WHAT
IS HIS NAME?
WINTER 2005
|
|
It might be too
long to read here, so I suggest you Print it (only 63 pages): |
|
|
|
|
|
Go To Notices
| Go To
Preface | Go To Table of Content | Uncut Notice
|
This book is "as
is" by using / reading / publishing / producing / distributing this book
you agree to indemnify LIM and Mr. McQuick or anyone affiliated with the
production or distribution, including websites, hosting and any other third
parties, from any liability that might arise from it's use. IF YOU DO NOT
AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT DO NOT USE THIS BOOK or anything from LIM or Mr.
McQuick; which is applicable to all "things" outputted by LIM or
Mr. McQuick and is hereby universally known so. Thank you and God bless you. |
Liberation International Ministries Publishing
(LIMP)
DECEMBER 2005
Uncut
Edition By LiberationIM.org
|
Uncut means it has not really
been edited from being initial penned by the “author”, raw from off the
potter’s wheel, grammar and spelling was checked though. It is also uncut
because often times when copyediting the editor rewords what he thinks
something should mean, while it might not mean that; especially with
something as spiritually sensitive as biblical revelation. Me using scripture
with bad grammar might come out to a whole different meaning when correcting
the grammar by the copy editor. Though copyediting make the work flawless
grammatically and other such wise, it might detract from the intended meaning
and impact given from the author, who receive it from the Holy Ghost. This
might not be the case for all books, but one such as this where something is
delivered from the Lord (encoder) to the author (decoder) and the meaning is
best preserve in its original state even if they are copyediting errors. Any
errors that might be cited doesn’t detract from essence or reading and what
is sent exegetically is received. The publishing process is bypassed and the
work uncut. Similar to having the real orange fruit as against a canned
processed with saturated alternatives. The oranges can be peeled by you and
you get the juice with all the 'ruffage'; as against it being peeled and
manufactured for you with all the things added and done to it that give it
less potency (e.g. changing tone). Take the time to peel your orange and eat
your fruit. Such are the books published by LIMP, uncut for your spiritual
health. Thanks for reading this. |
Disclaimer: 1.
This book is “Not For Sale” or a sole commercial output, where it maybe offered
for sale is done so you may get a paper back copy if you please, otherwise it
can be freely downloaded and printed or reproduced unaltered. Any proceeds
received are mainly to cover the cost of doing so, to the third party
publishers, promoter, admin. and book designer (cost of production, no
profits); the author (Mr. McQuick) takes/receives no money as an author. 2. Any
copyright materials used were done so under the standard allowable, for
instance, short exerts or extracts were used with credits to the source and not
their entire work; mainly for expository/reference reasons. Moreover, any
copyright infringement would only take effect on commercial outputs, which this
is not. Also, see the Notices.
For Additional Copies
Shipping is separate. ICI caution,
evil on the prowl; even by phone.
|
|
|
www.namebook.andmuchmore.com |
|
Size: 7.5 x 9.25
Advantage: Best. Spaced, quality layout and
design, last longer, more durable, |
|
Size: 6 x 9
Advantage: Cost the less and a larger perfect binding. For
shipping in US, |
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
"WHAT IS HIS
NAME AND WHAT IS HIS SON'S NAME IF THOU CANST TELL?"
(Proverbs 30:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------
God
simply says, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Matt 7:7). In other words,
revelation of any sort can be had by anyone who simple apply this scripture in
faith. God is no respecter of person. This is basically what I did and though
it was strenuous and mind bobbling, God gave grace and so I must share it with
others.
I was
aroused to do so because after constantly changing the name applied to God in
the Old and New Testament in the unpublished version of "The Voice of Him
That Crieth In The Wilderness", I decided to do my own research with
prayer and fasting. This happened because I kept coming across new information
and misleading information, which is usually taken at face value because that
was of another proficiency. But I asked the question, prayerfully, of the name
of God and the original pronunciation of the savior's name and this short
booklet intends to tell you that unequivocally. It's actually 10 FAQ I had made
to append "The Voice...," in the faq section. The book would be
better understood if it is read from cover to cover rather than picking a topic
here and picking a topic there. It
is written in a progressive form, so if you read the end or middle without
starting from the beginning, it might not be clear. No knowledge of any other
language it needed. Do read it prayerfully and grace
be unto you.
Oneil McQuick, Author.
(My Christian name will be changed to
Othniel or Yahothniel;
the one not used along with my present Christian name will be
my middle names, if God be willing.)
IMPORTANT NOTICE: All other copies,
work-in-progress, unedited, unpublished versions, etc, prior to this copy is
obsolete and should be treated as such. References can only be given from this
copy, as it is the completion of years of research and study. References can
only be made “when we had finished our course…the will of the Lord be done”
(Acts 21:7-14). This Important notice is encouraged to be on all copies.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: © Copyright 2003, 2004, 2005, etc, by Oneil McQuick; also in
accordance with international regulations on Intellectual Property and Author's
Rights. All rights reserved. The author grants permission to non-commercially
and commercially distribute the book if you feel led to (please use tact and
let it not be beyond affordability). You can do so by hard copies, soft copies,
downloads, prints, photocopy prints, e-books and any format or method you wish,
in any language, without my further permission. The only condition is that it
is not altered in anyway, including the cover, titles and this copyright
notice. This is not for profit; the sole purpose is spreading the truth. You
are free to quote as much, copy as much, extract as much, make shorter booklets
from chapters and other innovation in the way of distribution, only keep it un-altered.
There is a free PDF copy online for you to do so; see threeq.com. Though I
spent many hours and years in study, research, re-reading, re-writing and
waiting on the Lord for revelations, you don’t even have to give me credit,
just preach the word; “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those
that published it” (Psalms 68:11). Nevertheless, this Copyright notice should
be on all copies at the front of the book, as to further give others the
right to distribute the truth. Though I release the right to publishing the
book and you have the right to do so, even commercially, “ there is a man whose
labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath
not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and
a great evil” (Ecc 2:21). So keep me in your prayers that God may sustain me
financially. Nevertheless, I release the rights because I really want the truth
distributed unhindered. That it might be reckoned, “In that day shall the deaf
hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of
obscurity, and out of darkness...They also that erred in spirit shall come to
understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine” (Isa. 29:18-24).
NAME NOTICE: Our concern in this book is to defend the Principles of the
Doctrine of Christ, not to attack personalities. Some names have been cited in
this book, but this is because these individuals have made their position known
in their published and public writings/works, which have been cited for
examples and references. "As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men" (Romans 12:18). This name notice is encouraged to be on all copies.
SERIES NOTICE: Truth Series Expanded is an expansion of the Truth
Series. They
are sixteen books in this Truth Series. "The
Voice...," was expanded into several books. That is, each chapter becomes
a book. They are Fourteen chapters in "The Voice...," so they are
thirteen books uniquely done and specialized to its topic. The 14th chapter of
"The Voice..." is mainly FAQ's for each chapter and that is added on
each expanded book as well, respectively. Several benefits and purpose will be
gained by having this, as you will see by taking advantage of it. There is a
14th book expanded from “The Voice…,” called “What is his name?” Thus, the first
book of the Truth series, “The Voice…,” was expanded into fourteen books.
Fourteen is double sevens (7+7), which represent double perfection. Then
“Demonology Revealed,” from the Truth Series, was expanded into two further
books; namely, “Demonology Concealed” and “Demonology Appealed.” Two is the
bible number for witness; so we have double perfection (14 books) with witness
(2 books). Let
these “book[s]…shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate
therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is
written therein” (Joshua 1:8).
TESTIMONY NOTICE: They are
many testimonies to this work of God, “The Truth Series Expanded,” including
the many already from the Truth Series, for the Expanded is mainly the Truth
Series broken up into shorter publications: Too many to quote. True testimonies
of the actual truth being done and accomplished is a sign that you are sent and
doing the will of God; though it is not to be banked on by you. "He that
hath received...[this] testimony hath set to...[My] seal that God is true. For
he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God" (John 3:33-34).
: However :
"Yes, a good read I had...Good one, YaH
Praises" (Ras Judah Brown, LionOfEthiopia group).
CONTENT
WHAT IS THE NAME OF GOD ANYWAY? Chapter 1
– page 08
PURPOSE OF KNOWING THE NAME OF GOD Chapter 2 – page
23
IS THERE ANOTHER WITH GOD’S NAME? Chapter 3 –
page 26
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SAVIOR? Chapter
4 – page 30
FROM THE ORIGINAL TO JESUS Chapter 5
– page 44
PURPOSE OF KNOWING THE NAME OF THE
SAVIOR Chapter 6
– page 52
IS “HIS NAME” THE NAME OF THE SON ALSO Chapter 7 –
page 56
WHAT
IS THE NAME OF GOD ANYWAY
“I will publish the
name of the Lord” (Duet 32:3)
Titles are not names - El, Elohim, etc
Before we
go into the actual name of God we must first clear a misconception. That is,
titles and appellations used for God are not his name. For instance, Elohim, El,
Wonderful, Mighty God, Prince of Peace. They are all descriptive appellations
or titles given to describe his deity and attributes, not his actual name. They
are often called generic names.
The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, likewise, places these terms under
"Generic names." It adds, "Like theos, Deus and God, it is a
generic term, including every member of the class deity." Eloah and its
variant forms eluah and the Aramaic eloaha are derived from the descriptive
title el, meaning "strength" and "power," i.e. a
"mighty one." Added to (el) is the suffix (ah), (uah), or (aha), forms of the verb (huh), meaning
"to breath; to be" or "to exist." An eloah, therefore, is a
"mighty living being."
They are
rightly used as social titles with God's name, for instance "Adonai
YHWH" meaning sovereign YHWH; or, "El YHWH" (Ps 85:8) meaning
the mighty one YHWH. Moreover, these appellations are used for pagan deities as
well. How could they then be the name(s) of God? Nevertheless, "Elohists
are contenders who regardless of evidence and plain logics still hold the view
that the appellations are God's personal name; most often, El and Elohim."
Some
"Sacred Name believers often maintain that the term "God" should
not be used in referring to the Almighty, because it is the name of a pagan
idol "Gad." This clearly shows that some sacred namers even believe
that the title God is a name. However, this is clearly a speculation and God is
simply an English word for deity as theos is used in the Greek. This is how words
like Eloahim were used in the Hebrew; just a universal word in the Hebrew
language that was used for deities or deity, including false deities. It's
equivalent to saying god and Lord in English, just titles used for deities or
deities (1 Cor 8:5). This was done at first because God's name was “unknown”
until Moses’ time, when it was revealed (Ex. 6:3).
However,
scholars will argue that the same author who wrote Exodus to Deuteronomy wrote
Genesis; most say Moses. If so, wouldn't he have used the name that was
revealed to him in Genesis rather than titles and appellations? A very good
point, which gives rise to the speculation that Genesis had a separate author.
Though by logics anyone can see that Moses didn't author all the Pentateuch
(first five books of the Bible); the way from Exodus to Deuteronomy was written
showed that at least one separate person, on looking, was narrating the events,
especially his death. But he did write all the laws.
Then
there is the situation with copyists and translators. Who are they? Jesus said
they are the "scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat" (Matthew
23:2). In other words, after Moses died they are the ones who fully took over
the handling of all religious writings. Christ rebuked them for doing unscriptural
things, couldn't they have begun to do that from the time of Moses' death; like
interpolating, replacing and injecting in the scriptures while copying it
periodically? This was inevitable and
obviously seen when they replaced God's name with the Tetragrammaton (YHWH).
Because they can interject whatever name or title they deem fit, their
influence is what we would read today. Of such, scholars and Elohists have
deemed the first five books divided into parts, usually labeled as the J
(Jehovah or YHWH), E (elohim), D (Deuteronomy), and P (Priestly) documents. For
instance, in the "E" group the word Eloahim alone appears but not the
name YHWH; and so on. Plus, the first five books were written after God's name
was given to Moses, so the author of the Pentateuch could have used God's name
from Genesis to Deuteronomy or choose to record it only after Genesis and use
title names in that book. Then the copyists could choose to do either or mix it
as they deem fit; which is why you probably have it in Gen 22:14. But by the
time we get to the present era, God's name was completely covered under titles
and sprouts a resemblance only four times in the entire bible. The Old
Testament apocryphal is also subject to this and even more interpolation,
because it is not closely watched with scrutiny as the other books are.
So we see
that titles are just substitutes for the actual name when it is applied to GOD;
more than often suggesting there is a personal name.
God has a personal name
"The
leading name, YHWH, occurs 11,600 times, and it is a blunder, that it finds its
way into the English translation four times only (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Is 12:2; Is
26:4), shutting out the common reader from the full significance of hundreds of
passages, such as Psalm 8:1, which should read, ‘O, YHWH, our Lord.’
The Jews,
superstitiously fearful of needlessly pronouncing this August name, substituted
for it when reading aloud; 'Adhonai', 'Lord', and so came in the Septuagint
version, the Greek equivalent,
Kurios,
and in English, which followed the Septuagint. Lord, capitals indicating that
the original is Yahovah; but practically, this covenant name, upon which YHWH
himself laid such stress, is illuminated from both these versions"
(World's Guide to Understanding The Bible).
The
numbers differ to about 7450 from 11,600 upon detailed diligent scrutiny, but
the implications and point is still the same.
Also,
"The translators of the Revised Standard Version provide the following excuse
for the elimination of God's personal name from the Scriptures: 'For two
reasons the [Revised Standard Version] Committee has returned to the more
familiar usage [of substituting YHWH with either the LORD or GOD] of the King
James Version: (1) the word 'Jehovah' does not accurately represent any form of
the name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one
and only God ... was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is
entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church. (3) The
Smith and Goodspeed translation is probably the most frank: “In this
translation 'we have followed the orthodox Jewish tradition and substituted
‘the LORD’ for the name’..."
In other
words, God has a personal name. Though it is said to be relatively unknown,
that is untrue and he wants us to know it!
It was first revealed to Moses
Regardless
of present biblical explanation (exergesis), the name was first revealed to
Moses. You don't have to try to figure this out or twist scriptures, because it
plainly said it. You just can't read anything else in this verse, "And I
appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty,
but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." (Ex 6:3-KJV); not a new
connotation of the name or revealed in a different manner but the name itself
was first revealed here. God himself said he spoke to the fathers before Moses
by using the Generic title 'names.' For example here, "I am the Almighty
God; walk before me, and be thou perfect" (Gen 17:1). But with a new era
and dispensation, he revealed this name first unto Moses, then the entire
descendants of Abraham and the World.
The name
was first revealed to Moses, however, the beings that ruled the heathen nations
weren't always humans, but most often fallen angels in flesh (Gen 6:4). Thus,
they coming from heaven would know God's name, however, fallen angels can't do
as they please, though it sometimes seem that way. God could have prevented
them from using it. Moreover, with their rebellion from God that would be the
last name they want to hear and it could have the same implications the
savior's name has went spoken in faith to cast out devils. They would rather
exalt their own name (Dagon, Zeus, Milcom, Chemosh, Molech, Nergal, Tartak,
Ashima and many others) as God than speak God's name. And even hide it from
men, so that they wouldn't call on it. Also, when it was revealed, no doubt,
men and false religions cleave to it falsely; especially hearing and seeing the
things done by the God of the Israelites. Much like Simon Magnus (the former
sorcerer), he saw the apostles laying hands and people receiving the Holy
Ghost, then he sought to use the savior's name for gains (Acts 8:13-24).
Therefore, you’ll have heathen nations with traces of the name after its was
made renown; traces, not necessarily having false gods with the name.
For and Against it being Given to Moses First
One of
the most liable arguments that Moses didn't get this revelation first is that a
new name would mean a new God to the Israelites he was sent to; especially
being a stranger coming from exile.
However,
that's why God made sure to tell him to say that the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob has sent him. If they knew his name and no one else had it, he wouldn't
have to reinforce to Moses to stress that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. If they knew his name, God wouldn't have to give them clues to who he
is. It plainly stated it in this fashion, "God said moreover [IN ADDITION, AS IN THAT WOULDN'T BE SUFFICE]
unto Moses,...say unto the Children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers,
the God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto
you" (Ex 3:15)!
He had a
plus to boost his confidence and the Israelites' acceptance of him, knowing
God's name; while they only knew him as Lord God (El) of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. Nevertheless, he was accepted because God placed it into their hearts to
do so and a confirmation by Aaron, who was already prominent among them. These
and other things God used to boost his acceptance and their acceptance of his
name, now revealed to mankind.
It is
also said, "The Hebrew text show that men started calling upon the name of
Jehovah after the birth of Enosh, grandson of Adam (Genesis 4:26)." No! It
actually meant that men started to look to God again, after the seed had been
corrupted by satan and lived without any recognition of God. It didn't mean
God's personal name was known, but an idiomatic expression that men started to
look to God again. Then it was said that the Hebrew text actually reads,
"began to call himself after the name of the Lord." If that is so, it
more than likely meant they attempted to live righteously again; the same
thing. That's the reason the genealogy of man followed this pattern "Adam,
Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem,
Ham, and Japheth" (1 Chron 1:1-4); and not Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad and so
on. When Abel was murdered the seed was corrupted and men only lived like Cain,
as seen in his offsprings becoming murders and polygamists. But God had Adam
bring a new son and in his seed the likeness of God was sparked again. Not any
son but “one instead of Abel” (Genesis 4:25), a good seed; an actual human
being instead of a satanic corruption, "Adam lived an hundred and thirty
years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his
name Seth" (Gen 5:3). With this, men started to look to God again.
Another
way out argument that says Moses didn't get the name first is, "When Moses
asked God for His name, God replied in Hebrew ‘I am what I am’. Obvious
intention of Exodus 3:14 was to reveal God's name, but the response Moses got
would mean that God does not wish to reveal His name."
No! What probably happened is that rather than write the
actual name, the meaning was written. For instance, if I'm a winner of some
sports tournament and I said in 'Pomp', "Yeah, My name is Oneil
MegaStar!" If someone recorded that, they could write that I said, "My
name is Champion MegaStar:" Because Oneil also means champion, so they
substitute the name for it. When the name was given to Moses, it was combined
with the verb “to be,” the essence of the name. So what was recorded or what we
now have is the meaning (“to be”) in first person form with the personal
pronoun “I” - “I am what I am” - where “I” is the name should be, but it was
substituted because of use with the verb “to be” and the essence of what he
said or his name. Likewise, winning a sports championship is being a champion,
the essence of the above name Oneil. This will be learnt later on.
The last
argument against it being given first to Moses is, "If the sacred name was
not revealed until the days of Moses. Since there was no knowledge of it prior
to Moses, it stands that the name is not an eternal one. Therefore, since it
was not required for the salvation of those who antedate Moses, such as
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, neither is it necessary for us today."
Because
the name wasn't known prior to Moses, doesn't mean it did not exist. Because
only today you know my name, does it mean I didn't have a name prior to today?
No. Moreover, God deals with us in dispensations. He ‘translated’ Enoch, He
used the Ark with Noah and the Law with the Israelites. All were not born again.
Will you be save by the prior means? No. You have to be born again in this
dispensation. So it stands that God always had name, it was first revealed to
Moses and he now wants every human being to know it! Though it is acclaimed
that the pronunciation is lost.
Tetragrammaton
Up to
this point we have not mentioned a name but the Tetragrammaton: Greek for four
letter word. It looks like this in the original: 
.
The Tetragrammaton is used because the scribes felt that writing or saying
God's name in vain was protected by not writing it at all, but replace it with
what you see above, Tetragrammaton. This is called "the ineffable name
doctrine." "In the oldest text of the Bible, the ancient Hebrew
script, the sacred Name is represented by four Hebrew letters...These four
letters are called the Tetragrammaton." "Even though the Septuagint
(Greek Old Testament) was written in Greek, the Tetragrammaton was first
written into the text in gold Hebrew letters...The Latin translations became
standard for the Roman church and the Latin letters IHVH appeared for the
Hebrew Tetragrammaton. At that time the vowel 'I' was equivalent to the 'Y'.
But the 'Y' wasn't used as yet and the ‘J’ was later created to sound like 'Y',
thus you had the Tetragrammaton written as JHVH. Then came along the 'Y' and
the 'W'; the ‘Y’ replacing the ‘J’. The 'V' in JHVH had the sound of 'W' and
was replaced by it also. And so we have the Tetragrammaton now appearing in
English as YHWH or HWHY, if you read it from right to left like how Hebrew is
read. Nevertheless, one source said, "Although there is no firm consensus
on the actual pronouncement or spelling of the Tetragrammaton, there are
several representations or transliterations in use by theologians and Bible
students."
