Talk:Yahweh/Archive 2

Name vs. Person
no no no no no nono This article only refers to the name of God and all its linguistic issues. There is definitely missing an article about the God of the Bible himself, an article that describes the person. An article about the God Yahweh, not only about the name Yahweh. Why isn't it there? (Denny, 5th Dec 2007, 10:27 pm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.169.184 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean such as God in Judaism and God in Christianity? - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Partly yes, but it's still not the kind of thing I imagine. These topics are only about the characteristics of God, his attributes as viewed by the different religions. But things like his "curriculum vitae", if you want to say it like that, are completely missing. Articles about biblical persons (for example Moses) describe their story, what they did etc. And articles about gods (for example Zeus) do the same. So, what's with an analog article about the biblical God? (Denny)


 * I don't think it would be possible to write a consensus-based biographical article about God. Depending on whom you ask, He's either a fictional character with innumerable creators who don't agree about His nature (in which case it'd be impossible to form a consensus about He supposedly did and didn't do), or He's the timeless creator and sustainer of everything (in which case His CV would require a summary of Wikipedia itself).  The current approach of describing what various groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc) collectively believe about God is the closest WP can come to either of those. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the god known as YAHWEY was once the god of storms, later the god of war, then later the god of the Hebrew bible. Now, thats either true or it isn't, I don't have sources so I can't put it in the article. The point is, THIS is the they of information I'd expect in this article, not just a bunch of stuff about the name, how it sounds, how its spelled etc. %%% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a goodpoint here still. Is there any article that deals with the "history" of Yahweh? (The origins of the name, what was Yahweh supposed to be originally, where and by who was it worshipped, how did it came to become the sole God of a monotheistic religion and be incorporated into in the Bible... etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Septuagint (LXX) translators?
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

Coin
See. This is misidentified. It's not Phoenician, but Judaean during the Persian rule and probably minted near Jerusalem; the alphabet is Aramaic. It appears that identifying this figure as Yahweh is controversial, as the last consonant seems to be in doubt. If it was Yahweh the last consonant should be waw, but although I'm no expert it frankly looks more like a dalet to me. I'm not sure I can detect a scholarly consensus here, although I've seen the coin advertised as a "Yehud" type. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is YHWH יהוה the true "personal" name of god ?
No. "God" originally was a word used by man when man spoke or wrote about fiction or mythological beings, such as(gods or goddessess). "YAHWEH is Lord---Lord is YAHWEH(I AM) the creator of all that was,is, and will be". YHWH "personal" name of The Lord.(jeremiah 9:18.8)

I think the TRUE name of gd is the 42 letters name of Hashem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.130.150 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with YHWH being the personal name of god ..Is It Truely the personal name of god ?

I have this Point of View..YHWH is NOT a  "Personal" name of god… WHY?..HOW?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am ]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .…read ..Exodus 3:14…

This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. ]…NOT… [YHWH …]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ ]..and forever [  ]  Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL, Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.

The Question is.. HOW  the word [YHWH …]….. is .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am…… and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?

….where.. the word [YHWH …]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14  ?

Another problem is .....suppose that YHWH ..Not ...I am what I am… is the personal name of god.

We read in Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty,  but by my name [YHWH ] was I not known to them.

So it is either Exodus 6:3

This Exodus 6:3 is either an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god..that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am)…Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions in which by all means:- 1) Gen 22 is Fallacy.. The story of Isaac to be sacrificed in the “ place “  is Proplamatic..Since  Abraham himself called the place “  …  whom will sacrifice his son..Issac…..called it…. “YHWH will provide”  see Gen 22:14..and YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name  YHWH..let alone ..named the place whom ..he would ..sacrifice  Isaac  ..YHWH provide after a Ram  been given to him instead.

2 ) All Gen 26:25 is an Insertion since YHWH  in   Exodus 6:3  say that Isaac Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH ]..let alone built an [Alter ] and in the [name ] of [YHWH ] as Gen26:15 say.

3) Gen 28 is an Insertion since [YHWH ] in  Exodus 6:3  say that Jacob  Does not EVEN Know the Name [YHWH ]..let alone Jacob  see [YHWH ]  and address Himself / Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..   and gave him the Promise.

...and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God……?

This Problems have to be solved .217.44.222.210 12:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.222.210 (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Added Hebrew templates so that Hebrew font was clearer. Seeker02421 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to offer my Thanx Mr/Mrs Seeker02421 for adding a Hebrew templates to my article .. appreciated.. Thanx Seeker02421 - :)

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 21:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The question you put is not a difficult one. The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel. Because of its deep meaning, it is the ONLY designation that can be applied only to the Almighty God and Creator of the Universe. On the contrary, designations as “god”, “lord” or “zealous” have been used referring to creatures as well. This is why, though we read in the bible expressions as “my God”, “God of Israel”, “my Lord” e.t.c., we NEVER read “my Jehovah” or “Jehovah of Israel”—because Jehovah is one, it is the personal name of the one Creator of the Universe.

Following the pattern of Plato (see Parmenides), Philo the Jew declared that God has no name. This thesis was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians and, consequently, by the Orthodox Catholic Church. In the mean time, the Divine Name was substituted in the Septuagint and, thus, the namelessness of God was established in the faith of Christendom. Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the Protestant return to the Hebrew text brought on the surface God's personal name again. Now it is a common place in theology that the God of Bible does have a personal name, Jehovah or Yahweh. Some examples:

Yhwh, the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.—The Jewish Encyclopedia.

Jehovah—The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name.—The Catholic Encyclopaedia.

This verse marks the introduction of the personal name of the God of Israel, YAHWEH.—BELIEVER’S STUDY BIBLE.

Three kinds of expressions are used to refer to God : the personal name Yahweh.—Dictionary of Biblical Imaginary.

The personal name of Israel’s God, Yahweh.—The IVP Bible Background Commentary : Old Testament.

The book shows a distinct preference for the generic word for God, Elōhı̄m, as opposed to the personal name of God,Yahweh (or Jehovah).—King James Version Study Bible.

The personal name of God revealed to Moses in the burning bush.—Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

It was now that he made himself more fully known by revealing his personal name Yahweh.—The New Bible Commentary.

Jehovah is an artificial form for the personal name of God, which is likely pronounced Yahweh.—New Nave’s Topical Bible.

God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people.— Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.

In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Yahweh was revealed as an intensely personal name—The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

--Vassilis78 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself:

Moses then said to God, 'Look, if I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your ancestors has sent me to you," and they say to me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?' 14 God said to Moses, 'I am he who is.' And he said, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, "I am has sent me to you." ' 15 God further said to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "'''Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you." This is my name for all time, [...] and tell them, "Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, has appeared to me [...] and the elders of Israel are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, "Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, has encountered us'''.—Exodus 3:13-18, New Jerusalem Bible.

--Vassilis78 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ♠ Exodus 20:5": Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

"6": And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

"7": Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

If they didn't know his name, how could they break this commandment?

-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Question what is the personal Name of god of the bible?

when Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am or I shall be what I shall prove to be"  etc…  אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14

'''This Name ..[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15….it means that [YHWH …יהוה‎] is just a generic name for lord…just like EL, Elshadi, Elohim , ..not personal ONE.'''

where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה‎]..come from?....and if it YHWH the name of the god...why not LORD Jealous see...Exodus 34:14 ?..... Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God

YHWH personal name discussion cont.
 Hi vassilis

By saying...."As regards the phrase "I am Who I am", or better "I shall be what I shall prove to be" (see HALOT), this is the interpretation of the name, not the name itself"...By saying so..... means that God Ignored Mosses's Important Question..that is to give him his personal name ..and gave him just an interpretation of his name....BUT that is not the Case..it is ... Actually the opposite of what you (and HALOT) say....If you see..the text. It is a Direct response from God himself to Mosses's Question. And he continued, 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites'

Let's go to the verses:-

The Question is....Exodus 3:13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, [What is his name]?' Then what shall I tell them?" The Ansewer is.....God said to Moses, "I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ....  This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "Exodus 3:14

This Name ...which is a name not just a phrase .[I am (who) what I am…. אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…NOT… [YHWH …יהוה‎]…. should be Remember by Israelites Generation by Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ] Exodus 3:15

It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..Further/also ... Exodus 3:15 God "further" said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham..etc..etc.

This word [ Further עוד ]means..that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14, it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer  to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, "that is the Personal name of the lord",in which God answerd him by saying   '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.'''

This confirm more that "I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎ "  Not "YHWH יהוה‎ "or "Elohim" or others to be the personal name of GOD.

Another problem is .....That ..if we just supposed that YHWH .יהוה‎, not  I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎..to be the  Personal name of GOD for a while  ......WE read ..Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty בְּאֵל שַׁדָי , but by my name [YHWH יהוה]was I not known to them.

So it is either Exodus 6:3 is an Insertion ( which means YHWH is just a generic name Not a personal name of the god.. that if the personal name .. not.. I am what I am )……Or …{Genesis 22:14, Genesis 26,and Genesis 28}..are insertions .....In which by all means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14  ...since YHWH say that Abraham did not know my name  YHWH..let alone ..named the "place "whom ..he was going to sacrifice  Isaac and  received the  "Ram" Instead  ..name it..YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה Gen 22:14, …...No Alter being built by Isaac named after YHWH in Gen 26:25, …...and No Vision of Jacob seeing YHWH Gen 28 and Manifested to him as YHWH Elohim of Abraham, Isaac..etc..etc..and gave him the Promise…....this Problem is for you to solve.

You have said .....In Israel of the biblical tradition only one name of God was cultically appealed to: Yahweh.—The Anchor Bible Dictionary.... ..The personal name Jehovah, or Yahweh, appears about 7.000 times in the original text and it is the most common designation for the God of Israel..Another Question is..……and why his personal name is not lord [ Jealous ] ?.......Exodus 34: 14 Do not worship any other god, for the [LORD, whose name is Jealous], is a jealous God…....it is in the bible Too..and how many times Word EL, Elohim, ElShadi...been mentioned in the bible?!...and why Jesus Never mentioned word YHWH. ..Where as you believe..that Jesus many times did mention ..OldTestement Names...'''like Abraham. Jonah'''..etc..etc..BUT never mentioned the name YHWH....if it is the Personal name of the LORD?..

With regard to These answers ..it is better to subject them to the Literal biblical texture and it is context, and see if they are valid or not..FIRST, In this respect I will ignore all forms of speculation and "hearsay" concerning the Topic, and instead focus on the bible textually-hard and see the testable evidences, and linking the evidence together ...that is far more better..than going to and telling me about Plato, the zealous, Protestants, The Zondervan Pictiorial Encyclopedia ....The IVP Bible Background Commentary ..etc etc ...these are people's OWN point of view or a hear saying  issues..Not important to me. GIVE me only the Biblical TEXT...That is all.

Thanx 86.147.252.237 13:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you say when you are talking about the biblical text itself, beyond the commentaries and the scholarly opinions or creeds. But you have to take into account two important things. First, you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are. On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and scientific community. This is why we have to add bibliographical support to our sayings. So, if you know scholars that support that God’s personal name is not Jehovah but “I am who I am” or whatever, you are encouraged to add this position with its bibliographical support. If you don’t know any scholar to support something like this, then Wikipedia is not the right place to write such an idea. The second thing you should take into account is the subject you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books. And we have to take them into account because Moses did not speak in English but in Hebrew. And though we may feel that we understand what Moses said reading our English literal translation of the Bible, perhaps we don’t realy understand much enough. In English we say “What is your name?” and we mean that we do not know its form and pronounciation. In Hebrew the expression used in Exodus 3:13 is different in meaning. Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning. And the question of Moses is what incites God to ansewer by giving the explanation or interpretation of his name in the form “I will be who I will be”, which according to the Hebrew idiom means “I will surely become whoever I choose to be in order to fulfill my purposes”. Please read the comments below:

“He inquires, ‘If. . . the people of Israel. . . ask me, ‘What (mah) is his name?‘ what shall I say to them?‘ (Ex. 3:13). '''The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name. This helps to explain the reply, namely, ‘I AM WHO I AM’ (’ehyeh ’ašer ’ehyeh). By this Moses would not think that God was announcing a new name, nor is it called a ‘name’; it is just the inner meaning of the name Moses knew'''. We have here a play upon words; ‘Yahweh’ is interpreted by ’ehyeh. M. Buber translates ‘I will be as I will be’, and expounds it as a promise of God’s power and enduring presence with them in the process of deliverance (Moses, pp. 39-55). That something like this is the purport of these words, which in English sound enigmatical, is shown by what follows, ‘‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever’ (v. 15). The full content of the name comes first; the name itself follows.”—New Bible Dictionary.

13 Moses did not anticipate being asked, "By what name is this deity called?" Rather, he feared that if he announced that the God of their fathers, the patriarchs, had sent him to them, the people would bluntly ask him, "What is his name?" The Hebrew seeks the significance, character, quality, and interpretation of the name. Therefore, what they needed to know was "What does that name mean or signify in circumstances such as we are in?" 14-15 God gave two answers to the problem posed by Moses. The second answer builds on the basic explanation of the meaning of the Lord's name and links that name with previous and all future generations. Perhaps the most natural explanation that does fullest justice to the meaning of "I AM" is that this name is connected with some form of the verb "to be" and is to be seen as expressing the nature, character, and essence of the promise in v.12: "I will be with you." What, then, was his name? '''The answer was that "[my name in its inner significance is] I am, for I am / will be [present]." While it may sound to Western ears that God was deliberately trying to avoid disclosing his name, the context shows that he was actually doing the opposite.''' Often this construction is used to express a totality, intensity, or emphasis. Therefore, the formula means "I am truly he who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you." This was no new God to Israel; it was the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was sending Moses. His name was Yahweh (= LORD; GK H3378). For the first time God used the standard third-person form of the verb "to be" with the famous four consonants YHWH. This was to be his "name" (GK H9005) forever. His "name" was his person, his character, his authority, his power, and his reputation. So linked was the person of the Lord and his name that both were often used interchangeably (e.g., Dt 28:58; Ps 18:49). This name was to be a "memorial"; it was to be for the act of uttering the mighty deeds of God throughout all generations.—Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary.

