The Yahweh Name

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Der Alte,

This is a very weak cop out and does not work with John 20:28 because Thomas was not quoting an OT vs. which uses elohim.

Thomas was using the Biblical language and ideas revealed in the OT. Jesus speaks about this concept which you would rather ignore or you have not considered this properly:
John 10:30–36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus parallels his position and unity with God his Father by the example of the Judges and their position who had received the Word of God and were called upon to administer this Law faithfully.

Thomas was not saying "my Lord and judge" or "my lord and angel."

The OT did not address the Judges and Angels as Judges and Angels, but as Elohim, that is, the Title of God:
Exodus 21:2–6 (KJV): 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; (Hebrew Elohim) he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Compare a modern translation:
Exodus 21:5–6 (NASB95): 5 “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, (Hebrew Elohim) then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

There are better examples of where we encounter an Angel and the word Elohim is used, but the following is an example:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, (Hebrew Elohim) and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
Compare a modern translation:
Psalm 8:5 (NASB95): Yet You have made him a little lower than God, (Hebrew Elohim) And You crown him with glory and majesty!

John's purpose and what he later wrote does not have any bearing on what Thomas said in vs. 28.

When Thomas addresses Jesus as "God" John 20:28, this is a lower title and position than in three verses later John 20:31 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The title "God" speaks of the fact that the individual addressed represents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and acts on His behalf.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[AbbaLove]

This is a very weak cop out and does not work with John 20:28 because Thomas was not quoting an OT vs. which uses elohim. Thomas was not saying "my Lord and judge" or "my lord and angel." John's purpose and what he later wrote does not have any bearing on what Thomas said in vs. 28.

Yes, you are so correct!​

Another false argument used by some is to claim that "My Lord and my God" should have been translated as "My Lord and my god" ... (FWIW, Elohim should be capitalized).

John 1:1, 14
1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

A theologian with a doctorate degree(s) is NO proof that he is right when he chooses to misinterpret John 20:28 and John 1:1, 14 and other scripture. The majority of profesors with doctorate degrees are agnostics or aetheists than born again Christians (1 John 2:27).

Another example is Saul/Paul mentored by Gamaliel, a leading authority in the Sanhedrin. Yet he was blind to the Truth. So, too was Paul before he saw the true Light and no longer had any need for a theologian to teach him.

That is not to say that there aren't as many or more theologians that believe Immanuel (God with us) as referring to Christ Jesus as "Lord and God" (John 20:28). Some theologians can't accept what they can't explain (the Godhead) without misinterpreting scripture.

Then he resorts to accusing me of being a "triniarian" when i've never used the word which isn't to be found in the entire Bible.
A sign he is grasping for straws when his final defense is playing the "trinity" card. Sounds like he is closer to JW thinking.







​

 

[Der Alte]

Greetings again Der Alte,
Thomas was using the Biblical language and ideas revealed in the OT. Jesus speaks about this concept which you would rather ignore or you have not considered this properly:
***
When Thomas addresses Jesus as "God" John 20:28, this is a lower title and position than in three verses later John 20:31 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The title "God" speaks of the fact that the individual addressed represents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and acts on His behalf.
Kind regards
Trevor

Thomas was not carrying the OT scrolls around where he could look up all the vss. you are referring to. You can't get inside Thomas' head and know he was using "Biblical language and ideas revealed in the OT"
What is far more likely is Thomas was dumbfounded by seeing Jesus alive after he had seen Him crucified. Thomas said what he meant and meant what he said. Re: vs. 31 Thomas did not say that and very likely never saw what John wrote so it is irrelevant.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again AbbaLove and Der Alte,

Another false argument used by some is to claim that "My Lord and my God" should have been translated as "My Lord and my god" ... (FWIW, Elohim should be capitalized).

Yes, I agree that Elohim when applied to the Angels, Judges and Jesus should be capitalised as "God" because they represent the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Please note that it was Thomas that interacted with Jesus upon this subject of representation of God:
John 14:5-11 (KJV): 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

Then he resorts to accusing me of being a "triniarian" when i've never used the word which isn't to be found in the entire Bible.
A sign he is grasping for straws when his final defense is playing the "trinity" card. Sounds like he is closer to JW thinking.