Now it is
also said that the Tetragrammaton was not made up of consonants, but in the
Hebrew-Aramaic language usage, they could be either used as vowels or
consonant; while some contend that they were vowels. "R. Laird Harris
writes in his Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Four of the Hebrew letters
[YHWH]...are called vowel letters." Nevertheless, it is unlikely that they
were called vowels, because none of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet is
pronounced as a vowel.
A bad
spin off of this foolishness of replacing God's name with Tetragrammaton is the
alleged crisis that the pronunciation of God's name is lost. Not just now, but
amongst many then. In fact, one source said, "Because of these
prohibitions, translations of the original Hebrew scrolls have, throughout the
ages, replaced the Tetragrammaton with 'the LORD' (in capital letters) and the
Sacred Name, in so doing, became 'lost' for many centuries." "The
editorial board of the New American Standard Bible made the following
admission: 'This name has not been pronounced by the Jews.... Therefore, it has
been consistently translated LORD'."
It seems
that this was a common practice during the time the 30th Chapter of the book of
Proverbs was written. Augur the prophet lamented, in prophecy, "Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have
not the understanding of a man...what is his name, and what is his son’s name,
if thou canst tell" (:1-4)?
He stated
that he is an unlearnt man so he couldn't understand any use of Tetragrammaton.
Then he went onto lament about what is the name of God and/or the name of the
Messiah. What showed that he was speaking of things like the Tetragrammaton
occurred when he said "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,
and thou be found a liar." In others words, don't change what he has said
or why did they cover up his name.
First,
the plot - I'm unlearnt or of the majority, can't understand secret rabbinical
writings or Tetragrammaton. Secondly, Out of frustration of it he cried out
what is God's name because it is not known, generally. Why? The scribes covered
it up in their Tetragrammaton. Thirdly, then while prophesying he warned them
not to do it, "Add thou not unto his words." This was all done
through prophecy, so God was speaking indirectly to them. Though I believe many
still knew his name then and now. But this is what they did, "Why do ye
[scribes] also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition" (Matt
15:3)? Nevertheless, it would seem that the real 'Holy' Priests, Prophets and
godly men did not resort to the Tetragrammaton, but it was probably introduced
and kept by the idolatrous Kabbalistic Jews.
Proof the pronunciation wasn't lost
Josephus,
the noted Jewish Historian, said he was forbidden to say or write the name; in
other words, he knew it and could freely write or pronounce it, and this was
after the time of Jesus. The Encyclopedia Judaica also had this to add:
At least until the destruction
of the First Temple in
586 B.C.E. this name was regularly pro-
nounced with its proper vowels, as is clear from the
Lachish Letters, written
shortly before that date.
Another
proof that the pronunciation wasn't lost, is the fact that Jesus when reading
the Old Testament from Isaiah would have correctly pronounce the name; "to
set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:19). Opposers to
this would say the scriptures were Hellenized then and thus what they had,
which he read from, was the Greek version. Even so, not only he being God in
Flesh would pronounce it in the original tongue, but the fact that "though
the Septuagint was written in Greek, the Sacred Name (Tetragrammaton) hwhy was
first written into the text in gold Hebrew letters." And the Masoric text
couldn't be used because it was a later thing.
So, not
only is it ridiculous but non-sensical to believe that during the time of
Christ and presently, God's name or its pronunciation would be lost. What has
happened today is that they are countless variations of that pronunciation,
throwing the entire Sacred Name Movement into a frenzy to determine which is
the correct pronunciation. However, for the right pronunciation to be gain the
root has to be correct as well.
Is the root name Yahu or Yah and what are the
implications?
Unknown
to many is that most scholars believe Yahu (Yaho), pronounced Yahoo, is apart
of all the variations and deemed to be the root. However,
I question that for various reasons, though there is alleged evidence and even
an alleged incorporation in the Messiah's name. It is said "when the term
Yaho is used in conjunction with other syllables to form compound names the ‘o’
can be left in or dropped as preferred. When the Yah is on the end of the word
the ‘o’ or the consonant vav and the vowel is often dropped; Yahoshua becomes
Yashua in some instances." Much of this is also believe to lean on the
pronunciation of the Hebrew syllable VAV as "oo."
Nevertheless,
these are the reason I reject Yahu as God's name or root of it:
Contrary to popular notion, Yahu is a separate name from Yahweh.
The sacred name Yahweh is the personal name of father Yahweh and became the
cognomen of the lesser Yahweh, but Yahu
belonged to the lesser Yahweh as his praenomen. As part of their effort to
disguise the sacred name, Jewish religious leaders, who abandoned palaeo-Hebrew
letters for Aramaic, decided that only two letters of the sacred name Yahweh
could be pronounced. As one part of this effort, the sacred name Yahweh and the
divine name Yahu were both at times abbreviated to YH and pronounced
"Yah." Since both Yahweh and Yahu became "YH (Yah)," the
rabbis encouraged the development of the confused definition that Yahu and Yah
were short forms of the name Yahweh. The confounding of Yahu and Yahweh and the
belief that both Yah and Yahu are short forms of Yahweh has, as a result,
continued with us until this day. ...The
lesser Yahweh was separately known as Yahu Yahweh, and is still found in
the present Masoretic Text under the altered form Yah Yahweh. Because his
praenomen was Yahu, when Yahu Yahweh became a man he was known as Yahu-shua the
messiah. We shall also demonstrate that the name Yahushua does not mean
"Yahweh saves," as often but incorrectly advocated, but "Yahu
saves." The Hebrew name Yahushua, through the medium of Aramaic, was later
translated into Greek as Iesous (English, "Jesus"). By revealing the
history behind the transformation of Yahu into the present-day form Yah, we
shall also be able to verify that the praenomen Yahu was originally pronounced
"Yah-u" (R. Clover, The Sacred Name).
Yahweh, as well as the
praenomen of the lesser deity, his son, Yahu. It is from Yahu that the name
Yahushua (Yahu saves) is derived and not from Yahweh, as popular and
misinformed advocates would argue...It
is the person Yahu (Yahu-shua) who does the saving through his surname
given to him by the father, the one and only saving name "Yahweh."
Accordingly, the full name of the messiah, as revealed in Scriptures is
"Yahu Yahweh" (Qadesh La Yahweh Press, yahweh.org).
The claim that Yaho was dropped from the Babylonian captivity is
unsubstantiated conjecture as the Elephantine texts show. As we have seen, the
form YH is pronounced Yahoo or Yaho when used as a syllable on its own. This is
the form rendered Jah in the KJV. He spoke for Yahovih or Yahovah of Hosts, God
the Father, the Elyon, or Most High, who is Eloah. In this sense, the pre-incarnate Messiah was also the
Messenger or Angel of Yahovah as elohim in Zechariah 12:8" (logon.org).
"The reference is a singular one at Ugarit, but later
Phoenician sources refer to a god named
Iahu [i.e Yahu] Iaio, Ieuo (in Philo of Byblos' 'Phoenician History')."
From the
above you can see that many claim Yahu or Yahoo as a second divine being, not
just similar to the trinity of persons, but a subordinate and sometimes Chief
angel of God. Most references to the word Yahu claim this unbiblical notion.
This alone would cause any true bible adherent to digress from this name being
the name of God, but rather use the rightful "Yah" (Ps 68:4).
This name
Yahu doesn't seem to be the single name that is ascribe to God alone either;
for there was a King in 2 Kings 9 that was name Jehu, that should be written Yehu
and given mispronunciation, that should be Yahu. Thus Yahu was never the name
of God as some attest, for if fear prevented them from saying or writing God's
name, how much more giving it to the name of a person. Placing it in your name
to honor it is something different than it being your name altogether. Though
God is not a name, it would be the same thing like naming yourself GOD.
Moreover,
the only persons noted in history to use the name Yahu for God are pagans and
Christian philosophers. Such as Diodorus, a Pagan Greek Historian and the so
called Christian fathers who were really Hellenistic philosophers, Origen,
Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria and Jerome who used the latin version of IAHO.
It is also found on a few magical papyri from Egypt. Take these further quotes
to show why Yaho is not the root:
"Among the Gnostics, the original name of God was used
transliterated into Greek letters, IAO. They must have got this practice from
the Essenes, and we can get a good idea, therefore, of how the Kundalini
science underlying the New Testament originated."
"Sepher Yetzirah is one of the oldest books of kabbalah.
Traditions regarding this text point to its existence even in Biblical times.
In the text it is explained that God first created the Hebrew alphabet and used
these letters, the building blocks, to create the world. Each letter was used
to create a particular aspect of the universe. For instance the letter Hey was
used to form "Aries in the Universe, Nissan in the year, and the right
foot in the soul." Verse 1:13 of Sepher Yetzirah states that God chose
three letters [YUD HEY VAV - or Yahoo] setting them in His great Name and with
the permutations of them He sealed the six extremities of the universe - the
dimensions of above, below, east, west, north, south. The "great Name
" referred to here is the holiest of God's names - the Four Letter Name of
God YUD HEY VAV HEY" (Kaplan, Aryeh. 1990. Sefer Yetzirah. The Book of
Creation. York Beach: Samuel Weiser. ix, 215, 80).
Yeh,
right! I'll stick to the root being Yah, rather than Yahoo. For Yah (pronounced
Y-ah and not Yaw) in the bible is no different from the great "I am that I
am;" not a second divine being or chief angel. Moreover, even though I
don’t regard the name or word Yaho, The New Strong Concordance says Yahu (3058)
or Yahoo comes from Yahovah (3068); so in fact, Yaho couldn’t be the root if it
is derived from Yahovah. It was probably a slang shorten term from Yahovah that
took on several meanings, both not so evil and evil meanings.
All the Variations
The
following are transliterated versions of the Sacred Names that are in use by
various Sacred name groups:
YHVH,
YHWH, Yahweh, Yahveh, Yaveh, Yaweh, Yehovah, Jehova, Jehovah, Jahova, Jahovah, Yahova,
Yahovah, Yahowah, Jahowa, Jahowah, Yahavah, Jahavah, Yahowe, Yahoweh, Jahaveh,
Jahaweh, Yahaveh, Yahaweh, Jahuweh, Yahuweh, Yahhewahe, Yohewah, Eave, Jahuwah,
Yahuwah, Yahuah, Yah, Jah, Yahu, Yahoo, Yaohu, Jahu, Yahvah, Jahvah, Jahve,
Jahveh, Yahve, Yahwe, Yauhu, Yawhu, Iahu, Iahou, Iahoo, Iahueh and many more.
And let
me Emphases, God's personal name is not the Hebrew name of eloheem or any of
the other titles. His name is just his name. Of all
the pronunciations, Yahweh and Jehovah [correctly pronounce as Yahovah] are the
most accepted; and really, all the variations cling to either one, coming from
the root "Yah."
Allege Origin of Jehovah
"The
name Jehovah occurs a few times in the KJV Bible. But according to Harper's
Bible Dictionary, this name is "the result of the translators' ignorance
of the Hebrew language and customs" (1985, p1036). The book of World
Religions from Ancient History says, "The name Jehovah is a medieval misreading
and does not occur in the Hebrew Bible" (p.386).
Another
source said,
The most famous name for God in the Old Testament is called the
"Sacred Tetragrammaton". We don't know HOW to pronounce this name
YHWH, since it's all consonants, no vowels. The word Jehovah is a mistaken
pronunciation of this word. It arose when a Christian scholar, Petrus Galatinus
(~1520AD) combined the consonants YHWH with vowels belonging to the word
Adonai. (YaHoWaH, it was written as Jahowah because in latin J is pronounced
like Y). Jahowah was further anglicized as Jehovah.
So is Jehovah His name? "The word Jehovah does not accurately represent
any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew" (The Divine Name that will
Endure Forever, p20, published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society)
Dr. J. B.
Rotherham states in the preface of his Bible concerning Jehovah:
"Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely
a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowels in the Hebrew word
for Lord, substituted by the Jews for JHVH, because they shrank from
pronouncing The Name, owing to an old misconception of the two passages, Ex.
20:7 and Lev. 24:16...To give the name JHVH the vowels of the word for Lord
[Heb. Adonai], is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name
Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal - viz., Gormuna. The monstrous
combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520 A.D."
The Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia,
vol. 10) says:
"The Masoretes, Jewish biblical scholars of the Middle Ages,
replaced the vowel signs that had appeared above or beneath the consonants of
YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or of Elohim. Thus the artificial name
Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being. Although Christian scholars after the
Renaissance and Reformation periods used the term Jehovah for YHWH, in the 19th
and 20th centuries biblical scholars again began to use the form
Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost.
Greek transcriptions also indicate that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh."
In other
words, there is overwhelming references today to basically say Jehovah is
incorrect or as on the tongue of many, "hybrid." As not being a
wagonist all my life, I digress from jumping on that train. Nevertheless, I'll
agree that It could only be hybrid in the sense of pronunciation. Because there
is no "J" letter type in the Hebrew Alphabet. The 'J' was never
pronounced as "Jay" but as a 'Y' up until 1630 and the first KJV came
out 1611 (Encyclopedia Americana); and according to Hebraic linguistics there
is no 'e' sound after the Y, as seen in the word "Jah" (Ps 68:4). So
the correct rendering of Jehovah should be Yahovah.
Now, if
for this reason it is called hybrid separate and apart from alleged
interpolation of Adonai in YHWH, then the word Jesus is also hybrid. Because
the "J" should be 'Y' and the Greek stigma "s" was added at
the end because their linguistics state that a name should not end with a vowel
and thus when it does "s" is added, plus "aw" before the
end was cut out. In reality, Jesus should be written as "Yeshous"
from the Greek; and Yahshua from the Hebrew/Aramaic. So if Jehovah is attacked
then the word Jesus should be also. For it follows the same mispronunciations
and errors.
Allege Origin of Yahweh
Modern
references are now turning to Yahweh like a chain reaction, with little
research by individuals who adhere to it.
"A
lot of evidence lean to Yahweh being borrowed from the Samaritans. It is said
they took on the Jewish religion as their own; and also inevitable borrowed the
‘ineffable name doctrine.’ They call the sacred name JABE or with the ‘J’
mix-up YABE; most commonly YABAY OR YABEH. This is exactly like or similar to
sound as YAHWEH, Theodoret and Epiphaniuas assert that that’s how the Samaritans
pronounce the sacred name of God (fifth century). The Samaritans followed the
same ineffable name doctrine like the Jews (The Popular and Critical Bible
Encyclopedia). It is said that the Samaritans were even stricter with the
ineffable name doctrine in their Torah than the Jews (D. Williams). A letter
from the Samaritan high priest as late as 1820 pronounced the sacred name as
Yah-oo-ay; sound exactly as the above Yabe or Yahweh. Plus they were condemn by
Jews because they used the name in their oaths (Gemara Yerusalemi Sanhedrin).”
This doesn’t mean that what we have from them is the name, but more than likely
the sound of their Tetragrammaton (pipi).
Also we
find,
"Judging from Greek
transcriptions of the sacred name, YHWH ought to be pronounced Yahweh... (New
Catholic Encyclopedia, 'YAHWEH' " {"Facts and Myths About the Sacred
Name," YNCA Light, May-June, 98, p. 6}).
Notice
they said “judging from Greek,” a transliterated tongue and not even the
original language of Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, in his writings, Clement used
the Greek word which is a transliteration of the Samaritan name Jabe. No wonder
one person found out that the "pronunciation of the divine name as
'Yahweh' RESTS UPON SAMARITAN TRADITION as given by Theodoret (fifth century
A.D.), also upon evidence given by Clement of Alexandria" (Theology of the
Old Testament, p. 39).
"The
fact that Clement of Alexandria was a gnostic is no secret. This fact is
commonly discussed in works expounding on the early philosophers of Alexandria.
Scholars acknowledge that the gnostics obtained the pronunciation yahweh from
the Samaritans of Palestine and transliterated this pronunciation into Greek.
How ironic! ...The Greek is the only evidence he [Mansager, sacred name
advocate] presents in support of the pronunciation Yahweh. " In other
words, "the name Yahweh is based on a Greek name that is known to be of
Samaritan origin."
"Theodoret
said that the Samaritans used the name Jabai. In the treatise Quaestiones in
Exodus he wrote this name Jabe. These
passages have induced scholars to insert the vowels of the Samaritan Jabe into
the original Hebrew consonants YHWH," pronouncing Yahweh.
So like
the allege origin of Jehovah [Yahovah] being an insertion, it seems even more
that Yahweh is a mere guess of insertions also. That's the reason,
"Although Yahweh SEEMS TO BE a PROBABLE pronunciation of the
Tetragrammaton.... WE CAN ONLY SURMISE
that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation" (Parke-Taylor, Yahweh: The
Divine Name in the Bible, p. 80).
Yahovah versus Yahweh
"When
Tyndale published his translation, a number of letters in the alphabet had only
recently been invented and were not yet in common use. Although the symbol 'j'
had been invented about 1200 A.D.--three hundred years before Tyndale's
time--Tyndale does not use it here in his translation. The capital 'J' was not
invented until after Tyndale's translation was made. "The example of
Tyndale's translation [can be seen] from Exodus 5:18-6:3 (the first and last
verses are not completely quoted). This passage in the book of Exodus contains
three examples of the use of 'i' before a vowel to represent the consonant
sound of 'j'. Notice the use of lowercase 'i' before the vowel "u" in
Verse 21, and the two uses of uppercase 'I' before the vowels 'a' and 'e' in
Verse 3 of the following chapter. In each of these words, 'i' or 'I' represents
the sound of 'j'.
They view
'yahweh' as the only correct way to spell and pronounce the divine name. They
are completely ignoring the fact that the English letter 'w'--used in the name
yahweh--was invented two hundred years later than the first symbol for 'j'. In
addition, the letters 'a' and 'h' were not invented until the 1500's. Thus the
same argument that they use against the name Jehovah could be used even more
strongly against 'yahweh.' The spelling 'Yahweh' was impossible before 1500!
This same argument could be used against 'Yahoshua' as well. Since lowercase
's' was not invented until the 1500's, and lowercase 'u' did not come into
regular use as a vowel until the 1500's, the spelling 'Yahshua' was also
impossible before that time. "The truth of the matter is that the
invention of the letters of the English alphabet neither proves nor disproves
the pronunciation of the Hebrew name (YHWH). Although some of the letters in
the English alphabet were invented in later centuries, the sounds that they
represent existed from the earliest times. Only
the symbols used to represent the sounds changed.
The fact
that there were symbols to represent our ‘j’ sound is evident in Tyndale's use
of both lowercase ‘i’ and uppercase ‘I’ in the words ‘iudge,’ ‘Iacob’ and
‘Iehouah’ (that is, Jehovah). Had Tyndale heard our ‘y’ sound in the Hebrew
words he would have translated them as ‘yudge,’ ‘Yacob’ and ‘Yehouah,’ just as
he used the letter ‘y’ in the words ‘yet,’ ‘ye’ and ‘your’."
I have
read arguments for the name Jehovah (Yahovah) and for Yahweh (Yah-oo-ay) and
the most compelling is the usage of Yahovah; even though it is vilified today.
And Yahovah wasn't necessarily derived from inserting letters (vowel) into the
Tetragrammaton. Yahweh seems altogether highly improbable.
You can
view both sides and give your summation from the following sources, be careful
though, because they are notions in both that are completely foreign to
biblical Christianity (e.g. Jesus as chief angel, Greek New Testament origin,
etc):
FOR YAHOVAH: - Carl D. Franklin. "In defense of
Jehovah."
FOR YAHWEH: - R. Clover. "The Sacred Name of God."
See
Research bibliography for where the above materials are located.
Yahweh not the pronunciation of YHWH and
Why
Separate
and apart from the allege origins of inserting Jabe into YHWH, it seems that
Yahweh is someone's attempt at pronouncing the name by pronouncing what the
symbol look like or is spelt in the English form of YHVH. Notice this exact
quote:
YHVH - the Sacred Name, Yahveh pronounced YA-VE, the ‘YA’ as in
‘yard’ the ‘VE’ as in 'Vest’
So they
kept saying Yabe or Yahweh until it became common to refer to God by it.