--Vassilis78 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassilis We have been through many parts of this discussion before,and once again you did bring some of them back.I hope we don’t keep repeating them again just for sake of moving forward to find out the answers for this issue that I have raised OR to bring a valid  " biblical text " evidence to destroy it,rather than winning the argument by  "exhausting us "  with documents "Duck and dive tricks" that leads to Shatter,and diversify  the topic without reaching in to a final valid conclusion.

[The First Point]

You have said and I quote {Moses does not ask what is God’s name in form or pronunciation but is its meaning}

Once again ...The Question of mosses was ...Exodus 3:13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, [What is his name...מָה שְׁמוֹ]?' Then what shall I tell them?"

God's answer was.....God said to Moses, "I am who I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh .... This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "Exodus 3:14..a Direct response by God to a direct question from mosses regaridin his(god) personal name.

Also..It is also very Important to notice that ..The Verse Exodus 3:15 start with.. the word ..Further/also ... Exodus 3:15 God "further" said [ וָיאמר עוד]to Moses, 'You are to tell the Israelites, "Yahweh, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of your ancestors, the God(Elohim אֱלֹהִים) of Abraham.. etc..etc.

This word [ Further עוד ]means.. that verse Exodus 3:15 is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14, it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer  to the Question, that Mosses asked in the beginning of Exodus 3:13-14, "that is the Personal name of the lord" ,in which God answered him by saying   '''.. I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14.'''

 [The second Point] 

You have quoted from Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary ..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the pronoun mî; to use mah invites an answer which goes further, and gives the meaning (‘what?‘) or substance of the name……etc etc }..Answer is..that is absolutely WRONG.

The word  Mi מי  in Hebrew  means “  who”…e.g  Mi hu Yehudi ("?מיהו יהודי", "Who is a Jew?") e.g  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew     is Not  the same as  the word '''“[What.. מַה ]...Thus all Zondervan's comment on this topic will be gobbledygooks...Therefore..{The normal way to ask a name is to use the word [What.. Mah .. מַה ] NOT [ who..Mi מי]}.'''

You don't even need to THINK about it that much, because ... ..when you ask people's name  or about anything's name, you use the word "what", and start the question with  the word  [What. mah. מַה ] not [who.. מי]'''..That is any language be it English, Greek, and Sanskrit.. etc.etc.'''

This further Support the conclusion that Moses did not mean to ask about.. '''who. .mi.. (מי) is god?..or the meaning of his name,  ..but his Personal name'''.. by using the word [What ..mah.. מַה].. [What..mah מַה is his name]?Exodus 3:13'.

Also notice again ,when god answered mosses about his personal name [I am (who) what I am אהיה אשׁר אהיה‎]…. Ahieh asher Ahieh ...NOT YHWH .יהוה‎…read ..Exodus 3:14… ..god then said ..this is [my name ..שְׁמי] by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation Exodus 3:15 ..so it is his "name" [my name ..שְׁמי]...Not an idiom or explanation or interpretation of his name ,as you, and Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary trying to make, beacsue God call it [my name ..שְׁמי] other wise why El shadi (almight),El,or Elohim are all names not idioms ?

[The Third point]

You said and I quote {you have raised is analyzed by many scholarly books}.....The question is.. DO these analyzed books bring out Valid answers?.. or you just accepted them by blind faith without testing or questioning their Validity?

'''  Answer  ... "TRUTH" does not come with group mentality factor''' otherwise why  don’t you take the pharaoh -Egyptian or Mesopotamians accounts on creations, the flood (epic of Gilgamesh), and their gods’ names they are recorded in multiple attestation accounts and, curved in stones

you have said and I quote “On the contrary, we write things that are attested by the scholarly and [scientific] community”. ..Then why you stick to one strand of opinions and ignoring the others?.

[scientific community]  totally disagree with  the "alleged "religious scholars  whom  keep saying that  Cosmos was created in less than 6000 years ago, that if these "alleged religious" scholars have one Opinion in on any thing, then we shall all have one FAITH for all. But that is not the point, the point is that Multiple attestation commentary made by  these "alleged  scholars" only function as [Building up Confidence ], [only] when they are supported by Literal biblical texts ,and [comply] not clash with the already  testable proved  Scientific evidences available with us. ''' In nutshell the Rabies or Christians Scholars past ,or present, want their all different opinion presented commentaries strands of  documents to be put on the table to be tested, questioned, honestly debated, and thoroughly examined ,and Validated, before being blindly accepted as valid information.. we need to use the Literal biblical text for that, Wikipedia can work on that too '''.

[Fourth point] You have said and I qoute {you have to understand that the role of Wikipedia is not to promote our personal ideas however good they are}

It is not my "personal ideas", it is the "what you and I read in the BIBLE, ,and ignore it ...because of what the alleged scholars telling us and keep us under their submission .. and we forgot about Free THINKING and VALIDITY"

PLUS...I do not want you to promote anything, I want you to Challenge this point of view by bringing the Biblical text that break it DOWN to pieces, otherwise it is more valid than many alleged scholars diverse point of views for the time being.

[Final point is the Summary ]

Having said that all.. I am sorry.. but my questions in this article are still not being answered yet... I need a strong Convincing and Proving answer/s from the BIBLE TEXTS itself, not from out side sources that have the alleged scholars' divers gobbledygook point of views that made out from thin air ..on it, otherwise you are telling me that the bible can not support itself,it needs outside sources to know one of the most important thing or issue regarding any faith,...and that is the personal name of god.

Thanks86.149.105.178 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend,

You have the right to draw your own conclusions and believe whatever you want about God’s name. But unless you bring bibliographical support, your position has no place in Wikipedia, neither is this the place for religious debates or for spiritual enlightenment and guidance. In case your opinion doesn’t have bibliographical support and you still believe that it is very important and well documented, I would suggest you to write a book or publish an artile to a magazine or a journal, and then add it as a bibliographical support.

Best regards, --Vassilis78 08:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 Dear Vassilis

I don't want it to be in Wikipedia article page, but please at least give me my RIGHT as others to entertain this question or this issue that I have raised at the Wikipedia discussion page, that I have supported them "unlike most visitors in this discussion forum" by  " strong Literal biblical texts itself" not just diverse bibliographicall opinions from outside sources.I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, .....that's all.

Cheers and regards to you all.217.44.81.160 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ι admire your keen intrest for the biblical water of life, but this is not the best place for someone to find religious truth. Wikipedia is supposed to present the current views of science. Allow me to give you two other sourses:

As regards the word mah:

1149.0 hm' (mâ) what?

'''This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word "name." "What is your name?" is not a question which inquires after a person's family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, "Who (mî) are you?"'''

Thus, the "man" who wrestled with Jacob asked him in Gen 32:27 [H 28], "What is your name?" When he responds, "Jacob" (supplanter), the "man" (called an angel in Hos 12:4 [H 5]) says that it is now "Israel" (Prince of God).

In Prov 30:4, Agur asks who has ascended to heaven and then descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established the ends of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? The speaker is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning.

'''Accordingly, the question which Moses anticipates from his enslaved brethren, "What is his name?" (Exo 3:13), corresponds to our discussion above. The Israelites will wish to know Yahweh's character and qualities which will enable him to prevail over the difficulties they face. So Moses reveals just what the name Yahweh (YHWH) means: He is the God who will dynamically and effectively meet their need.'''

Finally, notice that God brings the animals to Adam to see "what" he will call them (Gen 2:19). As Motyer says, "Verse 20b indicates that qualitative issues are present" (p. 18, fn. 46). Other significant passages in which mel is associated with persons include Exo 16:7-8; Num 16:11; 2Sam 9:8; 2Kings 8:13; Job 7:17; Job 15:14; Job 21:15; Psa 8:4 [H 5]; Psa 144:3; Song 5:9; Isa 45:10; Lam 2:13; Ezek 19:2. It is associated with impersonal items in ten passages: 1Kings 9:13; Zech 1:9, 19 [H 2.4]; Zech 4:4, 11; Zech 5:6; Zech 6:4; Est 9:26.

Bibliography: Buber, Martin, The Revelation and the Covenant, Harper & Row, 1958, pp. 48-55. Motyer, J. A., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959, pp. 17-24. W.C.K.—Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

An alternative approach about Moses question as regards God's name:

Moses’ question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God’s power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (´Elo•him´) or the “Sovereign Lord” (´Adho•nai´) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites. Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one. God’s reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh•yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh•yeh´. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha•yah´, from which the word ´Eh•yeh´ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn. That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,” and actually means “He Causes to Become.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.—Insight on the Scriptures.

I hope this information be helpful.

--Vassilis78 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello"

The name Israel means the one who Struggle with god ..NOT the Prince of god as you said...that is because the bible say ironically that Jacob Wrestled with god ..Gen 32:28, Hosa 12:3.

If you say that..[ ehieh asher ehieh …. אהיה אשׁר אהיה ] and expressions Rather name, and it means “become,” ..as you said..then YHWH is an IDIOM /expression too..NOT a name, since it comes from the Hebrew verb ha•wah´, “become,”..so it is not a name but an IDIOM too., and why El shadi (almight),El, Elohim, lord Jealous Ex34:14  ..."Lord whose name is Jealous Ex34:14"..etc.. are all names not idioms, and they have meanings and roots too?.

Exodus 3:14 is a Direct answer response from God himself to Mosses's Question in Exodus 3:13.

However the word [ Further עוד ]in Exodus 3:15  means.. that verse is complementary to Exodus 3:13-14, it is a secondary additional or complementary information ...but not the main Information or answer to the Question. We have been in to this discussion before

You said in regard to proverb 30 "The speaker(Agur) is not asking for God's name. Rather, he seeks to know its character and meaning". ...The question is How do you know that? ..why not he is truly asking/wondering for "who Mi  מי "is behind all these creation, and  '''What.. מַה " is his name, since he (Agur who is an Oracle, witchcraft Practitioner) said that he is most ignorant of men.. "Prov 30:2-3 "I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man's understanding, I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.,".''' ?..he declared it to Ithiel Pov 30:1..Whether giving him the right answers or not, that is another issue.

This example support my position,more than yours, ..it support my explanation since it gives the clear  distinction  between the word  (who mi מי)and  the word (what mah. מַה ), and when you use them.It just surprises me, and makes me wonder how you paste it without noticing that?

But Excuse ME..!.. you have just pasted what we have just  discussed before  (mi and Mah). 217.44.81.160 11:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Until now, whether you noticed it or not, you were actually given answers for every respect of your position. Of course you have the right to continue holding your position, but I am not willing to follow you to a stupid quarrel. Believe me, I have more interesting things to do.--Vassilis78 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay just Think about it I did bring Literal biblical text..why they are  NOT relevant..bring strong valid points to destroy my answers..make it clash between TRUTH and Falsehood217.44.81.160 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

—Τι κάνεις, Γιάννη; —Κουκιά σπέρνω... --Vassilis78 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr/Mrs 217.44.222.210 / 86.147.252.237 / 86.149.105.178 / 217.44.81.160, if you aimed for a serious conversation on this subject you should have first acquired and used a proper Wiki user name for yourself. --  pvasiliadis   16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Mrs pvasiliadis & Vassilis78

Thank you for inviting me to Wikipeda discussion Forum.

Yes I would love to give my self a wiki user name so that to continue this debate or others,and I apologize for not doing so.

My name from now on is Mr "lord jealous is a free thinker" This will be my name from Generation to Generation [ דּר לדר‎ ]..and forever [ לְעלָם‎ ].

Once again my deep apology for not creating a wikiuser name.

Cheers and Regards to you all Ladies and Gentlemen.

Lord Jealous is a free thinker 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ωραία! Τώρα τα κάναμε τα λεφτά μας!--Vassilis78 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord Jealous is a free thinker,
 * Do you mean by your new name that YOU are a "free thinker" or the LORD?
 * You must keep in mind that according to Wikipedia's rules, "Wikipedia requires that you cite sources for the information you contribute. All sources should be listed in a section called "References"". Beyond this, I think that not even one Wiki-user would like to "to destroy your answers" and "make a clash between TRUTH and Falsehood"! -- pvasiliadis   08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

NO,I am not the LORD, and I see no problem with my name .. wiki accepted it too.

Regarding the source references, I "unlike most wiki visitors in this discussion forum as you can see by yourself" have pasted strongest Literal biblical texts from the bible.

I am also Keep saying that I don't want this point of view to be in Wikipedia article page, but  just to stay in Wikipedia discussion page as a point of view needed to be challenged,and please at least give me my RIGHT as others do here in this discussions wiki page ....to entertain this point of view ..for this issue, name of god ..at the Wikipedia discussion page.

I am just looking for the Valid answers that break it down to pieces,using a Strong Literal biblical texts itself as a proof, and it is better not to be biased on just ONE strand of opinions or point of views, or "References" based on blind faith/believe without even looking at their validities, and ignoring the other opinions even if they are sound more valid,and have STRONG biblical text signature on them.

That if you believe in freedom of expressions and freethinking,which I strongly believe that you do.

Cheers and Regards Lord Jealous is a free thinker 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, LJiaFT == Supertroll, and Vassilis78 is a saint for actually putting up with all of this... but I don't think you really needed to go through all that trouble to humor him and provide such well thought out and researched responses to his rants. 10 words: "Show me a reference or go away... this is Wikipedia." Seriously, you just wasted several hours of your life on this guy.

BTW, Lord Jealous, I've gotta say, the bold text and your vice-like grip on English grammar really strengthen your argument, good show.

--128.221.197.21 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Mr or Miss 128.221.197.21, the reference he/she use had  said  it many times "THE BIBLE TEXTS ITSELF". Do NOT you Consider the bible a sufficient reference?. Ferju 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal for Merging and Not Merging
First a reaction to the comments thus far: A sufficiently narrow definition of what defines the best database will make any conclusion look good. Those who cite Rabbinic Judaism, for example, to reject the form "Yahweh" do so within the fervor of their belief system. I respect their right to do that, but such a view lacks any eclectic or scholarly support.

This topic has grown at least two large branches. One is the historical/etymological investigation of this name. And the other branch is the pronunciation of this name.

Proposal: All discussion on the pronunciation should be merged with "Tetragrammaton" while the present page, "Yahweh" be retained for a exploration of the etymological, historical and theological implications of The Name.

