I just signed up to this forum, and not wanting to be deceptive, I feel that I should clarify this point. If it is un-acceptable, then I will un-subscribe from the forum.

from the beliefs section:

Belief that we should return and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations.

SbT:

The hardest part of this, is that many have a different name that they believe is the only one for the Messiah and The Father. I also do not buy into the Jesus / zeus myth. [not provable]. With that said...

Anyone here familiar with this site:

http://divinename.net/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acert93:
Shalom Shmaland,

Why ’adonî over ’adonay? In this issue I believe the weight of the evidence for the 1cs pronominal suffix on plural nouns (-ay) seems to be have more favorable evidence than the 1cs suffix on singular nouns (-î); this would also harmonize ’adonay well with the grammatically plural ending of ’elohîm. The Vulgate of Ex 6:3 reads "Adonai" (doubtlessly the source of the KJV's use of Jehovah in this same passage), which indicates a pre-Massoretic reading of -ay/-ây over -î. I think when a pronominal suffix is intended in the MT, the 1cs suffix on plural nouns seems most likely.

In addition to the Vulgate information, if we consider the Lxx and Ugaritic info I posted the other day, I would say that the -ây ending (a lengthened form that is emphasizes the nouns meaning) has some ancient veracity to it. Below are some examples where reading, "my Lord(s)" would be forced, and instead reading ’adonây as a "name", and thus the ending nominally instead of pronominally, fits best:*

Exodus 15:17
A place, O Yahweh, which thou hast made for thy abode;
the sanctuary, O Adonai, which thy hands have established

Isa 3:17
Adonai will smite with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and Yahweh will lay bare their secret parts

Isa 49:14
But Zion said:
Yahweh has forsaken me,
And Adonai has forgotten me

Mic 1:2
And let Yahweh be a witness against you,
Adonai from his holy temple

Ps 30:9
To thee, O Yahweh, I cried;
and to Adonai I made supplication

Ps 35:22
Thou has seen, O Yahweh, be not silent!
O Adonai, be not far from me!

Ps 38:16
But for thee, O Yahweh, do I wait;
it is thou, O Adonai my God, who wilt answer

Ps 130:1
Out of the depths I cry out to thee, O Yahweh!
O Adonai, hear my voice!

Ps 130:3
If thou, O Yah, shouldst mark iniquiries,
Adonai, who could stand?

(*Translations from TDOT vol. 1, p. 61f.) These passages are similar to how YHWH and ’elohîm are used in parallel, e.g.:

Ps 47:5
’elohîm has ascended with a shout,
Yahweh with the sound of a shofar

Ps 58:7
O ’elohîm, break their teeth in their mouth;
tear out the fangs of the young lion, O Yahweh

Note that YHWH and ’adonây are used in varying forms of Semitic parallelism in these passages which strongly indicates that the suffix, in these passage, had a nominal function and not a pronominal one. Reading "My Lord" in these passages would be similar to reading, "My God" in Ps 47:5 or Ps 58:7 (we would just need to argue the final mem is enclitic!). But that is the point: the parallelism indicates that in these passages both are functioning syntactically as "names". Just like father/my father (the first functioning as a "name" and the second as a titke), it would seem we have ’adonây/’adonay (Lord/my Lord) in the MT.

I do not believe you are totally wrong--because you are correct that many examples may have been ’adonî/ay--but a blanket statement that most/all were originally ’adonî, I would think, goes beyond what we can conclude from the evidence. This, of course, is my opinion.

Shalom - Joshua

---

Shalom Joshua,

I understand your position above and you have made yourself very clear...thank you.

On this issue of the yud suffix.....please try looking at this phonetically now, away from the vowel pointing rules, etc. Yud as a suffix and consonant has a "y" sound or "iy" sound. This letter, when added as a suffix renders the word to "of me" or "my" usage. With adon or adone meaning "sovereign" then the added yud (without the pointing) would render it "my sovereign". This actually fits with most, if not all texts; especially the ones above. When we add the yud to words such as ab (father), ame (mother), rab (abundance) to make it first person we get the "y" or "iy" sound from the yud. Adon when used by Sarah to speak of Abraham is "adoniy", meaning "my sovereign". But it is rendered different (even though spelled the same) when used of Yahweh when being allegedly substituted as a "proper name", which it is not. This seems to be wrestling to me. I believe that if you substitute the meaning "my sovereign" above it will fit in the verses you supplied.

