can-do.net of there are more questions (I do not visit forums very often, and do not plan to). This is a big issue, and obviously there are a lot of questions. The best bet is to make no assumptions and start from square one and test everything. I know it can be frustrating not having a large library at instant access, let alone the ability to immediately test and (in)validate the many scholastic opinions, but the truth is out there and Messiah does say if we seek and ask we will find.

Shâlôm baYHWH - Joshua

posted 06-30-2000 06:04 PM         

Check this out!
http://yahweh.com/pages/pw101198/savior.shtml