Scholarly convergence on the form "Yahweh" makes it very appropriate for that spelling to be the anchor for any dis-ambiguation trails back to this page. In this section on "Yahweh", it should be noted that This Name "Yahweh" appears more times in Biblical sources than any place else. Thus it is entirely appropriate for Biblical exegesis continue to dominate. I am not saying that references to coins and pagan inscriptions are to be deleted. I am only saying that the largest database should have the strongest contributions to this page. After all, He is "The Elohim of The Hebrews". Indeed, interest in this Name is fueled almost entirely by inquirers friendly to the Judeo-Christian tradition.


 * There is a discussion going on over at Talk:Jehovah which started due to an edit war over whether or not to redirect that title to this article. I have opened up the scope of discussion to include Jehovah, Yahweh and Tetragrammaton.  Please express your opinion in the discussion.  --Richard 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article missing information on historical origin
Why aren't the canaanites mentioned? It's a fairly important part of the history of Yahweh. Crimsone 18:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no mention of Ugarit, the Ugaritic pantheon, and even subgroups that worshiped Yahweh as part of a pantheon. I would add it myself with citations if I didn't think it would be removed. I swear this article used to have a section citing the possible Ugaritic connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting Tetragrammaton to Yahweh
User:Anthony Appleyard redirected Tetragrammaton here because he has merged all of the content in Tetragrammaton here. Now, I personally don't have an ax to grind on this issue but I'm concerned that those who do will object to having Tetragrammaton redirect to Yahweh.

It is for this reason that I would have preferred that Anthony discuss his plans before embarking on this heroic effort of merging the content forks. (which I much applaud since I wouldn't have had the knowledge or interest to accomplish)

I think a more neutral stance would be to have Jehovah and Yahweh merged into Tetragrammaton. Among other issues, if there is no Tetragrammaton article, how do we link to Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton?

I don't object to there being separate articles on Jehovah and Yahweh but since these are both English transcriptions/pronounciations of the Tetragrammaton, I think we should keep the Tetragrammaton article even if it doesn't discuss Jehovah or Yahweh in much detail.

--Richard 16:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton is the neutral term, Yahweh and Jehovah are two ways of reading YHWH, and Jews will use neither. So yes, I agree, most of this stuff more naturally fits Tetragrammaton, with pointers under Yahweh and Jehovah. Maybe not redirects since each of these two can have further content as well. There is no need for a Greek transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton; indeed, half of the discussion under T. will be about the Greek transcriptions.213.84.53.62 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I just learned something about how the Wikipedia software works. If you type "YHWH" into the search box, you are not taken to the ultimate end of the redirect chain (Yahweh) but to the first redirect target which is this.  This is broken.  Either YHWH should redirect to Yahweh or it should redirect to Tetragrammaton and there should be a real article at Tetragrammaton.  I prefer the second option but I can live with the first option.  The current situation is unacceptable.


 * --Richard 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The redirect is easy enough to fix. The bigger question is whether Tetragrammaton should have been deleted/redirected to begin with. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica provided separate articles.  Personally, I think that such a major move is controversial, and should have been the result of a community debate or an AfD discussion, rather than a unilateral action by one user. --Elonka 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the discussion, see Talk:Jehovah. 213.84.53.62 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether it was intentional or not, the redirect of Tetragrammaton here is very POV, if only because of the unknown-pronunciation issue. Beyond that, the name Yahweh is used by critical historians to describe a polytheistic god of the Jews. So re-directing Tetragrammaton here is very insulting to me, as I assume it is to all (monotheistic) Jews. --Eliyak T · C 18:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I started work in this area, the information on the various forms of the Jewish Divine Name was scattered across several files with much duplication of information as various people each started an article on this or that aspect and to it added info and then more info. My first-stage cleanup of all this tangle was merging all this assortment into one file Yahweh, which would have been too big and each time I edited it the editor moaned about excessive file size, so I pulled the matter about the name Jehovah out onto another file. Before we split off a page Tetragrammaton, we need to discuss properly and formally which sections of file Yahweh should be split off into file Tetragrammaton. Anthony Appleyard 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be just the reverse: first move all of Yahweh to Tetragrammaton and then discuss whether there are parts that fit better under Yahweh. 213.84.53.62 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over, and I've come to the conclusion that we really need two different articles. Yahweh should cover the figure from the Bible and modern religions from a historical/anthropological perspective. Tetragrammaton should cover the Name as such in terms of scholarship on its pronunciation, pieties surrounding it, mystical and magical uses, and so on. These are really distinct subjects; in certain aspects almost totally disjoint. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I think everyone agrees. Almost all what is now under Yahweh belongs under Tetragrammaton, and almost all that should be Yahweh has not been written yet. The best way to proceed is to start with a big move. 213.84.53.62 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think many people would support Csernica's proposal except possibly for User:Anthony Appleyard who did most of the recent work on the Yahweh article. I would really like to hear his opinion on the above proposal before we act on Csernica's proposal. --Richard 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above we need to decide on a list of which sections, as named by their ===header=== lines, should be split off Yahweh and put into Tetragrammaton. Then, we need to make sure that this does not develop into content forking again. Anthony Appleyard 21:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Information about the tetragrammaton should be under 'Tetragrammaton'. --87.114.151.202 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for the move to Tetragrammaton

 * A considerable portion of the intro.
 * ==Pronunciation of the Name==
 * ==Usage of YHWH==
 * Those portions of ===Putative etymology=== under ==Derivation== which are about the Name itself rather than the God it belongs to. In a discussion of the origin of YHWH's cult in Yahweh, I suggest that what is removed be briefly summarized, since linguistic evidence is an important consideration.

Everything else seems to be about the God more than his Name, and so should remain here. It will require some expansion, as there's very little about the history of his worship or any archaeological evidence apart from theophoric names. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Tetragrammaton needs a disambiguation page or at least a link to Amputechture for those who are looking for the song. 01:50, 5 July 2007 User:130.13.32.200
 * I have put a hatline on page Yahweh about this other meaning. Anthony Appleyard 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) The inclusion of a list of FOREIGN/international translations of Yahweh and Jehovah on the discussion page on an article about 'YAHWEH' seems very peculiar! What is being discussed? What is there to discuss? The table is factual, not something we need to discuss, I would have thought! The information, (if correct!) is of interest to all who are researching Yahweh/Jehovah/tetragrammaton so it should not be hidden away on a discussion page, but put, perhaps, on a Tetragrammaton main entry page.

There are various explanations/reasons for translating the tetragrammaton as Yahweh, and explanations/reasons for using the commonly used word Jehovah. There are also arguments for other renditions. Perhaps the Tetragrammon article could make overview reference to both Yahweh, and to Jehovah, and then include a link to those respective sub-articles on those matters. The tetragrammaton has been used for thousands of years, not only in the bible, but in secular works, writings, numismatics, art, artitecture etc, so it deserves its own place in Wikipedia, as it already has its own place in world history.
 * (1) Tetragrammaton, as an article in its own right, should be restored. The tetragrammaton, in all its forms, is known world-wide, regardless of the various 'translations' that scholars feel are 'correct'.

(2) I also note that the 'Yahweh' article is part of the Judaim Project, which may be inappropriate for several reasons: (i) Judaism does not use the name 'Yahweh'. (ii) The Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) uses 'Yahweh' frequently. So Yahweh is not the prerogative of Jews to expound.

(3) Elsewhere I notice that 'Jehovah' is part of a Jehovah's Witness Project. This seems inappropriate because the word 'Jehovah' in various forms, was in use many centuries prior to the use of the word by Jehovah's witnesses. 'Jehovah' appears in many bibles and in world literature, architecture, etc of many denominations, so, again, the subject should not be a JW project, though, doubtless JWs have done much research on the subject and their input could be invaluable and might save us all a lot of time re-inventing the wheel! I appreciate that this point about 'Jehovah' should appear on the 'Jehovah' discussion page, but as the tetragrammaton link automatically re-directs to Yahweh, I'm sure that the compilers of these respective pages wiil take due note of my observations and bring about some rationalisation to their choice and content of their articles. (Yes, I know I could re-edeit matters myself, but hey, (a)people may not like their considered input being 'messed with', and (b) I'm not sure I know how to undertake such a (major?) re-edit!) So...could someone restore 'Tetragrammaton', and remove the automatic redirect to Yahweh, but have it as a link. Then 'Jehovah' could be linked with Tetragrammaton, and vice versa, thus saving any duplication of fundamentals. With regard to other renditions of the Tetragrammaton....I don't know the best way these could be dealt with, sorry! Perhaps they should be included in the main 'tetragrammaton' article, once it is restored. Regards.--87.114.151.202 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am astonished that there is nothing but a disambiguation page at Tetragrammaton. That is clearly the most NPOV term for The Ineffable Name of G-D, and the most logical place for a balanced explanation of what The Four-Letter Word is, what it could mean, how it might be prounced, etc.  Any specific information about this usage or that usage can go under Yahweh, Jehovah, or whatever.  But to have a mere disambiguation page with hundreds of direct inbound wikilinks that expect an explanation of the term, makes no sense. - JasonAQuest 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, several people have been saying this. Tetragrammaton is the NPOV place where the discussion about the Name, presently found under Yahweh, belongs. I have seen no clear objections. Maybe Seeker objects? (He did not clearly say so but seemed to refer to the Wikipedia powers, rather than to what is best.) I'll watch this space a bit, and if there are no serious objections attempt a move of a lot of material from Yahweh to Tetragrammaton.213.84.53.62 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have my support to move appropriate material about tetragrammaton from here back to 'Tetragrammaton'. I have today made similar comments on the 'Tetragrammaton discussion page. Editor62.--87.115.6.26 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you pronounce Yahweh?
The article doesn't have a pronunciation key. Yahweh is ambiguous, because 'y' also denotes the vowel [y] and 'h' may refer to long vowels [jaavee]. --Vuo 08:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we knew for sure, there would be little reason to discuss its correct pronunciation at length. I point out, however, 1) this is the standard spelling among English-speaking scholars; 2) it's nearly impossible for an English-speaker to pronounce the 'y' in any 'ya' combination at the front of the word as anything but a consonant; and 3) the 'h' should be pronounced [h] (see [He (letter)] which the h transliterates) but in English this tends not to happen and it merely lengthens the preceding vowel. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consonant "y"; short "a" as in French "il a"; "h w" both consonants; short "e" as at the end of the correct pronunciation of French "il avait". Anthony Appleyard 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the usual short A, at least not in American English. Modern English on either side of the Atlantic doesn't really have long vowels anymore except for the long e, which used to be the long i. The other vowels we call long vowels are really diphthongs. But the "h" in these combinations tends to draw it out somewhat. It's not quite long enough to be a long vowel, but it's longer than a short vowel. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The transliteral answer, for use in conversation and such, seems to be "yä'wā" or "~wě" where ä=father ā=pat ě=pet. Would it be gauche have something like this in the article?
 * USA spoken English does have long vowels, often, for example in calling a hat a "haaaat", or pronouncing "god" the same as "guard", i.e. drawling. Standard British English keeps short vowels short. Anthony Appleyard 04:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any US English dialect where this is the case. Even where a non-rhotic r is the norm, such as the Southeast, the vowels are not the same in your god/guard example. Nor do I know of any dialect where the "a" in "hat" is so drawn out. I don't dispute that long vowels occur in American English, but they're allophonic, not phonetic. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In some USA pronunciations "o" and "ar" are near enough for the recorded schoolboy misspelling "narcartic" for "narcotic" to arise. And ignoring this drawling tendency leads to errors when learning a language where the short/long difference is phonemic. Anthony Appleyard 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "d" in "god" is voiced; the "t" in "narcotic" theoretically isn't. It makes a difference. But I suspect this kind of error isn't too uncommon in any area with a non-rhotic "r", American or British, regardless of the vowel, which is not phonetically identical in your examples in any American dialect I have ever heard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In some USA pronunciations "t" between vowels is near enough to "d" so that Word Perfect's spelling correcter looks for t/d misspellings. But back to the point: USA English speakers tend to lengthen short stressed vowels in open syllables; this must be remembered when saying how to pronounce foreign words and names, including "Yahweh". Anthony Appleyard 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The two of you are discussing two very different questions, maybe without clearly distinguishing. One question is: how was YHWH pronounced in ancient Hebrew times? The answer of course is "nobody knows", and it is a bad mistake in the current article to state "In the original Hebrew pronunciation both vowels were short..." - indeed, it is not even clear that YHWH had two syllables. Another question is: how is "Yahweh" pronounced today? Of course that depends on one's linguistic environment, but one could give approximations e.g. for standard American, preferably in IPA. 213.84.53.62 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I said to begin with. The rest is just a digression. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

fine, have it Your-way! 68.36.214.143 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is against the Jewish religion to pronounce or attempt to pronounce the name of god. It is completely forbidden. So there is no modern pronunciation of יהוה. Also, it says that "Today many scholars accept this proposal" but how could that be true if its clearly stated that Judaism does not accept a pronunciation of the word. This means that "scholars" decided this who are not Jewish....so they can tell Jews how to pronounce their gods name? There is no acceptable pronunciation.
 * Even if one does not want to pronounce the Name today, one can have an opinion as to how it was pronounced in Israel 3000 years ago.
 * Such opinions are not based on religion, but for example on semitic linguistics, proper names found in the Bible, and similar data.

I always say ['jaxve]. I guess that Hebrew would be [jah've] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.14.154 (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahweh in Proto-Indo-European
I discovered, that Yahweh - HWY - in Proto-Indo-European=Adamic (sources: ) can be rendered as Proto-Indo-European cognate Bhwi-s, which means literally Being, synonymous to less literal I Am and is consisted from proper root and its nominative ending.

This is a result of comparing Proto-Semitic with Proto-Indo-European.

