Why do people keep calling The LORD 'Yahweh'?

[DavidLamb]

Weak explanation for you not being able to address the subject.

Read your reply again so you can see for yourself how dumb it sounds.

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever..

But thanks for your time..

It made good sense to me.

 

[Roger316]

Weak explanation for you not being able to address the subject.

Read your reply again so you can see for yourself how dumb it sounds.

It makes NO SENSE whatsoever..

But thanks for your time..

My post is easy to understand. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terminology.

 

[Mem]

Is the argument in any regards as to how to properly invoke God?

 

[Komentaja]

if no one knows how to pronounce it, then how did Moses and David pronounce it? since they most likely spoke Hebrew..

It's YEH-HO-VAH.

This isn't complicated or new..

My question is, where did this yahweh come from? it is nowhere in the Hebrew manuscripts.


Even the english word Lord for Jesus Christ is translated from Hebrew which in its original form is 'Rabbi' a.k.a Master.

I know they knew how to pronounce it but I meant today. I accept Yehowah I have no issue with it. Where did Yahweh come from? Because that is one guess as to how to pronounce the YHWH that is in the manuscripts. But I looked up Yahweh on wikipedia and it aint pretty, according to wikipedia he is a pagan deity pretty much. Even shows a statue of him, scary stuff.

I like King James Bible so I believe the Yehovah is the correct way

 

[shyamuraix]

I know they knew how to pronounce it but I meant today. I accept Yehowah I have no issue with it. Where did Yahweh come from? Because that is one guess as to how to pronounce the YHWH that is in the manuscripts. But I looked up Yahweh on wikipedia and it aint pretty, according to wikipedia he is a pagan deity pretty much. Even shows a statue of him, scary stuff.

I like King James Bible so I believe the Yehovah is the correct way

Man, thanks for actually doing some searching before commenting!

There's plenty of sources right?? That point to Yahweh being a different deity? That's what I'm saying!

What a relief man, at least one person is looking into it before just GIVING THEIR OPINION!

Now don't get me wrong, opinions are welcome, but we're dealing with THE LORD here.. Nothing should be left to personal opinion!

EXACTLY BRO, so how can this pagan deity, who has a statue of him, be connected to The LORD God who is VERY AGAINST idols, and how could this 'yahweh' EVOLVE into The God of the Israelites? Makes no sense whatsoever!

Some parties are CLEARLY trying to confuse others and purposely mixing them up!

God Bless you @Komentaja .. I am not looking for only people who agree with me, I'm looking for others who will look into this subject, and THEN tell me what they think about it, since like you said, IT AINT PRETTY!

 

[shyamuraix]

Is the argument in any regards as to how to properly invoke God?

Not really, I just want to know why the term is used today to replace YEHOVAH..

Like, there's no Yahweh's Witnesses.. But there's JEHOVAH's Witnesses.. LOL

 

[shyamuraix]

It made good sense to me.

Well all I have to say to that is :

(Matthew 15:14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[shyamuraix]

I wonder what you thing "tetragrammaton" means. It simply means "four letters." As ancient Hebrew only had consonants, and no vowels, the name of God had only four letters, consonants. I notice you repeat that the term tetragrammaton is Kabbalistic, but you give no evidence that it is.

You ask how I can call upon the name of the Lord if I cannot pronounce it. First, when we read about "the name of the Lord, " or "the name of Jesus Christ" in the Bible, it means far more than the label by which they are called. For example, when we read:

(Act 4:12) Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

that doesn't mean that sinners can be saved by repeating the name "Jesus". Rather, it refers to His whole being and character. Second, I don't speak Hebrew, but English, so when I talk to God in prayer, I address Him as "Lord" or "God", or both together, "Lord God." Or I say, "Heavenly Father." If I was a Polish Christian, I would use the equivalent Polish words. If I was Mongolian, I would use the Mongolian words. And so on. As far as I know, God doesn't tell us in His word that we can only use Hebrew to address Him. (It's interesting that on the cross, Jesus addressed His Father in Aramaic, not Hebrew.)

The New Testament was written in Greek, which does have both vowels and consonants, so there is no "consonants only" version of the name "Jesus".

You ask who taught me this. Forgot the term "tetragrammaton", as you are uncomfortable with it. I find in all my reference books on the Bible that Hebrew was written without vowels. That is why the name of God, as written in Hebrew, was just four letters, all consonants, "YHWH" in English letters. As I understand it, the forms "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" came about much later by some Jewish scribes adding vowels from the word "Adonai" ("Lord") to the four consonants.

I'll finish by asking you a question. Why are you so concerned about God's name in Hebrew? I don't know what your first language is - if it's not English, you write English very well. I don't imagine it is Hebrew. Why do you feel compelled only to address God in a Hebrew-based name? (I hope you won't be offended by my question, because I certainly don't mean to offend you.)