Just some thoughts......

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekerbentruth:
All,

I just signed up to this forum, and not wanting to be deceptive, I feel that I should clarify this point. If it is un-acceptable, then I will un-subscribe from the forum.

from the beliefs section:

Belief that we should return and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations.

SbT:

The hardest part of this, is that many have a different name that they believe is the only one for the Messiah and The Father. I also do not buy into the Jesus / zeus myth. [not provable]. With that said...

Anyone here familiar with this site:

http://divinename.net/

Check out the frequently asked questions section. He covers some interesting topics.

---

Welcome SbT,

I know you have shared a lot of helpful information on the messianic_apologetic website, especially in the area of calling others to accountability to the written word of Yahweh. I do believe currently that the j-e-s-u-s rendering is corrupt and that the "s-o-o-s" suffix is corrupt but I believe at this point that we can agree to disagree. There are many others here who use "l-o-r-d" for the proper name and so on. Hopefully we can learn from one another in that area. You have a lot to bring to the body and hopefully you will "stick around".

Shalom Alechim,

Shimone

Thank you for the friendly welcome. You said:

Hopefully we can learn from one another in that area. You have a lot to bring to the body and hopefully you will "stick around".

SbT:

Scripture tell us that we are to reason together.The issue that I have is with "Christian aversion". Many people have a problem with the words Jesus, Christ, Lord, cross etc. I do not personally believe in any symbol, but when we are adamant with others about these things, it causes one to lose their ability to witness. There are three things that the enemy would prefer that all believers not do. First is pray for others, second he does not want us dividing the word and reasoning, third he does not want the Good News preached to non-believers.If anyone takes a stance that hinders the Gospel going forth, then the enemy has his way. Paul clearly said that when he was witnessing to a Jew, he was a Jew, and when he was witnessing to the non-Jews, that is what he became. I speak with others where ever they are at, and am not offended by it. The pharisees were warned by the Messiah about hindering the Gospel:

Matthew 23

13 But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven before men; for you do not enter, nor do you allow those entering to go in.
14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour the houses of widows, and pray at length as a pretext. Because of this you will receive more abundant judgment.
15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you go about the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte; and when he has become so, you make him twofold more a son of Hell than yourselves.

SbT:

That line about more abundant judgement is enough for me. :-)

I believe you are making a few assumptions: first is that the addition of the Yôd is a clear indication of a pronominal suffix (it is not); the second is that if it is a 1cs suffix you seem to steer it toward -î (1cs suffix on singular nouns) whereas the form does not indicate -î over -ay (1cs pronominal suffix on plural nouns). To arrive at any measure of conclusion on this matter we must first assay all the evidence and consider all the possibilities.

The consonantal spelling is not always a cut and dry indication of the "meaning" of the word because a consonantal spelling can represent more than one "meaning", context will usually clarify and dictate what the author intended.

An approachable example can be found in the verbs. The Hebrew verbs, intrinsically, in the consonantal form have serious overlap in a large part due to the fact their distinction is (often) expressed by internal vowel inflection and not consonantal spelling. A basic example will suffice: If we look at the paradigm verb QTL (qâtal, he killed) and compare it to the strong verb paradigm, we see can see the similarity of the consonantal structure of three of the stems in the 3ms perfect:

Word: QTL (verb)
• QTL qâtal (qal perfect 3ms)
• QTL qitêl (pi‘êl perfect 3ms)
• QTL qutal (pu‘al perfect 3ms)

To this we can add:
• QTL q'tol (qal imperative 2ms)
• QTL qattêl (pi‘êl imperative 2ms)
• QTL q'tol (qal infinitive construct)
• QTL qattêl (pi‘êl infinitive construct)
• QTL quttal (pu‘al infinitive construct)
• QTL qattol (pi‘êl infinitive absolute)
• QTL quttol (pu‘al infinitive absolute)
• QTL qotêl (qal active participle ms)