83.19.52.107 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Pokorny seems to imagine that there's a Proto-Indo-European word for "monkey" (it's "abo(n)" - I guess the /n/ is optional). Remarkable. He also believed that the Irish were Jewish. See this LifePiCo 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You mistaked. Hebrew daughter words Abba and Imma in mother PIE are *appa-s - "papa (nursery word )" and *am(m)a-s / *amī-s - "mama (nursery word)" Wikinger 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's exactly what Pokorny's table says. The point is, that OP had no point. Even if this Pokorny was credible (he's not) and OP's imaginative gluing together of two PIE roots valid (it isn't), there's been a lot of research since 1959, and it can hardly be thought of as state of the art. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that you mistaked one valid Pokorny entry with another valid Pokorny entry, because God is called "Father", but NEVER "monkey", while both words in PIE (*abo(n)- and *appa-) are similar. Wikinger 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PiCo falsely claims that Pokorny lists abo(n) as a PIE root. He writes "kelt. Neuschöpfung".213.84.53.62 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, it's right there near the top of the linked page. Deal with it. (But the word is a Celtic invention? That's even weirder.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That linked page says: This table lists Proto-Indo-European etyma identified by Julius Pokorny in his book, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. I am sitting with this book in my hands and tell you what Pokorny actually wrote.213.84.53.62 08:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

question
his father-in-law met him, and extolling Yahweh as greater than all the gods, offered (in his capacity as priest of the place?)  If it has a question mark at the end, that would seem to indicate that this is speculation or original research

Yahweh = I AM????
It is repeatedly said in the article that Yahweh means in English "I AM". Who does say such a thing? Is there any dictionary that gives this rendering? Because, as far as I know, Yahweh is considered by the majority of scholars as a third person verbal form of hawah in hiphil (=he causes to be/become) or qal (=he is [present/active]). And the minority proposes that it is impossible to find out the etymology.--Vassilis78 10:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the removal of this trinitarian innacuracy. Of course, this article, being based on information of 1911 while we live in 2007, needs further changes, but this is something that will be done in the future.--Vassilis78 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's something rather touching in the scholarship of 1911 not just surviving, but thriving, in the age of the Internet. PiCo 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the numerous references to the online encyclopedia of 1911 are due to lack of more recent resources, which is due, in turn, to amateurishness. Of course everyone is welcome to contribute, but the updating information is even better. And believe me, since the late 19th century, there has been a notable progress in the field of the Hebrew language and history.--Vassilis78 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the large number of references to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica exists, because the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is in the public domain, and can be copied without permission.
 * Seeker02421 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC).


 * It is interesting that the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 state as a fact that "The early Christian scholars, who inquired what was the true name of the God of the Old Testament, had therefore no great difficulty in getting the information they sought. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 212) says that it was pronounced "I&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon;."
 * Then they add in a footnote "cod. L. I&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;"
 * It turns out that the oldest source for Clement's Stromata, the 11th century Greek codex Laurentianus, preserves "I&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;" not "I&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon;."


 * It appears as if, between the 11th century and about the year 1905, scholars believed that Clement of Alexandria had written that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "I&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;", not that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "I&alpha;&omicron;&upsilon;&epsilon;."
 * I wonder what new information Scholars learned in about the year 1905, that allowed them to reverse their previous beliefs about what Clement of Alexandria had writtem.


 * Seeker02421 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, Seeker - maybe I said the same already on some other occasion, but sentences involving "scholars believe" are not scholarly, indeed, are usually meaningless or falsehoods. In good scholarly work there is no belief, just work and possibly judgment. One sits down, and painstakingly compares all extant manuscripts of a certain text, producing an annotated edition that has what one judges to be the best reading in the running text, and all variations mentioned in footnotes. Often there is no good reason to prefer one reading over another, and the choice is at random. Anyhow, such an edition preserves all information, since the reader sees the footnotes and can apply his own judgment.213.84.53.62 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:213.84.53.62.


 * To the best of my understanding, in about the year 1894, there were no extant manuscripts of Clement's Stromata that preserved the spelling "Iaoue" in Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
 * It is possible that Otto Stahlin wrote the first critical edition of Clement Alexandria in 1905. To be redundant, it is possible he had not even one manuscript that quoted Clement as writing "Iaoue" in his Stromata Book V. Chapter 6.
 * I have a page from an 1981 critical edition of Clement's Stromata. The editor quoted Otto Stahlin as being a source for the name "Iaoue", plus he, the editor of the 1981 edition, quoted an undated catena as preserving "Iaoue".
 * Gerard Gertoux could not provide me with any information as to when the catena was written. Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" quotes the existance of a catena to the Pentateuch in Turin, but didn't specifically say that the writings of Clement were being quoted in the catena.


 * Seeker02421 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you - those are words that are meaningful.213.84.53.62 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - I checked, and rewrote the Clemens part.213.84.53.62 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, now that it appears that Didymus Taurinensis is a major source for iaoue spellings, it is of interest to see what he wrote. He is a mathematician, and used Didymus Taurinensis as a pseudonym for linguistic writings. In deriving the pronunciation he does not use reason, but the fact that the Name must be one that sounds beautiful.


 * User 213.84.53.62
 * The Clement of Alexandria section looks much better now. Some loose ends have been dealt with.
 * Can you provide me with a link to the text of Otto Stahlin's critical edition of the writings of Clement of Alexandria?
 * Seeker02421 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am afraid I didn't use an electronic version, just a paper book. 213.84.53.62 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Now tell me, what do you say to the growing claims that the Hebrew spelling is actually pronounced "The diety formerly known as God"? Calgary 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD's (Articles for Deletion)
Any body interested? SV 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton
 * Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination)

So I can't understand why should anyone wish to delete the article "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament"? The tetragrammaton is in the New Testament, so let's not try to deny or obscure the facts by removing valid information. There is also much extant informaton about the source texts of the New Testament. By all means let's publish what is known. Editor62--87.115.6.26 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the mechanics for 'Articles for deletion' but I'm interested in the subject Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. I have a New Testament written in Hebrew (Delitzsch's translation) and the tetragrammon appears many times there. Ideally such information would find its place in an article entitled 'Tetragrammaton in the New Testament' or, alternatively, in a sub-section of an article about the Tetragrammaton.


 * The Tetragrammaton only appears in translations of the NT; not in the source texts. That being said, the use and misuse of the Name is certainly a subject that can be covered.  The trick is where to put it.  If it is placed in quotations of the Hebrew Bible in which the Name appears, that's one thing.  But if so, it would have to be consistent.  The New King James indicates the presence of the Name in which it is redered as "LORD" in all caps.  The New World Translation, on the other hand, is not consistent.  Quotations from the Hebrew Bible use the Name only when they do not apply to Jesus.  In a number of instances they do, and that is rendered as "lord."


 * Now, that being said -- is that enough for a whole article? Maybe, but a pretty short one, unless the inconsistent examples are listed.Tim (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro
A moment ago I returned the Intro to roughly the status of a few months ago. The previous intro started with "Yahweh is the transliteration of a vocalization of YHWH proposed by Gesenius. This is the name of God."

There are already objections against this start. The referent of "This" is unclear, so that one easily reads "This" as referring to Yahweh.

Next, the mention of Gesenius is not appropriate in an introduction like this. Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal, but his opinion carried weight, so his status is only that of an important proponent.

The previous intro continued "In the 19th century, many Hebrew scholars did not believe that Jehovah, the traditional vocalisation of these letters, accurately represents the name of God". Semi-misleading text. The debate about the right vocalization dates from the 16th and 17th century. Etc. So, such text does not belong in the intro and summary - details are given later in this long page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * User 213.84.53.62
 * You wrote:Gesenius was neither the first nor the last to come with this proposal.
 * If Gesenius is not the first Hebrew scholar to propose the punctuation יַהְוֶה, who is?
 * If "Yahweh" is not directly derived from יַהְוֶה,
 * or derived from Gesenius's German spelling of יַהְוֶה, [assumed to be "Jahveh"],
 * where does it come from?


 * Is it just an accident that "Y-a-h-w-e-h" is a letter by letter English transliteration of Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה ?


 * Which came first, the English transliteration "Yahweh",
 * or Gesenius's proposed punctuation יַהְוֶה?


 * I am not positive, but I believe that Gesenius wrote "Jahveh" [in German] in 1815, and I believe that he wrote יַהְוֶה in the same year.


 * Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" did not specifically translate יַהְוֶה, but I feel 100% confident, that if William Snith had transliterated יַהְוֶה, he would have transliterated it as "Yahveh", with a "v"


 * Rotherham may have used the English name "Yahweh" in the 1890's,
 * before the BDB Lexicon was written.


 * Was "Yahweh" in common use in the 1890's.
 * Rotherham could have transliterated יַהְוֶה into English as "Yahweh"
 * or he might have written "Jahveh" as "Yahweh".
 * In either case, he would have been basing his spelling on Gesenius.


 * The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon used both Gesenius's punctuation יַהְוֶה,
 * as well as the English transliteration "Yahweh".
 * as well as the English spelling "Yahweh"


 * Who else has their fingerprints on the first use of the English spelling "Yahweh"


 * Who else is involved, either in the punctuation יַהְוֶה,
 * or in an early use of the English spelling "Yahweh"?

Seeker02421 22:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeker,
 * Earlier discussion was mostly about Biblical or Semitic language questions, but now you seem to be asking about the history of English usage. I suppose going to OED or some such dictionary should suffice to answer such questions. Is that really what you are interested in?
 * I am unhappy about your use of the word transliterated as applied to a hypothetical word. Ordinary use of "transliterated" is when one has an original text in some alphabet and wants to indicate as precisely as possible in a more familiar alphabet what the original spelling was. Here there is no original spelling, and the discussion seems to be about pronunciation. 213.84.53.62 14:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:213.84.53.62 I re-examined your previous posts, and then I made some changes to the Introduction of the main article. I also added a new section #1. Mostly I just rearranged the text. Seeker02421 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro (2)
Anthony Appleyard, I see that you changed some things, and it seems clear some of that change should be reverted, but I am not yet sure to what.

The worst part is the last edit that adds "some say that" to "the pronunciation is unknown". That is departing from NPOV. In view of the fact that many scientific papers and books have been devoted to the matter of pronunciation, nobody can honestly claim that it is known. Jehova is based on a mistake, Yahweh is a good guess. That is the scholarly state of affairs. Of course the Name is of religious importance to many, and it would be easier if it were known, but we only have uncertain indications - indications that might satisfy a believer, but not a scientist.

There were some remarks inside comments that now are outside, but I do not regard that as appropriate in the summary, and one has to be careful to avoid OR on this elsewhere. I mean the matter of plurals. Most languages know pluralia tantum - from the fact that a form is grammatically or etymologically a plural one cannot immediately conclude that it is semantically a plural.

Thirdly, Seeker moved some things elsewhere. It looks like you restored some sentences in the original place, but also left them elsewhere. The repetition in this page is growing. Maybe you were not aware of this - recently you undid the removal of a sentence that already occurred several times. Finally, I still hope that you move Yahweh to Tetragrammaton, since that is the appropriate place for this article, as I think everybody agrees. 213.84.53.62 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:213.84.53.62
 * Actually I don't think that everyone agrees.
 * While it seems to me that the introduction to this article, as presently written, belongs on an article titled:Tetragrammaton, the fact remains that the "Moderator approved" title of this article is "Yahweh" not "Tetragrammaton"!
 * I think that this article needs to be re-edited so that it's introduction, as well as its text below the introduction, agrees with its present title, Yahweh,
 * which was approved by the Wikipedia Moderators, who looked on.
 * The same Wikipedia Moderators looked on, and approved, as the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton was deleted.
 * The recent changes that have taken place were approved by Wikipedia Moderators.
 * However,
 * Since the creation of this article, the introduction of this article has been changed so many times that it no longer appears to belong as the introduction of Wikipedia:Yahweh,
 * rather it appears to belong as the introduction of wikipedia:Tetragrammatom, which to be redundant, was deleted while Wikipedia moderators looked on and approved.
 * Is it possible that the introduction should be allowed to be edited, so that once again it looks like an introduction to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh, and not like an introduction to the previous Wikipedia Article:Tetragrannaton, which was deleted with the approval of Wikipedia Moderators!

Seeker02421 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it is better for the article to be entitled "Tetragrammaton" rather than "Yahweh," since "Yahweh" is merely one of the many proposed pronunciations of the Tetragrammaton, based on the presumption that the Tetragrammaton represents the verb hawah (become, occur) in Qal or Hiphil imperfect. There are many other propositions and the debate is still hot. And actually, as years pass, Yahweh loses more and more supporters due to lack of efficient evidence.--Vassilis78 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Best leave it at Yahweh. The name Yahweh is the center of this religious grouping. "Tetragrammaton" is merely Greek for "something with 4 letters", i.e. the Hebrew letters יהוה = YHWH, it is a name of a name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Bible" is simply (the English form of) the Greek word for "book". Still, there is no doubt whatsoever which book is meant by Bible. In precisely the same way, there is no doubt which name is meant by "Tetragrammaton", the Name that is written with four letters. (And I would not say "name of a name", but "epithet of a name".) But be that as it may, the major problem with Yahweh is that it is unacceptable to many. No orthodox jew will use this form. Many christians will refuse to use this form. Tetragrammaton represents the NPOV. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton
The online link reference is inconsistent with the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
 * The latter has the above as a four-lettered writing, not "word."
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that so difficult?
My personal point of view:

YHWH (Yaweh, Yehowah, italian: Geova) DIEUS (sanskrit) dieus pitar = Juppiter (italian: Dio Padre, latin: Deus Pater) IOVE (Ζεύς gen. Διός, italian: Giove) SIVA (indian, Shiva)

The pronunciation is slightly different, but the pattern is pretty clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.27.84 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

YHWH and Shiva do not share a common origin. Plus your theory is wrong. It's spelled YHWH because the semitic languages do not have written vowels. There is still vowels there, just we don't know how they were originally pronounces. This accounts for all the modern variations of pronouncing YHWH.

