Talk:Names of God in Judaism/Archive 1

Do the contents of this article belong somewhere else?


 * I would recommend moving it to Yahweh. The articles are very similar at this point anyway.
 * But Yahweh deals with the name "Yahweh", so stuff about other Jewish names for God ("Adonai","Elohim","haShem") wouldn't seem to belong there...


 * One small point that likely belongs in a Talk page (but I'm too lazy to create one for a page that should disappear soon anyway) is that of the "YHVH" English rendering of the Tetragrammaton.


 * The Hebrew letter represented as "V" in this rendering is "vav" which, in Ancient Hebrew [if I understand correctly--I took Arabic, not Hebrew] was pronounced just like the ancient Roman "v" was pronounced--as a W. Is there any particular reason for rendering it "YHVH" instead of "YHWH"? Should we mention this point somewhere, or no?


 * Just added the hebrew lettering, if anyone wants to merge this page with another one please make sure to copy that bit over. Had to rummage around in unicode tables a bit to work it out. -BD


 * Yes, YHVH is a mixture of modern and ancient. It would be better as YHWH (modern English values) or JHVH (ancient Latin values). It is confused by the fact that in modern Hebrew the W is now pronounced as a V, so YHVH represents the modern Hebrew sounds, though not ancient Hebrew. Similarly, in tzevaot, that's a purely modern Hebrew transcription, and the ancient Latin Sebaoth is closer to the ancient Hebrew.

I changed the Hebrew word to display correctly on my browser (that is, right to left). Someone else has changed it back, with the comment that they also are changing it to read from right to left. Does this mean that different browsers display it in different directions? If so, we would be better to get rid of it, since it will just be misleading to anyone whose browser shows it the wrong way round. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 20

In Mozilla 0.9.4, which as far as I know is the most standards-compliant browser currently available, the string of characters encoded by &amp;#1497;&amp;#1492;&amp;#1493;&amp;#1492; gets automatically reversed and displayed from right to left. I assume that this is because Mozilla "knows" that Hebrew is read in this direction. The same thing happens in Internet Explorer 5.0, the only other browser I currently have access to. Whoever's seeing this text rendered left-to-right instead, what browser are you using? -BD

Internet Explorer 4.01 doesn't reverse them. Nor does Netscape 6.01. I think we should use a GIF (or PNG) if we really want to show the tetragrammaton, then we can be sure that everyone is seeing it correctly. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 20

On the other hand, the note about reading direction "(Note that Hebrew is written from right to left, rather than left to right as in English)" doesn't specify which direction the letters are actually being displayed in on the page, so the reader can take a moment to figure it out for himself. The "H" character is the one there are two instances of, once that's noticed it's pretty clear which way the word is being written. :) Personally I'd rather stick to the HTML standard than fool around with images for lettering, since standard compliance by browsers should increase with time, but I'm not terribly concerned one way or the other. - BD

You might find this tag useful:  - Jan 1, 05

Elohei
The singular form of elohim is only used in "word-pair" form; where it indicates god of + the thing after it, thus elohei is only used and should be listed.


 * Elohei is plural. The singular would be Eloha, the pair version is undistinguishable from the regular version. Gadykozma 17:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Solving a Riddle written in Silver
Please see NYTimes Science Section, first. Sept 28th 2004, discovery of Priestly Blessing in Silver Amulets, with God's name in ancient script


 * Finally got a copy of that article and accompanied photos. Will try to make sense of it and add a comment. Thanks for the pointer. --Zappaz 16:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inquiry
Shouldn't Be actually elpincha 22:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * YHWH-Ra-ah: The Lord my Shepherd (Psalms 23:1)
 * YHWH-Ro'i: The Lord (is) my Shepherd (Psalms 23:1).

Greek to me...
The quotation from the Gospel of John in the "Hashem" section seems utterly out of place, given that John was written in Greek, and probably by a Gentile. My understanding is that the use of "logos" ("the word") is considered to be a Gnostic influence, not a reference to anything in Jewish thought.


 * Well spotted. I dealt with it. JFW | T@lk  18:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hebrew texts of John use the form hadavar. Should this be moved to the Gnosticism article instead of deleting? I have re-added the text for now until we fid a place for it. The reason I see this to be important is that the hebrew form is "hadavar", but most translate this as the Word. --Zappaz 00:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What Hebrew texts of John? John was written in Greek.  I'll return the article to Jfdwolff's version, pending some confirmation of the dubious claim. Jayjg 01:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that the Hewbrew version of the new testament, is says "bereshit hayah hadavar". --Zappaz 22:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * http://dvar-adonai.org/hnt/He_htm/John001-005.htm


 * That's a modern Christian translation of John into Hebrew, it has nothing to do with Judaism. I'm removing the unrelated text again. Jayjg 00:33, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Can we find an article to place that text in? It is valuable info. --Zappaz 02:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is it "valuable info" that a modern Christian translation of the Gospel of John into Hebrew uses the term "haDavar"? Jayjg 04:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Because of the translation as "the Word". --Zappaz 00:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, these are unrelated concepts. Hashem or Hadavar are not even used in the Talmud, they were introduced by the Medieval Rabbis. To claim that the name Hadavar has any bearing on the New Testament is minimally an anachronism and maximally a distortion. JFW | T@lk  01:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, that's a translation choice a modern Christian translator made. I'm not sure why that specific choice by that specific translator is "important". Jayjg | Talk 04:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a concern
Am I the only one who feels deeply uncomfortable that the article now includes the Hebrew tetragrammaton? This is a sacred word for Jews and should not be produced or reproduced so casually. Slrubenstein 19:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern, but please note that there are thousands of reproductions of the tetragrammaton on the Internet, as well as on the online version of the Jewish encyclopedia. Out of respect to religious folk, we could add a disclaimer such as According to the Jewish tradition, if you print this page, the copy should be treated as any other sacred text since it contains the name of God.