I assumed you support the usual Trinity concepts. I am not a JW as I believe that Jesus was a human, the Son of God the father, and Mary his mother, not Michael the Archangel, and he is now a glorified human sitting at the right hand of God Psalm 110:1, Revelation 3:20,21.

Thomas was not carrying the OT scrolls around where he could look up all the vss. you are referring to. You can't get inside Thomas' head and know he was using "Biblical language and ideas revealed in the OT"
What is far more likely is Thomas was dumbfounded by seeing Jesus alive after he had seen Him crucified. Thomas said what he meant and meant what he said. Re: vs. 31 Thomas did not say that and very likely never saw what John wrote so it is irrelevant.

By the end of Jesus' ministry Thomas would be very familiar with the fact that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God and familiar with the language and concepts of both the OT and NT.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Der Alte]

Greetings again AbbaLove and Der Alte,
***
By the end of Jesus' ministry Thomas would be very familiar with the fact that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God and familiar with the language and concepts of both the OT and NT.
Kind regards
Trevor

True, familiar with, but let us not confuse that with someone like a student or scribe who studies the Bible all day long and is required to memorize a great deal.
Nobody has yet convinced me that when Thomas said, literally, "the Lord of me and the God of me." He was not saying and literally meaning, "My Lord and my God." The English translation doesn't show that but the Greek clearly does, ὁ [the] Κύριός [lord] μου [of me] καὶ [and] ὁ [the] Θεός [God] μου [of me.]

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again AbbaLove,

A theologian with a doctorate degree(s) is NO proof that he is right when he chooses to misinterpret John 20:28 and John 1:1, 14 and other scripture. The majority of profesors with doctorate degrees are agnostics or aetheists than born again Christians (1 John 2:27).

I have briefly given my view of John 20:28 and John 1:1,14, but I am not "a theologian with a doctorate degree". But Reville was qualified in his field of study and I consider that Reville gave a reasonably accurate view of the gradual change and development from the Apostolic Faith to the corrupt teachings of the Apostate RCC. One of my brethren in my fellowship also gave a series of addresses on this subject, summarising the developing teaching of the ECFs.

I also found the following comments by Reville interesting:
Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.
Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Jipsah]

I am not a JW as I believe that Jesus was a human, the Son of God the father, and Mary his mother, not Michael the Archangel, and he is now a glorified human sitting at the right hand of God

So you're an Arian, right? I reckon that argument was settled at Nicea.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Jipsah,

So you're an Arian, right? I reckon that argument was settled at Nicea.

No, I am not an Arian as they taught the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God or similar. I believe Jesus is the child born as a human and the Son of God because God was his father and Mary his mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. There is no evidence that he was God as a child, as he grew in wisdom Luke 2:40,52 and as such he did not have two minds.

Even Arianism did not disappear as a result of the Council of Nicaea. I am not sure whether it was the majority that succeeded or that Constantine demanded a decision and endorsed one side, but the issue was not finally settled as there was then persecution of the Arians. Constantine himself had not been baptised and I understand that he was baptised three days before his death by an Arian Bishop at the instigation of his daughter who was an Arian. The whole situation was not very holy. Compare the Elders or Bishops of the Ephesian Ekklesia or Congregation Acts 20:17-25 to the development of powerful Bishops by AD 325 who fulfilled Paul's warning against them.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[KingdomLeast]