Similar to calling someone with an alias or by their initials.
So, as
seen above, Yahweh could be the name of the Tetragrammaton, similar to how
someone came up with "Jahwah" from pronouncing each letter (YHWH) by
their interpretation and putting them together. But we don't know how the
Tetragrammaton was made; was it abbreviating the name or creating a symbol for
the name or something else. If it something like creating a word symbol for the
name, then Yahweh could be the pronunciation of that word symbol and not the
name itself.
For instance,
if I use OM to cover up my name, someone not knowing it would say my name is
"Umm," pronouncing the initials. But that's not my name, neither
close to it. I just used OM because I didn't want someone to know that my name
is Oneil McQuick. The similar thing could be the case with YHWH and Yahweh,
as confessed by this quote, "The four letters YHWH (pronounced
Yahweh)."
In
addition Carl Franklin provided this background on the name Yahweh:
It is a well known fact that the Samaritans were transplanted to
the land of Israel from the area of ancient Babylonia. What is not well known
is their connection with the ancient Amorites and their mutual god Yahweh. The
Samaritans were descendants of the ancient Amorites and remained in the region
of Babylonia after the collapse of Dynasty I of Babylon. Mari was the name of
their kingdom before Dynasty I of Babylon. The god of the ancient Amorites was
yawi, also variously spelled yawe, yahwi or yahweh. This Amoritic name was one
of the many names of Nimrod. Nimrod was worshiped under different names by
various cultures in the Ancient Near East. The Amorites worshiped Nimrod as
Yawi and Semiramis as Mari (later known as the Virgin Mary). Nimrod was known
as Yareah and Semiramis as Anat or Anath among the ancient Phoenicians. To the
ancient Chaldeans, Semiramis was known as Marratu. The ancient Elamite Persians
knew her as Mariham, and Horus (her son, whom she claimed was Nimrod reborn) as
Jahi. Among the descendants of Aram, the ancient Syrians, Horus was known as
Yamm, the serpent-consort of Meri (Semiramis). That the name Yahweh is of
Amoritic origin is little disputed by scholars. Nor is the fact that the
Amoritic name Yahweh has no connection with YHWH much disputed. Although
dictionaries and commentaries still promote Yahweh as the pronunciation of
YHWH, it must be remembered that this assertion is based on research that was
conducted between fifty and one-hundred years ago. That research was later
shown to be faulty and incomplete. Authors of recently published dictionaries
and commentaries that continue to promote Yahweh are ignorant of the facts.
That Yahweh cannot possibly be the pronunciation of YHWH is amply
demonstrated by the following excerpts from the Theological Dictionary of the
Old Testament and the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. The Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, which is the most prestigious work of its kind
in the field of Hebrew studies, rejects all attempts to link Yahweh with YHWH.
Notice:
"Early in the modern period, scholars began to try to recover
the pronunciation. The form yahweh is now accepted almost universally. The
structure and etymology of the name have been much discussed. While NO
CONSENSUS EXISTS, the name is generally THOUGHT TO BE a verbal form derived
from the root hwy, later hyh [i.e., the Hebrew verb hayah], 'be at hand, exist
(phenomenally), come to pass.' Whether the verb was originally a qal or a
hiphil formation is not entirely clear. The weight of the evidence is on the
side of the latter" (TDOT, p. 500, emphasis added).
Sacred namers boldly assert that the evidence supporting the name
Yahweh is "indisputable," as if the whole scholarly world has
unequivocally accepted this name as the true pronunciation of YHWH. But
Professor Freedman of the University of Michigan, who authored the above
article, knows that scholars have NOT reached a consensus concerning this
supposed pronunciation of YHWH.
As Freedman shows, the pronunciation yawi or yahwi was used by the
ancient Amorites in their idolatrous worship. Notice as well the connection
between the worship of Yahweh and that of Dagan, god of the Philistines. In
reference to the names of the Amorite deities, he writes, "The first four
are made up of a divine name and a form of the verb hwy, and can be normalized
as yahwi-hadd, yahwi-il(a) (twice), and yahwi-dagan....The last name,
normalized as yahwe, is important because it bears witness to the optional
shift of i to e in Amorite....The second group contains the verbal element
ya-ah-wi, e.g., ya-ah-wi-na-si, ya-ah-wi-AN. These names have been associated
with the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] but should probably be derived from the
[Amoritic] root hwy, 'live,' i.e., yahwi-nasi and yahwi-il (a)" (Ibid.,
pp. 511-512, emphasis added).
The
1911encyclopedia.org has also recorded the following,
"The derivation of Yahweh from hawah is formally
unimpeachable, -and is adopted by many recent scholars, who proceed, however,
from the primary sense of the root rather than from the specific meaning of the
nouns. The name is accordingly interpreted, He (who) falls (meteorite); or
causes (rain or lightning) to fall (storm god); or casts down (his foes, by his
thunderbolts). It is obvious that if the derivation be correct, the
significance of the name, which in itself denotes only He falls or He
fells...But one theory which has had considerable currency requires notice,
namely, that Yahweh, or Yahu, Yaho, is the name of a god worshipped throughout
the whole, or a great part, of the area occupied by the Western Semites."
Another source
concludes:
"We admit that, using the name Hebrew in the historical
sense, Yahweh is not a Hebrew name" (Ency. Brit. 1958 Ed. Vol 12. p. 996).
Of all
the possible explanation of the name Yahwey, the best can be found in this. As
we will see in the next section, the correct pronunciation of the name that was
revealed to Moses is Yahovah. However, what Hebrew 'linguistics' could have
done, was to shorten that pronunciation by removing the "ho" sound.
This is not strange because they did it with Yahoshuah to become Yashua. So if
that is done to Yahovah then it would look like this, 'Yahvah' and pronounced
Yaw-vah; then eventually Yaw-ve and so comes the Samaritan’s form, Yabe. This
would especially be the case if the form Yahovih is used. Yahovih, pronounce
Yahovee, is the same as Yahovah, see the New Strong Concordance number 3069.
Yahovah is the best and Why?
We have
pointed out above, that there may be a probable linkage of YHWH to the verb
'hovah' i.e. "YAH - HOVAH. There are now some interpreters who maintain
that there is a similar Hebrew word spelt with exactly the same Hebrew letters
hey vav hey, which is pronounced "hovah" and which means
"covetousness/wickedness." They therefore discard versions of the
Sacred name Yahovah; and even opt to use the verb hayah instead.
The Hebrew dictionary reflects the following versions, one after
the other strangely enough, and all spelt hey-vav-hey:
Havah - trouble, destruction,
mischief, passion.
Hovah - trouble, destruction,
mischief, ruin
Havah - 3rd person past tense of 'to
be' i.e. he was
Heveyh - Command form: be! As in 'be lord over your brethren' Gen 27:29
Hivah - 3rd person past tense - to
cause to be, constitute
Hoveh - 1st person, present tense - to
be
Hovah - 1st person, present tense - to
be (revelations.org)
Hovah
(1943) from the verb havah (1933, 1934) or hava (1933,1934) means "to
be" and so does the other Hebrew word hayah (1961). So both hayah and
havah (where we get hovah) means the same thing and even almost pronounced the
same way; haw-vaw and haw-yaw. So it would be easy to mix up the two or
completely correct to use them interchangeably.
It is
also claimed that hovah means ruins but so does hayah (1962). Obviously they
are exact words in Hebrew spelt the same, sometimes slightly pronounce
differently with different meanings. But hovah in Yahovah means to be; as in
"I am that I am." The strong numbers are beside the words above also,
for proof.
However,
today, in Exodus 3:14 it is rendered with hayah and not havah. That could be a
later rendering with the popularity of the name Yahweh, whereas it was Jehovah
at first.
It is
clearly recorded in the scriptures that his name is "Yah" (Ps 68:4 ),
so what is the problem? YAH is his name but when he told Moses implicitly who
he was he said *YAH HOVAH, which is translated "I am that I am" sent
you. But immediately after that he said explicitly to tell them, "I AM
[YAH] has sent me unto you." The confusion lies in this. YAH is his name.
However, what he said to Moses was a combination of his name and the most
personal verb, "to be"; in Hebrew that is "hovah," coming
from "havah". In other words, YAH HOVAH or "I am that I am"
should be really translated, "YAH will be what YAH will be" or
"Yah is what Yah is." That's why immediately after he told Moses to
tell them YAH sent him; again telling Moses his name by removing the verb. The
name is not written in Ex 3:14, but rather a combination of his name and the
verb "hovah" (or to be); then a relation to it standing alone –“I AM”.
Notice Ex 3:14 with the strong numbers, there is no strong numbers beside
"I AM," because that is his name but you see numbers beside "I
AM THAT I AM," because it is a combination of a verb (should be havah) and
his name:
Exodus 3:14: “And God
<0430> said <0559> unto Moses <04872>, I AM <01961> THAT I AM <01961> (8799): and he
said <0559>, Thus shalt thou say <0559> unto the children
<01121> of Israel <03478>, I
AM hath sent <07971> me unto you.”
His name
can be clearly seen with the praise word Halleluyah, which means praise be to
Yah. The verb Hovah is dropped because that is really not apart of his name but
rather an implicit declaration of it. It would not compute to say "Praise
be to Yah will be what Yah will be" or Halleluyahovah. But rather, "Praise
be to Yah" or Halleluyah. The same can be seen to other names that include
his name in it in honor. They obviously drop the verb hovah to rightly glorify
his name alone. E.g. EliYAH or JeremiYAH.
Then they
are the connote forms of his name like Yahovah-Yireh, which means Yahovah
Provides. Then it would be pondered why the verb isn't dropped off this connote
name. Because the connote form is really the essence of the added verb
"hovah". That is, Yah will be what Yah will be to you, thus he is
your provider at this time. Another time, he is healer and yet another time he
is a savior. So the implicit declaration of hovah is God is _________ (fill in
the blanks); and thus would be included in the connote forms to say what he is
in that instance. E.g.
Yahovah
Yireh = Yah is what Yah is - now provider
Yahovah
Shalom - Yah is what Yah is - now peace
And so
on.
One
person said,
"The mystery attached to the Name of the Almighty, is related
to the verb ‘to be' (I am, I was, I will be) which is the Hebrew verb ‘Hovah’,
meaning, ‘to be’, in the present tense.
YHWH therefore means: ‘YAH Hoveh’, which means YAH is________ [fill in
the blanks].
It is therefore quite possible that the correct rendering of the
SHEMAH (the Greatest Commandment - Deut 6:4) should read:
SHMAA YISRAEL, YAH HOVEH ELOHEINU, YAH HOVEH ECHAD
HEAR ISRAEL
YAH IS OUR GOD YAH IS ONE
In Modern Hebrew
grammar this matter is so serious and important, that the verb ‘to be’ (‘I am’)
is not used in the present tense at all!
An Israeli will therefore state in Hebrew: ‘I teacher ... I clever’, omitting the verb 'to be' (I am) in the
present tense. Usage of the Hebrew verb ‘HOVAH’ (I am) would imply referring to
oneself as being the Almighty!"
The last
paragraph alone should be enough to tell you that the pronunciation of the
sacred name was never lost.
Seeing
that the pronunciation wasn't lost and never was, when the Masoric text was
drafted, they pronounced it as it is. And though the original tongue had
evolved, it would be written to sound how it sounded when it was first
revealed; that is, transliteration.
It is
doubtful that there was an interpolation of Adonai into YHWH by the Masoric
scholars. This is said to be done by a European or German scholar, then they
want to say the Masoric scholars did it. Which is it? None! The pronunciation
was never lost as seen above and thus when vowels/consonants were now employed
in Jewish writings it was fitted to how the name actually sound. What has
happened is that the English today, seen in the word Jesus, is no where near
that pronunciation. And so Jehovah should really be Yahovah; which is
incorrect. The spelling is the least, what should be retained is the
pronunciation. This is often called transliteration. The pronunciation is
Yah-hovah. However, some pronounce the Yah as Yay. Because of that sound many
transliterate Yah in English with an 'e' as in Yeh, to try and get that Yay
sound. Thus you have Yehovah.
You might
say why not put the 'e' at the end too, resulting in Yehoveh. Because 'ah' is
not coming from Yah pronounced Yay. It is apart of the verb 'havah' where hovah
comes from and is pronounced 'haw-vaw'; though you possible have hoveh. A
similar instance follows for the end of the word Yahoshua. This should be the
key in weeding out all the wrong ones out of all the variations of the sacred
name. That is, it must be pronounced **Yah-ho-vah. That can be spelt Yahovah,
Yahova or Yahhovah. There is no lost of pronunciation, as all three sound the
same, but spelt differently. That's how names are taken from one language to
another, transliterated and not translated. You'll learn more about the
difference of the two when reading about what is the name of the Savior.
END
OF CHAPTER NOTES
[by the symbols given and General
points to note]
* denotes that an argument that this fuel is that with this
combination of YAH and HOVAH a new name wasn’t introduced but a new way or
revelation of his name, like a connote form. But the mere fact, Moses didn't
know this name Yah either or that God had to repeat it without the verb hovah
("I AM") shows it was not known; along with Exodus 6:3.
** denotes that according to strongs, Yahovah is also pronounce
Yahovih, how they came to this I don’t know. See strong numbers 3069.
General Point To Note - It is also said, though
defended, that "the opinion that the name Jahveh [Yahweh] was adopted by
the Jews from the Canaanites.” It “has been defended by von Bohlen (Genesis,
1835, p. civ), Von der Alm (Theol. Briefe, I, 1862, pp. 524-27), Colenso (The
Pentateuch, V, 1865, pp. 269-84), Goldziher (Der Mythus bei den Hebräern, 1867,
p. 327)" (newadvent.org).
General Point To Note - The name Yah development
seems to follow the same development of his previous most used appellation.
That is, EL => Eloah => Eloahim, Hence, Yah => Yahovah =>
Yahovah-Shalom (and with all connotation of Yahovah). So Yah wouldn't be the
shorten form of Yahovah or an allege Yahweh.
PURPOSE OF KNOWING THE NAME OF GOD
“If my people which
are called by my name
shall humble themselves...then will
I...heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14)
Why
knowing is important:- prophecies, deity, etc
I looked at a US money note and it has on it, "In God
We Trust." The very same morning of December 2003 I read 2 Samuel 22:32.
Someone had given me some money for the "season" the night before to
buy some clothes and all. It seems like a most appropriate title for any nation
to have, but with further investigation it might not be so. Reason being,
putting "God" can mean any god and in fact, some Masons of the
early United States had a different God in mind. This is one of the reasons for
knowing who we worship and why Christ could have said, "Ye worship ye know
not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (John
4:22). They know God's name and his ways. Knowing the name is being personal
with God. Any other reference to "God" is misleading. That's why Kind
David explicitly said in 2 Samuel 22:32, "For who is God, save YAH? And
who is a rock, save our God?" Clearly spelling out God's name (masked
under LORD in the kjv) and making it known that only he is God. When you use
his name you are really talking about God, because there is only one God and he
is it. Using titles makes provision for all demons and so-called deities to fit
themselves in, as the need arise; nevertheless – 1 Corinthian 8:5-6.
This is
how important the name of God is. For instance, the scripture says "the name
of the [Yahovah] is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is
safe" (Pro 18:10). Because the name is also found in the savior's name we
have a parallel to this in Romans 10:13, where it
said that whosoever shall call upon his name shall be saved. There is no other
way to be save except through the name (Acts 4:12).
How can
it be a strong tower if you don't know it? Remember I had expounded on Prov
30:1-6 about Augur prophesying on things like covering up God's name. He had
said this, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put
their trust in him." In other words, if you cover up God's name how can
people have a shield, someone to put their trust in or a "strong
tower" to run into for safety? Take away the name, you take away the
strong tower or safe place. Augur himself used the name in verse nine, which
was covered under 'LORD'; remember he was prophesying.
Also,
covering "Lord" over the name is a "cover up" that if it
was not done, Christ deity would be clearly seen and the doctrine of the
Trinity non-existent. It would prove that Jesus (Yahoshua) is Yahovah, the one
God. Not a second person sent, but God himself come in flesh.
If the
Hebrew names had been left intact in the Scriptures, it would be much more
difficult, if not impossible, for a person to be persuaded against the deity of
the Messiah. "Consider the Old Testament prophecies regarding Yahovah that
were attributed to the Messiah. For example, whose way was John the Baptist to
prepare? Who was to be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver? Whose side was to
be pierced? Who was the stone that the builders rejected, and who was to become
the chief corner stone? If your answer to these questions is Jesus, you had
better look at those prophecies again! In those passages, the Tetragrammaton
was removed and replaced with the words 'the LORD'. Restore God's personal name
YHWH and it becomes immediately apparent that those prophecies were about
Yahovah, fulfilled in the Messiah...Not only that, but when we use the Hebrew
name of our Savior, it clearly describes not simply what some man is doing or
what some prophet is doing or even what another god is doing. It describes what
the GOD of gods, the great I Am, what YAHOVAH is doing!" In fact, I believe "Jesus Christ is Lord"
should read "Jesus Christ is Yahovah!"
Does it matter if we know or use it?
One
person said, "If He called Himself 'the LORD' and 'thy God,' how can it be
sin for us to address Him as Lord and God? The terms 'LORD' and 'God' are valid
translations."
This was
addressed in rebuttal to a "sacred name movement" writing. However,
LORD is not a valid translation, nor is God. For many claim both, as Paul said,
"there be gods many, and lords many" (1 Cor 8:5 ), but "there is
none other God but one." What I'm saying is that he had a name and in
using the name is recognition that "there is none other God but" him.
That's why the popular Hebrew Shema is referred to by Christ as the first
commandment and can be rendered:
"Hear O Israel, Yahovah your God, Yahovah is one" (Due
6:4).
or
“Hear O Israel, Yah is your God, Yah he is one” (Due 6:4).
From the
above you can see how important the name is. It also shows the use of titles in
conjunction with names. Title gives the description and position of the person
holding name. For instance, if I say to a girl, "I am Oneil, your
man." Oneil is my name and man is a title of who I am, a male human;
earth's most 'rightly' intelligent being. So when he says things like "I'm
Yahovah thy God" or "Yahovah is one" he meant to distinguish
himself from the other so-called gods; and also prove them as no god. So it
would be foolish to say the titles are a proper translation for the name of
God.
"Even
the sensual appetites of humans is called 'god': 'Whose end is destruction,
whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly
things' (Phil. 3:19)." So titles can never be a proper translation for
God's name. It matters that we use his name and it definitely matters that we
use his saving name to be saved!
Use
in Songs and Praises
If you notice King
David’s writing and especially songs and praise psalms, you’ll see that he used
the name of God often, though they cover it under the title LORD. This analogy
might not be appropriate but similar to how a man likes to hear a woman calls
his name when she is pleased, so God like to hear you call his name in Praises
and Songs. Certain Jamaicans are the only ones known to exclusively use the
name, taken from Psalms 68:4; so much so that
many refer to them as “Jah People,” popularized by the Rastafarians – a spin
off from a deeply Christian nation. Seen on this popular website (they are many
other such websites with the same information but I chose this one because bob
is known and he wrote a song called ‘Exodus’):
Please visit http://www.threeq.com/pages/rasta.html
for more on Rastafarians
However, like
everyone, they get the pronunciation wrong, as it should be Yah and not Jah.
Most wouldn’t know except research is done on the history of the English
Language. So Rastafarians, who point fingers at Christians for using the name
Jesus as a colonial importation, can have that same finger point back at them
for the name Jah. Needless to say, this is not to promote the sect of Jamaicans
“known” to popularize the name Jah, that is, the Rastafarians. Because like all
spin-offs from Christianity, they use the bible but are not necessarily
biblical. For at first, Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, was the Messiah of
Rastafarianism as against Yahoshua. Plus they upheld and practiced adultery,
fornication, heavy ganja smoking and other profanity. Check the link above for
more info on Rastafarianism.
Final word
In Exodus
3:15, God declares that His name is a memorial forever: "And God said
moreover unto Moses, 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD
God [Titles cover name] of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations’."