 * Alternatively, maybe you can ask some Talmud scholars about the display on the Tetragrammaton on web pages and if there are any guidelines as how to do this.--Zappaz 19:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The question that occurs to me is how should "any ... sacred text" be treated? "With respect", of course, but are there any specifics that should be observed in this case? People in general are unlikely to have access to a geniza, so what should we be telling them to do, if anything? --Kay Dekker 04:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improving the article
moved from User_talk:Gary_D)--Zappaz 00:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)''

Hello Gary, Happy New Year!

I am putting my knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic to good work in expanding the The names of God in Judaism article. Could you take a look and give me some pointers on how to improve the article? I would like to submit it as a candidate for featured article. Your help will be appreciated. --Zappaz 20:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge of Hebrew? Thank god that Jossi speaks Hebrew, to back you up. And the Humanist is a treasure for that as well, isn't it. But to have it look scholarly, it is simply to amateurish. 140.247.62.121


 * There they go again the ex-premies with their conspiracy theories... And I thought that they will leave me alone now that the PR articles are stable. But no, they lurk and check my every step. Yikes!. Oh well ces't la vie, I guess. --Zappaz 16:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

''


 * What is an "ex-premie"? Jayjg |  (Talk)  22:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ouch! don't get me started... these are a small and very vociferous (to say the least, IMO!) group of ex-followers of Prem Rawat . I had quite a bit of problems with them when editing related articles. They accuse me of being paid to push Rawat's followers POVs in WP, and have also other weird conspiracy theories, and as you see above, they lurk around and check my edits.... strange people. --Zappaz 17:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Title starts with "The"?
See Naming conventions. Shouldn't this page be moved to Names of God in Judaism? Dbenbenn 20:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * yep. Done. --Zappaz


 * "Done"? In what way? It hasn't been entered on the Requested moves page. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Done asking for move... at Requested_moves... :) --Zappaz 23:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

G-d
Someone should add the bit about why it is sometimes written G-d or L-rd in english. "G-d" redirects here. I couldn't find a relvanat place to add it. Also, I don't remember how to sign things.
 * Use four tiles '~' Larklight 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

From peer review
I came to this article from the peer review page. I did a whole lot of little tidying jobs on the article, and I hope that the contributors here are happy with what I've done. It is clear that there have been a few different authors of the article text, and I've tried to smooth out the differences in style. I've removed referrences to the Old Testament as it seems more NPOV to use Hebrew Bible in all but purely Christian contexts. There is quite a bit of work that still needs done on tidying the article. Gareth Hughes 23:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Very much appreciated, Gareth! What other tidying-up tasks you propose? Could you make up a list? --Zappaz 04:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The cleanup looked good to me. Regarding tidying-up, is there too much about the Tetragrammaton here?  Should the section be summarized further, with a "Main article Tetragrammaton" sentence at the start? Jayjg (talk)  15:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been through the article again. Considering the conversations here about the Tetragrammaton, I've changed the multiple instances of YHVH and Yhwh to YHWH, and acknowledged YHVH as an alternative. I've tried to deal with a few grammatical issues, and I've changed a couple of instances where 'they' is used to refer to Jews (non-inclusive POV). I've straightened out the list of lesser used names so that they all follow a similar format now. I've also linked references to biblical books to their relevant articles. I hope all of that is okay, and that the article is a more unified read. Gareth Hughes 16:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Great work again, Gareth. The article has benefited a lot from your intervention. Regarding Jayjg comment about the Tetragrammaton, I think that although there is already a full article on the subject, we need here a good summary, as the one we currently have, given its relevance. --Zappaz 21:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Raul's thoughts
Just to CC my comment on the FAC here - I really like this article (it's one of my favorites on Wikipedia, and I don't say that lightly). I think it would benefit *greatly* from having someone record themselves saying these Hebrew names and upload them (ogg format) for use in the article. →Raul654 04:01, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Files to be added
Nadav did some wonderful work. He recorded these ogg files, which need to be added to their relavant sections →Raul654 14:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:He-Abir.ogg
 * Image:He-Adonai.ogg
 * Image:He-AvinuMalkeinu.ogg
 * Image:He-Boreh.ogg
 * Image:He-EhiyehShEhiyeh.ogg
 * Image:He-EhyehAsherEhyeh.ogg
 * Image:He-EinSof.ogg
 * Image:He-El.ogg
 * Image:He-ElHagibor.ogg
 * Image:He-EloheTzevaot.ogg
 * Image:He-EloheiAvrahamYizchakYaac.ogg
 * Image:He-Elohim.ogg
 * Image:He-Elyon.ogg
 * Image:He-Emet.ogg
 * Image:He-Hadavar.ogg
 * Image:He-HakadoshBaruchHu.ogg
 * Image:He-Hashem.ogg
 * Image:He-KadoshIsrael.ogg
 * Image:He-MagenAvraham.ogg
 * Image:He-Makom.ogg
 * Image:He-MelechHaMelachim.ogg
 * Image:He-RoehYisrael.ogg
 * Image:He-Shadai.ogg
 * Image:He-Shalom.ogg
 * Image:He-Shekhina.ogg
 * Image:He-TzurIsrael.ogg
 * Image:He-YHWH.ogg
 * Image:He-Yah.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhNissi.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhRaah.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhRapha.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhShalom.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhShammah.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhTsidkenu.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhTzevaot.ogg
 * Image:He-YhwhYireh.ogg