Note that, even with vowels the pi‘êl infinitive absolute, pi‘êl infinitive construct, & pi‘êl imperative are all identical. This is true of the qal imperative & qal infinitive and also the pu‘al infinitive construct and infinitive absolute. You can quickly multiply such examples by adding the segholate (and other) noun derividations. So, even vowels do not necessarily dictate "meaning". Form can indicate meaning, but where there is ambiguity context will determine the sense. Needless to say there is sufficient overlap in the consonantal spelling and if more than one option is available it is often worth our time to examine the possibilities (within reason).

A couple of noun examples will show that we cannot assume the Yôd ending is a 1cs suffix on a singular noun (the 2 * examples are not in the Tanakh for MLK but do occur on other nouns):

Word: MLKY (noun)
• MLKY malkêy nmp construct of melek
• MLKY mâlkî nms with 1cs suffix
• MLKY malkî qal imperative 2fs
• MLKY malkay nmp with 1cs suffix*
• MLKY mall'kî pi‘êl imperative 2fs*

Word: ’LHY (noun)
• ’LHY ’elohay nmp w/ 1cs suffix
• ’LHY ’elohêy nmp construct of ’elohîm

When we see MLKY or ’LHY in the text context usually (but surely not always!!) will indicate what the author intended. The vowel points were a living oral reading tradition that was penned down and is very instructive and helpful at this juncture.

In the case of ’DNY ’adonây we have three popular options concerning the Yôd ending:

(1) The Yôd is the 1cs suffix on singular nouns (-î)
(2) The Yôd is the 1cs suffix on plural nouns (-ay)
(3) The Yôd is a nominal form (-ây) indicating intensification of the nouns meaning, thus ’adôn (Lord) to ’adonây ("The Lord" or "Lord of All")

All three of these options are valid interpretations of the form, the issue then becomes intent and context--what is the best interpretation of this form based on context and history?

Option (3) has the following merits:
(a) Numerous examples of parallelism of YHWH (proper noun with no suffix) with ’DNY, indicating that ’DNY likewise is to be understood as an absolute noun and the Yôd is not a pronominal suffix.
(b) Ugaritic texts from 14th century BCE and earlier, written in a NW Semitic Canaanite language in a cuneiform script, indicate that the Yôd ending on nouns can be nominal and understood as intensifying the nouns meaning. Instructive is that YHWH and ’DNY parallel in a 15th century text (Ex 15:17, the Song of Miriam) showing that option (3) possibly has very archaic roots and is not a late invention.
(c) The Lxx uses kurios with no suffix for ’DNY indicating at the time of this phenomena (c. mid 2nd century CE) the Yôd on ’DNY was understood nominally and not pronominally.
(d) The Vulgate (c. 4th/5th CE) has "Adonai" in Ex 6:3 which indicates either options (2) and (3) above, but not (1).
(e) The vowel points in the MT indicate that in the 10th century ’DNY continued to be read as ’adonây.

I have not looked, but I would not be surprised if Esubius, Philo, Josephus, Jerome, the ANC Fathers, etc... have more information on this subject but I do not have access to them at this moment.

You do not have to agree with the conclusion I draw from the evidence, but the conclusion is evidence based. In my opinion, reading ’DNY as "my Lord" in the passages where YHWH and ’DNY are paralleled is forced and begs the question; just as reading ’DNY as ’adonây in the phrase ’adonây ’elohay is force--this is an example where ’adonây should be read ’adonay.

I am not saying all examples of ’DNY in reference to YHWH should be read as ’adonây, but I question the wholesale conclusion that ’DNY is never (or rarely) ’adonây. I do not see the evidence stacking up this way--and you have every right to an opinion and to disagree :)

Hopefully you can understand why, just because a word may be spelled the same consonantally, that this does not indicate it has the same meaning everywhere. I am not sure what you meant by, "it is rendered different (even though spelled the same) when used of Yahweh when being allegedly substituted as a "proper name", which it is not". If you are referring to ’DNY functioning as a "name" in a passage, there is no doubt that this occurs in the Hebrew Bible (as the parallels show).