In other
words, his name will never be forgotten, lost in time or covered up in a
Tetragrammaton so much that the real pronunciation is lost. In fact, the mere
reason the entire world says "Halleluia" or "Praise be to
Yah," is evident that his name has never ceased to be known or functional
in the lives of believers. On the other hand, though there is a present
"uncertainty" around the name, it could be the will of God that leads
men to call upon the saving name, which is the name of Christ. For no man can
really know the father (Yahovah) except through the son (Matt 11:27);
especially that his name bears the father's name, YAH. In fact, it will be
praised in heaven "And after these things I heard a great voice of much
people in heaven, saying, HalleluYAH" (Rev. 19:1).
END
OF CHAPTER NOTES
[by the symbols given and General
points to note]
General
point to note - Because devils know the name, there is an English word
spelt Yah and means “of derision, defiance, etc” and even an English word Yahoo
that means a “beastial person;” though I don’t regard Yahu, it’s obvious they
realize some do. Flee from these postulated word associations and meanings, as
said at the start, devils don’t want us to know his name and so will try
everything to stop it. God’s name is Yah. Both definitions from the Oxford
Dictionary, United Kingdom.
IS THERE ANOTHER WITH GOD’S NAME?
“O LORD our lord, how
excellent is
thy name in all the
earth!” (Psalms 8:1)
Some
questionable sources say there were other gods with the name Yah, which I doubt
greatly. I’ve not seen any concrete evidence of any gods called ‘Yah’ in my
research; though such history can be easily fabricated by devils to alter and
confuse the truth of his name.
Then it
is often notioned that there are two Yahovah’s Both Called God. One person
wrote,
Earlier on I showed you from various scriptures in Genesis that the
angel of Yahweh is also called Yahweh. This angel was the God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac and the God of Israel. This is the person they worshipped. Seeing
that he is an angel he is indeed a messenger of another one, a person superior
in authority. This other person superior in authority to the angel of Yahweh is
also called Yahweh.
Seeing that Judges 13:22 shows that the angel of Yahweh is God, and seeing that
Judges 13:8-9 shows that Yahweh is God,
isn't it clearly seen that there are indeed TWO personages, BOTH referred to as
"God"? Isn't it clear that of those called God there is Yahweh and
his angel, the angel of Yahweh? Isn't it also clear that Yahweh is superior in
authority to the angel of Yahweh, seeing that Yahweh is the one who sends the
angel of Yahweh?
The lesser Yahweh is
indeed Yah'shuah the son of Mary of Judah, popularly known as Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, seeing that the scriptures covered above have revealed his
identity as the lesser Yahweh, and seeing also that he was indeed the Mighty
One of Abraham, the Mighty One of Isaac and the Mighty One of Israel, whom you
say is also your Mighty One or Creator... the fathers, Jacob, says that their
God was the angel of Yahweh -Genesis 26:2-5, Judges 13" (Isaac Aluochier, "Servants of Yahweh", serveyahweh.org).
Unfortunately,
this theory is a popular one amongst many who adhere to the sacred name
movement. Out side of it, it is called deitism or dualism, where by two persons
make up the Godhead. It follows most of the principles of Trinitarianism and
because the second Yahweh is often an angel, the subordination is emphases.
This is
where I must diffuse this erroneous theory, because never in the scripture was
Yahovah seen as an angel or was there an angel named Yahovah. What happened is often
referred to as theophanic manifestations. Though nothing limits God from doing
this, he never became an angel. What happened in this theophanic manifestations
is, as the scripture states, an angel represented God. Not God became an angel,
but an angel represent God much like how a prophet speaks on behalf of God by
God. For instance, we have in Isaiah, "I am the LORD [Yahovah], and there
is none else” (Isa 45:6). This came from Isaiah's mouth. Are we to think
Isaiah, a man, is Yahovah? No. God simply used his mouth to speak to the
people. Similarly when you see in scripture the angel of Yahovah, it was simple
an angel God used to deliver a message or carry out an act. The ones to whom
the act is carried out often respond as they would to God because the words
came from God, but they later use the reference of angel because they knew it
was an angel God was using. For instance, a known prophet in a congregation may
stand up and say "I am the Lord God and I am angry with this
congregation." The people would then respond, "what do you want us to
do Lord?” Awaiting a respond from the prophet. Do they think the prophet is the
Lord? No! They simply responded to the words of God coming from the person God
is using.
After
that simply explanation it should be clearly seen that the two Yahovah theories
is incorrect and should now be abandoned.
One of
the reasons for the belief that an angel is Yahovah is because at one point he
sent an angel and said, "my name is in him." It was then believed
that the angel has God’s exact name. However, this signified power and
authority, similar to how Christ's name was in the apostles and also in us.
Jesus is not an angel or second divine persons as taught in Trinitarianism or
dualism. Jesus is the one God Yahovah in flesh.
Does Gen. 19:24 show two Yahovahs?
No. It
reads, "The Lord rained on
Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from
the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19:24). What some contend is that
"The Lord rained" and "the lord out of heaven" are two
different persons called Yahovah.
These other two verse are used to support that, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and His
Redeemer the Lord of Hosts: I am the
first and I am the Last, and there is no God besides Me" (Isaiah 44:6).
And, "I will have compassion on
the house of Judah and deliver them by
the Lord their God" (Hosea 1:7).
However,
someone clearly demonstrated that these scripture in no way implied or stated
two who are name Yahovah:
"This scripture (Gen 19:24) is often cited as proof that [Yahovah] is more
than one person. The claim by Trinitarians is that there is one [Yahovah] on
earth who supposed to be the prehuman Son of God, and another in heaven, the
Father. While [Yahovah] is used twice here, one would have to read into this
that there are two persons are being spoken of.
There is nothing here about two persons; one person in heaven and one person on
earth, nor is there anything at all here about supposed plurality of persons in
God. Such ideas would have to be read into what is said.
If you wish to read into this that there are two [Yahovah] here -- one on earth
and another in the sky, then you would have two [Yahovah], not one [Yahovah] as
[Yahovah] declares himself to be (Deuteronomy 6:4). Nor would such an
application call for two persons in one [Yahovah], for you would have two
different [Yahovah].
Actually all it is saying that the one [Yahovah] rained fire and
sulphur out of the sky from this same [Yahovah].
Similarly we read:
Genesis 37:28 - Then there passed by Midianites, merchants; and
they drew and lifted Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites
for twenty [pieces] of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
Three Josephs? No, just the same Joseph mentioned three times.
A further example of this usage:
"...when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the
house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin... to bring the kingdom again to
Rehoboam the son of Solomon" (1 Kings 12:21).
Is it speaking of two Rehoboams? No, Rehoboam assembled the tribes
to bring the tribes back to himself.
Another example is Genesis 4:23:
Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice,
You wives of Lamech, listen to my speech, For I have slain a man for wounding
me, A young man for bruising me."
Lamech is not speaking of another Lamech when he refers to his
wives as the "wives of Lamech".
David also said something similar as recorded at 1 Kings 1:33: The
king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon
my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: David refers to
himself in the third person as "your lord" when said "servants
of your lord". He did not say "my servants". He is not saying
that there are two Davids, nor is he saying that there is another person in
David. It should be apparent that there
is nothing in the terminology used in Genesis 19:24 that would lead one to
believe two persons are being spoken of" [As with the other implied
verses].
Does Zechariah 3:2 speak of two Yahovahs?
It reads, Yahovah said to Satan, "Yahovah rebuke you,
Satan! Yes, Yahovah who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Isn't this a burning
stick plucked out of the fire" (Zec. 3:2)? Again, someone clearly
disqualifies this notion below.
"This scripture is quoted as proof that Jesus is...a person of the Trinitarian concept of three persons in God. Says one Trinitarian:
"There are many who cannot see the Trinity in the Old
Testament. How they can not see it is beyond me especially in light of this
verse. Note that the angel of the Lord (= Christ), speaks unto Satan and says
"the Lord (= God the Father) rebuke you ... ". We have already seen
one example of this intertrinitarian dialogue in chapter 1 where we find the
angel of the Lord crying out to God in behalf of Jerusalem. We may not understand
the Trinity, but its existence can hardly be argued" (The Book of
Zechariah, An Exegetical Study, http://theopenword.org/books/zech/zech03.pdf).
We should first point out that the above statements are more eisegesis than
exegesis, for they read into the verse that the angel of [Yahovah] is Christ,
and then further read into this verse that there is something here about the
trinity. There is nothing at all in this or the rest of Zechariah that would
point to the idea that the angel of [Yahovah] who was speaking for [Yahovah]
was in reality Christ. Such an idea is assumed... Regardless, the idea of three
persons in one God would have to be read into the verse, for it certainly is
not there.
Another Trinitarian writes:
"One more place that the Son is identified as YHWH is in
Zechariah 3:2. An objective look at the passage clearly shows that the angel of
the LORD (who is the Son, the visible form of YHWH [Num. 12:8, Heb. 1:3]... is
called YHWH)."
The words "clearly" and
"objective" are often misused as words to make an assumption appear
to be "clearly shown." There is nothing in the verse that clearly
shows that the Son is called "YHWH" [Yahovah]. The idea that the
angel of [Yahovah] is Jesus is but an assumption to begin with, and even if the
angel of [Yahovah] were Jesus, at most this would only prove that he was being
called [Yahovah] as the spokesperson for [Yahovah].
The fact is that this is the angel of Yahweh
[Yahovah] is left "understood" in verse 2, for it is directly stated
in verse 3 that it is the "angel" of [Yahovah] who is speaking and
not [Yahovah] himself. With this thought even many Trinitarian translators have
agreed, as we show in the translations quoted below:
And the angel of the Lord said to Satan,
"May the Lord rebuke you, Satan; may the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem
rebuke you! Is not this man a brand snatched from the fire?" --
Confraternity-Douay Version.
And the angel of the Lord said to Satan,
"May the Lord rebuke you, Satan; may the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem
rebuke you! Is not this man a brand snatched from the fire?" -- New
American Bible
The angel of [Yahovah] said to Satan, "May
[Yahovah] rebuke you, Satan, may [Yahovah] rebuke, he who has made Jerusalem
his very own. Is not this man a brand snatched from the fire?" -- New
Jerusalem Bible.
We also wish to point out that the Syriac
Peshitta text also reads "angel of Yahovah", and not just
"Yahovah" in Zechariah 3:2.
Regardless, the context shows that it is the
angel of [Yahovah] speaking for Yahweh [Yahovah]. (Zechariah 2:3; 3:1,6) One
would have to *assume* that the angel that speaks here was actually
Jesus."
There is only one God, Yahovah, who is also the Messiah in the
flesh!
END
OF CHAPTER NOTES
[by the
symbols given and General points to note]
None.
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SAVIOR?
“Thou
holdest fast my name,
and hast not denied my faith” (Rev 2:13)
There is much speculation about the savior's name. Some have
preferred to use what they deemed as the original. Unlike the personal name of God covered under the Tetragrammaton,
the savior's original name is quicker to discover. Reason being, it is the name
of a man and a common name too. According to how the present name (Jesus) is
pronounced, we can clearly say this is not how it was said. Many speculations
arise from this. Though there is overwhelming proof of the original usage of
Christ’s Hebrew name, many Christians still believe the name Jesus is
"holy" and undeniable. Muslims still claim the pronunciation is Eesa
(Isa) and some Muslim think the actual name of Christ should be pronounced as
Esau, as in Esau and Jacob. Others claim it to be Eesho, which they ascribe to
the Aramaic; though this pronunciation doesn't sound like how it is spelt in
the Aramaic. This should sound strange to the 'ordinary' reader by now.
However, here are the spellings and the background from the language that Jews
and Middle Easterns spoke:
Eesho (ARAMAIC) is spelt yodh-sheen-waw-aih.
Y'shua ( HEBREW) is spelt yod-shin-vav-ayin.
Eesa (ARABIC) is spelt ayn-yaa-seen-yaa/fatHa
Of all the semetic forms, Y'shua (yod-shin-vav-ayin) is the most
authentic pronunciation of the savior's name. The Aramaic and Hebrew above are
spelt exactly alike and should sound the same in English. Thus, Eesho is
probably a mispronunciation after various alterations. The same could be said
of Eesa as well. Of the three, only Y'shua proves to be the original
pronunciation of the Messiah's name.
Notice that it is one word as against 'Jesus Christ', two words.
That is because Christ is not the savior's name or apart of it, like a surname.
It is just a title, like saying Cohen the Principal. Christ simply means
Messiah or anointed one from the Greek. Written in Hebrew as 'Ha Mashiah' and
thus Jesus Christ from the original would be Y'shua Ha Mashiah.
Proof of Original Usage of Y’shua
It is undisputable that the name of Christ was Y'shua. Many
sources verify this and it can be obviously traced, seeing it was a common name
that was made overtly famous by Christ. Moreover, we have this evidence though
it says hanged; it more than likely refers to the crucifixion as it does in the
bible (Gal 3:13):
"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshua was hanged..." (Babylonia Sanhedrin 43A).
In refutation to the above, one person said, “The Talmud was
written between 300-600 A.D. Other commonly quoted books like the
"Toledoth Yeshua" were satires written to defame Christianity as late
as the 10th century A.D. nearly 1000 years after Jesus.” The scribes and
Pharisees were always recording events, that’s why scribes are called scribes.
The Talmud was just a small collection of what was recorded from the inception
of this sect (Egyptian exile) to present history, including the time of Jesus.
It’s like saying the K.J.V of the bible can’t reference that Abraham existed
because it was written in the 1600’s, centuries after Abraham. No silly, it
only compiled some already written books. The same sort of procedure is followed
with the Talmud.
Also, remember that Y'shua had different variations, Joshua,
Jeshua and Jehoshua. Joshua, servant of Moses, wasn’t named Joshua, he was
named Oshea; Moses only called him Joshua (Numbers 13:16). So his real name was
Oshea and he was called Joshua written also as Jeshua (Neh 8:17) and Jehoshua
(Num 13:16) in the King James Version. Remember also that the 'J' was
pronounced as a Y when these names were written in the English. So, though the
name is written differently in the Babylonia Sanhedrin quote (Yeshua), it
refers to the same name; especially with transliterations and reverse
transliterations one after the other. Similarly, my name is Oneil but many
write O’neal, O’neil, Oneal, Oniel, Neil and others. The pronunciation is usually
preserved. The same thing goes for the name Y'shua and its liable variations.
Surprisingly, this name was first created by Moses and according
to how it is structured, it could not exist before Moses; he created it. In
other words, Joshua, Son of Nun and servant of Moses was the first person in
scripture to have this name (Ex 17:9). By the time of 1 Chronicles 24:11 they
started to refer to it as Jeshua (3442) or correctly, Yashua; even the New
Strong Concordance verifies that Jeshua was used for Joshua (3091). According
to Strongs, Jehoshua is the same as Joshua both with the same strong number
3091. The only time Jehoshua occurs, happened when the scripture stated that
the name Oshea, the same Son of Nun and Moses Servant, was changed to Jehoshua
(Num 13:16). This probably happened to clearly show the development of the
name. Jehoshua occurs only another time in 1 Chronicles 7:27 where someone in
the genealogy of Issachar had the name spelt out as it was in its original
form.
So Joshua, Jeshua and Jehoshua is the same name from the Old
English, written correctly today as Yashua or Yahoshua; Yahoshua being first
and Yashua a shorten form. This is the reason it was first created by Moses:
1. His actual name was Oshea pronounced O-shay-ah or O-shu-ah
2. This name means deliverer or savior
3. It is then recorded that Moses called him Jehoshua, pronounced Jeh-o-shu-ah
4. The "Je" as in Jehovah is actually "Yah," as seen in
Yahovah dealt with previously
5. So we have the name really pronounced as Yahoshua
6. So what Moses did was combine the name revealed to him, "Yah",
with Oshea.
7. Thus the name no longer means savior but 'Yah is salvation' or 'Yahovah
Savior'
So the savior's name is not a combination of an alleged 'Yahu' and 'shua', but
Yah and Oshea; Oshea is also written as Hoshea and Hosea, as all share the same
strong number of 1954. Therefore, the name Yahoshua could not have been before
Moses, because Yah, the name of God, was first revealed to Moses. It was
recorded in Numbers 13:16 of Moses making this name change, but we see the name
Joshua appearing as early as Exodus 17:9, apparently this was done from then
and Numbers 13:16 just simply mentioned it; thank God they did, for we would be
at lost as to the etymology of the savior's name.
Now we know the name is Yahoshua as seen in Jehoshua. But how do we come to
Yashua as seen in Joshua and Jeshua? Lets put out the cards on the table from
the New Strong's Concordance:
Jehoshua, number
3091. Written in today's English as Yahoshua.
Joshua,
number 3091. Written in today's English as Yoshua.
Jeshua , really Jehshua, number 3442. Written in today's English as
Yashua, really Yahshua.
As seen above, Jehoshua and Joshua comes from the same Hebrew word and it is an
English blunder to have them written differently, probably a shortening in
English not Hebrew. So where you see Joshua in scripture it should be Jehoshua
(Yahoshua).
Then we have Jeshua, which was later used for Jehoshua in
scripture. So in Hebrew, Jehoshua
was shorten to Jeshua, appearing as two different words as seen in the
different strong numbers of 3091 and 3442. What probably happened was that they
later removed the 'o' sound as to probably make it flow. Therefore, what we
have in English today as Yashua (Jeshua) comes from this form, rather than
Yahoshua (Jehoshua), which is the rightful pronunciation.
Therefore, Moses not only was the first one to receive God's name,
but also the first one to receive the savior's name. This wasn't arbitrarily
done. It was aptly fit to the man who should succeed him. As the Messiah was
the one who would succeed Moses dispensation. That is, Moses brought in the Law
and Yahoshua the Messiah brought in Grace; "For the law was given by
Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). So this
incident was of divine ordination by God to tell the end from the beginning.
Is there any Aramaic Influence
This question is posed about Aramaic because it was very close to Hebrew and spoken
by all Semitics. That's why the spelling is the same. In fact, it became
interwoven as Israel's first language. We find,
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament
would have to be dependent upon it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as
well, and the earliest Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to
Syria, to Nabataea spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus' name in Aramaic? "Eesho
M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah."
Though Jews spoke and wrote Aramaic in Jesus' time, the name
predates the Aramaic takeover. The name go as far back to the Egyptian exile of
the noted Joshua who succeeded Moses. In fact, one source said that
"Yeshua was the fifth most common Jewish name, 4 out of the 28 Jewish
High-Priests in Jesus' time were called Y'shua."
In other words, the name in
Aramaic would be a transliteration of the Hebrew. Aramaic and Hebrew are so
close the difference should be minimal, if any. Not like Peter in English put
as Pedro in Spanish. In fact, the Aramaic version in Aramaic is spelt the same
as the Hebrew yet sounds different in the English - "Eesho" and
"Y'shua". What I probably think happened is a mispronunciation or
mistransliteration or it being transliterated from a translation itself; like
how we have our English New Testament from Latin-Greek, rather than from the
original. Because "names do not change from
language to language. One can listen to a foreign broadcast and recognize names
of world leaders such as Bush, Yeltsin, Kohl, and Mitterand. Names are
transliterated ("given the same sound") by employing equivalent
letters of a given alphabet.” So the Aramaic and Hebrew should sound the same
in English, even more so because the two languages are almost the same.
Why was this display of Eesho done? Being just an analyzer of linguistic
references, I could not precisely tell. It is quite possible that the Peshitta
(The most famous Aramaic scriptures) was Hellenized too; that is, put in Greek
then back in Aramaic from the Greek, though this is denied. The most authentic Aramaic
scriptures probably can be found in Ethiopia, which was never overtly conquered
by any super power; hopefully they are not altered by devils already.
Another source said, “The Hebrew name Yahushua, through the medium of Aramaic,
was later translated into Greek as Iesous (English, "Jesus").” He
earlier said, “Jewish religious leaders...abandoned palaeo-Hebrew letters for
Aramaic...” In other words, what was
translated Iesous in the Greek and later Jesus in the English, came from the
Aramaic rather than Hebrew. That's the reason when you translate the savior's name
from the Old Testament (Hebrew) you get Y'shua or Joshua and from the New
Testament (Aramaic/Greek/Latin) you get Jesus.
You'll notice in the Old Testament Y'shua (Joshua) the son of Nun, companion of
Moses, subject of the Old Testament Book of Joshua; Y'shua (Joshua) the
Bethshemite (1 Samuel 6:18); Y'shua (Joshua) governor of Jerusalem under King
Hosiah (2 Kings 23:8); Y'shua (Joshua) son of Josedech (Haggai 1:1) and so
forth. Does this mean that “all the aforementioned …not [being]
transliterated into "Jesus" or "Ieosus"…proves that Y'shua
is not his name?"