What is the correct Name for the One we worship, Yahweh or Jehovah? According to Insight on the Scriptures, a Jehovah’s Witnesses publication, the name “Jehovah” is the best-known English pronunciation of the divine name” (vol. 2, p. 5). However, this same source also states, “ ‘Yahweh’ is favored by most Hebrew scholars” (ibid). The fact that names are not translated but transliterated, therefore the statement, “ ‘Jehovah’ is the best-known English pronunciation,” is factually and grammatically incorrect. The words “translation” and “transliteration” are often confused. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines translate as, “to change from one language into another,” 1967, p. 1939. This same reference states this in reference to transliterate: “To write or spell (words, etc.) in the alphabetical characters of another language that represent the same sound or sounds.” An example of a translation is when Jerome translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin. An example of transliteration is the name “Benjamin Netanyahu,” the Prime Minister of Israel. No matter where Benjamin Netanyahu travels his name is always “Benjamin Netanyahu.” Names are not changed or translated but transliterated. This same concept applies to the Name of our Creator. His Name was never pronounced “Jehovah.” Our Heavenly Father’s Name derives from the Hebrew letters yod-hey- waw-hey. These four letters are known as the Tetragrammaton (Greek “four letters”) and correspond to the English YHWH. Based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the most accurate transliteration of YHWH is “Yahweh.”

Scholarship, regardless of language, overwhelmingly supports this name. Consider the following references:

• “The Lord. The Hebrew for his name is Yahweh (often incorrectly spelled ‘Jehovah’)” (NIV Study Bible, note at Exodus 3:15, 1998).
• “The prophets commonly used Yahweh for God, English sometimes as Lord, sometimes as Jehovah, the latter being a hybrid form which should be written Yahweh (YHWH)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1973).
• “Properly, the name should be pronounced; ‘Yahweh’ as it is spelled in many modern versions. In this paraphrase ‘Yahweh’ is translated either ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Lord’ ; (The Living Bible, note at Exodus 3:15, 1971).
• “Jehovah, n. 1530 Iehoua, borrowing of the New Latin, an erroneous transliteration of the Hebrew name YHWH, often represented as Yahweh” (The Barnhart ConciseDictionary of Etymology, 1995).

These are only a few references confirming Yahweh’s Name. There are countless others that provide the same information. Knowing this, why would anyone choose to use the name “Jehovah”? This hybrid name arose from combining the vowel points of Adonai with the Tetragrammaton. Additionally, Since the Hebrew and Greek languages are without a “J” sound, the name “Jehovah” is an impossibility in these ancient languages. Interestingly, the letter “J” was also the last letter to be added to the English alphabet. The original 1611 KJV did not contain the letter J. Instead, it used the letter I. For example, the name of the Messiah was spelled “Iesus.” While this too is not right, it illustrates the missing “J” from the original KJV. Does it matter that Jehovah is a hybrid of the Hebrew YHWH? Yahweh’s Name appears nearly 7,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. In Exodus 20:7, we are told not to take His Name in vain. The word “vain” comes from the Hebrew shaw, meaning “worthlessness.” When we ignore His Name we are breaking this commandment. Also, according to the Old and New testaments, those who call upon Yahweh’s Name will be saved, Joel 2:32 and Acts 2:21. Beyond the scriptural significance, people prefer being called by their personal names and not by a replacement someone may randomly choose. Our Creator is no different. He too desires to be called by His personal revealed Name, Yahweh. If you are not already doing so, we encourage you to begin honoring your Heavenly Father by calling on His revealed personal Name Yahweh and not settle for substitute names or titles.

 

[FredVB]

I have learned there are ancient Greek writings found with the name of God as spoken among them when it was, and the writing shows that with their pronunciation of it the vowels in order corresponding to the name pronounced as Yahweh. As Yahweh spoke with the revelation of this name with prophetic knowledge about all the future from them still with saying it was to be remembered and it was for all generations. So it was with requirement as well as it was prophetic. The people of Israel who were to be the people of God did observe to speak with the name, distinguishing their God from all those that were not really God that people of other kingdoms and cultures all around believed in, while any could join with the people of God, also shown prophetically, and they would speak with the name "Yahweh" being remembered as well. And so certainly the books of the Bible were written with the name of Yahweh clearly written through them, showing people spoke with the name of Yahweh, nearly 7000 times.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I have learned there are ancient Greek writings found with the name of God as spoken among them when it was, and the writing shows that with their pronunciation of it the vowels in order corresponding to the name pronounced as Yahweh. As Yahweh spoke with the revelation of this name with prophetic knowledge about all the future from them still with saying it was to be remembered and it was for all generations. So it was with requirement as well as it was prophetic. The people of Israel who were to be the people of God did observe to speak with the name, distinguishing their God from all those that were not really God that people of other kingdoms and cultures all around believed in, while any could join with the people of God, also shown prophetically, and they would speak with the name "Yahweh" being remembered as well. And so certainly the books of the Bible were written with the name of Yahweh clearly written through them, showing people spoke with the name of Yahweh, nearly 7000 times.

there is no evidence of any of that. If so, provide the references...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the most accurate transliteration of YHWH is “Yahweh.”