I am not sure if this is what you meant, so bear with me :) For those whom this concept seems odd, stick with me :) There is a general hesitancy to called ’DNY, ’LYHM, ’L, etc... "names". The problem is that in the text they do *function* as names at times. This is not to say this is his name, or that he has many names--I am not saying that, but I am noting that the use of these words in the text would fall under the category of "name". For example, in Genesis 1 ’elohîm is *functioning* grammatically as a name. Substitute titles into verse one and see how awkward it becomes:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning Father created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning Lord created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning Master created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning Brother created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning Savior created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning King created the heavens and the earth.

While the above are odd constructions (you need to add "my" or "the" etc to make them sound right), this is exactly what happens when ’elohîm is there, indicating it can function as a name. This usage is not isolated in the Bible. In the Hebrew there is a Personal/Proper/Covenant name (YHWH) and then there are generic names (’elohîm, ’adonây) and titles, and appellations. There is a distinction between these, but this is not to say that a generic name/title cannot be used as a "name" in the text.

This prompts the point I had alluded to earlier: if the Yôd in ’DNY is to be understood pronominally, is it the 1cs suffix for singular (-î) or plural nouns (ay)? Which do you prefer and why? Do some text use one and other text use another? If so how can we tell? Is there any concrete evidence that we can use to systematically dictate what form was original intended?

From the bit I read (did not read all of it) I thought the site in general was bunk :) I think his mythology on the subject is scatter shot and many of his statements are misinformed. For example, when discussing the form YiHWeH he states it is more originally YiHWaH, the -ah ending being older. In Epigraphic Hebrew Hê’ stands terminally as a mater for a, e, and o (only about the exile did Waw act as the mater o)--so that evidence is inconclusive. HYH/HWH is undoubtedly was originally HYY/HWY (as Amorite and Ugaritic demonstrate along with the internal evidence of Hebrew itself). We know from Amorite that the imperfect of HWY is yahwi/yahwe, clearly showing that the ending is an I-class vowel, not an A-class. His selective use of evidence (and how he uses it) causes issue in my opinion. He seems to stress the form Yehô, but this has been clearly shown to be a later development (Yahu to Yau/Yaw to Yo, the form YHW then reread as Yeho); he also seems to ignore the suffixed forms yah/yahu. His argument that Josephus is saying the 4 letters are all vowels is completely lacking grammatically (I know, I once thought this a long time ago!!) and misses the point that (a) the letters are semi-glides or very soft, therefore untechnically can be called "vowels" while not grammatically functioning as such and (b) since Josephus was writing to Romans and Greeks, who is not to say he was describing the Latin form IAUE? Also, Yahweh as an imperfect Qal/Hif’îl has strong parallels of YHWH being both the cause of historical events (the key departure of Yahwistic religion in that their religious cult commemorated historical events that Yahweh caused to pass versus the common pagan practice of worshipping nature and the natural cycles) and Yahweh as creator. His suggestion can make no such claims. His argument for the vowels on YHWH are lacking imo, see my recent thread on the issue. His statement that the shewa on Yôd has been overlooked I believe is not true and thus overstates his argument. He interestingly does not discuss the examples of ketiv Yehowih read as the qere ’elohîm which casts serious doubts in my mind on his theory. How Yehowah fits into the language, I do not know...

In form, YHWH (Yahweh) can be Qal or Hif‘îl, there is no pigeon hold on this issue (the use of the Qal in Ex 3:14 does not preclude a Hif‘îl understanding, and the "a" in Yahweh does not negate a Qal reading because as Westermann I believe notes that early on the Qal had shifted from a to i, thus if YHWH is ancient this does not pose a problem). There are grammatical parallels that can demonstrate this and it is this rending that agrees with the ancient witnesses. A reading that is palatable to the text, agreeable to the grammar of Hebrew and its historic development, and is agreeable to the mass of historical witnesses is what we all should be looking for. In my opinion, Yahweh agrees with such. Even if Yahweh is incorrect (which I do not believe it is, but that is only my opinion), it is not creating a new name as it is simply affirming, "He causes to be" i.e. creates and/or causes to happen. No one will deny that our Heavenly Father surely is worthy of such a title.