No! Because as said above, Jesus went through various
transliterations before coming into English. Isolated for Y'shua (Joshua) as
follows:
OLD
TESTAMENT (OT):
HEBREW => OLD
ENGLISH (and often GREEK in the
middle, "Septuagint")
NEW
TESTAMENT (NT):
HEBREW => ARAMAIC => GREEK =>
LATIN => OLD ENGLISH
That is why you have two different pronunciation
of the savior's name in the Old and New Testament. As seen in the word Elijah
in the OT pronounced Elias in the NT. Noah in the OT pronounced *Noe in the NT.
Jeremiah in the OT pronounced Jeremias in the NT.
And to add to this is the fact that the English language has evolved
from old English to present English. English today would seem to pronounce
transliterated words differently from back then. For instance, Abraham's son
with Hagar his servant, is pronounced in the Bible as Ishmael, but it is actually
pronounced Yishmaael (
) from
the original. Or even Cain and Abel, pronounced 'Kayin' and 'Hevel'. And to
make matters worst all the languages evolved from an Old dialect to their
present dialect. The only way to see that this Aramaic spelling is correct to
the Hebrew spelling, is to see how the Greeks had pronounced it and hence show
that the pronunciation is similar, but under present English it looks absurd –
Eesho.
The Aramaic "Yah" sound was transliterated
"Ee" and "shua" sound as "sho," giving the name
Eesho. Even the double 'e' combination at the front sounds like the Greek 'iota'
and 'eta' together, creating an "ee" or the transliteration of the
'Y' sound. Example, Zekar-yah
("Yah is remembered”) or Zechariah in English, is transliterated as
"Zachar-eeah [s]" in the LXX or Greek.
So Eesho in the old English or old Greek would actually sound like “Yeesho”
today (written as Y’sho) – which is an allege translation of Y’shua; yet sound more
appropriate doesn’t it? Why they didn’t get “Y’shua” from the Aramaic is mostly
that it was translated into Greek – becoming “Y’soos” (pronounced Yay-soos) –
then back into Aramaic from the Greek. What the Greeks did was take off the “a”
sound at the end because masculine names cannot end in a vowel and the stigma
‘s’ is added; as in many names – e.g. Jeremiah becomes Jeremias in Greek. Plus
they had no sound for “sh” but “s” itself. Now, while the name was in Greek
they attempted to put it back in Aramaic strictly from the Greek, as if it was
originally a Greek name. To put it back in Aramaic, they only took off the
Greek stigma “s” and didn’t bother to add the “a” sound or consider the missing
“aho” for the apostrophe between ‘Y’ and ‘s’. Then when it came to English from
Aramaic in later centuries, they translated it from this corrupt Greek
form/version rather than a pure Aramaic original form/version; whereby you
would get Y’shua (or Yahoshua) from the original Aramaic. So the pronunciation
was lost in this Aramaic form (Eesho) with the Greek “mingling,” but the
spelling remain “authentic”; for the Aramaic letterings “yodh-sheen-waw-aih”
should be pronounced Y’shua. And if you know that the double “ee” is the Y
sound, Eesho is really pronounced Y’sho.
What about the Arabic Influence?
Arabic is another semetic language closely related to Aramaic and
also Hebrew. It is said,
The Muslim world knows Jesus Christ as
"al-MaseeHu Eesa" meaning
"Jesus the Messiah". This is illustrated in the following verse of
the Qur'an…- "al-MaseeHu `Eesa" - "al-MaseeH" is Arabic for
" The Messiah" and "`Eesa" is the name used for Jesus in the Qur'an.
On the other hand, writings against Jesus came the Arabic "Yesu` as
well...But Eesa is the most popular because it is the only name used in the
Koran. Another mentioned was “the term "Ya`si" or "Ya`su"
from which an Arabic version of "`Eesa" could easily evolve
etymologically.”
"Ya`si" or "Ya`su" like "Yaso'a" is merely a rendition of the Hebrew "Yashua"
(
), “which in short means that it is borrowed from Hebrew and
is therefore not Arabic!” Another person gave a
doubtful explanation of how **Eesa come to be in the Arabic,
Thus it has been clearly demonstrated that
Jesus' name being "`Eesa"
from the Arabic root "`Assa"
and the Hebrew root "`Esh"
meaning "North Star" has far more credibility than a reference to a
name for which there is absolutely no congruence with Biblical prophecy or
historical evidence.
Seeing that Arabic is similar to the other
Semetic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, it should also sound similar to
Y'shua. And so far, the Arabic spelling of Eesa and even the pronunciation
sounds no where near the savior’s name, Y’shua. It seems to have taken the same
course of the alleged Aramaic name, Eesho. Also, there is a resort to trace
Eesa to the biblical name of Esau, but it’s obviously doesn’t sounds like the
savior’s name. Well, not if you saw it in the Arabic bible like this – Esuwaa – you see the “shua” sound. Now
compare the two, Eesa and Esuwaa, in
Arabic:
"`EESA", spelled
AYN , YAA, SEEN, YA/FATHAH
"`ESUWAA", spelled AYN, YAA, SEEN/DHAMMAH, WAW
One person rightly concluded,
Again, we can see that "`Esuwaa"
in the Arabic Bible is certainly not the same as the Arabic "`Eesa" as they have distinct and
different root words. So how could the Critic or even anyone who knows Arabic
claim otherwise? (answering-christianity.com)
Also, Y'shua in Hebrew is no where near Esau in Hebrew and I
believe this Eesa/Esau notion is purely based off the fact that the Quaran's
Eesa sounds similar to Esau. But don't take my word for it, here is some proof:
The names "`Eshaw" and
"`Eesa" are completely unrelated etymologically and lexically.
"Esau" is Latinization of the Biblical Hebrew name for Jacob's twin
brother, `Eshaw, who was disavowed. This name is spelled:
`Eshaw - 
- "AYN, SHIN, WAW"; Pronounced "`Ee"
(like "see") + "shaw" (like "saw" with additional
stress).
This is an archaic word which literally means
"hairy". It refers to one who has a hairy and dark body. “Eshaw"
meaning "covered with hair".
The corresponding word for this in Arabic is A`thaa
with the trilateral root 
"AYN, THAA, YAA". This word, likewise,
means covered with hair. In Ibn ManTHoor's cohesive and authoritative work
on the Arabic language entitled "Lisaan al-`Arab" (The Arabic Tongue),
he states:
"`Athaa: al-`athaa: Having a murky color with an abundance of hair; al-a`tha: an abundance of ugly and
coarse hair; i.e. al-untha `athwaa' (fem. "hairy woman", i.e. hag); al-`uthwatu: coarse head hair, matted
in spite of being combed; `athi: old
person's hair; `athwaa, a`thaa, perhaps a reference to a hairy
man is "a`thi"; an old
man is "`athwaa'"; a`tha: Hyenas.." ["`Athaa" Lisaan al-`Arab, Ibn
ManTHoor]
Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon refers to the Arabic
word "`Athaa" as it is the obviously correlating word to
"`Eshaw". The Qur'anic name for Jesus is not related by any stretch
of etymology to the words "`Eshaw", or "`Athaa'".
Despite all this, it is quite interesting to know that though the
Qu'ran and other Islamic literature has Eesa for Jesus, more ancient Arabic
writings do not; as quoted here,
Finally, it is interesting to note that
information on the oldest Arabic inscription mentioning Jesus does not name him
Eesa, but may shed some light on a possible evolution from Y'shua to Eesa. The
inscription basically spells Jesus' name ya-sheen-ayn-ya,
which makes a sort of transitional fossil in the world of etymology. The
inscription was written underneath a circular Christian symbol some time near
the turn of the century, and was in Thamudic, an archaic form of Arabic.
Consider the following from a popular Orientalist journal:
"Mr. G. Lankaster Harding,
Chief Curator of Antiquities Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan, kindly sent me copies
of a little more than five hundred Thamudic inscriptions. [...] It is the
inscription [Harding No. 476] that interests us here. [...] Below the circle there
are four letters: a y, a sh, a c, and again a y." [Enno Littman, "Jesus in a
Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscription," Muslim World, (1950, vol. xi) p.
16.]
This spelling most appropriately fall in line with the other semetic
spellings cited earlier and represents the closest possible Arabic
transliteration of the savior's name. Enno Littman says it represents "the ancient Arabic name of Jesus"
[ibid. p. 18] and further states that "Inscription Harding No. 476 is the
oldest native document of Christianity of Northern Arabia known so far"
[ibid.]. Though his best guess
on its pronunciation is Yasha, it more than like was pronounced Y’shua by the
native Arabs.
So
it relatively falls inline with the other dominant semetic languages cited
earlier:
Y'shua (ARAMAIC) is spelt
yodh-sheen-waw-aih.
Y'shua (HEBREW) is spelt
yod-shin-vav-ayin.
Y'shua (ARABIC) is now spelt ya-sheen-ayn-ya.
What happened with this Arabic spelling and the present (ayn-yaa-seen-yaa/fatHa)
might be that Eesa was transliterated into Arabic after it was transliterated
from a previous language, namely Greek. Plus there is archaic Arabic and the
modern Arabic. Amongst many many many other possibly reasons. The most liable
would be that Arabic is read from right to left so it is spelt that way and so
“ayn-ya-seen-yaa” should be “yaa-seen-yaa-ayn” minus the “/fatHa.” Plus we have
to remember that Christ’s name came from the Hebrew and did not originate in
Arabic or Aramaic, though he was probably publicly proficient in both and at
least one.
So we see that from the three semetic languages closely related
and active in that region, the savior's name is relatively preserved as Y'shua.
What about the Yaho (Yahu) influence?
As seen in the Yahovah explanation, Yahu allegedly plays an
important part in God's name, according to some scholars. However, they wrongly
claim that Yahu or Yaho is a stand alone word for God, which forms the first
part of Yahoshua. But as already seen in this study, 'Yaho' and some word
'shua' wasn't joined together to form the savior's name. But rather 'Yah' and
'Oshea'. When combined you can clearly see Yaho in Yahoshea; written as
Yahoshua, because it’s pronounced that way. They not only wrongly claim a stand
alone Yahu, but that it is pronounced Yahoo and consequently so does the
savior's name, when in that form. Two sources says,
When the term Yaho is
used in conjunction with other syllables to form compound names the o
can be left in or dropped as preferred. When the Yah is on the end of the word the o or the consonant vav and the vowel is often dropped.
Thus, the name Abijahuw... becomes Abiyah, rendered Abijah in the English, which becomes the normal pronunciation...Yahoshua becomes Yashua (The Etymology
of the Name of God, logon.org or ccg.org).
Because his praenomen was Yahu, when Yahu Yahweh became a man he was known as Yahu-shua the messiah. We
shall also demonstrate that the name Yahushua does not mean "Yahweh
saves," as often but incorrectly advocated, but "Yahu saves"
(The Sacred Name, yahweh.org).
So it is not a rare thing that many claim Yahu to be a separate
word joined to some other word to make the savior's name. We already prove that
this is erroneous, but here are further reasons I hesitate to accept Yahu as
God's name and root of the savior's name:
"Contrary to popular notion, Yahu is a separate name from
Yahweh. The sacred name Yahweh is the personal name of father Yahweh and became
the cognomen of the lesser Yahweh, but Yahu
belonged to the lesser Yahweh as his praenomen" (The Sacred Name,
yahweh.org).
"The claim that Yaho was dropped from the Babylonian
captivity is unsubstantiated conjecture as the Elephantine texts show. As we
have seen, the form YH is pronounced Yahoo or Yaho when used as a syllable on
its own. This is the form rendered Jah in the KJV. He spoke for Yahovih or
Yahovah of Hosts, God the Father, the Elyon, or Most High, who is Eloah. In
this sense, the pre-incarnate Messiah
was also the Messenger or Angel of Yahovah as elohim in Zechariah 12:8" (logon.org).
"The reference is a singular one at Ugarit, but later
Phoenician sources refer to a god named
Iahu (in Philo of Byblos' 'Phoenician History')."
From the above you can see that many claim Yahu or Yahoo as a second
divine being, not just similar to the trinity of persons, but a subordinate and
sometimes Chief angel of God. Most references to the word Yahu claim this
unbiblical notion and there are references that tie this name to heathen
deites. This alone would cause any true bible adherent to digress from this
name being the name of God, but rather use the rightful "Yah" (Ps
68:4).
The Abbreviated form
Someone
said, "The name Yahushua was then shortened for everyday use, the same way
Barbara is often shortened to Barb, and Yahushua was known by those around him
as Y'shua."
In
truth and in fact, the name should be pronounced Yah-o-sh-uah but the Hebrews
took out the 'ho' sound later on. By the method of how this is done, in no way
suggest that Yashua is an abbreviated form. But rather, a shorten way of saying
the name. It was first recorded this way, Ya-shu-ah, in the book of 1
Chronicles under "Jeshua." They probably did it to make it flow, like
having silent letters.
Now
we come to the "Y" apostrophe "shua" (written as Y’shua),
there is no evidence to say that this was ever done in the original language.
We
have to be careful in saying there was an abbreviated form, because this could
be an infiltration to later say the savior's name was translated from an
abbreviated form or a symbol; much like the scenario with the Tetragrammaton.
It is quite doubtful that the savior's name was ever written in an abbreviated
form in the original, like how Y'shua is written in English. This (Y'shua)
seems like an English invention. Putting the apostrophe (') between 'Y' and
'shua' is to say something is to be there, so you can fill it in when saying or
writing it. It is normally known and therefore much problem does not arise.
However, it is best to write out the name in full as all can grasp the true
pronunciation rather than injecting what they deem best – ‘aho’ or ‘eh’ or
‘ah’.
Though
Barbara can be written as barb, barb is not her name and cannot be used on
official documents. Likewise, Yashua or Yeshua is not his name though he can be
referred to by it. His name is Yahoshua. Some might say that it is pretty much
okay to use Yashua or Yeshua, but if you did that for the name of God would it
be the same? That is, if you changed Yahovah to Yahvah, by taking out the "Ho"
sound, is that still the same pronunciation or word? No. It's best to cling to
the original name not a shortern form.
Moreover,
names are transliterated, not translated. That is, how the name sounds in the
original is what would appear, not the translation of the meaning or
‘lettering’. Thus the spelling is not important, what is important is that the
spelling pronounces or sounds exactly like the name. Y’shua doesn’t sound like
that savior’s name, it is just short hand writing.
The
savior's name is pronounced Yah-O-sh-uah.
But it can be written Yaoshua or Yahoshuah or Yahhoshua without any lost of
pronunciation. Much like how HalleluYah is often written as Halleluia or
Alleluia. You still hear the same sound, which means this praise word was transliterated.
That should be gained from any variation of the Hebrew name for our savior.
Yahshua, the shorten form of his name, spelt in Hebrew: 
Yahoshua, the true pronunciation,
spelt in Hebrew: 
or 
More on the Pronunciation
I
was eating from a bag of almond on the New Year’s Eve of 2004 after I’d just
finish most of this book. It was the second time missing “watch night service”
since being in church. Then later I pondered, from where I’m from we say
‘alm-mond;’ ‘alm’ as in almshouse. We had a big tree in Up Park Camp, where
everybody eat from. But here it is pronounced ‘al-mond’. Then it later hit me,
Yahoshua is written one way as almond is, but people can get the pronunciation
differently. One person can pronounce the ‘O’ sound as ‘Yah-oo-shua’, while
another pronounce it as ‘Yah-u-shua’.
The correct pronunciation can be gained by going back to the word it was joined
with, Oshea. The ‘O’ in Oshea was never pronounced as “oo” but ‘o’ or ‘u’. This
is clearly seen in the other forms of the same word Oshea that has the same
strong numbers, that is, Hoshea and Hosea. A clear sound at the front that
makes the ‘Hu’ sound as in Hut. The Yah is pronounced ‘Yah’ but some pronounce
it as ‘Yay’ giving a ‘Ye’ sound as in Yes; and thus many write it as Yehoshua
or you often see Yeshua. But it is correctly Yahoshua, that is, Yah-o-sh-uah.
If you
really want to get a good grasp of how difficult it can get with Jewish names,
just take your bible and a strong concordance to the books of Chronicles, Kings
or any other book that gives extensive lists of Genealogies. For instance, in
Hinduism, sheva is a name of a false god but someone in Israel’s genealogy was
name sheva (1 Chron 2:49). Nothing to it, just names, probably even
mistransliterated. Again, Saul, as in King Saul and the Apostle Saul (later
Paul) was really pronounced Shaul (Shaw-ool) yet its written less than ten
times this way and all the hundreds of references to this name show it as Saul.
In fact, Saul and Shaul have the same strong numbers of 7586 and thus the same
word.
Then we
come to the Lord’s name, we know the bible writes Yahoshua and Yahovah as
Jehoshua and Jehovah. The ‘Y’ being the ‘J’, so what is really different or
substituted is the ‘e’ or ‘a’ – Jeh and Jah sound. You might say if Jeh was
really Jah they would write it as seen in names with Jah; example, Jahdiel (1
Chron 5:24), Jahath (1 Chron 6:43), Jahzah (1 Chron 6:78) and others. As
against name with Jeh, example, Jeshua, Jehu, Jehoshua or Jehiel (1 Chron
9:35). It’s a bit complex but this might sort it out a little:
When Je (Ye) is written in Hebrew it uses the same letter
that is used in saying Ja (Ya). This Hebrew letter is Yowd, written like this 
. One
letter, two different pronunciations. According to Strongs, certain letters
have vowel points that make them sound different. For instance, Yowd in Je (Ye)
is written as 
and in Ja (Ya) it is written as 
.
However, the letter Yowd in Je (Ye) has no definite distinguishing
pronunciation, as Strongs first say it is obscure then later say it is silent,
yet they give it the ‘e’ sound and use it in spelling God’s name - Yahovah and
Yahoshua. This was probably done to compensate the erroneous spelling we
already have in the bible, with the ‘e’ in them.
Then Strong asserts that the Yowd in Ja (Ya) is said to be
pronounce with an ‘a’ as in ‘all’, thus they say Yah is pronounced Yaw; then
use it in spelling Yah when it is a stand alone, as in Ps 68:4. I differ on
that, I believe it was always pronounced with the pattach, written as 
, making
the ‘a’ pronunciation as in man; with the outcome of Yah and not Yaw or
Yeh. Thus this simple Hebrew spelling
of Yahoshua changes from 
to 
.
As can be
seen in the ‘Saul’ and ‘Shaul’ scenario, Old English really confused the actual
pronunciation of names. Plus, getting the diverse pronunciations of the prefix
of the Lord’s name (Yah) might be a matter of accent. For instance, saying Yah
in someone’s accent might sound like Yaw and vice versa. Again, saying Yay may
sound like Yeh or Yey with another person’s accent and vice versa. Moreover,
they were different Hebraic accents as they are English accents. What we know
is that it is correctly transliterated spelt Yah with the ‘a’ as in man, the
most feasible pronunciation.
What's the difference between transliteration
and translation?
I
saw a Spanish channel in 2004 showing something about the Michael Jackson first
Child Molestation arrest and scenario from 2003. I mainly saw the pictures because
it was in Spanish, but recognize the pictures because I saw them on the English
Channel. Surprisingly, they translated and transliterated everything except his
name, because Michael is who he is, “King of Pop”. And rightly so, I’m not
talking about who he is, but rather that names should be transliterated and not
translated. Even further, the English Michael has a Spanish
translation/transliteration of Miguel; but would the viewers recognize him if
they wrote Miguel something? No! So why do we treat God’s name this way, as it
sounds no where near the original pronunciation.
Above we said that the pronunciation Yah-o-sh-uah should be gained
from any variation in any language. This can only happen if the original word
is transliterated and not translated. According to the dictionary,
"translation means, express sense of in another language or in other words
or another form of representation." It also had transliteration to mean,
"to represent (word etc) in more or less corresponding characters of another
alphabet or language." In others words, transliteration makes the word
sound the same way rather than translating the letters literally. For instance,
if a word from Spanish sounds likes 'ni-knee-uh' meaning boy and when put into
English is spelt boy, then the word was translated. What was carried over was
only the meaning conveyed and all pronunciation abandon. But if after carrying
it over into English it is spelt Nino or Nineeno, then the word is
transliteration. Meaning is side stepped for pronunciation. Example,
Nino means boy in English and boy in Spanish is Nino;
pronounce Ni-knee-uh. Now look at how transliteration and translation works:
Translation
SPANISH: “El nino habla.”