David you just wrote a whole bunch of nonsense without looking into the subject or answering my question.

I have no time to explain things to fools who will never get it..

I'm going to be very polite because I see you are an elder, and I don't want to be rude or offensive, but just because you are older, does not mean you are RIGHT.

Have a good one bro.

 

[shyamuraix]

It made good sense to me.

I'm gonna let you off easy because you seem like an old man and I understand as we get older, we get more stubborn and adamant.

Also it's hard to show fools who are determined to believe something they already have conviction in that they are wrong.

See you on the other side David!

 

[DavidLamb]

David you just wrote a whole bunch of nonsense without looking into the subject or answering my question.

I have no time to explain things to fools who will never get it..

I'm going to be very polite because I see you are an elder, and I don't want to be rude or offensive, but just because you are older, does not mean you are RIGHT.

Have a good one bro.

And I trust you haven't found any of my posts rude or offensive. Christians should be able to discuss matters on which they don't agree without being nasty to one another.

 

[DavidLamb]

I'm gonna let you off easy because you seem like an old man and I understand as we get older, we get more stubborn and adamant.

Also it's hard to show fools who are determined to believe something they already have conviction in that they are wrong.

See you on the other side David!

I assure you I was not being stubborn. You had said that another post made no sense to you, and I replied that it made good sense to me. How is that being stubborn? I suppose you are right about my age, although I don't feel like an old man. I'm 77. My pastor is 89, and I have never come across a more gracious and less stubborn man than him.

I don't think it is right to call people fools just because they don't agree with you.

 

[Churchgoer]

This is a pronunciation issue, not about a pagan deity.
Possible a pagan deity stole, or purpose have a name similar to our true God.
Just like the beautiful rainbow , God's creation, a promise to mankind. Not the enemy stole it.

But we know our God, the God who create heaven and earth, giving us new life in Jesus.

if one want to study, study OT in Hebrew original language, it shows God's personal name 6000 times.

 

[shyamuraix]

I assure you I was not being stubborn. You had said that another post made no sense to you, and I replied that it made good sense to me. How is that being stubborn? I suppose you are right about my age, although I don't feel like an old man. I'm 77. My pastor is 89, and I have never come across a more gracious and less stubborn man than him.

I don't think it is right to call people fools just because they don't agree with you.

Dont know about that Dave, the apostle Paul did it :

(Luke 24:25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.

 

[shyamuraix]

And I trust you haven't found any of my posts rude or offensive. Christians should be able to discuss matters on which they don't agree without being nasty to one another.

I am not offended by people who do not understand what I'm talking about. Don't worry.

Long life and good health to you, The LORD Jesus Christ be with you, and may his angels watch over you Dave!

 

[shyamuraix]

This is a pronunciation issue, not about a pagan deity.
Possible a pagan deity stole, or purpose have a name similar to our true God.
Just like the beautiful rainbow , God's creation, a promise to mankind. Not the enemy stole it.

But we know our God, the God who create heaven and earth, giving us new life in Jesus.

if one want to study, study OT in Hebrew original language, it shows God's personal name 6000 times.

Why do you keep repeating this?

I've already exclaimed ITS NOT A PRONOUNCIATION ISSUE.

Did you not get what the other guy said? That if you just do a simple look-up, you can find all kinds of resources on this Yahweh being a pagan deity, complete with pictures of the idol.

My issue is why do Christians refer to The LORD GOD as yahweh..

This pagan deity existed BEFORE MOSES, who we are told wrote the accounts of Genesis.. So I think it's important for Christians to know this deity and not call The Lord Almighty God by this name, because I think it would be offensive and a great dishonor to OUR GOD, The Father.

Yeah, the name usde over 6,000 times is YEHOVAH. Which translates to The LORD.

You're just making me repeat the same thing over and over again, without saying anything new or showing me anything contrary.

This is the source of my frustration..

TO quote scripture :

(John 8:43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

 

[dkontner]

Amos 8​

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Ask any Christian what the differences in the bible versions is. We are in the falling away. This world can print anything and people will read it.

2 Corinthians 4​

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Matthew 24​

1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

John 16​

33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

 

[GWH]

You do know that Wikipedia entries can be edited right? And they have been caught red-handed editing entries?

So my question is, how can you then rely on it, brother? Not that it's a dumb source or whatever. If something is fallible, how can it be relied upon?

Hahaha.. Also what's up with this 'astute' thing.. Is it just a term u enjoy using? I have no problem with it, but I just want to understand what you mean by 'the astute'.. Is this how you refer to scholars, academics, or just those educated in this subject? Please clarify so I can understand your responses better.