 * Thank you Nadav and Raul654 for the addition of the ogg files!
 * Question: Is there a way to make the "listen" template to take less space? Is there a "smaller" version of the template? As it stands now it may disrupt the flow of reading the article. --Zappaz 05:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There are less obstrusive ways of putting it into the article. You can link it inline with some text, or use the smaller speaker icon on commons. However, I would prefer to keep it as is (at least for the time being) because the listen templates is becoming the standard (albeit it might not be the best for this particular artilce). →Raul654 05:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Godd idea Raul. Thanks. I am looking at creating a tiny version of the template for articles like this in which there are so many ogg links. --Zappaz 05:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

small version of listen template
I have created a smaller version of the template (see it in action on the YHVW ogg file). Raul, let me know what you think. If OK, I will replace all the other opnes. --Zappaz 23:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the tiny listen template after you changed it, but I wanted to give it time to see if it would 'grow' on me and I would like it more. So I waited two weeks, and I liked it even less later, so I switched it back on the 19th. Today, you switched all of the templates to the tiny version.
 * I think I have a better idea than either template:listen or template:listen-tiny. What about using template:multi-listen, which is already used on pages like Ludwig van Beethoven for pages that have lots of ogg files? (don't look at the template itself, because it invovles several others --- check out the Beethoven page and tell me what you think) →Raul654 19:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea, Raul. I will check how the template works, give it a go and see how it looks.... My main concern was that these big speaker pics all over the article, reduced readability and were too unappealing visually. template:multi-listen may resolve this! --Zappaz 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) --Zappaz 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical Number and Gender: Adonai, Elohim
My College Hebrew classes were long ago (before the birth of my grandchildrens' parents) so recollection may be faulty - I don't read it anymore. I was taught that Adonai is in the (archaic) Dual Number (as seen in the Hebrew name for Egypt: Mizraim) and that Elohim is a masculine plural of a feminine root Eloah (which becomes plural Eloth if gender is retained.) I'll skip the metaphysics of that. (Here, at least) Can someone please confirm or refute my memory? If correct, should this be placed in the article, or linked elsewhere? oreb 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Adonai as a name is grammatically singular, meaning that it takes singular verbs and singular pronouns. As a syntactic form it is plural with first person possessive suffix identical to the way one would say "my lords". (There would be no distinct dual form when using the possessive suffix.) The form Adonaim (if it existed) would be dual, but it does not exist - only things that naturally come in twos like arms, legs, eyes etc have distinct dual forms. Mizraim looks like a dual and can be rationalized as such (upper and lower Egypt) but it is uncertain if it really is a dual or merely accidentally looks like one, similarly with the place name Aram Naharaim (can be rationalized as referring to two rivers but may merely look like a dual.


 * Elohah as a name for God is grammatically masculine but looks uncomfortably feminine because of the ah ending so it is hardly used, the preferred form is the syntactic plural form Elohim (which is nevertheless grammatically singular) or El (also masculine). Eloth is the feminine plural of El not of Elohah which would be Elohot.


 * In both Elohim and Adonai the plural form is probably intendeded to denote abstraction - Elohim meaning Divinity (or Authority, el seems to have meant something like judge or magistrate originally not necessarly a divine being) and Adonai meaning my Lordship. The popular explanation is that it is a plural of majesty or excellance but perhaps this is more accurately abstraction (via plural syntactic form) of majesty or excellance analogous to English, Lordship, Highness, Majesty Kuratowski's Ghost 15:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "el" means strength. The linked page on "El" states this.


 * With this pluralistic ending, it means "many strengths". This can be translated as many strengths working together or one with many strengths, refering to the "all powerful" aspect. (This is my own personal belief.) -- Chacham 5:00, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if you make suggestionss here before making changes to the article. We have worked and researched this article for many months, and it received Featured Article status last month. I am inclined to revert your edits, but I would wait until you have a chance to explain the removal of text and the changes you introduced. --Zappaz 16:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well lets see:


 * The explanation about a meaning of breathe or blow is a conflating of the standard explanation of the name as a form of the verb of being and an alternative explanation from the good old days of 19th century / early 20th century pseudo-scholarship which alleged that the God of the OT was a wind god. The word simply does not mean breathe or blow in Hebrew, plain fact.
 * Jamaican Jah is known to come from Yah as in Hallelujah, no mystery here so why say "may".
 * The Greek Adonis is generally understood to come from Adoni = my lord, not completely identical to Adonai which is plural, I merely expanded on this info didn't really say anything new.
 * Adonai is syntatically plural (i.e. it has the construction of a plural), what the article meant to say is that it isn't grammatically plural (i.e. it doesn't take plural verbs and pronouns). Kuratowski's Ghost 16:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Grammatically plural is rather vague. In fact, both names are morphologically plural and syntactically singular. I thought the first verse of Genesis showed that quite clearly. --Gareth Hughes 21:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok we obviously understand the term syntactically differently :) Kuratowski's Ghost 21:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Technically, syntax governs relationships between words: if a noun takes a singular verb as predicate, it is syntactically singular. Morphology, however, governs the internal formation and alteration of words: if a word takes a recognised plural shape, it is morphologically plural. Usually, the two are the same, but many languages have exceptions to this. The Hebrew Bereshith bara ' ' elohim has  ' elohim as its subject (which is masculine plural in form), but uses the singular verb bara ' , which makes the subject syntactically singular. In some old grammars syntax is used to describe word class, and thus is as vague as grammatically plural. --Gareth Hughes 21:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article needs more work
No offence, but this article just doesn't seem to be of Featured Article quality yet. It's often repetitive and even contradictory. In case I don't have time to fix these issues, let me try to be concrete:
 * 1) Under Tetragrammaton, first "Modern scholars conjecture that it was pronounced "Yahweh"" followed by "The name YHWH is often reconstructed as Yahweh"
 * 2) Under Tetragrammaton, first "Because Jews have, for a long period of time, considered it blasphemy to pronounce, the correct pronunciation of this name has been forgotten" followed by "The prohibition of blasphemy, for which capital punishment is prescribed in Jewish law, refers only to the Tetragrammaton".  Surely these could be combined.  Then in the next section, "All modern denominations of Judaism teach that the four letter name of God, YHWH, is forbidden to be uttered except by the High Priest, in the Temple ... Instead of pronouncing YHWH during prayer, Jews say Adonai.".  Then again, under Adonai, "Since pronouncing YHWH is considered sinful, Jews use Adonai instead in prayers".  This all seems quite redundant.
 * 3) Under Tetragrammaton, "This name is first mentioned in the book of Genesis and is usually translated as "the Lord""; then under Pronouncing the tetragrammaton, "English translations of the Bible generally render YHWH as "the LORD" (in small capitals)".  Surely these could be combined.
 * 4) The Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh section seems quite piecemeal as it is.
 * 5) The Kabbalistic use section needs extensive copyediting, especially (but not only) the 42-letter name paragraph.
 * I'm also confused by the rastafarian reference under the Yah heading. This is names for god used by Judaism, not the world. Also, the link to Yam there seems extraneous.  Any comments?Fcsuper 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

××× I agree that this article needs tightening up, editing, here and there. There is another, completely redundant, duplication, i.e. "Seven names of God" and "The tradition of seven divine names". These two sections, both of which are also very, very short, need to be merged. Unfortunately, I don´t yet know enough about the practicalities of editing Wikipedia, so I can´t do it until I´ve worked out how to actually go about it. Borsey379 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elohim
[quote]Despite the -im ending common to many plural nouns in Hebrew, the word Elohim, when referring to God, is grammatically singular, and regularly takes a singular verb in the Hebrew Bible[/quote]

This is an opinion. The use of 'Elohim' in Gen 1 can also be understood as being a reference to "The Gods", or "The Spirits". Thus, the gods created the races of man (each in his own image and likeness), and after this background Gen 2 discusses the activities of that elohim who was the tribal deity (YHWH elohim).

However, the article is specifically about in Juadism, so perhaps this need not be pointed out. Ie: it's an opinion, but the opinion of modern Judaism.


 * Its not an opinion of modern Judaism its typical smart-ass pseudo-scholarship. It can't be understood to mean Gods or spirits, it takes the singular verb bara' not the plural bar'u. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have lso read recently a rather, umm, interesting view of the "taking gods name in vain" commandment. By that view the commandment proscribed priestcraft and religion in general, this being a holdover from their time as slaves in Egypt.

Pmurray bigpond.com 03:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to include a discussion of the understanding of the -im plural form as abstraction. There are several examples of this in Hebrew: e.g. chayah = animal, ordinary plural chayot = animals, but plural form with -im chayyim = life. betulah = virgin, betulot = (female) virgins but betulim = virginity, mayah = a body of water, mayyim = water in general. Similarly elohim can be understood to mean divinity from elohah denoting a god. Similarly with the plural form Adonai Kuratowski's Ghost 18:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That is good, Kuratowsky. Why don't you be bold and add it? Thanks . --Zappaz 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I edit articles based on bursts of motivation, too lethargic at the moment to think how to word it nicely, besides I'm meant to be working :) Kuratowski's Ghost 20:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Caption on Priestly Benediction Picture
I can't see the Y of the YHVH on the priestly benediction picture. Does anyone else see it? To me it appears to show Heh (possibly Samech?) Vav Heh. Is it inferred the Yud was once there or is it just very faint? --Cypherx 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, It is there. just that the first letter (yud) can hardly be seen. See the bigger image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tetragrammaton_benediction.png --Zappaz 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shadai shadayim
Something needs to be said about the possible connection between Shadai and the word shadayim that means breasts and the interpretation that it thus means something similar to English "bountiful". Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)


 * Interesting concept, but unless we find some references of such connection made by scholars or rabbis, I am afraid we will be getting into original research, and outside of the WP policies. --Zappaz 7 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)


 * Nothing original about it is a known view popular amongst Reconstructionists. Will see what I can dig up Kuratowski's Ghost


 * Ok I've added some stuff, cheating a bit cos I haven't actually read the reference I added but used an article that referenced it


 * Fascinating angle... A feminine aspect of God... excellent find. Thanks... --Zappaz 7 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)


 * I think there is a confluence of the various meanings of Shaddai in the title The Humbler. It gets around Volcano-Chthonic perceptions that are misleading (at least in Judaism).    210.50.176.10 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Ian Ison

hashem duplicated
This is a great article, BTW. I see Hashem has two separate sections. I'm loathe to change it myself so as not to louse up a well crafted page, but maybe somebody who's more familiar with the history of the page could investigate? Gzuckier 15:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

ogg format?
THe ogg format is inefficient and pointless. No one (except advanced computer users) use it.