ENGLISH: “The boy speaks”
Transliteration
SPANISH: “El nino habla.”
ENGLISH: “The Nineeuh speaks”
So the translation works best in this case, because if they
said, “The nineeuh speaks,” would you know what they are saying? No.
Arbitrary words and titles from one language to the other can be
translated and should; with their meaning from the said culture preserved. So
you can have Messiah in English, Mashiah in Hebrew and al-MaseeH in Arabic. You
can say I love you in Spanish as 'te amo' or the use of the word 'amor' in
French. But that cannot be done for names. For as quoted earlier, "names
do not change from language to language. One can listen to a foreign broadcast
and recognize names of world leaders such as Bush, Yeltsin, Kohl, and
Mitterand. Names are transliterated ("given the same sound") by
employing equivalent letters of a given alphabet.” Thus the first and most
definite purpose of a name, that is, identification and distinction. Example,
The world knows President Bush, his war on Terror and
subsequent capture of Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein. Now look at how transliteration
and translation works:
Transliteration
ENGLISH: “President Bush speaks.”
SPANISH: “Presidente Bush habla.”
Translation
SPANISH: “Presidente ^Pasto
habla.”
ENGLISH: “President Grass speaks”
So the transliteration works best in this case, because if on the radio broadcast they said 'Presidente
Pasto' or President Grass for 'President Bush', would you know who they are
talking about? No. They translated the name rather than transliterating it. You
can’t translate names, they have to be transliterated.
^According
to a classmate they mostly use pasto for grass, but online it says hierba and
arbusto for bush.
You might exclaim and say that names have meaning and thus when
transliterated it is lost. Not necessarily, names come with titles that tell
the meaning. For instance, my former accounts teacher would be "Teacher
Burgess" in English, but in Spanish that would be
translated/transliterated as "Professor Burgess." The title is
translated and the name transliterated, so you get the description
("meaning") of the person. You might say that the name itself has a
meaning, as in Zechariah means Yah is remembered. For Christ this is solved in
his titles, for his name means the Messiah or salvation, as in God came to save
us. But for others like Zechariah, you'd simply have to tell someone in their
language, that's how we know the meaning of most biblical names. For instance,
Jabez, transliterated from the Hebrew, means sorrow or grief. The only way we know
that it means grief is because we are told that in our language by the words
that were translated; "his mother called his name Jabez, saying, Because I
bare him with sorrow" (1 Chron
4:9). The same thing can be seen in Mark 15:22. So names are transliterated and
if one wishes to know the meaning of the name, that has to be told separately,
translated. The meaning of the name isn't lost when transliterated, it's just
not known by you. How else would you know ***Oneil also means champion, except
I told you. You can't look at it and figure it out, neither looking in a
dictionary; for it is said to originate in Scotland. Therefore, it is quite
safe to say names should only be transliterated while other words are
translated. If names were translated, it would defeat the purpose of having
names. Again, how ridiculous it would sound if we wrote "Yah is remembered
has called you," rather than "Jeremiah has called you."
Fortunately, transliteration of names is the standard held.
Unfortunately, when the Greeks transliterated Yashua they completely
reconstruct the end to form a different sounding name altogether and this is
what 95% of all languages use. It should have been completely transliterated as
is.
Other names with Yaho (Jeho) at the front of it
They
are several other names in the Bible that seemingly have Yahu at the beginning
of it. For instance, Jehozabad, Jehohanan, Jehoiada, Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim, Jehoiarib, Jehucal (u
here is pronounced as “oo” so it might not count), Jehonadab, Jehonathan, Jehoseph, Jehoada, Jehoaddan, Jehozadek, Jehoram, Jehosheba, Jehoshabeath, Jehoshaphat and so on. Please bear in mind that Jeho is more
precisely written as Yahu or Yaho, but because you are familiar with the
biblical prefix ‘Jeho’, we’ll use it interchangeably.
When I looked at
Strongs reference for Yahoshua, it said it came from Yahovah and Yasha, though
we showed you it was clearly compiled from Yah and Oshea by Moses.
Nevertheless, Oshea comes from Yasha. But if you put Yah and Yasha together you
don’t get Yahoshua. Therefore, Strongs is not 100% accurate in it compilation
of some names and they can only give their best estimation. Reason being,
almost all the names above with Yahu (i.e Jeho) in them aren’t a compilation of
Yah and another word with “ho” at the beginning, like Oshea and Yah. But
rather, Yah (or Yahovah) and some other word, according to Strongs. Like saying Yah and camera gives you
Yahocamera. Only names with “ho” sound at the front could get that Yaho effect,
like Yahoshua. For instance, Yah and Othniel make Yahothniel; and seeing that
Othniel means the force of God, Yahothniel would mean the force of Yah. Just
might change my name to that, seeing Oneil is really the word Othniel.
Then
there are names that were just spelt that way with Yaho at the front,
especially for those Strongs didn’t attribute a combination of God’s name and
another word. Arbitrarily just coming up with a new name and it so happens to
have Jeho at the front.
Then
take Jehoseph (3084), which strong gives no combination of two words but rather
a fuller form of Yoseph or Joseph. Actually this is correct because the name
Yah first occurred with Moses, when he joined God’s name with Oshea’s name to
get Yahoshua. So no other word with Yah could be used to form Jehoseph, because
Jehoseph or Joseph was before Moses and Joshua. Actually, the word Jehoseph
(3084) first occurred in Psalms 81:5 and the word Yoseph (3130) or Joseph was
in use before Moses – two different words with two different strong numbers,
unlike Joshua (3091) and Jehoshua (3091). It could have been later change to
Jehoseph after God’s name was first revealed; but why? Could have become a sort
of trend.
Then
remember strong asserts that Yaho as a stand alone was created from Yahovah,
then it could follow that some of the names were a combination of this mixed-up
name and another. For instance, the name Jehoiada or Yahoyada; remember the “i”
in Jehoiada, as per Old English, had the ‘Y’ sound as well as the ‘J’. Jehoiada
or Yahoyada is alleged to mean Yahovah Known. Yada or Jada means to know or
knowing and it is also the name of a person in the bible. So they erroneously
shorten Yahovah to Yaho and joined this shorten form to names like Yada to get
similar names like Yahoshua.
It seems
that after Moses, it became a trendy thing to do with certain elected leaders.
That is, to have a leader with an alleged name that incorporates God’s name in
it. Even heathen Kings got involved in this, probably advised by Jewish
captives who were advisors to the “rogue” leaders. For instance, Pharaoh-necho
changed Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34) when he invaded Israel and set up
a puppet King. Nebuchadnezzar did the same thing when he invaded Jerusalem and
set up a puppet King, Mattaniah. He changed his name to Zedekiah or ZedekYah (2
Kings 24:17).
So
they are several reasons for other names with “Yaho” at the beginning, but we
know that the name Yahoshua was first created by Moses as a combination of Yah,
revealed to him by God, and Oshea, Joshua’s real name. This has several
implications as seen before, which also showed that this combination could only
originate by Moses; of course, inspired by God.
All Variations
The following are transliterated versions of the savior's Hebrew
name, which are in use by various Sacred name groups:
Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu, Yeshu, Yehoshua,
Yehoshuah, YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, YHWHShua, YHWHShuah,
Yhvhshuah, Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua,
Yahvehshuah, Yahwehshuah, Jeshus,
Yawhushua, Yahawshua, Jahshua,
Jahshuah, Jahshuwah, Jahoshua, Jahoshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah,
Yashua, Yashuah, Yahshua, Yahshuah, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahuahshua,
Yahuahshuah, Yahoshua, Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah, Yauhushua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua,
Iahushuah, YAHO-hoshu-WAH and many others.
Though they look similar, you can eliminate by the facts given so
far.
END OF CHAPTER
NOTES
[by the symbols given and General points to note]
* denotes that
it is strange we find a masculine name coming from the Greek, ending with a
vowel sound, if it sounded like a vowel back in Greek. That is, Noah becomes
Noe, where as vowel sounding endings of transliterated names in Greek were
dropped and the stigma ‘s’ added; still unclear why this wasn’t done for Noah’s
name, if it wasn’t.
** denotes that ‘Eesa’ has
also evolved to just saying ‘Isa’ in Arabic, much like how we use slangs.
***
denotes, Where this asterisk is I had said “Oneil also means champion.” I said
also because the real true meaning of the name Oneil is not champion. Champion
is a later derivative. I had found this out after doing more research,
especially with “The Voice…” It predates Scotland and is actually Jewish, with
a Jewish or God ordain meaning. The man that succeeds Yahoshua, or the Joshua
of Moses, was a man called Othniel (Judges 3:9). My name is Oneil. What’s the
big deal? The same methodology that is used in the abbreviated shorten form of
Yahoshua could follow with Othniel; even further, purposely done so. Notice,
Someone said, "The name Yahushua was then
shortened for everyday use, the same way Barbara is
often shortened to Barb, and Yahushua was known by
those around him as Y'shua."
In truth and in fact, the name should be pronounced
Yah-o-sh-uah but the Hebrews took out the 'ho'
sound later on. By the method of how this is done, in
no way suggest that Yashua is an abbreviated
form. But rather, a shorten way of saying the name. It
was first recorded this way, Ya-shu-ah, in the
book of 1 Chronicles under "Jeshua." They
probably did it to make it flow, like having silent letters.
Now we come to the "Y" apostrophe
"shua" (written as Y’shua), there is no evidence to say that this
was ever done in the original language.
We have to be careful in saying there was an
abbreviated form, because this could be an infiltration
to later say the savior's name was translated from an abbreviated
form or a symbol; much like the
scenario with the Tetragrammaton. It is quite doubtful
that the savior's name was ever written in an
abbreviated form in the original, like how Y'shua is
written in English. This (Y'shua) seems like an
English invention. Putting the apostrophe (') between
'Y' and 'shua' is to say something is to be there,
so you can fill it in when saying or writing it. It is
normally known and therefore much problem does
not arise. However, it is best to write out the name
in full as all can grasp the true pronunciation rather
than injecting what they deem best – ‘aho’ or ‘eh’ or
‘ah’.
Though Barbara can be
written as barb, barb is not her name and cannot be used on official documents.
In
other words, the same thing could have been done to Othniel. That's why you
have the name being spelt O’Neal, O’Neil, Oneal, Oniel, Oneil, Neil, etc. The
most traditional of those forms is O’Neil or O'niel, which the rest were
probably derived from and even the meaning dwindled to just champion. As seen
above, the apostrophe means that something is missing and should be there.
According to what we have seen thus far, what would be missing from there? The
"th" of course, hence O’Neil is an abbreviated shorten form of
Othniel. Hence, Oneil comes from the word Othniel rather than from the Scottish
version Neil (champion), as previously alluded to. Like Oshea (meaning savior)
that turned into Yahoshua, why wasn't Othniel turned into Yahothniel? I then
looked in the Strong's numbers for the meaning of Othniel and it means,
"force of God;" so God is already mentioned in the meaning, though
not by his name Yah. Strong said,
Othniel - From the same as 6273 and 410; “Force of God”.
I then
looked up 6271 and 410, they read:
Othni or 6273 - unused root meaning “to force.”
El or 410 -
Strength, especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity):- God…
Therefore,
Othniel is a combination of the root "Othni", meaning to force
and "El", meaning God. Though El is not God's name but a reference to
him, it was then used, "For though there be that are called gods, whether
in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,). But to us
there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him…by whom
are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor 8:5-6). For instance, angels had
that God appellation in their names - Michael, Gabriel, etc.
Nevertheless, putting Yah before my name wouldn't hurt (Yahoneil), as I
previously intended to do, but under the notion that Oneil only meant champion,
rather than the “force of God." Yahothniel would then mean “the force of
Yahovah God,” same thing but with God’s name in it. Othniel can also be written
Othneil, because the pronunciation is preserved, as previously seen concerning
transliteration. Thus they are literally the same word and name; so goes Oneil
and Oniel. Also, similar to how Yahoshua ended up Joshua in English
(remember J=Y in English as first), Othniel ended up as Oniel (or
Oneil); or even Niel (or Neil). Also, Easton Bible Dictionary also has Othniel
to mean “Lion of God,” which in a sense still ascribe to being a “Force of
God.”
General Point To Note - The bible
codes (biblecodesdigest.com) is said to reveal the name Yeshua (Yashua), though
that can be an error for the name is Yahoshua and if the codes are God ordained
he would mostly likely use the actual name Yahoshua, because it has the reveal
meaning written in it.
General
Point To Note - You might say I mention or know a lot about my name, it’s because when I
was searching for who I am, I tried everything. I searched and found my two
names are Scottish. Neil, where you get Oneil from, was some Scottish leader
who stood a test of fire to become King. I even look in unbiblical stupid
places, things like birthstone (onyx), astrology and even the Chinese zodiac
that said I was born the year of the Monkey. None of these suffice, but I found
myself in God, hence I opt to change my name to honor his name; from Oneil,
champion, to Yahoneil, Yahovah is champion. Not just saying this like others
do, knowing they should be humble, but after actually thinking myself a
champion then failed, I experienced his loving help and found that it is he who
is champion!
General
Point To Note - Joshua seems to come from overtly using the apostrophe, as in Y'shua
is used for Yahoshua; knowing that Yah and Oshea was join to make the name. So
instead of using Y'shua, someone used Y'oshua, abbreviating only the Yah and
not the last part of Yah and first part of oshua. Now knowing that the Y was
translated J in old english, Y'oshua would read J'oshua or Joshua.
FROM THE ORIGINAL TO JESUS
“That
at the name of Jesus every knee
should
bow, of things in heaven, and things
in earth, and things under the earth”
(Phillip 2:10)
From Yahoshua to Jesus (Etymology)
Firstly, as seen in the three semetic spellings given at the
start, what was translated as the savior's name was the shorten form. That is,
Yashua rather than Yahoshua, unfortunately. Then from there it went into Greek.
The following gives further details:
"The transliteration of "Yahshua" into Greek posed
some difficulty. First, the Greek language did not have the "Ya-" or
"sh-" sounds. To approximate the first sound, the translators had to
put the Greek letters of iota and eta together, creating an "ee-ay"
sound. The simple "s" of the letter sigma replaced the "sh"
sound. The result was "ee-ay-soo'-ah." [ee = Y, ay = ah, soo = shu
and ah = ah]. This result posed an additional problem; masculine Greek names
never end in a vowel sound (feminine Greek names do). For names imported from
another language, it was customary to add a sigma at the end (Barnabie became
Barnabas, Elijah became Elias, Jonah became Jonas, for example). This was done
to the Lord's name too, rendering it "ee-ay-soo-ahs." The vowels of
the last two syllables did not flow well, so the "-ah" sound was
dropped. The Name thus became "ee-ay-soos."
With Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin (the Latin
Vulgate) the transliteration was straightforward, as the Latin language could
make all of the same sounds as the Greek. All that was needed was to substitute
the letters of the Roman alphabet for the Greek, which resulted in the name
"Iesus." This rendering of the Name would dominate the Christian
world for the next thousand years.
In 1384 John Wycliffe made the first English translation of the
New Testament, using the Latin Vulgate as his only source. This time places
Wycliffe's work in the early Middle English period. Prior to the 1100's, Old
English did not have the letter "J" or the sound it makes. Between
1100 and 1600, some dialects of English began using the "J" sound.
Wycliffe used the traditional Latin spelling and pronunciation of
"Iesus." Since the printing press had not yet been invented, only a
few manuscript copies of Wycliffe's Bible were produced and these were in the
possession of scholars rather than the common people.
By the time William Tyndale made his translation of the Bible in
1526, the "J" sound was commonplace in the English language. Tyndale
wanted his translation to be in the language of the common people, and he had
not only the Latin Vulgate but also some ancient Greek manuscripts for his
sources. The printing press had been invented a few decades before, which
enabled Tyndale's Bible to get greater circulation. Tyndale was the first to
spell the Name as "Jesus," and there is evidence that he wanted the
pronunciation to be "Jay-soos." The Spanish-speaking people took the
English spelling and pronounced it "Hay-soos." The English commoners
soon substituted the long "e" sound for the long "a"
carried from the Greek and Latin, resulting in the pronunciation used today by
English-speaking people. In 1611, the most widely published and accepted
English translation of the Bible was made, the King James Version. It had a
pronunciation guide, which made official the pronunciation "Jee-sus,"
with the long "e" sound, that we use today. Incidentally, all of the
Biblical names beginning with the letter "J" have undergone the same
transformation. Jeremiah, Judah, Jerusalem, John, and many others had a vastly
different pronunciation at the time that they were originally written about,
because neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Greek, nor Latin had either the letter
"J" or the sound that it makes" (from a site called lakeside).
Jesus (pronounced "Jee-Zeus") and the
Greek God Zeus
One person erroneously wrote,
The original Hebrew or Jewish Name of the professing Jewish
Messiah, who was accepted as such by a certain section of Israel, at and after His
Appearance in Israel, some 2000 years ago. To them He was known as YAHU'SHUAH
...In time, over the first few centuries after Messiah, His Name was gradually
changed to "Je-Zeus Khristos"
by the pagan masses who converted and joined the originally Jewish Messianic
Sect. Out of this, Christianity was born, which was a mixture of originally
pure Judaism, and gradually, progressive influences of pagan customs and
traditions, together with a growing tide of an anti-Semitic spirit. This was
greatly due to the instigation of influential leaders like Constantine the
Great, who was a Zeus worshipper, and who purportedly converted to
Christianity. It was also a natural process as a result of the infiltration of
followers of the sungod, Zeus, into the Christian ranks. Even the name of their
pagan idol 'Zeus' was applied to their new-found Jewish Messiah - and Y'Shuah
became "Y'Zeus" or Je-Zeus - which became 'Jesus' in English (NOTE -
the middle 's' is pronounced as a 'z'). In other languages, it took on various
other forms...A similar pagan influenced name-shift has been retained to this
day in the KJV translation of Luke 4:27, where it refers to the prophet
"Eliseus' and an event recorded in 2 Kings 5:14 (KJV). This prophet's
Hebrew name, however, was 'Eli'Shuah', which means "God is my
Salvation". Exactly the same as the pagan influence changed Y'SHUAH to
"Y'Zeus" - ('Jesus' - phonetically 'Jezus').
If you read the section about the etymology of the name Jesus
(From Yahoshua to Jesus), you would clearly see that the above is speculative
theology. In others words, guessing based on what is before them; as in it
sound so or sound right then it is right. But just to reiterate, here is how
the name Jesus came about from the shorten form Yashua, which has no connection
to Zeus:
"In the case of the name "Y'shua"
there were four problems that occur in bringing it across to Greek. Two of them
are the fact that the Greek language does not contain two of the sounds found
in the name Y'shua. This may come as a surprise to English speaking people, but
the fact is, the Greek language does not contain any "y" sound as in
"yes", nor does it have a "sh" sound as in
"show". The closest sound a Greek speaking person can come to making
a "y" sound is by putting the two Greek letters Iota and Eta together and coming up with an
"ee-ay" sound. And the closest a Greek speaking person can come to
making the "sh" sound is the "s" sound made by the letter
Sigma. With these two changes, "Yahshua", pronounced by a Greek
speaking person would naturally come out sounding like "ee-ay-soo-ah".
ee = Y,
ay = ah, soo = shu and ah = ah
The third problem with transliterating
"Y'shua" is the fact that traditionally, masculine Greek names never
end in a vowel sound. Those that did were automatically given the letter Sigma
or "s" as a suffix. This tradition is seen in familiar Biblical
names, where Judah became Judas, Cephah (which means "rock") became
Cephas, Apollo became Apollos, Barnabie became
Barnabas, Matthew became Matthias and so on. Many other examples could
be cited. So "ee-ay-soo-ah" needed to become
"ee-ay-soo-ah-s".
The fourth problem is that the two vowel sounds
before the "s" do not flow and are virtually never seen in Greek. So
the last vowel sound was left out of the Greek name and we were left with
"ee-ay-soos" [Jesus]. With
the added Greek traditions this is the closest a Greek speaking person would
come to transliterating the name
Y'shua."