What scholars, or what you and me think does not matter, IN MY OPINION.. However, what the Scripture connects in the Old and New, and how it verifies and testifies of itself, is what matters.. Since The LORD Jesus said "The Scripture CANNOT BE BROKEN".

Therefore, we have absolute confidence and trust in The Word of God, as the final authority.. Dont get me wrong, im not advocating 'Sola Scriptura'. It just sounds the same..

As far as you saying The Lord GOD incarnate is Jesus Christ, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

You see, In Exodus, when they went up to Sinai to see The LORD God, they said "Let us not see or hear God, or else we die."

No man can see God and live after that.. Not even Moses, who asked the LORD to see Him. And The LORD himself said, no Man can see God in his true shape/form and live.. Which is why He came as a man, so we can relate, see Him, and have communion with Him.

You must also understand that there is a huge supernatural factor in The Bible since Genesis 6, where the angels who saw the daughters of men and had children from them, are being addressed to in the Scriptures..

Which is why He came in the seed of Abraham, and not as a Spirit, to show us that He is on OUR SIDE, He is WITH US (IMMANUEL), and that he is AGAINST the angels that sinned.

Isn't it so beautiful?

The problem with a lot of bible studies or teachings is their REFUSAL to address Gensis 6. You cannot truly understand Scripture without addressing this issue.

Dr. Michael Heiser is an excellent source on this, and even he as a Biblical Hebrew Scholar, has said that he had to completely re-learn and look a the Bible from a completely different lense after taking into consideration the events of Genesis 6 and how it was continued after Genesis 6. The whole conquest of Canaan is in relation to that.. The battle of the giants, wiping them out.

IT'S DEEP MAN!!

Yes, I know about Wikipedia, and I have been relying on it as a source of information for many years, occasionally donating, without ever finding something blatantly in error, because editors check one another.

I have never relied on it for theological information, because I have my Bibles and other sources for doing that. I guess I have used Wiki mostly for info about movies and musicians.

It is very astute of you to notice my use of "astute", by which I intend to point out something implied by semantics, in this case that saying "many" implies "not all and thus at least some". Another common implication is "may" means "maybe not", as in "something may cure something", which means it may NOT. Thanks for asking for clarification.

I agree that what Scripture says matters most, and NT Scripture matters more than the NT. For example, the OT says "Let us not see or hear God, or else we die", but the NT says we cannot see God/no one has ever seen God. We can have confidence in our understanding to the extent we are open to learning new/NT truth that contradicts previous OT beliefs and amending immediately.

I am glad we agree about Jesus being the Lord incarnate, which is a kerygmatic belief (necessary for salvation), so we can relax and agree to disagree about secondary matters, which IMO includes the OP.

The only part of Gen. 6 that seems kerygmatic is that God judges sin. Yes, one cannot truly understand Scripture without believing this truth. Some things are deep, but GRFS is simple enough for a child to understand, which is beautiful.

 

[shyamuraix]

Amos 8​

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Ask any Christian what the differences in the bible versions is. We are in the falling away. This world can print anything and people will read it.

2 Corinthians 4​

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Matthew 24​

1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

John 16​

33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Wow.. A MAN AFTER MY OWN HEART!

 

[shyamuraix]

Yes, I know about Wikipedia, and I have been relying on it as a source of information for many years, occasionally donating, without ever finding something blatantly in error, because editors check one another.

I have never relied on it for theological information, because I have my Bibles and other sources for doing that. I guess I have used Wiki mostly for info about movies and musicians.

It is very astute of you to notice my use of "astute", by which I intend to point out something implied by semantics, in this case that saying "many" implies "not all and thus at least some". Another common implication is "may" means "maybe not", as in "something may cure something", which means it may NOT. Thanks for asking for clarification.

I agree that what Scripture says matters most, and NT Scripture matters more than the NT. For example, the OT says "Let us not see or hear God, or else we die", but the NT says we cannot see God/no one has ever seen God. We can have confidence in our understanding to the extent we are open to learning new/NT truth that contradicts previous OT beliefs and amending immediately.

I am glad we agree about Jesus being the Lord incarnate, which is a kerygmatic belief (necessary for salvation), so we can relax and agree to disagree about secondary matters, which IMO includes the OP.

The only part of Gen. 6 that seems kerygmatic is the that God judges sin. Yes, one cannot truly understand Scripture without believing this truth. Some things are deep, but GRFS is simple enough for a child to understand, which is beautiful.

lol.. you lost me at "using Wikipedia as a source of information for many years".

But sure, whatever you say mate..

I'd like to engage with people who have something to say about this pagan deity called 'yahweh'.

 

[DavidLamb]

Dont know about that Dave, the apostle Paul did it :

(Luke 24:25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.

But Paul didn't call them fools just because they didn't agree with him, but because they refused to believe God.