Your SIVA theory, clearly has two vowels in it. To even be equated to the semitic YHWH, you'd have to write it SV or SHV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacred tonality and diatonic sequences
Removed the whole judanism project thing. This is no "B project" also not a part of Judanism. This word existed before the existence of the bible and before the existence of any religion. As clearly stated in the article. Yahweh is just a word, just like shiva or herbs. Yahweh is 2 syllables. Yaeshuah is 4 syllables. Now pronouce it in the right tonality and see the magic. That's all this page could need. Sacred tonalty and a certain diatonic sequence. 77.249.45.145 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored the headers. WIkiprojects are not exclusive, so the Judaism wikiproject can clearly work on aspects of this article that relate to their project, while other users and wikiprojects and edit this article accordingly as well. Also, please don't top post. I have moved this message to the bottom of the page because that is where new posts go on wikipedia. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Derivation: Jove
It would be good if the notion that "Jove" and YHVH are derived from each other or a common ancestor were addressed on linguistic grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.248.107 (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If one goes back to earlier IndoEuropean forms one sees that Jove starts with a D. For example, the Greek genitive is Dios. Now the similarity is gone, and there is no particular reason to suppose that these two words would have any relation. There are no commonly accepted sound correspondences between IndoEuropean and Semitic.213.84.53.62 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1936 a certain Littman (of whom I know no more than his name) "proposed an Indo-European etymology *Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew. Jupiter, of course, has to drop the piter and become Jove, which is pronounced Yowe, so .... But despite this salient effort Littman failed to cut the scholarly mustard, and his name today does not launch a thousand PhDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there almost no mention of Ugarit historical origins?
Even if it's debate, the existence of a YHWH in Ugarit and several archaeological artifacts linking him with Ashera as his consort is an important part of this article from a historical non biased view point.

It's documented how there existed sub groups that worshiped YHWH as part of the Ugaritic pantheon. Whether these groups are the origin of or developed from Judaism is up to debate but it should be mentioned.

See: the Ugaritic Cuneiforms (e.g. the Ras Shamra tablets) and the inscriptions found in the 1970s at Khirbet el-Qom and a bunch more i can't think of off the top of my head.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This question comes up several places in this Talk page. But the answer is easy: there is no text about (anything) if nobody adds it. Write something nice and short, neutral and objective, and add a link or two to reputable places with more information. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Psalms (KJV)
Psalms 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 14:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yahweh? No way.
The pronunciation fails to convince! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses Project
I would like to see the justification for putting this article in the JW Project. It cannot be part of the Judiasm Project and the JW Project. It's illogical. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Needs to have more info actually about him/her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.65.90 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gesenius' Hebrew Dictionary image
In the section about Gesenius' contribution to the debate about the pronunciation, there is a link to an "image of German text", which it is said "supports the pronunciationYahweh because of the Samaritan pronunciation Ιαβε reported by Theodoret, and that the theophoric name prefixes YHW [Yeho] and YH [Yo] can be explained from the form Yahweh". In fact, the German text indicated refers also to the Elephantine papyri, which were not discovered until well after Gesenius' death in 1842. It also includes citations as late as 1911. The explanation is that the image is of a much later edition of Gesenius's work, as stated below the image itself: "First part of the article on JHWH in Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das alte Testament, 1915." So might it not really be more impressive either to get an image of a version of his dictionary published in his lifetime, or just drop it altogether?SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" presents evidence that it was Gesenius who proposed the Hebrew Punctuation: יַהְוֶה = "Yahweh".


 * Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" also presents evidence that the proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה represented the Samaritan transcription Iabe.


 * The link found in the main Article, which probably shows a 20th century version of Gesenius's German works, provides additional evidence that Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan "IaBe" when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה. Plus it provides evidence that Gesenius believed that theophoric names with both "Yeho" prefixes and "Yah" suffixes could be derived from יַהְוֶה.


 * I have yet to find convincing evidence that theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes can be derived from יַהְוֶה, but several scholarly sources claim it can be done.


 * Gesenius acknowledged though, that it was easier to derive theophoric names with "Yeho" prefixes from (Y)Jehovah.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean article up, please...
The following are evident in other articles regarding Judaism as well: the change from paragraph to paragraph follows no literary device for it to make so little sense, like going on with the exact same topic on the next paragraph; punctuation lacks severely, using lots of periods when a comma would be more appropriate; finally, most of the articles apparently suffer from editors who do not edit the article, but simply add their own topping to the whole lot – evident in how some matters are thematically broken down.

And here's another one I've noticed on this article alone: some editors indent text without any good reason! — RaspK FOG (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I'm trying to edit the article now! I'm trying to shorten it by making it more accurate. Hopefully, you'll agree this version is better! I know exactly what you mean though! Davidamos (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jheald for mispronouncing your name on the history tag, it was a typing error. Anyhow, i was about to balance the argument with some evidence from both sides of the table in one of the articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidamos (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Davidamos (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure why there are so many reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which obviously, plays down the importance of the Name? Shouldn't we be quoting from sich as the Judiaica encyclopedia, or something along them lines?

BTW - I think it'd be a good idea to condesce the articles after the "pronuciation of the name". Some of them are far too wish washy with "probable" here and there. There arn't any hard facts. Can't we just present a concise, balanced argument? Davidamos (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

jheald, you want to put on the early Greek and Latin forms, which is fine. But, could you shorten it or perhaps keep the relevant parts in. It all isn't necessary and rather untidy. Thank you. Davidamos (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been clearing up the article, and now jheald claims everything is wrong, plunging it in to a mass of disorganised disarray! This is ridiculous. The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh, not the groups who don't. Otherwise, why not mention every group that doesn't want to use the name? It'd turn in to a never ending story!


 * No. The article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, (WP:LEAD), which should explain the crux of what the article is about.  In this case, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point conclusively to any single reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.


 * That's the spine of the material here, which it is the job of the WP:LEAD to summarise. In contrast, the shibboleths of a marginally notable fringe Christian group are of minimal relevance.


 * Okay, you may have some identification with that group. But please stop distorting the article to fit in with its dogma.  Please don't delete the underlying Greek and Latin evidence;  please don't delete or marginalise any sentence that questions the accuracy of the reconstruction "Yahweh";  please don't add paragraphs "Yahweh or Jehovah" at the top of the article, as if these were the only two possibilities, and before the balance of the whole question has been sketched out; and please be very careful before you claim that there is any serious academic support that "the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god".


 * So, no. I don't think you've been "cleaning this article up".  I think, rather, you want to make it conform more closely to the views of this fringe sect.


 * PS. Please also stop adding horizontal lines - they are not how WP breaks up articles.  Please use a * at the start of the line for a bullet point.  And finally, if you're going to start a discussion in talk, please start it at the end of the talk page.  Jheald (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links
Metatron as the Tetragrammaton < This link was added and then removed by a different editor claiming it linked to a fringe cult site. Is Marquette University a fringe cult? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe article should also mention Asherah as Yahweh's (possible) female counterpart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

195.91.64.52 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image edit warring
Please, both of you, stop edit warring. Is there a centralized discussion related to this image, or is there another reason why neither one of you has come to this talk page?

The image should stay out of this article for the time being because there isn't consensus to include it. If someone wants the image included, then make that proposal here and try to raise consensus for inclusion. Edit warring is not the way to get content into an article.

Similarly, if you don't like the image, come here and explain why it doesn't improve the article. (if this image violates policy, then ask for it to be deleted). -Andrew c [talk] 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The simple 4 letters of the tetragrammaton in proto-sinaitic is exactly as pictured, according to the current understanding of the proto-sinaitic alphabet(abijad). I list a few examples, I link to the wikipedia article that shows the alphabet and more. The only thing this guy does is talk, yet doesn't disprove anything and makes claims that he cannot back up with references. According to Anonmoose he doesn't have to cite real references, he gets to make endless, baseless claims the of which I have to defend. So basically he gets to say things about my references like "that isn't scholarly or generally accepted" without citation, he uses no citations whatsoever to disclaim or prove anything.


 * The written name of YHWH G-d during the time of Abraham is extremely relevant. We ask ourselves what might the word "YHWH-YRH" (The name Abraham gave mount Mariah, Jehovah-Jireh) have looked like in the time of Abraham?


 * Even if we assume that some of the letters are theoretical and still being studied, they have a place here. YHWH in the image is correctly representing the current understanding of proto-sinaitic that is to say, Hah-Vah-Hah-Yod. What we can verify however is that the representation of YHWH in proto-sinaitic is backed up by the current understand of proto-sinaitic. Call Proto-sinaitic a theory if you want, however it definitely is a verifiable theory. Verifiable scientific theories(read: Logical explanations) definitively have a place in Wikipedia and proto-sinaitic is no exception. --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit readily that I know nothing of this topic. My initial concern has completely been to end the edit warring. Now that you post this, my original research bells are going off. We cannot be the first place to publish something. So this is a very, very important questions: do we have a reliable source that we can cite that uses the letters in your image and states they represent YHWH? or are you using the theoretical alphabet yourself to spell YHWH? -Andrew c [talk] 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, my first comment: I noticed you placed your disputed image back into the article WITHOUT getting consensus for it first here on the talk page. The burden of evidence is on those wanting to include information. This how wikipedia works. You cannot force your edits into the article by edit warring. I appreciate that you came here to discuss, but you must wait until this discussion has reached a consensus to include before putting the content back into the article. Edit warring is a form of disruptive editing, and it's hard to assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead re-inserts controversial material. My second comment. The 5 sources you added to your image are problematic. #1 is hard to follow. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look like any image on that page looks like the image you created. #2 doesn't mention YHWH. #3 is against policy, because we cannot cite wikipedia as a reliable source. #4 doesn't mention YHWH. and #5 doesn't mention proto-Siniatic/Proto-canaanite (which is mispelled in the image). As I noted above, it is original research to look on a chart and say this is how YHWH would have been spelled. It's original research because it is an original synthesis, and is being published for the first time. Wikipedia CANNOT publish original ideas.-Andrew c [talk] 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it original research to look at an alphabet and spell CAT? Is it original research to add 1+1=2? Writing YOD HAH VAH HAH in protosinaitic isn't original research, it is simply what it is 4 letters from the protosinaitic alphabet as it is currently understood to be(wether linquistic theory or otherwise). I would also like to state that is is assume good faith in someone who cannot wait for talk page consensus, but instead unilaterally deletes material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.77.53 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So the answer to my question, is there a source that uses the characters in the manner in which you did to spell YHWH, is no. Do we have evidence that the cultures which used that script also were familiar with YHWH? I mean, I could look on a alphabet chart and spell "WIKIPEDIA" in proto-sinaitic, but that doesn't mean they knew what wikipedia was back then. We simply cannot be the first to publish new information. It goes against WP:NOR. We cannot be the first place to state that YHWH was spelled a certain way. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize sources. Ergo, we need a source to summarize which makes the claim. This is basic wikipedia policy. If you have any questions about this, I'd be glad to try to help you understand further. Hope this helps (and another basic wikipedia tenet is that the burden of evidence always lays with the person wanting to include material. You need to argue for inclusion and support it with reliable sources.)-Andrew c [talk] 01:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I don't have this article on my watchlist (and so didn't see the discussion here), but the previous "discussion" (such as it is) is on User talk:Teacherbrock, with reference to Talk:Proto-Canaanite_alphabet. Unfortunately, the "Early Semitic" truetype font  (which was used in the making of the controversial part of this image) was apparently created by an obscure religious grouping which assigns mystical significance to various hypothetical early alphabets in a way which goes far beyond the accepted consensus of mainstream scholarship in the area. I hope to edit article Proto-Canaanite_alphabet in the near future to make it clear what is solidly established (not much more than לבעלת, as I've said before) and what is more speculative... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from JEHOVAH?
In the search box I typed Jehovah in capital letters. It took me to Yahweh! not 'Jehovah'? How strange is that! Not helpful and not very clever at all!--Lepton6 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅Fixed.-Andrew c [talk] 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization
WHY THE HELL IS "god" capitalized?!??! WTF is this? A fanatical christian extremist forum? You idiots need to show equal respect to ALL religions/philosophies and treat them equally you shitheads! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC) - Moved from top of page. --Eliyak T · C 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "God" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized, as should the name of any other deity or personage, real or fictional. As for respecting other philosophies, I shall follow your shining example, you idiot. Reverently, Eliyak T · C 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Keep the "idiot" comments to yourself. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely wish 67.180.39.64 a speedy recovery in whichever institution they are receiving their special care and attention, doubtless at taxpayers' expense, and that in the fullness of time they will be able to rejoin the civilised society with which they clearly have issues at the present time. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * John, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with the above comment, I am not willing to waste my time making a tedious report regarding your conduct, but please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. Your comment was worded beautifully, however it still constitutes a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah - I see. Attacks by anonymous and clearly anti-religious contributors are accepted without any admonition, whilst established Wikipedians are given a warning of being blocked on a first offence.  I see how the land lies.  Thankyou.  For the record I do not retract my statement.  Block me if you wish.  Your loss - not mine. --JohnArmagh (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all an IP editor, is most certainly not anonymous, they are the opposite, they display their IP for all to see, they are infact less anonymous than a registered account. Secondly, if someone edits without an account, or does not share your feelings on religion, then it does not make their edits any less/more valid than those made by a jesus-loving user with a registered account. Thirdly you cannot justify breaking Wikipedia's personal attacks/civility guidelines, just because your target may or may not be in breach of the rules. Finally, I will not block you, I am not an admin, I am merely someone trying to prevent further insults.  Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So why was there no admonition of the 'identifiable' user 67.180.39.64 for their expletive-ridden tirade which sparked such a hostile reation and amounts to attacks on previous contributors to this article? Clearly the user wished to keep their 'identity' secret, as they did not sign their comments themselves.  And they are clearly to ba allowed carte blanche to vent their issues without fear of a response.  I am most surprised that you appear to see nothing wrong in their contribution. It certainly undermines the impartiality of your observations. --JohnArmagh (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They wanted their identity to be secret? Then why did they choose to reveal their IP? They are from NJ and their ISP is Comcast, revealing such information is more than a registered ID such as mine reveals. I did not comment on their insults, due to the fact that I do not respond to blatant trolls, a reaction is obviously what they are looking for.  They are not allowed to act as they wish, if you feel the need, you can make a complaint about their actions on the Admin's notice board and request that action is taken.  However as a non-static IP address, I would suggest that it is a waste of time.  But all of the above is bullshit, you cannot break wikipedia rules, just because someone else has. Learn to turn the other cheek, my friend and when presented with obvious bait, be aware that someone has offered the bait with a motive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history you will find that the comment was orignally unsigned. It was subsequently SineBot who appended the signature to the comment.  IP addresses are the default names for contributors who have not registered on Wikipedia.  So yes - the user does want to remain anonymous.  I have no problem with turning the other cheek - I have no intention of tracking the individual down after all.  But I will fight my own corner when the situation calls for it. And furthermore, if the contributor was expecting others to rise to the bait and are reading this discourse, maybe they will learn how civilised discussion and contibution is conducted --JohnArmagh (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, you don't seem to understand, do you? The signing is automatic and there is no way to get around it - the fact that an account wasn't used led to the IP address being revealed. Having your IP address linked to your edit, is hardly anonymous is it?  I find your attitude towards editing wikipedia quite interesting.  You state that you are willing to fight? This is not the place for fighting. You also talk about civilised discussion? When you started insulting people and breaching wikipedia guidelines, was that civilised?  I see little difference between your edits and those of the IP editor. You both breached wikipedia guidelines in respect to civility and personal attacks. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I understand perfectly well. You do not seem to appreciate that the user, in not signing his comment (whether by ignorance or design) intended to keep the comment anonymous.  Perhaps they were also ignorant of the fact that either their ip address could be established or they could be identified by their ip address.  Either way this does not negate the distinct possibility that they intended to remain anonymous.  For my part I have been perfectly civil throughout.  Even my 'attacks', condescending though they may have been (and I still consider deservedly so) were not littered with obscenities.  Maybe in the same context your post (which began in a belittling fashion) could also be considered a personal 'attack', worthy of censure. --JohnArmagh (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I see no reason for either of us to waste any more time on such petty issues. I think your comments were a personal attack, as I previously stated it was a nicely worded attack that stayed away from foul language, however an attack is an attack.  My comments were not an attack, one important thing to remember is attack the edit not the editor. Unlike in the real world, the tone and type of language that you use is not really important, while I can say "that edit is fucking bullshit" I am unable to say "you are a fool".  On a personal level, I would have been highly tempted to make a personal attack against the original IP editor, however at the end of the day, making a complaint and going through the correct channels is always more productive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My final comment is that given that an editor can be identified by their edit (in the page history) an attack on an edit must at the very least constitute an oblique attack on the editor. I feel any comment which uses expletives or gratuitous obscenity should be considered to be contrary to the spirit of civility which Wikipedia should strive towards and thereby be in contravention of policy and as such should be roundly censured. --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yahweh is the Name of "God"?
From an anthropology/comparative religion (i.e. objective) perspective this article is problematic. We don't describe Zeus as the "Greek name for God", or Quetzalcoatl as the "Aztec name for God".