In addition,
"Around 400 A.D. the Latin language became
the predominate language of Christianity and the Greek versions of the New
Testament were translated to Latin. The Latin Bible, or Vulgate as it is
called, also transliterated what was left of Yashua's Greek name by bringing
across the same sound of "ee-ay-soos".
This was easy because all of the Greek sounds in this name are also made in
Latin. The letters of the Latin alphabet are different from that of Greek but
virtually identical to English. The new transliteration of the Greek name "ee-ay-soos" became
written as and was identical in
pronunciation to the Greek name. This Latin spelling and on-going pronunciation
dominated the Christian world for nearly 1,000 years."
In other words, when Jesus was written in English, *especially
knowing that the 'J' sounded like a 'Y', it is correctly pronounced 'Yay-shous'; the 'ah' dropped and the
‘s’ added. It traveled from the Hebrew to the Aramaic to the Greek to Latin
then to Old English.
The same etymology should follow the name Eliseus for Elisha,
though part of Eliseus looks very similar to Zeus. If Zeus were to be
incorporated in the saviors name or other patriarchs, the early Christian would
know about it and would never have it so; both Hellenistic Christians and
apostolic Christians, heretics and orthodox and anyone who "name the name"
of Christ.
As can be seen the notion of Jesus being Zeus name or reference to
it is erroneous and we can clearly see the development and etymology of the
name Jesus or it's proper rendering - Yahoshua. We can therefore also
confidently assert that Jesus didn't come from the Egyptian ISIS or a reference
to it. Nor is it the Latinize form of pig (sus), hence meaning a pig god. The
development of this name Jesus can clearly be seen.
Is the name Jesus a curse, coming from a
"symbol"?
In remote cases, it is said that the name was derived not from the
alleged abbreviation but a symbol or letters representing his name. Making the
true pronunciation of the savior's name lost forever. Sounds familiar? Yes, the
exact thing that was done to the name of God under the Tetragrammaton YHWH;
called the ineffable name doctrine. But can this be correct for the savior’s
name or is it just a hoax to stir confusion?
One person wrote,
There remains a bitter dilemma for those who
wish to assert that "Jesus" has any relevance to what the historical
figures name actually was. Whether it was Yeshu` or Yeheshuwa` the Jews would
have been forbidden to mention him by name. Jewish law explicitly forbids
mentioning the name of criminals against God or their deities.
"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make
no mention of the name of other gods neither let it be heard out of they
mouth." [Exodus 23:13]
Thus, in order to write about Jesus without mentioning his name and, thereby,
breaching the law; they wrote the acronym 
"Y'SHW"
which stood for:
"Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" meaning "May
his name and memory be blotted out".
By this acronym he is mentioned in all early Jewish words regarding Jesus. The
Toledoth Yeshu which is dated to the 6th Century A.D. calls him by this name
(among other horrible allegations and epithets).
"It is no wonder that Jews considered the Christian belief as simple
idolatry and felt obligated to apply the Law in Exodus 23:13: "Make no
mention of the name of other Gods" to the name, Jesus. Naturally, the name
of one of the truest and best Jewish teachers had to be shunned." [Jesus
the Jew - The Historical Jesus, The True Story of Jesus, Moses Bazes,
Jerusalem, 1979]
"...it may be assumed that this shortening of the name was probably an
intentional mutilation by cutting off part of it. The rabbis mention other
instances of the names of persons being shortened because of their
misconduct.." [Jesus in the Talmud, Jacob Lauterbach (Rabbinic Essays,
Cincinnati, 1951, pp. 473-570),
From this abbreviated curse of
"Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" (Y'SHW) the Greeks Hellenized the name to
"Ieosus" which later was Anglicized to "Jesus" by the
King James' translators of the Bible. As shocking as the facts are, all are
encouraged to research this subject in detail.
Thus, if Jesus' name had been "Jesus", and had he indeed proclaimed himself a literal
"Son of God" and "God", then the Jews would have never made
mention of his actual name due to
Exodus 23:13. Thus, by hearing the Jews call Jesus "Y'SHW" and
reading it in their writings, the Greeks based their transliteration of his
name based upon this sad and horrible insult to the Messiah of the Jewish
people. As it may be to the horror of
many, mentioning the name "Jesus" is to actually curse him. Therefore, it is impossible that his name was ever
Y'SHW-Ieosus-Jesus. For 2000 years the Messiah of the Jews has been
inadvertently recorded as a curse” (Shibli
Zaman <http://shibli.zaman.net/eesa/>).
This notion is incorrect as can be. With what was just said and
this were the year 9, 234 they might have gotten away with it. But it's just
two thousand years since Christ died. And thus even if they mutilated his name
in their rabbinical writings, his apostles, followers and family knew it and
preached it. In fact, they were railed upon for preaching in that name and
commanded not to do so. But Peter boldly said, "We ought to obey God
rather than men" (Acts 5:29). A clear defiance never to stop using and
preaching that name and thus it was never lost or mispronounced. What was the
evident result of this? All Jerusalem and surrounding nations knew and used his
name; as the priests confessed, "we straitly command you that ye should
not teach in this name? and, behold, ye
have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine" (Acts 5:28). There is no
doctrine without the name (Acts 4:12), so they filled Jerusalem with his name.
They, Apostles and Christians, are the ones that recorded the New
Testament, not the scribes and their councils. This is where the name was transliterated
from, not from their writings. And the Apostles would never allow a symbol or
letter representation to replace the name. They were commanded by Christ
himself to preach extensively in that name. The spirit of truth in them would
not have it either. That's why on the day of Pentecost the name was declared
explicitly and overtly. This symbol theology for the name of Christ is totally
ridiculous.
What may have come about later, after this sect (scribes) was no
more, was an interpolation in their writings to put Christ's name in for
historic purposes IF an allege
symbol was used in their writings. Because we have this record, "On the
eve of the Passover, Yeshua was
hanged..." (Babylonia Sanhedrin 43A).
Moreover, in the section above on Zeus or even above it, you'll
clearly see the etymology of the name Jesus and see that it could not be
derived from a symbol. But was made Jesus according to the idiomatic
linguistics of the Greeks. Yashua itself can be traced back to the Yahoshua in
the Old Testament and even the fact that a number of the Priests in Jesus’ time
had that name. So you see how ridiculous this symbol theology for the name of
Christ sounds.
So no matter how many variables come into play in tracing or
deciphering the etymology of Christ’s name, it is wonderfully preserved and
unequivocally stands out as YAHOSHUA!
Finally, Is the
name of God or the savior EHYEH?
One person said,
“What is the true sacred name of
God? How does it apply or fit into the name of Jesus? We will look first for
the answer in the famous account of the burning bush in Exodus 3:14 - 'And God
said unto Moses, EHYEH asher EHYEH: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, EHYEH hath sent me unto you'
What name was Moses to use? It was
the sacred name 'EHYEH.'
'Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, EHYEH hath sent me unto you.'
What is the sacred name revealed
to Moses at the burning bush? It is EHYEH! And what name was Moses supposed to
pronounce when he told the Israelites the name of the God who sent him was
EHYEH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
And what is then God's memorial name of deliverance from Egyptian bondage?
It is EHYEH!
(15). And God said moreover unto
Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord (Adonai) God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, hath sent me unto you:
this (or "EHYEH") is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto
all generations. (KJV EXO 3:13-15 with Hebrew emphasis).
God himself spoke three name-words
to describe himself: God or Elohim; Lord God or ADONAI Elohim, and Ehyeh. God
NEVER gave to Moses the tetragrammaton here or anywhere else in the Bible.”
EHYEH is not a name but a verb, actually the word HAYAH,
with strong numbers of 1961, which would be pronounced the same way. Both
should be pronounced haw-yaw or haw-yah according to Strongs. So this notion is
also incorrect that God’s name is a verb, but the persons who said so probably
didn’t realize this because when they read the Jewish bible they see “And God
said further to Moses, ‘Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.” And it coming from the Jews meant
they would write the name in, but they did exactly what the other bibles do but
did it in Hebrew. In other words, rather than write what some bible write in
English, “I am what I am,” they just put how that is written in Hebrew.
Actually, I have the Torah in front of me from the Jewish Publication Society,
a 1962 edition. It has the above, the English then the Hebrew written. But what
it also did, which would have enlightened this person who made this error, is
add a footnote. Basically saying, some render this as “I am that I am,” “I am
who I am,” or “I will be what I will be,” etc., so instead of picking one of
these translation of the verb hayah with the essential meanings of the above,
they just wrote it as it is in their original Hebrew they have. Another
footnote they have that backs this is, “the name YHWH is here associated with
the root hayah ‘to be.’” So what has happened here to this person who thinks
God name is Ehyeh, is that he seeing “I am what I am” in Hebrew thought the
verb use to render that was the actual name. This in itself is a later
interpolation for this was never recorded by Moses, but God’s name was in that
statement, but it was taken out and we are left with “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh” or “I
am what I am.”
The verb Hayah is written like this in Hebrew 
,
according to Strongs. That original statement of Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is written exactly
like this in the original, where this person gets their Ehyeh from:
I AM THAT I AM
Or the full text reads:
So it is obvious that Ehyeh or Hayah is not a name but the verb used for “To
Be.” To further prove this, notice the same word in the following bible verses:
“And the earth was without form” (Gen 1:2)
”And God said, Let there be light” (Gen 1:3)
“Is this thing done by my lord the king” (1 King 1:27)
How then can Ehyah (Hayah) be a name, much more the name of
God? As we have proven endlessly in this book, God’s name is Yah and it is not
the name of any Egyptian god. From the above obvious erroneous flaw by this
person, it is clear that such rhetoric and error will be carried over into
their entire thesis on the name of God. If they called God’s name a Hebrew
verb, how can they be valid in disapproving that his name is Yah. For instance,
notice this they also said,
"'Yah is the Egyptian moon god and 'Shu(a)' is the Egyptian sky god. Yah is also the goat god with whom also is associated the moon. 'Yah' is the Egyptian name of Toth as the moon god. And "Shu" is the Egyptian sky god of the heavens. There you will find the name of the moon god as "Iah" which is the same as "Yah." When you glue Yah & Shu together to form "Yahshua" you have an Egyptian moon god as the sky or heaven god."
From the study so far, was that how the savior’s name was
formed? No. This person skipped over the name in Psalms and discredit the bible
and say he has a better source, a website named ancient Egypt dot org. From
reading his info, it is clear that this person is misled grossly with his
conclusions. If the name Yah wasn’t God’s name “why on earth” would God command
us to praise it and that it will be praise in Heaven clearly and loudly when
all saints realize it, though they do it now ignorantly. We are taught,
ANGELS:
"And after these things I
heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia;
Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:...And again
they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever" (Rev
19:1-3).
24 ELDERS AND 4 BEASTS:
“And the four and twenty elders
and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne,
saying, Amen; Alleluia” (Rev 19:4).
HUMAN BEINGS:
"And a voice came out of the
throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him,
both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great
multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty
thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent
reigneth" (Rev 19:5-6).
Notice, this person conjure their own thing and ignore that
Angels, the 24 Elders, the 4 Beast and all saints call God Yah and praise him
as such. In fact, Rev 19:5-6 commands us to praise and call him Yah – “Praise
our God, all ye…saying Alleluia.” The word Alleluia simply means Praise be to
Yah. That cannot be denied and any attempt to not confess his name is futile.
Easton Bible dictionary says that Alleluia is “the Greek form (Re 19:1,3-4,6)
of the Hebrew Hallelujah = Praise ye [Yah], which begins or ends several of the
psalms (106, 111, 112, 113, etc.).” Easton also had this to say about the word
HalleluYah (the J should be Y), “praise ye [Yah], frequently rendered ‘Praise
ye the LORD,’ stands at the beginning of ten of the psalms (106, 111-113, 135,
146-150), hence called "hallelujah psalms." From its frequent
occurrence it grew into a formula of praise. The Greek form of the word
(alleluia) is found in Re 19:1,3-4,6.” I didn’t even know it was in the Old
Testament but when I just read that from Easton I looked in the original and it
did say ‘Praise be to Yah’ with the Hebrew pronunciation of Halal (1984) and
the word Yah (3050) according to Strong’s; but in the Hebrew the words are join
to spell HalleluYah. Another source says about HalleluYah, "Hebrew
liturgical expression meaning “praise ye Yah” (“praise the Lord”). It appears
in the Hebrew Bible in several psalms, usually at the beginning or end of the
psalm or in both places" (2005 Encyclopedia Britannica, britannica.com).
Now, Yah is not pronounced Yaw or Yeh as supposed and
probably why an allege Egyptian god had that name; though I doubt that greatly.
Their name may have been written similarly to Yah but pronounced differently
and so no Egyptian or goat or sun god was named Yah. Though nothing is stopping
infidels from blaspheming God’s name this way. Only God’s name alone is Yah, as
the Psalms confessed, “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yah
[hovah], art the most high over all the earth” (Ps 83:18).
Now consider all the **names for
God in the world, none of them has been praised in heaven and earth as Yah.
Turn on your television or go to your local church, all sing HalleluYah. In
fact, which name all the angels in Heaven, the great 24 Elders, the mighty 4
beasts of heaven and all saints, which are innumerable, praise relentlessly and
bow down before – only Yah. You yourself as a Judeo-Christian skeptic to this
name sing HalleluYah and not knowing you are saying, Praise be to Yah; though
fortunately you meant to praise God. God’s name is unequivocally Yah and
whether you choose now to praise it or not, you will praise it and bow before
him in times to come. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! HALLELUYAH!!!!
END
OF CHAPTER NOTES
[by the
symbols given and General points to note]
* denotes that “This is the reason you have the J in Jesus, because
it was never pronounced as ‘Jay’ but as a Y up until 1630 and first kjv came
out 1611. "The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J;
"The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14 century. Either
symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in
year. Gradually, the two symbols (JI) were differentiated, the J usually
acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the
I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became
general in England."
** denotes, Of other gods, the foremost mentioned is Allah. The
Muslim word Allah has a Hebrew word sounding exactly like it and these Semitic
language (Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew) are alike hence this could not be the name
of God. It is Strong’s number 427, an oak, from 424, elah, which means an oak
or other strong tree. Given that Muhammad got this name from his heathen
father, of which it was the name of one of the many gods he worship, and the
fact that it means tree in Hebrew, the material used to make most idols, it
would be a good summation to say this is the name of a pagan idol and not the
name God. Especially that Islam was possible started out of great suckery by
satan. The book "Demonology Appealed" or the article
"Understanding Suckery with examples" must be read. On the other
hand, elah (424) is the feminine of of ‘ayil’ (352), which means anything
strong, especially a chief, politically; and also means mighty. The oak, in
some parts, is considered the mightiest of trees in that part and thus used to
analogies this word. The reason for the reverse side is that Allah could also
be a term ancient Arabs use for the God of Abraham, not his name but a title
like Adonai. Because words like El, Eloah, Eloahim were all translated as God
and use for God and they all mean mighty or sometimes almighty (same thing if
you refer to THE deity). Allah (427) would only be biblical in the sense that
it is a Semitic term.
General point to note - One
song lyrics says, “something about the name Jesus…oh how I love the name
Jesus,” and many other songs allude to this. However, when they sing this they
inadvertently don’t mean the actual name, but what the name means to them or
have done for them. For instance, you could be so in love with your spouse who
have done wonderful things for you that when you hear his or her name it brings
music to your ear. But unfortunately, a divorce occurred and the sound of the
name makes you sick. So, it’s obvious that it’s not the actual name that you
loved then hated, but the person who bear the name. There is something about
his name, but it’s not a magic wand, faith in the name does the work. When we
sing about his name we are singing about him, but to identify and distinguish
him we use his name. So the name Jesus has no power attached to it literally,
but rather the person (Christ) who bears it and the person who believes in him
activate the power. For instance, when the scripture says, “let us exalt his
name together,” it means let us exalt him, not a name; however, how can you
exalt him without identifying him by his name and how can you use the power
except through the name? As it pertains to the songs, I just interject his
original name while singing.
Chapter 6
PURPOSE OF KNOWING THE NAME OF THE SAVIOR
“These
signs shall follow them that believe; In my name
shall
they cast out devils… speak with new tongues…take up serpents…drink any deadly
thing… not hurt them…lay hands on the
sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16:17)
Why
knowing is important - prophecies, deity, etc
One person said,
"Studying things from the original will
bring out the original or true meaning. For instance, there are many various
sacred name bibles and versions, however, a good one will read and show that
Yahoshua is God the father. For instance, Isaiah 9:5 (or 6 in some versions)
should read in the original Hebrew version and its literal word meanings:
Ki - Because
Yeled - a boy
yulad - born
lanu - to/for us
Ben - a son
natan - was given
lanu - to us
va'tehi - and shall be
ha'misrah - the rule, dominion
al Shichmoh - on his shoulder
va'yikra Shmoh - and - shall call - His Name
Peleh - Wonderful
Yoh'etz - Consultant, Councellor
El Gibor - God Mighty
Avi-ad - Father Eternal
Sar-Shalom - Ruler of Peace
The literal word meanings above, indisputably
refer to the Messiah as the 'Mighty God and Eternal Father' - but when
comparing different sacred name translations, it becomes clear that some
translators deliberately conceal this Revelation by their manipulative
renderings. The reader may be sure that the rest of such a translation, in the
many less affirmative texts, will certainly continue this cover-up."
The savior's name is Yahoshua, undisputedly. Not only that, but
knowing this origin unlock other things about his name. Like how it is so
closely related to the Hebrew word for salvation, "yasha" and the
Hebrew word for save, "yoshia." The combination name Oshea is derived
from Yasha, according to strongs. This rightly fits with his purpose as the
savior of mankind with salvation in his hands. With knowing the name you'll
also see that the name revealed to Moses is rightly fitted into it, Yah, making
known that the Messiah is none other than Yahovah himself, who came to save us.
And many other such things; though others bore the name.
Also, wouldn't it be good to identify your savior by his exact
name, rather than a hybrid transliteration. Though you understand when someone
calls you Onion, though your name is Oneil, wouldn't it be good for them to
call you by your correct name? My sister does that by the way, affectionately.
Does it matter if we know or use it?
What matters is that the name is used, rather than a title as seen
in the section on Yahovah and the use of "Lord" or "God".
Romans 10:13 states that whosoever shall call on the name shall be
saved. There is no other way to be save except through
the name (Acts 4:12).
Unfortunately, what
some have done through transliteration is omit using Christ's name for titles.
For instance, one person wrote on an old Good News Cafe discussion board I had
downloaded:
You're pretty much on the right lines, I've only
heard it said that way in the Catholic realm. Its almost a "marker"
to me to hear it said that way; the preferred way to say it in Spanish is "El Senor", meaning, "THE
LORD", in our...churches, thats how it is done; if
said at all, it's just "Cristo!" Qien vive? Cristo! Just as in
"Paz de Cristo!" (HMNOVILLA).
One person correctly replied,
"People could, I suppose use that Logic to
defend using the titles, but the fact remains that they haven't spoken the
NAME" (ourlordisone).
My point exactly and scriptural too. The name must be said, preached, declared
and used limitlessly; not titles alone at all. That's what the apostles were
persecuted for. They let them alone when they worked miracles, fellowshipped
and do wonders. But when they used the name they got in trouble with the
devil's pawns (Acts 4:18 , Acts 5:42). Unless the name is used there is no
salvation, no power and no remission of sins at water baptism. The name is not
a magic wand, but faith in the name can do far more than any magic wand.
Nevertheless using Jesus is acceptable
One person noted, "At one time I believed that because the name Jesus Christ is regularly used in cursing, it is proof in itself that Jesus is his name because God-less beings hate it. But in all my research, I have been unable to find one other language in which his name is used in a similar cursing manner. No other language renders the Lord's name with the phonetic harshness as does the English language." True, but that doesn't mean anything, as he states. Because fools often state "F~ck God" in talking about the Almighty and that doesn't mean God is his name.