These are my thoughts on the subject... there is no end to the arguements this subject causes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekerbentruth:
All,

I just signed up to this forum, and not wanting to be deceptive, I feel that I should clarify this point. If it is un-acceptable, then I will un-subscribe from the forum.

from the beliefs section:

Belief that we should return and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations.

SbT:

The hardest part of this, is that many have a different name that they believe is the only one for the Messiah and The Father. I also do not buy into the Jesus / zeus myth. [not provable]. With that said...

Anyone here familiar with this site:

http://divinename.net/

Check out the frequently asked questions section. He covers some interesting topics.

---

Greetings SBT,
Yes the Jesus Zeus myth can be proven, the more appropriate question would be "Is there any names or words that the Greeks and Romans have not "paganized" yet?

Take alook around you, everyhting in one way or another either "connected" or "collided" down the road.

Back then the set apart people were given only His name for identification so the peopl would realize who their real Father was. Once His name has been replaced with titles, from there, other tyupes of worship involving images of things and people and from there "communicating" with these man made objects by their names.

The Almighty waws generous enough to give people His name that even the "demons? would shudder when His name was mentioned.

The most imprtant teaching in the "Bible" is His name but people have a difficult time "seeing" that because His name was removed over 6000 times.

ex:
If my son removed my name from a book that I had written dedicated to him and replaced my name with "soneone elses name", I would be VERY VERY upset.
Wouldn't you?

Now, there are a variety of names being mentioned but people are not acknowledging the "primitve roots of the names, after all they had to start somewhere right?

Primitive root- Simple, first.

This even explains more when He says He is not "confusion"

So, was everything else a translation after translation from the primitive
roots?
If so, who came first?

Greetings SBT,
Yes the Jesus Zeus myth can be proven, the more appropriate question would be "Is there any names or words that the Greeks and Romans have not "paganized" yet?

SbT:

I would agree that much of what was associated with ancient secular Greek and Roman culture had ties to paganism, as evidenced by many of the things that have crept into the Faith. I have gone through the etymology of the Name Iesus with many different people, and can not find any linguistic connection to zeus. If you have any information that proves this connection please post it. Also keep in mind that pagan words have crept into the Hebrew / Aramaic language as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekerbentruth:

Anyone here familiar with this site:

http://divinename.net/

Check out the frequently asked questions section. He covers some interesting topics.

---

One comment I would make to what this web-site speaks on is in terms of dialect. That is one issue I didn't see covered very well from my perspective.

Many scholars agree that Yemenite Jews have one of, if not the oldest Hebrew dialects still in use today in liturgy and reading of Torah. If this is true then the authors writing in English of "Yehowah" would have to be understood differently than most English speakers would pronouce it. The reason is that in Yemenite pronounciation of Hebrew the Vocal Shewa is pronounced a slight Patakh like sound. The Hholam Waw is sometimes pronounced like the English "O" but in others like a kind of short "ugh" sound (similar to the "un" sound in "under." In many cases the Qamatz is pronounced similar to Hholam Waw.

On the flip side you have the Samaritan Israeli pronounciation of Hebrew which may be just as old as the Yemenite Hebrew dialect. In the Samaritan Israeli pronounciation the Vocal Shewa is also similar to Yemenite, but the vocal I believe can also be like the Vocal Shewa in regular Sephardic Hebrew used today. The other elements are similar with the except of the Waw. In Samaritan pronounciation the Waw can have any of three sounds: Waw, Baa, and Vaw. From I understand on the matter the Baa form is the one that I have heard assigned from the Samaritan perspective.

So if a person believes the web-site then one would have to consider this when they are looking into this. That is why the issue is not as clear cut as trying to determine vowels, the other side is dialect, which can change the entire issue. The other issue at play is if there was one dialect Hebrew from the 1400 BCE until the 5th cent. BCE or if more than one or two sprang up which cannot even really be determined. All things to consider.