I believe this is what some previous comments were attempting to address, though I have no intention of condoning any of the previously made insults (I hardly think I need to to make a case).

The article should read something like "Yahweh is a name given to the monotheistic Hebrew god". If you want to introduce "God" capitalized, as a proper noun, do it in a more neutral, objective way that points out that Christians and Jews sometimes refer to their deity as "God", capitalized, as a proper name.

The problem is that right now this is going unsaid and it sounds very much like wikipedia itself is assuming there is a "God" (one, not two or more) out there in reality that Judaism and Christianity are referring to, rather than objectively reporting the fact that Jews and Christians worship a monotheistic deity and sometimes refer to it as "God", while another name is "Yahweh".VatoFirme (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the early part of the 19th century, the Hebrew scholar Gesenius believed that the Hebrew punctuation  might accurately represent the true pronunciation of God's name.
 * Gesenius was influenced by the Samaritan pronunciation "IaBe", when he proposed the Hebrew punctuation.
 * This same proposed Hebrew punctuation is found in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of 1905.  where it is described as "Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel".
 * is preserved in NO extant Hebrew Manuscript.


 * There are about 305 occurences, in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible, where the Tetragrammaton is found to be pointed with the precise same vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
 * By convention, the translators of the King James Bible, translated this variant Hebrew spelling of YHVH as GOD [in all capital letters]


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha, Seeker, it seems that you come with a cut-and-paste answer without reading what VatoFirme says.
 * It is not allowed in Wikipedia to talk about "God", since Wikipedia is neutral and does not assume that a god exists. But you can talk about the God of the Bible etc. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this true?
''During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” carried the meaning of “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord [plural of majesty]”) instead.'' This sounds like conjecture. Do we really know that this is accurate? --86.88.18.236 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yhw in the land of the Shasu
The article History of ancient Israel and Judah notes an Egyptian inscription of Amenhotep III, at the Soleb temple, "Yhw in the land of the Shasu", but says this does not use the determinative for God, or even for people, but only for the possible name of a place.

As this seems to be quite often quoted, should it not be mentioned in the article here? Jheald (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality problems
The current tone and wording of the article is inappropriate. It seems to be biased against "Jehovah" and favoring "Yahweh" in ways that are not encyclopedic.


 * "Thus Jehovah – though a word widely used by Christians today – is not an accurate transliteration and unquestionably contemptible to be reckoned as the Name of the Hebrew mighty one, which is YHWH (Yahweh)." Beside insulting, this is written as a conclusion drawn by Wikipedia.
 * "The Name Jehovah is rejected by scholars and Jews alike." Overly-broad generalization.
 * "From the article: "Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh."" Which article? This sentence seems to be dropped into a section and it conflicts with info above ("there is by no means unanimity among scholars on the subject").
 * In section on Clement, this sentence is appended: "The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 lists the form Ἰαουαι as evidence that YHWH is pronounced "Yahweh"." It seems as if Wikipedia here is constructing an argument for Yahweh. Is it even connected to Clement?
 * There is a section entitled "Gesenius proposes that YHWH should be punctuated as יַהְוֶה = Yahweh" Again, rather than descriptive, this section seems written as an argument for Yahweh. Moreover, it's not clear if Gesenius even uses "Yahweh" himself, or whether that connection was drawn by Wikipedia editors. Plus, the section unnecessarily repeats the claim that scholars support Yahweh.
 * This section at end is clearly taking a non-encyclopedic position: "If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would make considerable sense that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. They are several Bibles that have restored the Sacred Name Yahweh to the Bible texts. A respectable and well-known one being the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition. Elder Jacob O Meyer, the directing elder of the Assemblies of Yahweh is it's editor"

Due to these types of problems, the article should be tagged with a Neutrality problem. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of this has been introduced in recent edits by . (Here's a consolidated diff, even with the recent (welcome) revert by Malcolm Schosha).


 * These edits introduced the first, second, third and sixth bullets. Jheald (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous consensus has been to leave discussion of the pronunciation Jehovah, with its own problems, to its separate article. Jheald (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it matters who made the edits. If you are concerned about the editing pattern(s) of a particular editor, it would probably be better for you to raise those concerns elsewhere. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If these are the only problems with the artcle, I would be glad to rectify them. There is no need however, to change the entire format of the page. The anti-Yahweh wording on the article was puzzling to me, as most Jewish and Christian authorities testify to the Name being Yahweh 82.203.3.3 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the bias from the article, as listed in the articles but using the davidamos article as the template as it's the most concise. 82.203.3.3 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the unquestionably contemptible is biased to the Name Jehovah. The term Jehovah is not an accurate transliteration. Most scholars will verify this in every country of the world, but if you'd like me to change it, i'd be happy to do so... 82.203.3.3 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, with all due respect, if you do not experience that wording ("unquestionably contemptible") as biased, then it might be best to leave this particular article to editors more attuned to the nuances of neutral writing. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick scan of the article, and there are a host of problems in it. I tweaked out a couple, but it needs a lot of work and more time to devote to it than I am able right now.  It needs to be flagged by both the Christian and Jewish wikiprojects for some cleanup.Tim (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the versions before Davidamos
I feel particularly that this problem has arisen over many neglects. The main one being that, certain members have continually used anti – Yahweh references to support their assertions, often to conclude a section within the artcle. The Catholic Encyclopedia has no basis on an article like ths, that is, to be used so frequently which is obviously against the Name. Like candidly pointed out (and I agree), the article was biased before he began to clean up what can only be described as a messy article.

I came to read about the Name Yahweh, and instead I’m reading why the Jews don’t use the Name, etymologies and Catholics who don’t believe in using the Name? I believe the template has offered is sound, with a few minor exceptions. But I’d advise for those members complaining about what a bad job his done, to actually read the article before edits. Personally, I feel those who like messy articles should restore the other versions, but I prefer amos’s.

Prior to amos’s article, I had a few problems with the article:

•	The continual references to Jehovah on a Yahweh article

•	The unbalanced argument against the Name

•	The overuse of etymologies, terms, probably’s and improbable’s (unproven facts)

•	The huge reliance upon two sources only. Smith, and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

•	Messiness of the article

See, the problem with the previous article is it’s bias. And it wasn’t even presented well. Personally I found the page insulting. I’m glad amos did something about it, and his obviously put a lot of work in to it as well. At least added “other than” sources and therefore, added the ingredients of a good article through a more balanced argument.

Some of the words used by amos should be reconsidered, but ultimately I feel the template he has offered is ideal for this article. I would suggest perhaps adding headings such as “The Bible”, “Witnesses to the Name”, “Using the Name in the Bible”, “Etymology” and “Crticisms”, which some of the other headings could merge under.

Also why has Sky Writer removed “Relevance in the New Testament”. I think it’s a important heading.

So this is my opinion. I have no problem with amos’s cleaned up template, only with some of the words which have been used. Other members have written the same concerns, so why are members reverting back to the older versions? All we have to do is “minor edit” this template and come to a middle ground.

What I am trying to say is… This article should tell us about the Name Yahweh, the for and against. Before we had a “against”, at least now we have a “for” Mod objective (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

May I advise that someone clean up the Social Theory section, please. Some of the wording and bias is atrocious. For some reason whenever references to Yahweh are made, then this is associated with a "warrior like elohim", yet when Jehovah is mentioned, it switches to a somewhat divine tone. Obviously, someone has added some information about Jehovah at the end of the section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mod objective (talk • contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Mod objective (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discuss before editing during dispute
Since the neutrality of the article is disputed, it would be more helpful and collaborative to identify and discuss matters here rather than make sweeping edits. Maybe people (e.g., Mod objective) could at least itemize the moves made recently and elicit feedback. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow my own advice, here are my concerns with some recent edits (or prior text): Thanks. I look forward to a constructive conversation here. HG | Talk 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The article should not make blanket statements about the Bible, since there are multiple interpretive traditions, and secondary sources are needed to document the main line(s) of interpretation. (Pls read the preceding link on 2ry sources.) Problematic section on Using the Name in the Bible includes: "The Biblical law does not prohibit the use of the Name, but it warns against “misuse”, “blaspheming” or in ordinary terms, “taking lightly” the Name of YHWH. The Biblical texts suggest the people of the Bible used the Name of YHWH." Needs sources and more nuanced reading.
 * 2) Speculative, POV and not sourced: "Had they known about the Q're perpetuum, the term "Jehovah" may have never come in to being."
 * 3) Needs source. And Wikipedia should not be written as a logical argument: "More scholars now believe that the Name of Yahweh was taken out of the New Testament text, as an attempt to hide the name of god. If the Name of Yahweh was used by Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples, it would be logical that they were accused of blasphemy by the Jewish authorities."
 * 4) Problematic, non-neutral, renaming of section to Witnesses to the Name
 * 5) Why was this removed? Ià-huò-huà
 * 6) Please show us reliable secondary sources (don't do your own exegesis of the Bible) for: "which has led some scholars to believe the Name was removed from the texts. From the biblical account, it is identifiable that Jesus/Yahshua and his disciples were often accused of blasphemy for using a Name."
 * I second the points about avoiding blanket statements about the Bible due to multiple interpretive traditions and avoiding OR exegesis. It is almost too obvious to point out, but the entire history of religion shows us that what is "logical" or "self-evident" about the Bible for one person . . . well, often isn't for others.  I'd like to add another point:  I get worried when I see information removed because an editor doesn't think it is "appropriate."   Wikipedia is for everybody and it isn't censored. Movingboxes (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your (1) claim, there isn't any interpretation needed. No law exists in the Bible which prohibits the use fo the Name YHWH. Only that one is not to "misuse", or "blaspheme" the Name. It's written in the 10 commandments. It's plain and simple. The Name must've been used by the people of YHWH, as this law appears in the Bible. Mod objective (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2. You've taken the quote out of context. Had they known about this Jewish practice, the word Jehovah may not have come in to being because they wouldn't have used foreign vowels and injected them in to the tetragrammaton. Mod objective (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For #1, at Wikipedia, we don't consider Biblical hermeneutics "plain and simple" but rather back up our article statements with reliable sources. See WP:PSTS -- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If you are correct, it should be fairly easy to find backup statements in the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reliable sources. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For #2, you may well be right, but it isn't encyclopedic for us (i.e., Wikipedia itself) to make such speculations. If this is a significant claim in the mainstream discourse on the topic, you'll welcome to cite or quote a source that makes the speculation. Thanks again for discussing this issue. HG | Talk 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi HG. I don't agree. The Name Yahweh is a term which is derived from the Bible. Therefore, shouldn't at least some reference be towards the Bible, whether the Bible denounces or teaches using the name of YHWH. So far nothing in the article tells us what the Bible saids, which I find puzzling when discussing a Name which appears in it. Thanks. Mod objective (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For #1, yes, of course we should refer to the Bible. Please use a good quality secondary source about the Bible, like ABD suggested above, that will describe (or assert) what the Bible teaches regarding the name. Thanks! HG | Talk 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. I'll look for those sources... Thanks for the info...Mod objective (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. I've found a source by James Mofatt. He says: "Strictly speaking, this ought to be rendered Yahweh, which is familiar to modern readers in the erroneous form 'Jehovah.' Were this version intended for students of the original, there would be no hesitation whatever in printing Yahweh" Mod objective (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your looking into this. I think what makes sense of the encyclopedia is to rely upon scholars who can explain the overall sense of the field. As you can see from the article, there are expert disagreements about how the Name should be transliterated (or not). It's fine to include some representative opinions, like Moffat (who has a particular view, as a Bible translator), but we also need to represent opposing views and, hopefully, scholars who are able to summarize the state of the art or of the debate. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon reference
Movingboxes...hi, don't you think you should rid of the statement in modern: "In Larry Gonick's The Cartoon History of the Universe, the narrator suggests that YHWH might instead be pronounced "Yahoo Wahoo." The narrator is then shown being struck by lightning." It doesn't fit in and it doesn't belong. Another heading perhaps? Mod objective (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a position on whether or not that should be in the article. My only objection, per WP:CENSOR, was that you took it out because you didn't find it "appropriate."  I'd feel better if another editor(s)--one who didn't previously attempt to remove the information on the grounds that it is an "inappropriate paragraph. We don't want to hear of all those who mock the name yahweh in comics"--took at it and helped arrive at a consensus.  Would another editor like to contribute their thoughts on that statement? Movingboxes (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. The information does not fit in with the heading...it's inappropriate. Why not mention other films and comics that mock the Name??? I find it to be immature and doesn't belong.
 * It still doesn't seem like you're coming from a place that is thinking about what is encyclopedic or not--your references to it "mocking the Name" and that it is "inappropriate" reflect your personal point of view. Maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but that decision should have nothing to do with whether or not it is "mocking the Name."  The reference is there because it offers an (admittedly irreverant) take on how the name should be pronounced.  That certainly does have something to do with the article. Movingboxes (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

here is The/An advance warning
I see that there is a dispute about the lead sentence. Should we say that Yahweh is "the" or "an" English rendition of the tetragrammaton?