I recommend converting all the .ogg files to .mp3 as this will make the files universally listenable. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.245.54 (talk • contribs).


 * As practical as that would be, the patents on the mp3 format unfortunately make it impossible for Wikipedia to use mp3's. Out of the formats which are unencumbered by patents, Ogg Vorbis is by far the most widely supported. &mdash;Gabbe 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Qumran scroll Tetragrammaton
The caption currently reads "...The Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew can be clearly seen five times in this portion." I'm no scholar, so I didn't change it, but I count 6 of what may be the Tetragrammaton. On the 7 lines shown, (top=1, bottom = 7): line 2: twice line 5: once line 6: twice line 7: once?

Anyone who can actually read Hebrew, feel free to implement this change (if I'm actually correct).Mayor Of France 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious, paleo-Hebrew readers/scholars, is it 5 or 6?Mayor Of France 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely six. Eliyak 04:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hadavar
What is the source for the section on Had'var/Hadavar? I have never heard of that term used as a name of God by anyone, nor have I seen it in any traditional texts. --DLand TALK 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As nobody has responded to this, I have removed the sentence in the article that refers to Hadavar. --DLand TALK 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Señor DLand, I think that the name "HaDavar" might be the source for writing God's name as 'ד, although I have never heard it used, so it may be obsolete. Also, I find that non-Jews are veery interested in Jews writing "G-d" instead of "God," so I think you should put that back too. Eliyak 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why was the bit about G-d removed, G-d redirects to this page. Epson291 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to add something, but it needs to be edited. Epson291 04:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't YHVW Ja-O-Va?
In which case it should be translated into english as JOB. The book of JOB dealt with people that used the lords name, or more pressisly a name that sounded like the word "I Am", for their own benifit. Many names have many similairities, I have heard the middle easterners pronounce john similairly to Ja-O-Va{which incidently sylibalisticly means son of the light of the moon son of light, JOB that is]. So why don't people spell YHVW as JOB? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.14.129.251 (talk • contribs).


 * Because it's wrong. Try learning Hebrew, then you'll understand that איוב is nothing like the Tetragrammaton. — Gareth Hughes 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

YHWH Aleim merge proposal
Support given this is the article to inform on the subject--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration
Wikipedia should adopt a uniform Hebrew transliteration. I don't particularly care which one, but some of the translits on this page are different (elohe) for constructive plural gods? Also, it's hard to put my finger on, but for an article on Judaism, this article has a goyish tone to it.--71.93.234.180 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

about judaism
not knowing s much s I would like about this religion I ask: Isn't the existence of this article some kind of profanity in the judaism? Aren't some names of god (and the same applyis to islamism) just too sacred to be teached to those who are not initiated, or, even worst, to any atheist? --Alexandre Van de Sande 17:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the reasons for not writing the name of God is that so it will not be destroyed. As wikipedia is not paper, this does not apply to us.



טז ונקב שם יהוה מות יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה כגר כאזרח--בנקבו שם יומת

וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־יְהוָה֙ מֹ֣ות יוּמָ֔ת רָגֹ֥ום יִרְגְּמוּ־בֹ֖ו כָּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנָקְבֹו־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃

ויקרא 24:16  "He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." Lev 24:16; Cf: Lev 24:11 for Moses Ruling capital punishment sentence on a son of an Egyptian father and Israelite mother; Outside the camp, Witnesses lay hands on the blasphemer's head, and let the congregation stone him. [User:bwildasi] Leviticus 24:16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwildasi (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The name of god (specifically, the tetragrammaton) is regarded with special reverance and is typically not used except under special circumstances (if at all). On the other hand, this is not a jewish encyclopedia, and we are not obligated to follow their custom of not displaying it. →Raul654 17:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

××× I think this is a truth with modification. I have in my possession a laser copy of a Victorian Mizrach (created 1870 - 1880 by the well-known German-Jewish graphic artist Henry Schile, who emigrated to the U.S.A.) where the sacred name of God,YHVH, is written in Hebrew characters immediately below the Magen David. I shall try to cut and paste it, so all of you can see what I mean. Also, according to one of the Rabbis on Aish.com, it is quite acceptable to write God, rather than G-d, because this word/name is English, not Hebrew, and it is therefore not included in the prohibition. Borsey379 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that Jewish encyclopedias also display and discuss the tetragrammaton. --Zappaz 01:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Learning and teaching are important in Judaism so an article like this, which serves to inform, would be smiled upon.

So, are we just saying now that Judaism has always been monothistic? Even though this flies in the face of evidence? So, these are all different names of the same god? Really? How convenient? When did that become so? What evidence do we have of that? Is it a normal thing to have several names for the same thing?


 * Well... to answer your question, I was going to look the answer up "online" - that is to say, on the "net" - I mean of course the "Internet" - sometimes referred to as the "Information Superhighway" - y'know, on the "World Wide Web", which we usually call the "Web"... To be less tongue-in-cheek, it's pretty common to have several terms to refer to a thing.  Moreso when the thing is important, and even moreso when the most exact name is proscribed, or even just in polite company requires euphemisms to avoid profanity. 207.103.48.236 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, it's not cool to pop in and state something like "this flies in the face of evidence" and then give no evidence! People, and me up to a short time ago, took it for granted that Judaism has always been monotheistic.  But like Borsey below mentioned, all religions are constantly changing.  There's been some work done that indicates that the Jews who invaded and settled in Israel absorbed the religious traditions of the canaanites the previously lived there (they may have even co-existed?) The pantheon of Canaanite gods included El, Ashera, others.  And so if god sounds a little schizo in the old testament and they keep calling him by different names, it is because those are the stories of several different gods with different personalities that were adopted, mashed together, and reforged in to a monotheistic Jewish religion.