Now, it is common practice throughout the world, that names
are not changed when used in different languages. Pres. Clinton will remain
Clinton in all other languages. So also Kruschev, Mandela, Napoleon, Hitler,
Arafat, etc. For instance:
English - Jesus Christ
Italian - Gesu Cristo
Welsh - Iesu Grist
Hungarian - Jezus Krisztusnak
Nigerian - Azisos Kraist
It might be said that with these,
the pronunciation is allegedly lost. However, some of these transliterations
are close to sounding like Jesus Christ. That is what really matters, the sound
is preserved, because the meaning will always go with a name through
accompanying titles; that's why it was transliterated in the first place, to
preach the same person from language to language, and a consistent message tied
to that name throughout the world. Some, like the Nigerian one probably sounds
like Jesus in Nigerian and was badly transliterated back into English. However,
the pronunciation they get is probably from a preacher who pronounced Jesus as
Jee-Zus, as everybody does; though from the Greek, where it was created, it is
pronounced 'Yay-shus.'
But
wait, isn't the name Yahoshua? And isn't Jesus a transliteration from Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English? And does it mean they are preaching another
Christ, because the pronunciation isn't exactly correct? Unfortunately the
correct pronunciation (Yahoshua) is not widely used today, but that doesn't
mean salvation isn't had or God is not glorified; especially wherever this
gospel in preached and in whatever tongue, all sing HalleluYah without no
further transliteration. I've seen this time and time again in the oversees
crusades on television. Africans, Philippians and other peoples all sing
HalleluYah directed by the Evangelist. If only they could do that for the
savior's name from the original. Using Jesus would be a problem if it didn't
come from the original, whether directly or from transliterations, one after
the other. Like saying Medley is the savior. That name cannot be traced back to
Yahoshua.
Also, does it mean we ought to baptize in the name of Yahoshua
rather than Jesus?
One person said,
“Jesus
Himself authorized that the Bible should be published throughout the
word…[which means transliteration and translation is inevitable].
Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be published among all nations. Acts 1:8 …ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and
unto the uttermost part of the earth.” {Source: Tom R., this FAQ question and
this indented part }.
There is only one flaw with the
views of many concerning this, that is, “The name ‘Yahoshua’ is not the ‘name’
that, according to prophecy, became great among the Gentiles (Mal 1:11)” –
indirectly saying Jesus is. It wasn’t until some time after the Catholic
takeover that the name Jesus was wide spread. More probably, in the early
Church the purest of Judaic outset was upheld – including names, pronunciations
and the Godhead. They would never use a Greek form of Yahoshua and therefore
would baptize none in that form. The name Jesus, translated from the Greek
‘Iesous,’ is a later development. But seeing that the Greek dominated the world
then and even now, through culture, the more popular form would be derived from
Greek.
Is that okay? Well this come into
play, “The name of Jesus is not a magic formula. The key is to have faith in
the name, not to use it as a mantra.” However, if that being the case, that is,
referring to someone rather that getting the name correct, is that any
different from those who baptize in ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’; seeing that
they are referring to Jesus? Or, are they? When baptizing in the titles
‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost,’ they are not necessarily speaking of Jesus as
revealed to us by the scriptures; but actually speaking of a ‘triune God’ whom
the scripture give no reference to; neither is ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ a
name. When baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are clearly
talking about Yahoshua whom “God hath made … both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).
Secondly, if we have faith in the name rather than getting it correct, isn’t
that paganism? Like saying, “repent and be baptized in the name of Charles…”
Remember some were baptizing in their own name. That’s the reason at the outset
before Acts 2:38 you have Acts 2:36 where Peter clearly told them whom he was
speaking about and why, then he commanded them to baptize in his name.
Therefore, if the baptizer was to say to a Jew back then, “I baptize you in the
name of Yamashi.” He would clearly stop him and say, “I don’t know anyone who
was crucified, rose from the dead, being Lord and Christ, name Yamashi. His
name is Yahoshua and he is Lord and God!” Yamashi and Yahoshua do sound
similar, but you cannot baptize someone in the name of Yamashi. The name has to
be correctly coming from the original, Charles or Yamashi is not. For instance,
John is called Juan in Spanish; though it kind of sounds the same in Spanish.
We say ‘Jee-Zus’ but it was never
pronounced like that originally or meant to be pronounced that way. Jesus is
actually pronounced ‘Yay-shus’ or ‘Yay-sous’ from the Greek rendering of the
Yahshua. This is seen in the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus, ‘Hey-sus’. But
because it has to be written, it was spelt J-e-s-u-s in old English. But the J in
Jesus was never pronounced as ‘Jay’ but as a Y up until 1630 and the first KJV
came out 1611. The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J;
"The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14 century. Either
symbol (J,I) used initially, generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in
year. Gradually, the two symbols (JI) were differentiated, the J usually
acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the
I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became
general in England." So the sound of the letter changed but no one thought
to change the letters in biblical names, thus the pronunciation of ‘Jee-Zus’.
There in lies another problem. The Greeks transliterated it from its original, but we transliterate it from the Greek/Latin, shouldn’t we translate it from the original to English? Not necessarily, you can transliterate names from as many lines of languages as possible, what should remain is the pronunciation; which would show that it is transliterated (sound the same) rather than translated (meaning translated). What the Greeks did was to amputate the end of the transliteration of Yashua and formed Yay-sous; according to their idiomatic custom (first written Iesous because the Yah was pronounced Yay, and I & J had the sound that Y now has. It was translated into English when the J had that Y sound, hence Jesous or Jesus. But even before the I and J were used for that Y sound, the double E (ee) had that sound, making the spelling of the his name ‘ee-ay-sous’ or some say ‘ee-ay-sooce’, pronounced the same as Yay-sous.). Then other languages transliterated that, including Latin (similar to Greek) and English.
Actually the faith in the name is more important than the correct
spelling of it from whatever language or idiom now “dominates” it. Faith in the
name is what saves! Having a correct understanding of who the person is that
bear the name is equally as important! My name is spelt Oneil as in Mr. Oneil
Orlando McQuick; some spell it O’Neal or Oneal or O’Neil or Oniel, but I know
they are talking to me when used with my full name, because I’m the only one
who bears that name. But if they wrote ‘Onion’ or just ‘Oneal’ it might
generate problems. Similarly, if referring to Yahoshua in a name that was not
transliterated coming from the original or give reference to a triune God, then
that would definitely generate errors. You have to also refer to him as both
Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), for he is the only one who bears that status; “for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved” (Acts 4:12). Therefore, it is perfectly fit to use Yahoshua or whatever
it is transliterated to be in your particular language; what should remain
constant is the pronunciation, though this is non-existent in the name Jesus.
Using Jesus is not the same as those who baptize using the three titles
(Father, Son, Holy Ghost), for no name is called when the titles are used and
we are endlessly commanded to use a name (Matt 28:29, Acts 2:38, etc). It would
be like using the three titles if the name was not coming from Yahoshua through
the unavoidable means of translations and/or transliterations. Nevertheless, to
be safe I would prefer to do it as it was originally done in the original
language. That is, baptize calling on, “Adonai Yahoshua Ha Mashiah.”
END OF CHAPTER NOTES
[by
the symbols given and General points to note]
IS “HIS NAME” THE NAME OF THE SON ALSO
“I have manifested thy name unto the men” (John 17:6)
One person said,
"Oneness writers emphasize that Jesus
"manifested" the Father's name, and that the Father "gave"
His name to Jesus, as evidence that Jesus is the Father. This interpretation
overlooks the fact that a human father can give his name to his son, without
the father and son being one person!"
So both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians believe that Christ had the father's
name, literally. To an extent they are right because the first part of his
name, YAH, is indeed the name of the father. And his entire name, YAHOSHUA,
means Yahovah Saves or Yah our Savior. However, if Yahoshua was the father's
literal name, that would mean all the persons who have this name have the
father's name as well. And not only they but probably those who have YAH in
their name as well. Like EliYAH (Elijah), JeremYAH (Jeremiah) or ZekarYAH
(Zacariah).
God’s initial name to mankind was Yahovah or Yah, before they just
called him God almighty (Elohim) or something similar to that. Only once he
mentioned a name by which to call him, Yah or Yahovah; it being so sacred that
it must not be taken in vain. So much so that the Jews made the Tetragrammaton
(YHWH). Then there were connotations of his name. A connotation is simply a
different expression of a word, for instance Yahovah-shalom, God our peace. Now
Yahoshua or Jesus is similar to a connotation of Yahovah, which literally is
Yah our Savior. Similarly, Zacariah means Yah is remembered. So Yahoshua and
others is kind of like a connote name. But a possible connote name, Yahoshua,
is not the actual name of God; though it bears it and glorify it.
When it is said Yahoshua manifest the father's name or has the
father's name, it implies that he has the father's authority fully (Col 2:9),
being the father. Not just the connote form of glorifying the father's name as
others did, but this time the invisible spirit called God is resident in flesh.
That's one of the reasons Yahoshua is the "express image of his
person" (Heb 1:3). Not another being expressing qualities of God Our
Father, but the actual God in an earthly form or image.
Yes, we are also given authority and do manifest the name of the
father. That's the reason, "the whole family in heaven and earth is
named" after Yahovah (Eph 3:15). Which also means that we are his or
redeemed by him. Clearly seen when he said to the Israelites, "I have
surnamed thee" (Isa 45:4), speaking of humans. In others words, I have
redeemed thee. And speaking of the family in heaven, he said of an angel,
"Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not
pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Ex 23:21). Therefore,
those redeemed by God and those who are with God has his name and with it comes
authority.
But the authority that Yahoshua has, is the authority of no other
because no other can have it. Because this authority is the authority of being
the head of all beings. The authority of God our father, that is, full
authority being the authority that gives authority. No wonder the scripture
says, "the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ" (Col 2:9).
So he does bear the name of the father in this manner. And therefore is the
father in flesh.
However, the literal name itself was a common name.
The name was common but he allowed it to be because what he
intends to do with a common name is exactly what he intends to do with us -
exalt it. For instance, notice Zechariah 3:3 and 6:11-14. Here God used someone
with the exact name of the coming savior to typifiy what the savior will do;
which could also be an indirect hint in those days to what name he would come
by.
"Joshua was clothed with filthy
garments...Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the
head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest... [verse 13] Even he shall
build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and
rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel
of peace shall be between them both. [verse
14] And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and
to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD"
(Zec 3:3 ; 6:11-14). [remember that Joshua is Yahoshua]
First, Joshua is cloth with filthy garments. God came and clothed
himself in flesh (John 1). Then Joshua's filthy garments are not just removed,
but he is crowned with gold and silver. God, as Jesus Christ in the flesh, dies
on the Cross and the filthy flesh is removed. He is resurrected with the
glorified body; where he is crowned not only as God but savior of mankind.
Verse 13 clearly tell us this and show us a reason for it. That is, he
"shall rule upon his throne", we know that of Christ because he is
God. But what became new was that he "shall be a priest upon his
throne." Making him a priest King or lawyer and Judge. Thus the purpose of
redeeming men, who believe in him, is immediately accomplished because the
priest is the King or the Lawyer is the Judge. That's why it states "the
counsel of peace shall be between them both." In other words, both the
priesthood and God are "in sinct" because the priesthood is the same
God. You could say the mediator is God or the Lawyer is the Judge. Think of
what this implies to know that your lawyer is your Judge. Would you not win
every case? Wouldn't everything bias in your favor? There wouldn't even be a
case, the victory is already won. That's why God came into filthy flesh to
raise up those who are bound by it. How?
Joshua the High priests who was clothed in filthy garments had a
change of cloths and was crowned with gold and silver. Consequently, because he
was crowned, his brethrens were also crowned as seen in verse 14. Similarly,
when God came into flesh, those who are his brethrens (born again Christians)
will also be crowned like he was. If Joshua the High Priest wasn't changed and
crown, his brethrens wouldn't be crown. Similarly, if Christ hadn't come, died
and rose from the dead, born again believers wouldn't be expecting a crown in
heavenly paradise (1 Cor 15:17).
Surprisingly, this was said directly to Joshua in Chapter 3:7 of
Zechariah, "If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge,
then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will
give thee places to walk among these that stand by."
This was a vision in heavenly paradise, where he was surrounded by
angels. So when it was told him that he shall be given a place to walk among
these that stand by, it means he will be in "league" with the angels.
He will be crowned with glory in the resurrection having also a glorified body.
Not just glorious celestial adornment but the ability to come near to the
actual throne of God and be in fellowship with God, who became the High Priest
of Men.
In other words, what he did with a common name (glorify it) is his
intension for those that believe on him. Mere humans becoming "Sons of
God"! Not sons as in created beings, but rightful heirs to the throne of
God. Literal Princes and Princesses. Literally having the genetic make up of
God running through your being and thus operate as he. Imagine a status no
other being has. Imagine a dark little fat boy born to a soldier in a poor
island country in the Caribbean becoming second to God. Imagine yourself being
in that position if you believe on his name and thus becoming born again?
Imagine taking that step now, by being water baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ (or Yahoshua Ha Mashiah) and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost
evidence by speaking in tongues? Imagine what will happen if you don't - the
lake of fire!
Remember….
At
the outset of the book we argued that it was an outrage to hide God’s name
under a Tetragrammaton, leaving the believers in frenzy over the correct
pronunciation. However, as always, the intent might be good. For the scripture
did say, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD [Yah] thy God in vain; for
the LORD [Yah] will not hold him
guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Ex 20:7), which still stands
corrected, we shouldn’t take his name in vain or even speak it vainly.
Moreover, God is everywhere so when you call on him you pull on him,
exemplified with the woman and the issue of blood (Matt 9:20); though God
cannot get weary. Imagine how many pulls he gets each day. Then imagine if you
pull for no reason or to curse. No wonder he “will not hold him guiltless.” Use
his name wisely, because no other name has such power and reference.
END OF CHAPTER NOTES
[by
the symbols given and General points to note]
General point to Note -
In the resurrection he will have a new name. So for all the lovers of the
'salvation name' you’ll have to get used to another name to refer to Christ
directly and even a new name for yourself (Revelation 3:12).
General Point to Note:
We have given the facts and pronunciations as the Lord leads and plain analysis
of linguistic references, which can be used as is. However, if one’s own
research is done you might come across possible errors we have covered in
putting out a compact thesis on the name of God. I say possible errors, for
they wouldn’t be for we have taken all things in consideration, especially that
this is not necessarily a pure academic undertaking but revelatory as gained by
God himself. For instance, take 1 Chronicles 5:24, you would find a name
Jahdiel. You might say, this is inconsistent to the teaching on the mix up of
Jah, Yah and Yeh we brought out and if there was a mix up it should read
Yehdiel. Point would be taken, however, this was also looked at as I now bring
it up but haven’t in the book text. So though we might not bring up something
you might later considered, it cannot disapprove what we have already brought
forward in this book; especially that we have more than likely looked at it and
without stating it have wrapped it up in the output itself with the conclusions
brought forward. If you may, another name in 1 Chronicles 6:4 reads Abishua.
You might then say if ‘shea’ in ‘Oshea’ was pronounced ‘shua’, why didn’t they
write it like that as they did in Abishua? I would then say good point then clarify
all the long-winded explanation of this and that and this again. So all things
and verses was looked at with much references and though everything cannot be
mentioned individually, all is included in essence in the final output – the
entire book itself.
“A good name is rather to be choosen than great
riches” (Proverbs 22:1)
Oneil McQuick has responded in a most positive way to the challenge of
youthful strength by choosing to channel his energy into the very rewarding exercise
of the study of the word of God. This undying love for the Word of God has
allowed him to be the author of several books (Truth Series, Truth Series
Expanded, Truth Series Evolution) including: “The Voice,” “Demonology
Revealed,” “Fasting and Prayers,” “You Believe, Now Receive,” “What is his
name,” “Student Manifesto,” “Sexuality Series,” “I have a Message Do You” and
others.
He will also confess that his studies, however intense, have not
afforded him the privilege to expound on the word of God, but like Jesus, it
was simply given! In other words, it is the spirit of the Lord upon him that
has graced him to write these books, booklets, newsletters, tracks, pamphlets,
magazines, web pages and articles; as he confesses, "Nothing more, nothing
less! Grace!"
His Christian walk began in Kingston when he received the Lord Jesus
Christ as his personal savior under the ministry of Bishop S.U. Thomas. His
subsequent migration to Florida facilitated his tremendous spiritual
development and has laid the foundation for him to equip himself for the
tremendous task which he has set himself to maximize whatever means necessary
to touch and change peoples’ lives. He has served in several areas of ministry
including men, youth and outreach; with certifications in lay counseling. He is
the founder of Liberation International Ministries and a licensed minister.
More
Details on Oneil at: www.McQuickEnterprise.com
http://www.mcquickdesigns.com/
Elder G. Johnson, M.B.A
(Bank Manager, Bible Teacher, Head Admin
Personnel for the Emmanuel Apostolic Churches)
“Oneil
McQuick is dedicated to study and research. His writing
reflects his commitment and his willingness to think outside the box. McQuick tackles the tough issues.”
(Foreword to ‘The Voice…’ by Dr. Bernie L. Wade, Presiding Bishop of
International Circle of Faith)
RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
(as much
as can be remembered)
“Father,
glorify thy name” (John 12:28)
Aluochier, Isaac. NEW PROOF OF THE TWO WITNESSES. P O Box
22855, London, NW9 8ZF, United Kingdom. http://www.serveyahweh.org
Clover, R. The Sacred Name of God And Frequently asked
questions. http://www.yahweh.org/yahweh1.html
Florio, Dennis. Sacred name movement. From a site.
Franklin, Carl D. In defense of Jehovah.
http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/indefens.pdf.
Jackson Snyder. Two Yahwehs? The Briefest Introduction to
this Subject. http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/index.htm
McQuick, Oneil. "The Voice of One Crieth In the
Wilderness." (10 FAQ concerning his name in Chapter 14)
www.truthseries.org
Nelson, Scott. The Name, A modern parable.
www.thenameparable.com/home.htm
Reckart, Cohen G. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. Jesus Messieh
Fellowship. Jesus Messieh Fellowship. http://jesus-messiah.com. Read by me Dec
22, 2005
Rich, Tracey R. The Name of God, The Significance of Names.
http://www.jewfaq.org
Strong, James. The New Exhaustive Strong Concordance. Thomas
Nelson Publishers. Nashville, TN.
Zaman, Shibli. An Etymological Analysis of the Historical
Sources. <http://shibli.zaman.net/eesa/>
---------------------
Esau, Y'shua, Eesho, & Eesa. Free Thought Mecca. http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/eesho.html
Herrell Pastor V.S. The Sacred Name Delusion. From a
Website.
“Is His Name Jehovah or Yahweh?” and “Who Is Our Creator?”.
© 1989-2000 Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly. http://www.ynca.com
Jehovah? Yahweh? Allah??? Which is it?
!http://www.christianforums.com/archive/index.php
"Jesus is Not Yahweh" and "Are there two
Yahwehs Here?". Restoration Light Publication. Restoration Light Bible
Services. reslight@yahoo.com
Oxford Dictionary. United Kingdom.
Restoration of The Sacred Name.
http://www.revelations.org.za
Re: YaHU. http://www.eliyah.com/forum/.
The Aberree, Volume 5, Issue 3 - page 13.
http://www.aberree.com/.
The Etymology of the Name. Lakeside website
The Etymology of the Name of God (No. 220). http://www.logon.org
and http://www.ccg.org
The Name of Jesus (pbuh).
http://www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm
The Name of the Embodiment of God.
http://w3.one.net/~roz/cgi-bin/ax-God.cgi or http://www.gtm.org/pvi/.
NacharYahu@aol.com
The sacred names. Mission to Israel Ministries. PO Box 248
Scottsbluff, NE 6936. http://missiontoisrael.org/
The Sacred Names of YAHWEH and YAHSHUA.
http://www.almightywind.com/
The True Hebrew Name of our Lord. New Revelations website
What name was Jesus given?.
www.robotwisdom.com/science/jesus.html
Yahu - a secret name of god. http://www.hebrewletters.com
Yahushua, Jesus: Yahu Saves.
http://w3.one.net/~roz/cgi-bin/ax-God.cgi or http://www.gtm.org/pvi/.
NacharYahu@aol.com
---------------------
http://www.crosswalk.com
http://www.google.com
http://www.newadvent.org/
http://quran.al-islam.com, Quaran in different translations
For Additional Copies
Shipping is separate. ICI caution,
evil on the prowl; even by phone.
|
|
|
www.namebook.andmuchmore.com |
|
Size: 7.5 x 9.25
Advantage: Best. Spaced, quality layout and
design, last longer, more durable, |
|
Size: 6 x 9
Advantage: Cost the less and a larger perfect binding. For
shipping in US, |
|
|