Gentle WARNING -- please do not continue to change this back and forth. To do so is to engage in edit warring, and may be grounds for a block or other sanction. There have already been multiple reversions recently.

How to resolve the dispute? Well, first, please state your reasons for "the" or "an" in the lead. Listen to each other and discuss, with an eye toward reaching agreement. Second, it would help if you can all consider proposing a revised sentence that might avoid this An/The problem entirely! .... pls collaborate...Thanks. HG | Talk 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec):Update. Please leave intact the current version, which reads: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה, which is a Hebrew vocalization of the Tetragrammaton proposed by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius in the 19th century. Gesenius believed that his proposed vocalization יַהְוֶה, might accurately represent the original pronunciation of [ i.e. יהוה ], the unvocalized Hebrew name of the God of Israel, which is found in the consonantal Hebrew text."


 * What do people find useful or objectionable about these sentences?
 * Personally, I like the precise scholarly background and encyclopedic tone.
 * Qs: Was it proposed as English or as German? Was Gesenius a "Semitic languages" or "Hebrew language" scholar?
 * To avoid The/An, can we use a lead such as "The word Yahweh serves to transliterate...."
 * Thanks for discussing here. Pls do not change the lead until after consensus is reached here. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehovah is currently used (at least by the Jehovah's Witnesses, probably others as well) as an English rendition of the tetragrammaton. Although people might disagree with this usage, it doesn't change the fact that they are using it.  I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to take a stand against those who use "Jehovah" in this way by having the article read that "Yahweh" is the rendition.  We're here to reflect usage, not to take a side.  To borrow something from grammar discussions--our usage should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Movingboxes (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Minor question. Would "Yahveh" be an alternative spelling or the English version of the German? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, I think "Yahveh" is a legitimate alternate, just as "Iehovah" is the way "Jehovah" was originally pronounced when it was introduced in the Middle Ages. But today there are basically three approaches:
 * Yahweh (scholars),
 * Jehovah (traditionalists), and
 * the LORD or HaShem or Adonai.
 * The third approach was defended rather well in the preface to the RSV, under the rationale that monotheism has entered the human consciousness to such a degree that it is no longer necessary to use a proper name to demonstrate WHICH deity you are talking about. It's like talking about "my wife Jane".  Well, that's not her real name, but the point is that I only have one wife -- so "my wife" is sufficient.  If I had three wives, I'd have to use a name to tell you who I was talking about.  In any case, the article should explain the three uses, and the history and rationale of each.  It should NOT be prescriptive (i.e. telling us what to use), but rather descriptive (i.e. telling us who uses what and why).  Right now the article is trying to make an argument, and that's way way way beyond the scope of Wikipedia -- and perhaps even beyond the scope of us little humans.Tim (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" William Smith states that the Hebrew scholar Gesenius proposed the vocalized Hebrew spelling יַהְוֶה. Yahweh is an accurate English transliteration of the vocalized Hebrew spelling, יַהְוֶה, which was first proposed by Gesenius in the 18th century. Seeker02421 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I hadn't seen this note before changing it.  I won't do it again without consensus.  However, I do object to "the", since it isn't.  Nor are the word used in this article and Jehovah the only possibilities.  The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility.  I'd object to Seeker's "an accurate" as well, because that's assuming the conclusion. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the introduction of the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh,
 * I wrote: "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"


 * I believe that Hebrew scholars agree that
 * "Yahweh is an accurate English transliteration of יַהְוֶה"


 * However Hebrew Scholars do not necessarilly believe that יַהְוֶה"
 * is an accurate vocalization of the original pronunciation of God's Hebrew name.


 * That is a different issue altogether.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yahweh is "an" english rendition it is then....agreed? Mod objective (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lisa, what do you mean "The fact is, we don't know how it's correctly pronounced, and Gesenius's idea is just one possibility". Have you ever studied the hebrew texts? If the Jewish Encyclopedia, and Brittanica clearly state the pronuciation was never lost, then arn't you being biased and prejudiced agaisnt the name? Mod objective (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, I've studied the Hebrew texts. In Hebrew, actually.  I've seen cases where the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong before, but I haven't seen that it claims the pronunciation was never lost.  Same with the EB.  Who do you think preserved it?


 * And... "prejudiced against the name"? That's a strange idea.  I think it's as conjectural as Jehovah was.  The reason it's so popular is simply that scholars don't want to use just the consonants, lest it appear that they are unwilling (for religious reasons) to use a pronouncable name.  They prefer something they can say.  John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong", but that's not something most scholars would agree with, unfortunately. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment Lisa. I have assumed from what you have put that you do not believe the Name can be pronounced (I might be wrong). But, if that's the angle you're coming from, I would like to say that the Name YHWH being unpronouncable isn't really consistent with what the Bible teaches. Btw- hay, yothe, aleph and wau were used as vowels early in history Edward Horowitz, How The Hebrew Language Grew, p30] Mod objective (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a religious objection to indenting properly on Talk pages? Just curious.


 * Anyway, my copy of How the Hebrew Language Grew is sitting, coincidentally, about 2.5 feet away from me. You can't use that book as a source for a personal conjecture that הוא and הוה are the same word.  That's called original research, and it's not allowed here.  You're allowed to think that, but you need a source for the specific claim; not for a claim that you can derive your conclusion from.


 * Also, as far as "what the Bible teaches" goes, that's your opinion. But I didn't say it isn't pronouncable.  Clearly it is.  But the idea that there is some continuous knowledge of how it's pronounced (a publically known knowledge, at least) is, so far as I can see, baseless. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tim. What is so traditional about the modern 1520 "Jehovah"? Mod objective (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's older than "Yahweh" so far as I know. I really don't care who did what and when or how it even should.  We should just list them in a neutral way and move on.  Speaking of which -- I'm off for a few days.  Good luck with sorting things out!  Just remember -- Wikipedia documents and describes.  It doesn't prescribe.  We could be rock solid certain that God's real name is Elvis, and still be able to document who says Yahweh, who says Jehovah, who says LORD, and when they said it.Tim (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Yahweh is older than Jehovah. Since Yahweh is the Name that the Encyclopedia Judaica says was "never lsot". The term Jehovah wasn't used by those who believe in YHWH. The term Jehovah was invented in 1520, based upon a misconception about the Name. As you said, I believe that all arguments should be presented on this board. But, we have to understand what is truth and what isn't to get to that stage. Mod objective (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The EJ doesn't say it was "never lost". If you think it does, give a citation.  I have the EJ downstairs, and I can check it.  And your refusal to indent demonstrates disrespect for everyone else here. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The editors of the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon on 1905 state that the underlying Hebrew of Jehovah
 * [ i.e. Strong's Hebrew Word #3068 ]
 * occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text.
 * [ i.e. The Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text of 1525 A.D. which underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. ]


 * Although Hebrew word #3068 actually can be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible,
 * most Hebrew scholars do not believe that the Masoretes ever meant this word to be pronounced "as it was written". [ i.e. (Y)Jehovah ].


 * יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
 * and the editors of the BDB lexicon refer to יַהְוֶה as "the proper name of the God of Israel"


 * The "Jehovah / Yahweh" controversy is a very strange controversy.


 * The underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah" occurs 6518 time in the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Text,
 * and Hebrew Scholars believe it was never meant to be read as it was written.


 * יַהְוֶה, on the other hand, is found "ZERO" times in any extant Hebrew Text,
 * and Hebrew Scholars treat it more or less as if it was known to be the actual original pronunciation of God's name,
 * instead of just a Hebrew vocalization proposed by Gesenius in the 19th century.


 * Having said that, it is still possible that the original pronunciation of God's name may have sounded similar to "Yahweh"


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mod, we do not decide what is truth here. We merely document who said what.  "Yahweh" entered modern scholarship more recently than "Jehovah" entered traditional use -- and perhaps some group claims that "Yahweh" was never lost.  Fine.  Document who says what and move on.  WE don't decide the truth.  We merely report TRUTHFULLY what other people say.Tim (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From a verb meaning "destroy" or similar?
This section needs to be radically rewritten, or simply deleted. It cites Ezekiel, Psalms, Proverbs and Job (without chapter and verse) and Isaiah (47:2, which does not contain the text claimed) and Job (37:6, which contains the verb הוא rather than the verb הוה). All but the first sentence of the last paragraph in the section is blatant WP:OR. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lisa, I think you're right about the need to revise. However, please AGF rather than charge "blatant" OR. I believe the text is based on this source. Perhaps weak research, but not OR. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unusable here, however. Just because the 1911 Encyclopedia gave partial citations and citations that don't actually lead to what they claim to be leading to doesn't mean that the error should be perpetuated on Wikipedia.


 * A root hawah is represented in Hebrew by the nouns howah (Ezek., Isa. xlvii. rr) and hawwah (Ps., Prov., Job) " disaster, calamity, ruin." 16 The primary meaning is probably " sink down, fall," in which sense - common in Arabic - the verb appears in Job xxxvii. 6 (of snow falling to earth).


 * That's what it says there, but again, "Ezek" is useless, because there's no chapter and verse. Isaiah 47:rr (whatever "rr" is supposed to mean) was copied over as II in this article, and there's nothing there in verse 2.  Psalms, Proverbs and Job also lack actual citations.  And Job 37:6 has a different word in it altogether.


 * Just because those words appear in a published source doesn't make them reliable. It might be legitimate to write that the 1911 Encyclopedia made these claims, if the fact that none of the sources actually match the claims is included.


 * Unless someone has actual sources for the claim made in this section, I think it's going to have to go. Let's not forget what Jimbo Wales said in WP:V:


 * I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.


 * Lastly, it is possible to commit OR in good faith. It's called an inadvertent mistake.  I haven't suggested or intimated that there was bad faith here.  Just bad practice.  I believe that's acceptable under Wikipedia policy.  Please don't assume that I'm accusing someone of bad faith.  That in and of itself is an assumption of bad faith.  Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I like "inadvertent mistake" much better. "Blatant" does convey a concern about intentionality (e.g., offensively or defiantly, OED). Thanks for explaining that you were not accusing anybody of that. And I'm sorry for reading that into your use of blatant. Anyway, I don't think Mr. Wales was referring to "I heard it in the Encyclopedia Brittanica." Anyway, if you check your BDB p.218 you'll see scholarly sources cited for both "causes to fall" and "destroying." HG | Talk 16:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC) BDB p.217 for ruin or calamity (qere of Job 6:2 and 30:13 and a few psalms). HG | Talk 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, I guess.  "Inadvertant" would be making an assumption as well, while "blatant" simply means "clear" or "obvious".


 * My BDB is somewhere downstairs, and I don't feel like looking for it. However, if you think there are actual sources to support this section, as opposed to a rough cut-and-paste from a poorly sourced article, which contains "sources" that anyone reading the article can check and see do not support the text of the section, maybe you could put them in.  I didn't say I'm committed to deleting the section.  I simply said that since the section gives bad references (citations that aren't full citations or which do not say what the text claims), then either good references need to be put in, or the section needs to go.  That seems like Wikipedia 101, no? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead
According to WP:LEAD, part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, each article should begin with a short, roughly 4 paragraph summary, which should explain the crux of what the article is about.

In this case, it seems to me, it should explain that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name; that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai; that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek; but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.

That is a summary of pretty much what the lead said before the current bout of editing.

I suspect the new-to-wikipedia editors who recently changed may not have read WP:LEAD, and may not be familiar with the role a wikipedia lead section is supposed to play. I'm therefore restoring the old lead, and ask editors not to cut it down if they have not read and understood WP:LEAD. -- Jheald (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The opening paragraph is fine... It sets the tone to what the rest of the article is about, concisly and neatly.Mod objective (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I really do not know what you are playing at Jhelad. Some members have put hours trying to make this article presentable, and you're trying to merge about three subjects all together in the first paragraph...Mod objective (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? It's not presentable or plausible. I've changed it back to Lisa's Mod objective (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the crux of the article is about a transliteration that (apparently) was first proposed by Gesenius, including the debate over its usage. Do Jheald or others object to mentioning Gesenius in the lead? Is so, why? HG | Talk 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jheald does, or else he wouldn't keep putting it in. Mod objective (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection on Gesenius. But people, please do read and understand WP:LEAD.  The lead is supposed to present a self-contained summary of the whole subject, with a target length of abot 4 paragraphs.  The key reason for this is that many re-users of Wikipedia content only reproduce the lead, not the whole article.


 * The previous text may not have been perfect, but it did conformed to WP:LEAD, presenting a balanced overview of the topic in 4 paragraphs.