There is no evidence for that usage. YeHo is a theophoric prefix for a reason. YaH is a poetic ABBREVIATION of The Name...and is only used as a SUFFIX...

 

[Der Alte]

There is no evidence for that usage. YeHo is a theophoric prefix for a reason. YaH is a poetic ABBREVIATION of The Name...and is only used as a SUFFIX...

Have you ever heard of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia? Here is a brief quote from the JE article, "Names of God" which is about 12 typewritten pages. If you wish to challenge this publication, I suggest you review the many historical sources the article cites. The empty parentheses () indicate where the Hebrew occurs in the original.

YHWH
Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.
This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).
In appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).
If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh () or Yahaweh (). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah () is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho ( = ), and Jo or Yo (, contracted from ), which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah () in the second part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that in Samaritan poetry rimes with words similar in ending to Yahweh, and Theodoret ("Quæst. 15 in Exodum") states that the Samaritans pronounced the name 'Iαβέ. Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect. Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces 'Iαουέ or 'Iαουαί, and Origen, 'Iα. Aquila wrote the name in archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears as Ιαωουηε. At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render ο κύριος ("the Lord").***​

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Have you ever heard of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia? Here is a brief quote from the JE article, "Names of God" which is about 12 typewritten pages. If you wish to challenge this publication, I suggest you review the many historical sources the article cites. The empty parentheses () indicate where the Hebrew occurs in the original.

YHWH​

Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.​

This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).​

In appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).​

If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh () or Yahaweh (). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah () is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho ( = ), and Jo or Yo (, contracted from ), which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah () in the second part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that in Samaritan poetry rimes with words similar in ending to Yahweh, and Theodoret ("Quæst. 15 in Exodum") states that the Samaritans pronounced the name 'Iαβέ. Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect. Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces 'Iαουέ or 'Iαουαί, and Origen, 'Iα. Aquila wrote the name in archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears as Ιαωουηε. At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render ο κύριος ("the Lord").***​

LOL, we have been through this before...lots of "IFs" in that article. As I said to you before, they both can't be correct and you can't get the theophoric prefixes used in Hebrew from the one name...you also really need to look into Iabe and Iaove...Jupiter

 

[Der Alte]

LOL, we have been through this before...lots of "IFs" in that article. As I said to you before, they both can't be correct and you can't get the theophoric prefixes used in Hebrew from the one name...you also really need to look into Iabe and Iaove...Jupiter

Thank you for your unsupported opinion. There are a lot more "ifs' in your argument. Please let me know when/if you publish a peer reviewed Hebrew grammar or lexicon. As for theophoric prefixes and suffixes. Had you bothered to actually read the article you might find they discussed that.
I just remembered my first foray into online discussions about 3 decades ago. I joined a "Sacred Name" forum. They claimed that "Iesous" the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "Yehoshua" was supposedly derived from "Hail Zeus." They didn't know that "Zeus" was not pronounced Zoos [rhymes with loose] as Americans pronounce it.
Also, the name Jeshua occurs 29 times in the O.T. it is written ישׁוע in Hebrew and is written as Ἰησοῦς in the 225 B.C. LXX.
The name Joshua occurs 219 times in the O.T. it is written יהושׁע in Hebrew and also as Ἰησοῦς in the 225 B.C. LXX.
I am quite certain that the Jewish scholars who translated the 225BC LXX did NOT use the name of a pagan deity to refer to Mose's successor, Joshua.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Thank you for your unsupported opinion. There are a lot more "ifs' in your argument. Please let me know when/if you publish a peer reviewed Hebrew grammar or lexicon. As for theophoric prefixes and suffixes. Had you bothered to actually read the article you might find they discussed that.
I just remembered my first foray into online discussions about 3 decades ago. I joined a "Sacred Name" forum. They claimed that "Iesous" the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew "Yehoshua" was supposedly derived from "Hail Zeus." They didn't know that "Zeus" was not pronounced Zoos [rhymes with loose] as Americans pronounce it.
Also, the name Jeshua occurs 29 times in the O.T. it is written ישׁוע in Hebrew and is written as Ἰησοῦς in the 225 B.C. LXX.
The name Joshua occurs 219 times in the O.T. it is written יהושׁע in Hebrew and also as Ἰησοῦς in the 225 B.C. LXX.
I am quite certain that the Jewish scholars who translated the 225BC LXX did NOT use the name of a pagan deity to refer to Mose's successor, Joshua.