 * The web doesn't contain everything (especially the less popular stuff that doesn't sit well with people's fragile religious beliefs), apparently all that stuff I just said is contained in scholarly work including these books:
 * The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
 * http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-8624789-2362320
 * Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel
 * http://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/104-8624789-2362320


 * But I said scholarly work, and from just reading the little preview amazon let me have those look like a pain to read. Their references take up as much and more space on page as what the author actually wrote!  Anyone want to have a go at them?  I might someday... Barnetto 01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The internet and the world wide web are different things- the internet runs on the world wide web, which also is used by emails etc. Larklight 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the point that was made in one of the previous posts. Is this Wiki entry suggesting that for example "El" is simply another name for the monotheistic "God" of contemporary Judaism? If it is I would like to see how this conclusion was drawn, as I have read a significant amount of information to the contrary. Even in the Old Testament we there are a number of references to other gods that were honored by the different tribes of Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

××× I would like to make the highly relevant point that Judaism is a very OLD religion, which has been in existence for some 4.000 years, and IT HAS EVOLVED and CHANGED considerably with the passage of time! Furthermore, it is STILL evolving and changing! The Torah was written over a very long period of time, and Judaism changed in that span of time. It is rather a sweeping generalization, really, to talk about "Judaism", as though it is one, single, unified faith, when the truth is, that there are a great many variant forms of Judaism. What is acceptable to the Reform Jews, or the English Progressive Jews, would perhaps not be acceptable to, say, the Hasidim, or even to the Conservative branch of Judaism. And, please, stop referring to it as the "Old Testamente"! In terms of Judaism, it is called the Torah! Borsey379 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am rather new to this whole wiki scene but happened to happily stumble across this discussion and would like to throw in my 2 cents on the subject of Judaism's alleged polytheistic origins. It seems to me that being born from dessert dwelling semi nomadic people, Judaism was probably originally a conglomeration of previous religions and tribal beliefs that were realized to be the work of one creator and merely different manifestations of the almighty. Much along the same lines as Hindu's view their myriad of gods as different transmogrifications of the god head. So i don't know if it is fair to claim the origins as polytheistic or to better to view their original concept of the creator as polythalamous. Of course this is all conjecture on my part, the true beginnings seem to be lost to forgotten history. (I haven't learned yet to put my electronic signature to documents but my wiki moniker is svaangus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.207.156 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The most complete record of whether the Jews were polytheistic or monotheistic is the Bible itself. Exodus 20:2-5 “I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 3 You must not have any other gods against my face. 4 “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion...

The Jews at times worshipped the gods of the surrounding nations but this was never sanctioned as acceptable by either the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian-Greek Scriptures. There are numerous acconts of reforms and cleansing of idol worship in the Hebrew Scriptures. This conflict between the unwavering monotheistic stance of the Law and the polytheisic influence of the surrounding cultures seems to have ended after the Jews were repatriated from Babylon c.530 b.c.e. True Abrahamic Judaism has always been monotheistic and that never changed. Many of the "names" listed are more like titles such as Lord, Judge and King. These titles were sometimes also given to other rulers and even gods. Who the titles refer to can be found in the context. For instance, Cyrus the Persian was called the "anointed one" (Isaiah 45:1) as was King Saul (2 Samuel 1:14), yet there was no doubt that neither of these was the promised messiah, also called the anointed one. To say that since some of the titles of God were used for other gods or people means the Jews were polytheistic is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.233.22 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

the case of the case

 * In many of the passages in which elohim [lower case] occurs in the Bible it refers to non-Israelite deities, or in some instances to powerful men or judges, and even angels (Exodus 21:6, Psalms 8:5).

What does "lower case" mean in Hebrew?! —Tamfang (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisa
Alleichem.. The prohibition of blasphemy, for which capital punishment is prescribed in Jewish law, refers only to the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, this is the Name of which is mpst integral to all others. Alleichem (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's lovely original research, Alleichem. You should start a blog, or write an article.  But on Wikipedia, we use reliable sources and eschew original research. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in the actual sources for this -- NOT Wikipedia articles. Also, unfortunately, the Torah and the Talmud are primary sources.  Although these are helpful, they cannot function as a source for the article.  Only notable and verifiable secondary sources can be used to give their interpretations.Tim (talk)
 * Those sources were removed a while ago. I'm concerned with the way this article makes Judaism look like a polytheistic faith. Judaism should be reaching out to secular Jews, not putting them off. To be critical, it's confusing and a lot of the wording is extremely bad. Alleichem (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alleichem, both Tim and I are Orthodox Jews, but Wikipedia is not about kiruv. Nor do I agree that the article makes Judaism look polytheistic.  Could you explain what exactly makes it look polytheistic to you, and maybe we can iron out a version of the text that will satisfy your difficulties with it. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen for YHVW
I will delete the listen link for YHVW, as there are so many interpretations of how this should sound. To be fair to all sides we will have to create ogg files for every and each one of these interpretations. --Zappaz 16:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, horrible idea. (I've reverted). I'd prefer to have a sound and say that we're not sure it's correct than not to have one and say we don't know how. More informative is better than less informative. →Raul654 17:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The way I pronounced it in the recording is (one of) the most common pronunciation. Since there is no single "correct" way to pronounce a word we're not supposed to pronounce, I agree with Raul. I'd be glad if we had recordings of other common ways to pronounce it, but there's no reason we shouldn't have the current one. Nadavspi | talk 18:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Then please add an appropriate disclaimer, so that it is clear we do not really know how this is pronounced. Thank you. --Zappaz 20:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added additional language with this audiofile noting that playing it would be strongly discouraged for most Jews. I may not find it appropriate to include but with a disclaimer I think that at least leaves it's playing up to individual discretion and decision, something I certainly won't impose on others. Gabriel--Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