An example of this in English is the following.

Houston, TX vs Houston Street in New York. In Texas the city "Houston" is pronounced like "Hoow-stin" while in New York "Houston St." is pronounced "House-stin."

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

Good question I think this is a great question, and I want to answer it. But before I can do so I will need some cooperation from you I need further information so I can understand exactly what you mean by your use of certain terms--there is no use in use talking about two different things (this is how disagreements frequently occur). e.g. my use of "meaning" and "sense" are very different from how a linguist would use them, therefore when I talk with a linguist I restrict my use of those words to the technical use they employ. I want to be fair to your question (this will really help us understand each other), but to do so I need a little more information--I do not want to assume what you mean/intend by your use of certain terms.

Answering these questions will help:

(1) What do you understand to be a "primitive root"? How would you define this? Could you give me some examples of "primitive roots"? If there is a difference, how does a "primitive root" differ from a "root" or "lexical root"? Can you give me some examples of non-primitive roots (if they exist)? How does the function of the language relate to a "primitive root"? Are these nouns, verbs, or other? Is there prefixing, suffixing, conjugation, and so forth? Does a root undergo inflection and other changes in the varying stems/binyanim? Any other information clarifying what a primitive root is and is not would be helpful. This will allow me to understand how you frame this question and what your terms mean so I can accurately respond to the question.

(2) What does Strong's mean, in your estimation, when he says "primitive root"? Does he contrast this with other roots? Does it have any relation to "unused roots"?

(3) Could you demonstrate the method you would apply primitive roots to the below passages so I can get a better scope and understanding of the principle you are conveying:

Ex 6:3 W’R’ ’L-’BRHM ’L-YTsChQ W’L-Y‘QB B’L ŠDY WŠMY YHWH L’ NWD‘TY LHM

1Sa 14:45 WY’MR H‘M ’L-Š’WL HYWNTN YMWT ’ŠR ‘SH HYŠW‘H HGDWLH HZ’T BYSR’L ChLYLH Ch-YHWH ’M-YPL MS‘RT R’ŠW ’RTsH KY-‘M-’LHYM ‘SH HYWM HZH WYPDW H‘M ’T-YWNTN WL’-MT

Isa 49:8 KH ’MR YHWH B‘T RTsWN ‘NYTYK WBYWM YŠW‘H ‘ZRTYK W’TsRK W’TNK LBRYT ‘M LHQYM ’RTs LHNChYL NChLWT SMMWT

Isa 61:10 SWS ’SYS BYHWH TGL NPŠY B’LHY KY HLBYŠNY BGDY-YŠ‘ M‘YL TsDQH Y‘MNY KChTN YKHN P’R WKKLH T‘DH KLY

Also, how do forms like WYWŠ‘N from YŠ‘ and HYTH and HYYTM from HYH relate to the idea of primitive roots? Is there a system on how words are used? Are the forms in the Bible the ones that were penned and/or read before the exile to Babylon?

This is not a test, but I do not feel I can answer you question before I know what you are asking and how you apply it. I do not want to artificially frame set your question to my own paradigm, so please feel free to explain what you mean and how it applies. This will give me pause to consider your words and then give a reply that is in response to your intended question. Thanks!

You mentioned words/names from HYH and YS'

This meaning has nothing to do with "ears of corn" how would it have came from this hebrew primtive root in a lexicon?

Also, can you tell me how "Israel" came from the primitive roots "Sarah" and "ale", the "ale" I understand but not the "sarah".

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekerbentruth:
All,

I just signed up to this forum, and not wanting to be deceptive, I feel that I should clarify this point. If it is un-acceptable, then I will un-subscribe from the forum.

from the beliefs section:

Belief that we should return and use the original names for the Father and the Messiah instead of substitutes or man made alterations.

SbT:

The hardest part of this, is that many have a different name that they believe is the only one for the Messiah and The Father. I also do not buy into the Jesus / zeus myth. [not provable]. With that said...