There are no ifs and it is not MY arguement. It is Hebrew. I have explained all this to you repeatedly previously. I asked you before how you get YeHo and Yo or any other theophoric prefix from your choice of "The Name". The answer is you can't. You do not even need to know Hebrew to see that lol! Also what does Yeshua or Yehoshua and Zeus have to do with my arguement, other than both names prove my point regarding theophoric prefixes in Hebrew? Yeshua told the Samaritan woman what He said for a reason...John 4:22.
Shabbat Shalom!

 

[Der Alte]

There are no ifs and it is not MY arguement. It is Hebrew. I have explained all this to you repeatedly previously. I asked you before how you get YeHo and Yo or any other theophoric prefix from your choice of "The Name". The answer is you can't. You do not even need to know Hebrew to see that lol! Also what does Yeshua or Yehoshua and Zeus have to do with my arguement, other than both names prove my point regarding theophoric prefixes in Hebrew? Yeshua told the Samaritan woman what He said for a reason...John 4:22.
Shabbat Shalom!

Not correct. What I posted is Hebrew. What you posted is unsupported opinion. As I said let me know when you have published a peer reviewed Hebrew grammar and lexicon or when you can quote one.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, you are so correct!​

Another false argument used by some is to claim that "My Lord and my God" should have been translated as "My Lord and my god" ... (FWIW, Elohim should be capitalized).
John 1:1, 14
1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
A theologian with a doctorate degree(s) is NO proof that he is right when he chooses to misinterpret John 20:28 and John 1:1, 14 and other scripture. The majority of profesors with doctorate degrees are agnostics or aetheists than born again Christians (1 John 2:27).
Another example is Saul/Paul mentored by Gamaliel, a leading authority in the Sanhedrin. Yet he was blind to the Truth. So, too was Paul before he saw the true Light and no longer had any need for a theologian to teach him.
That is not to say that there aren't as many or more theologians that believe Immanuel (God with us) as referring to Christ Jesus as "Lord and God" (John 20:28). Some theologians can't accept what they can't explain (the Godhead) without misinterpreting scripture.
[Image Omitted]
Then he resorts to accusing me of being a "triniarian" when i've never used the word which isn't to be found in the entire Bible.
A sign he is grasping for straws when his final defense is playing the "trinity" card. Sounds like he is closer to JW thinking.

All I see are a bunch of false accusations and unsupported claims. Which anyone can make. "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh Huh!" I started learning to speak Greek more than 6 decades ago and studied both Hebrew and Greek at the graduate level about 3 decades after that. It will take more than empty, unsupported accusations/claims to show me to be in error.
Actually, what Thomas said was "The Lord of me and the God of me." And that is what Thomas meant.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not correct. What I posted is Hebrew. What you posted is unsupported opinion.

LOL! The ONLY thing you posted that was in Hebrew was the names Yeshua and Yehoshua...which both actually make my point! Shavuah Tov!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I started learning to speak Greek more than 6 decades ago and studied both Hebrew and Greek at the graduate level about 3 decades after that.

If that were true you would not be arguing with me regarding Hebrew theophoric prefixes and suffixes! Maybe you had a bad teacher?