Please don't use the name Yahweh

"Jehovah" is literal word salad created by taking the vowels from one nae, "Adonai", and inserting them into YHVH.
As stated by and , the third-person of the statement "I AM" is His proper title. YHVH is not a pagan deity at all, that's an assertion of (((academics))) who wish to discredit the Bible. If anything, Levantine pagans took the name from the Israelites.

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

Why is Yesh ua wordfiltered?

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

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

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

I don't feel like making my own thread. Is Christs name Jesus or Jesus? Does it Matter?

And is it Yehwah, Jehovah, Elohiem, or something else?

Attached: 1409630808061.png (516x526, 256.97K)

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

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

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

Stop resurrecting stupid threads.

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

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

Attached: le_sad_tea_party_by_ghost_missingno-dad7e5q.png (768x768, 43.04K)

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

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

ADONAI

Yahweh is most definitely NOT the correct pronunciation of יהוה‬. I've made the effort to read the scholarly arguments in favour of "Yahweh" and they turned out to be surprisingly weak. Basicly only the following two things.

First. According to some critical editions of the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, he claims that יהוה is to be pronounced Ἰαουέ (Yawe). This is to be expected considering that Greek does not have the Hebrew sound 'h', so from Yahweh we get Yawe. Seems convincing, isn't it? Well, no. In the only extant manuscript of the Stromata, the pronunciation of יהוה is given as Ἰαοὺ and not as Ἰαουέ. Then why the critical editions have changed Ἰαοὺ as Ἰαοέυ? Well, because according to their editors Clement had in mind Yahweh. So you see the circular argument here? First, some scholars change Ἰαοὺ as Ἰαοέυ because "we know" יהוה is to be pronounced as Yahweh, then they make the change official in the critical edition of the Stromata, and finaly other scholars use this as the primary argument in support of Yahweh.

Second. There is some evidence that Samaritans pronounced יהוה as Yave. Linguistically the omission of 'h' and the replacement of 'w' by 'v' is possible. Does this imply that Jewish pronunciation of יהוה was Yahweh? It is up to you to decide.

My personal hypothesis is that Yave is simply a translation of יהוה in Aramaic. Morphologically יהוה means "He is" (not "I am"). The letter י is "He" and the root הוה is the verb "to be". Now let us translate this to Aramaic. י is also י and הוה is הוי, so in result we obtain יהוי. One millennium before Christ the pronunciation of this form must have been 'Yahuwiy' but then it evolved many times: Yahuwiy > Yahuwe > Yahwe > Yahve > Yave.

Is it possible to give a similar linguistic explanation of Yahweh as pronunciation of יהוה? Many have tried but their arguments are not convincing.

So יהוה is not Yahweh, nor it is Jehowah. As for the actual pronunciation of יהוה we have many evidences in Greek documents, one (by Jerome) in Latin and we also have some Jewish teophoric names in Assyrian cuneiform texts. All these evidences agree with one another but, nonetheless, they are ignored.

Attached: Yhwh.jpeg (409x256, 25.05K)

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

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

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

There appears to have been literary dialects of post-Achaemenid Aramaic similar to Imperial and Biblical Aramaic which were used from Qumran to Babylon.
What were local vernacular dialects though are divided into eastern and western branches which include the languages such as Syriac, Mandaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene and the Aramaic dialects of the Palestine/Judea and Jordan region.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Aramaic_language#Imperial_Aramaic

Womp womp

Cleaned it up for you.

Attached: SAGE.png (685x460, 126.98K)

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

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

Please don't tell me what to do.

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

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

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

I have.

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