---

Welcome to the forum. I have to agree that there may be no "etymological" proof that "Jesus" came from "zeus". However, the actual phonetical meanings in Hebrew, Greek and Latin for "eay-soos", "hey-soos" and "ea-zeus" may be shocking to many. See:

http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/666Website.pdf
http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Jesus.htm

Even if there is no proof that "Jesus" came from "zeus", shouldn't we be using the most correct name we know, after we learn better? I'm not saying this in condemnation against those who lack understanding, but only supporting that I believe that we should use the correct name after we learn the truth of what his name really is. If English speaking people want to use an "English" sounding name, why don't they use "Joshua"? In fact, originally in English, the "J" was pronounced as a "Y". Also, I believe that the word for savior in Greek is "soter", is this correct? If "jesus" doesn't mean "savior" in Greek (or hebrew), then what does "jesus" or "eay-soos"/"eay-zeus" really mean then? Someone once said that as long as we meant well "in our heart", we could call him anything we want. The particular word someone suggested was "ha-satan". Obviously, this would not be an appropriate title or name for the Heavenly Father or Only Begotten Son no matter how "good" of intentions or ignorance someone had.

Welcome to the forum. I have to agree that there may be no "etymological" proof that "Jesus" came from "zeus". However, the actual phonetical meanings in Hebrew, Greek and Latin for "eay-soos", "hey-soos" and "ea-zeus" may be shocking to many. See:

http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/666Website.pdf
http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Jesus.htm

Even if there is no proof that "Jesus" came from "zeus", shouldn't we be using the most correct name we know, after we learn better? I'm not saying this in condemnation against those who lack understanding, but only supporting that I believe that we should use the correct name after we learn the truth of what his name really is. If English speaking people want to use an "English" sounding name, why don't they use "Joshua"? In fact, originally in English, the "J" was pronounced as a "Y". Also, I believe that the word for savior in Greek is "soter", is this correct? If "jesus" doesn't mean "savior" in Greek (or hebrew), then what does "jesus" or "eay-soos"/"eay-zeus" really mean then? Someone once said that as long as we meant well "in our heart", we could call him anything we want. The particular word someone suggested was "ha-satan". Obviously, this would not be an appropriate title or name for the Heavenly Father or Only Begotten Son no matter how "good" of intentions or ignorance someone had.

SbT:

Thanks for putting up the links for those articles. We can not take the meaning of a word from one language and apply it to another word from a different language that is similar sounding, as the meaning of a word is strictly defined within the confines of it's own language.Transliteration from one language to another is governed by rules. Using the method that the author of the articles used for definition, the possibilities for all words would be infinite. Iaso in Greek is spelled Iota, Alpha, Sigma, Omega. The Greek word Iesous, from which Jesus is derived is spelled Iota, Eta, Sigma, Omicron, Upsilon, Sigma. They are two completely different words with two different meanings. Below is a scholarly etymological explanation that was posted on Messianic Apologetic:

Yeshua (short form) or Yehoshua (long form)--Hebrew Joshua--comes across into Greek as Iesous. Greek has no consonant y, so it uses initial i (cf. Ioudaios for Yhudim), which comes out sounding like a y when it's pronounced together with a following vowel anyway. Greek also has no letter equivalent to Hebrew shin (/sh/), so the standard transliteration is sigma (/s/). The final a in the Hebrew forms is a glide-element that shows up in other Semitic languages but isn't really part of the word per se. The final vowel should be u, but because of the gutteral consonant 'ayin that comes at the end of the name, an a-vowel is added. So the final u-sound is paralleled by Greek ou (Greek upsilon would have a different sound--like French long-u or German u-umlaut). The s on the end is part of a standard conversion from other languages to Greek. Since Greek nouns almost always have case endings, including names, the s is added to give the name the right feel. We get the same rendering for Joshua in the Greek OT, so I don't see any reason that it would mean something different in the NT.

Trevor Peterson

CUA/Semitics

SbT:

As it is recorded historically, Jewish scribes translated the books of the Torah from Hebrew to Greek known as the septuagint. Would they have chosen the name of a pagan god for one of the mightiest warriors of their history who was the right hand man of Moses?

P.S.