G-d
Should we not replace God in the article with G-d (this link goes to the 'God' page)? Of course, it explains in the article that this is not necessary - but should we not follow the lead of, for example Religious Studies Textbooks, Encyclopaedias and other Books. --A.K.A.47 16:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any reason to do that, especially since we're not about to start going that on every page of Wikipedia. --Doradus 20:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The article is about the Names of God in Judaism - it doesn't imply the need to go to every page on Wikipedia to do this.  In Judaism, isn't it very common to spell the English name, G-d?  Isn't it a conscientious matter?  Do we really mean to block Jews with a conscience about this issue, from writing here on an issue that they are self-evidently passionate about?  or more to the point, is it necessary to be insensitive, in order to be neutral?  Mkmcconn (Talk)  23:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not very common to spell God as G-d, since this is a custom found only among religious jews. Even the Jewish encyclopedia writes "God" not "G-d" . --Cypherx 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen Catholics and Greek Orthodox also using G-d. BTW the so-called Jewish Encyclopedia is from 1910 and despite its name seems to mainly represent the views popular amongst atheists of the time. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think is is better to keep it as is: "God", capitalized. --Zappaz 14:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

G-d is sometimes used in books so that should something happen to it the name of God will not be harmed. Since wikipedia isn't paper there is no problem here.


 * While I believe the previous poster was correct as to the original purpose of writing G-d in this way, I see little reason in continuing the practice. The English word God is not the Name of the Jewish god.  It is a generic word to describe a deity in a language that was created at least 3000 years after God purportedly told Moses His true name on Sinai.  As far as I know, many Orthodox authorities write God as such.  I believe the practice is related to the fact that writing the actual Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script is strongly discouraged because of its sanctity and the requirement that the document containing the Name never be destroyed, but afforded the honor of a deceased body (i.e. being buried in a Jewish cemetery).  However, this leads to another question: Does the fact that the Tetragrammaton appears in this article constitute a violation of this precept?  When I clear my browser's cache, will I be violating this principle by deleting the files that contain the written Name of God?  --Spem 05:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, as it would destroy His name and thereby, defeat the point of writing "G-d" in the first place. XYaAsehShalomX 12:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether this page should use the spelling "G-d", I think it should at least discuss that spelling, especially since G-d redirects here. As a Gentile, I don't understand enough of the details of the history of this usage to write the section myself, but I hope someone else can add a section on it. What is the first recorded instance of the spelling "G-d" in English? Do Jews do something similar in other languages (French "D--u", Russian "Б-г", Spanish "D--s", Yiddish "ג-ט", Hebrew "אם" etc.)? Angr (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. In Hebrew, devout Jews do in fact substitute consonants so as not to use the Holy Name in a non-prayer context, but that sort of makes sense. I don't know about other languages. "Al_ah"? Gzuckier 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jews are only allowed to write G-d, without the o. WIkipedia is probably just respecting the Jews since this is an article about Judaism.

××× I would like to refer all of you who have written above re "G-d" to the aish.com web site, click on "Ask the Rabbi" and call up the question "Writing the name". It appears that according to modern Rabbinic consensus, "God" is not a holy name, or word, as it is not Hebrew. Furthermore, when we type something on a p.c., it is being neither created, nor erased, as it is all just electro-magnetic impulses, which are being repeatedly created and destroyed, many times per minute. Therefore, it is quite all right to type God, or any other name for God, on a computer. Anyway, do read the question and answer; it is all very interesting. Any of you who are non-Jews, if you are interested in Judaism, you will find a great deal of interest on that site (and on Chabad.org)! Borsey379 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From an inclusionary perspective using G-d instead of writing it out with the "o" in the middle would be more appropriate in this article. This will then not offend anyone, particularly as this is an article about Judaism, even if written and edited by goyim as well as Jews (in case I don't think to check back here and someone later asks or reacts, goyim is not a word with any negativity inherent in it, it simply means non-Jew.) While it is true that "G-d" is not the four letter name of Hashem specifically prohibited to be pronounced (which by the way, is a "clause" in the Christian bible as well, given that Tanakh is 2/3 of the Christian bible), it is still generally not written out fully by any observant Jew or even those respectful of the observance of others. This is because it is generally used in reference (at least casually) to the prohibited name. This practice generally extends to electronic publishing and correspondence as well as print material, except printed material used for religious purposes which is expected to be treated with the appropriate care so as to ensure that the name of G-d is never profaned by being destroyed/deleted, etc. In part the reason for using G-d in electronic correspondence and on websites is because while the website itself, or the email, is electronic, it can be printed. Most sites that do spell out G-d (I won't here) have a specific disclaimer asking those that might print anything from the site to take this into account if they do so in order to prevent profaning the name G-d. Note that using the word god in a lower case sense is not in reference to HaShem and can be used in reference to any "god" and therefore can be written out without issue. --Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Printing
Trying to print preview this pages causes Firefox to lock up. Is this some sort of encoding error? --CableModem^^ (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice delays in using Firefox to display the preview on the screen, but haven't tried an actual printout.--Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes
They are several problems which I have identified. The first being that of the mention of Jehovah. Why would we mention more about Jehovah, which is utterly disregarded as a philogical impossibility - over the more accurate Yahweh??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleichem (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this:

It is also found in the King James Bible, the American Standard Version, the Darby Bible, Green's Literal Translation also known as the LITV, Young's Literal Translation, the 1925 Italian Riveduta Luzzi version, the MKJV [1998], the New English Bible and the New World Translation. Rotherham's Emphasized Bible [1902], the New Jerusalem Bible, the World English Bible [in the Public Domain without copyright], the Amplified Bible [1987], the Holman Christian Standard Bible [2003], The Message (Bible) [2002], and the Bible in Basic English [1949/1964], among others, are examples of translations that use the form "Yahweh" to one extent or another.

I know for a fact, that the term Jehovah is not found in some of these Bible's. Someone is clearly trying to rub the reputation of jehovah on Yahweh, or else doesn't know the difference between the two. I'm deleting the above paragraph, until someone can accurately compile a list of the Bibles using Jehovah amd the ones using Yahweh. Alleichem (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The original writing seems to have been unclear. I appreciate your bringing this to everyone's attention so it could be clarified.Tim (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section YHWH Tzevaot/Sabaoth be right after YHWH, as YHWH Tzevaot/Sabaoth is connected to YHWH? Also, Zebaot is referenced as one of the seven most important names of G-d for scribes to be careful with, yet there is no section discussing this name of G-d? That seems like a bit of an oversight, though even more disjoint, the section that appears in seems mostly repeated as the last section of the article (as of the writing of this comment) and those two sections should be combined. I have no idea how to create new sections or reorder sections so I can only post this suggestion for someone more wikipedia savvy. Thanks.--Gabrielwhitestone (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Names & Sephiroth
Does anyone know how the different names relate to the Sephiroth of Kabbalah? I know they do, I just don't know how... ThePeg (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think they really do, directly. I mean, Elokim is considered to reflect the attribute of Din (justice), and the sephirah of Gevurah is sometimes associated with Din as well.  Similarly, the Tetragrammaton is associated with the attribute of Rachamim (mercy), and Tiferet is sometimes also called Rachamim.  But I think they're separate paradigms. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Notable


I'd like to hear the input of different contributors about this subject. Apparently, some Bibles such as the MJK Bible have a mention, and other Bibles that have nothing to do with the Tetragrammaton, yet under the Tetragrammaton section no Bible is mentioned that uses the Name Yahweh exclusively. For this reason I added the note of the SSBE, the most well-known Bible in the Sacred Name Movement which uses the Name Yahweh in the OT and NT.

It's important not to get carried away with the Jehovah Bibles, because it doesn't help. I thought that at least a mention of the SSBE was fitting, but the user Skywriter (Tim) does not agree. I'd like to hear other views about the section. See history page for details. Kiddish.K (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hashem
I cannot see the ne necessity of the of the POV-section|date=February 2008 and the Copyedit|date=February 2008 warnings in the section on Hashem! Can they be removed. All that is written there is solid and uncontroversial information, and there do not seem to be any style problems. How or who can remove them? Benqish (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Benquish, I agree with you and can't find anything in the history either but we may be missing some history or understandable controversies may have spilled over. POV-wise it might work to lead by describing the practice "Many Jews . . . " and follow with an explanation of why? Would you be up for that approach? I'm hoping someone can provide reasons for the warnings. Davispeace (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

True Name?
"To show the sacredness of the names of God, and as a means of showing respect and reverence for them, the scribes of sacred texts took pause before copying them, and used terms of reverence so as to keep the true name of God concealed."

Did they even know his true name? If not, this is POV conjecture. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a question and an answer. Who were the people that spoke to God? The only ones who ever knew His Name were the prophets. The rest were just hearsay. It should be a secret, to prevent people from using God's Name in vain. I believe there is creative power in speaking this Name and for us to know it would mean just that.

Extra closing bracket
Hi, in the section entitled Elohim, the following text contains an extra closing bracket:

The Jewish grammarians call such plurals … plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (compare 1 Maccabees 10:19 and 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7; Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way) [Emphasis added]. It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels: so at all events in Isaiah 6:8 and Genesis 3:22), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied. It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew.

I'm not sure if the closing bracket should be deleted or if there needs to be a corresponding opening bracket added. Could someone please correct this? Thanks. --&mdash; Jclu: talk-contribs 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Psalm 8:5
Does someone know the meaning of the Hebrew word Elohim used in Psalm 8:5?

"You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor." (NIV tranlsation)

The New International Version English translation uses heavenly beings with a footnote denoting "Or than God". The New American Standard Bible English tranlsation uses God, as does the New Living Translation English translation with the following footnote: "Or Yet you made them only a little lower than the angels; Hebrew reads Yet you made him [i.e., man] a little lower than Elohim." Yet the King James Version English translation reads "a little lower than the angels".

As a Christian growing up in church, I grew accustomed to the KJV translation, and it wasn't until recently that I realized the usage of angels or heavenly beings was a translation choice. After reading Names of God in Judaism, I'm curious, now more than ever, about what the correct translation should be. To me, from a theological point of view, there's a lot of difference between man being made a little lower than the angels (or other heavenly beings) versus a little lower than God.

Thanks. &mdash; Jclu: talk-contribs 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)