 * On the other hand, the one-sentence version does not satisfy the needs of WP:LEAD. We should therefore go back to the previous 4 paragraph version, and start from that as a basis for further discussion.  Jheald (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into a brewing edit war, but for the record, I think Jheald is right. I'm open to contrary arguments, but I don't see why people are so opposed to the version he's proposing. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not against the expansion of the lead, but I am up against messiness. If the lead begins messy with too much information as Jheald has been trying to do, the whole article looks bad. Thus, I would rather prefer to ditch a long lead, for a more presentable article...
 * People who have put a lot of time in the article, ussually don't like to see it return to the messy disarray it was once in. Mod objective (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the article. That's not giving "too much information".  It's following what WP:LEAD requires.  For the record, I don't find the lead section messy, and I don't see anybody but you saying it is.   I don't understand why you want to butcher all of this material out of the lead -- you're not giving any substantive reason as to why you think these points are not important, or should be excised from the stand-alone overview called for by WP:LEAD.  Jheald (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jheald...read the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yahweh#Clean_article_up.2C_please... clean up march 08]

Perhaps you wern't here when the demand to clean up the article - for this very reason- was attempted. We wanted to make the article more presentable and thereofre, sacrificed a long lead, for a short, concise and presentable one. Mod objective (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Breaching WP:LEAD does nothing to "clean the article up". It simply makes the article even less conformant with Wikipedia's guidelines, so just adds one more thing to fix.  Jheald (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mod objective, you're currently in violation of WP:3RR. Please stop edit warring over the lead. Movingboxes (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read read. It will tell you that if the lead doesn't help to clean up the article then the rule doesn't have to apply...this is ridiculous...all it shows is who wants a clean article and who wasnts a messy one...Mod objective (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if your edits were not making the article less useful to readers rather than more useful. If I have to choose between one editor's subjective standard of "messier" and the vastly more important task of informing readers (and, incidentially sticking with WP:LEAD), the usefulness to the readers is going to win out. Movingboxes (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR read please. Moving Boxes and Jheald are in the wrong Mod objective (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:3RR. I have reported this on the 3RR noticeboard. Movingboxes (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Certain members have been trying hard to make this article good. And although I appreciate your efforts - if it is to improve the article - I ahve to be critical and say that it doesn't. Whether the information you provide is useful or not, it should be presented in the best way possible. The information provided in the lead by you two members, was not presantable and thus, not very useful at all. The rules are not against the short concise versions....Mod objective (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving boxes. You can try to ban me for a edit war (?) but you might find that what I was doing what was best interest for the article - keeping it presentable. Mod objective (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What the "rules" are against are multiple reversions to force your preferred version of the article over talk page consensus. I'm not trying to "ban" you, I'm trying to stop an edit war.  You seem to be the only editor who finds a comprehensive lead objectionable.  I'm confused as to why you would put a question mark behind "edit war."  What you were doing was unquestionably an edit war. Movingboxes (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is disgusting. This page has been substandard by a poor Lead, and everyone except for those who were banned - and  – are fine with it? I alerted the admin when a whole section on blasphemy was deleted, that was simply a step too far. It’s obvious that some people have multiple users on this.

It’s clear, that most of those editing are wording the article in such a way to make the name Yahweh look “made-up”. This bias will not be tolerated, and you can expect some members to be alerted in regards to your conduct.

It certainly is odd that all members currently involved on the page have been so obstinate on changing the Lead to a messier, bias and inaccurate version.

Saying the divine name doesn’t appear in any Hebrew extant is a preposterous lie. The divine name isn’t used with vowel points therefore we have YHWH. Jews have been reading without vowel points for centuries, so to declare that Yahweh doesn’t exist in the Hebrew because of no vowel points, is a poor assertion. Jews didn’t and still don’t want the Name to be pronounced, so they removed the vowel points. This doesn’t mean we don’t know the original pronunciation. This deceit and bias will not be tolerated.

Knighthood (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One person did indeed have multiple accounts involved. Mod objective and Davidamos were shown to be the same person.  You're welcome to get involved with factual and NPOV edits, but since this article is controversial, it might be a good idea to discuss your edits on the talk page first.  The vast majority of those on this talk page want to help create an article that is non-biased and consistent with Wikipedia policies--I find that people only resort to sock puppetry when they know policy isn't on the side of their edits. Movingboxes (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just discussed it. Read the above...your not commenting on what I have put Knighthood (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any reliable sources or constructive suggestions for compromise to comment upon. All you've done is accuse your fellow editors of "bias" and called the consensus version "a preposterous lie."  You close with complaining about "deceit."  I'm ready to talk about the article, but I can't respond to a bunch of accusations.  Just so you're clear, the only established multiple users were those who backed the same version of the article that you just reverted to not so long ago.  Movingboxes (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it s right for members who dislike other peoples versions, to try and have them banned. I really do think Jheald and MB are acting very immaturely and I hope they get punished for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.162.251 (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the Lead is biased. And I'm just one of many to come too. Studying the hebrew texts is important to understand these basic principles. By the way, I've restored your page no one elses. However, I have changed the Lead to comply with rules. Just to remind you on the information you keep missing, I said: "Saying the divine name doesn’t appear in any Hebrew extant is a preposterous lie. The divine name isn’t used with vowel points therefore we have YHWH. Jews have been reading without vowel points for centuries, so to declare that Yahweh doesn’t exist in the Hebrew because of no vowel points, is a poor assertion. Jews didn’t and still don’t want the Name to be pronounced, so they removed the vowel points. This doesn’t mean we don’t know the original pronunciation. This deceit and bias will not be tolerated."

You have failed to back up your reasons for multiple users and bias...I would kindly like to know why you would prefer the old Lead to my own. Thank you. Knighthood (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any "reasons for multiple users and bias." I am not a multiple user and I do not believe my edits have displayed bias.  Using the phrase "preposterous lie" in an article is extreme POV and, as such, is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy.  You say "I'm just one of many to come too (sic)," but please be aware that those before you who argued this point were established to be the same person (Requests for checkuser/Case/Mod objective).  So really, it isn't "many" at all.  Movingboxes (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of God
This is theologically false.--71.118.6.168 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have substituted God of the Bible.--71.118.6.168 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no valid reason to make this change (also you wikified it to a non-existant page) - I recommend it be changed back to simply "God"--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

History of utterance
The Hebrew Bible contains Yahweh in it. The earliest evidence I know of using other words for God of the Bible is the Septuagint which uses theos and kurios. We need more informations concerning the history of uttering Yahweh.--71.118.6.168 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) contains יהוה ,without vowel points which are needed to indicate how to pronounce it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The same is true for 1000s of words Hebrew speakers use in Israel today. The point is that Yahweh wasn't replaced with a title.--71.118.6.168 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tanakh is printed with the vowel points...except יהוה which is without the vowel marks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Were all Hebrew words in the early Tanakh copies printed with vowel points except Yahweh? I am doubtful.--71.118.6.168 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a page image from the WP article on Tanakh: Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the right column, 2nd row of the high resolution image,
 * that Malcolm Schosha has provided a link to,
 * the underlying Hebrew of "(Y)Jehovah can be clearly observed.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

User 71.118.6.168 writes: We need more information concerning the history of uttering Yahweh "

Greek scholars inform us that in about 190 A.D., Clement of Alexandria wrote that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced "Iaoue", in Greek Letters. see image from Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 Iaoue" favors the English translation "Yahweh"

Seeker02421 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While Iaoue favors "Yahweh"
 * Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה,
 * [Which transliterates perfectly into English as "Yahweh"]
 * is based on the Greek transcription "IaBe",
 * which represents the Samaritan translation of YHWH.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite alphabetical disparity, Iaoue does sound like Yahweh phonetically. I would pronounce Iaoue as "e-yah-way" when liaising the vowel of the 2st and 3nd syllable.  I am sure some may pronounce Iaoue differently.  Thanks for the information; it should be added to the article.--71.108.0.87 (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jews deceived by "Catholic" Church

 * is from 1000-1100. I stronly believe Jews themselves regularly said Yahweh--or however they pronounced then.  The substitution of the name with god and titles started with the founding of Christianity.  The Jews don't know this themselves.  The Jewish folks used to lose their own laws (like when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered during Jeremiah's time in BC times) and have been influenced by others.  This ineffable thing is from the Catholic church.  The same "Catholic" church that believes in worship the god of the Muslims.--71.118.6.168 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the state of the "Catholic" Church today.--71.118.6.168 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not use this Talk page to cast aspersions at religions, religious people, etc. It's contrary to the purpose of the page (e.g., WP:SOAPBOX) and violates our sense of civility in cooperation with other editors. HG | Talk 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is stupid and brutish to be against reproof..--71.108.0.87 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why page change
Members have put in a lot of effort in to this page. Complaints about lack of evidence have been rectified, so why are members reverting the page to older, messier and bias versions? Mod objective (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC) It seems Banaticus and Vary (I assume are Catholics) continue to revert the page to very old ones, regardless of the work many members have put in this article. Should they be able to get away with this? They're not even discussing? Mod objective (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)People keep complaining about the lead. The article says: The lead should be able to stand alone as a COCISE overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

I find the most concise lead so far contributed, is the shortest, explaining concisly the Name of Yahweh and what it is. Should we have a vote? Mod objective (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Can we add some more pictures? Wuld everyone be alright with that?
 * As far as the "vote" request goes, WP:DEMOCRACY. Changes should be determined through discussion, not through voting. Movingboxes (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pictures of what? Movingboxes (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's read a bit more of WP:LEAD:


 * Length: The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:- > 30,000 characters: three or four paragraphs.


 * and please note:


 * The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.


 * As I have set out above, IMO important points that the lead should summarise include:


 * that Yahweh is a pronunciation of the name;
 * that no living pronunciation has been preserved in Judaism, because Jews substitute Adonai;
 * that the academic convention for "Yahweh" is inferred based on theophoric names and early Christian writings in Greek;
 * but that the evidence does not point exclusively to this reconstruction -- hence "Yahweh" is a convention, not a consensus.


 * The version you keep cutting back to contains none of this apart from the first point.


 * Now I'm not saying the old version was perfect, but it was much closer to what WP:LEAD envisages, and much more fully succeeded in


 * summariz[ing] the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.
 * -- Jheald (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mod objective, the article may or may not look "messier" with the lead you keep changing, but what you call the "messier" version is much more useful for readers. The goal is not to reduce the lead to virtually nothing. Movingboxes (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

clintonfultz.net
The following statement was added to the article: Althought, evidence has been found that even the early copies of the Septuagint contained Yahweh. Having looked at it, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Also, the two images shown on the site as "evidence" for its claims appear to show names that contain the Tetragrammaton, and not the Tetragrammaton by itself. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not a reliable source. HG | Talk 03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am against your reasoning when you don't even glance at the contemporary Septuagint version to see it doesn't contain Jehovah-jireh: "And Abraam called the name of that place, The Lord hath seen; that they might say to-day, In the mount the Lord was seen." English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, Genesis 22:14.--71.108.0.87 (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppeting
Mod objective, LaBible and Davidamos have been confirmed as one user. LaBible and Davidamos have been blocked indefinitely, Mod objective's existing block (for 3RR) has been extended to 2 weeks. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Knighthood is going to turn out to be the same person.Ben Asher (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone checked Alleichem? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, the following user names have been confirmed to be sockpuppets and have been indefinitely blocked:


 * Davidamos
 * LaBible
 * Mod objective
 * Knighthood
 * Alleichem

We need to clean up this article and the other articles that have been affected with the agenda in question. If we can create some kind of new baseline we can have a stable article to go back to if (when) another sock appears. It's devilishly difficult trying to cherry pick through what to keep once a new sock appears. If we can restore the article now we may be able to maintain it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy
This previously removed section was just restored. I removed it again because it is pure speculation (full of words like "may have," etc). Let's discuss it here before we reinstate it. Movingboxes (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Do the Jewish people know how to pronounce YHWH correctly?
What actual evidence exists that the Jewish people, in 2008 A.D., know how to pronounce the unvocalized Tetragrammaton correctly.

Do the Jewish people acknowledge that they have preserved the original pronunciation of God's name, through an unbroken oral tradition?

Is there evidence that exists that indicates that the men who read the unpointed Hebrew Scriptures in the Synagogue, actually spend a lot of time studying the Hebrew Scriptures that do have vowel points, to be sure that they are pronouncing the unpointed Hebrew Scriptures, in the same way that the pointed Hebrew Scriptures are pronounced?

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeker, there are actually rules for vocalization. Not all Hebrew Grammars get into the rules, but the rules do exist.  As for what the Cantors do... there's a difference between Christians and Jews when it comes to Hebrew.  Christians study the grammar and the rules for Biblical Hebrew, just enough to get through school.  For the most part, they forget it.  Jews treat Hebrew more as a living language (because it is).  The consonants are pronounced in a way consistent with that cultural standard (Askenazi, Sephardi, etc.) instead of a reconstruction of Biblical pronunciation.  Waw / Vav is an example.  Even with pointing identical to what Gesenius proposed, the divine Name would hypothetically be Yahveh instead of Yahweh.  But for Jews this is purely hypothetical.  Jews do not pronounce the name.  They do not learn how to do something that is forbidden.  It would be like taking a class on how to most properly commit adultery.Ben Asher (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We pronounce the Tetragrammaton as "Adonai", except for the few cases (mostly in Ezekiel) where God is referred to as Adonai-Tetragrammaton (with Adonai spelled out as such), in which case we pronounce the Tetragrammaton as Elohim. That's how it's done when Jews read from the Torah scroll.


 * I was taught in high school that the lamed-vavnikim (the 36 righteous people for whose sake the world continues) know the correct pronunciation of the explicit name of God. But obviously there's no documentation of such a thing. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean you replace the Tetragrammaton with Adonai and Elohim while reading. That is, however, not an issue of the word's own pronunciation. Cush (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that it is fair to say that Jews do not use the term "Yahweh"? (And I don't mean the Tetragrammaton.  I mean Yahweh: Y-a-h-w-e-h.)  I have never heard a Jew use that term to describe the Jewish deity.  It seems only to be Christians who use the word or name Yahweh to describe the Jewish god.  I had the impression that it was a Christian mis-vocalization of the Tetragrammaton that somehow stuck and entered into general parlance.  Is that right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.244.212 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906, in the article "Names of God / YHWH, wrote:


 * "If the explanation of the form above given be the true one,
 * the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh or Yahaweh ."


 * The question of course arises,
 * were the editors of the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906, Jewish?


 * If they were Jewish,
 * we know that there were Jewish people in 1901-1906
 * that favored either Yahweh or Yahaweh (
 * [ IF WHAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID IN THE ARTICLE WAS TRUE. ]


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jon Stewart of the Daily Show is Jewish. That doesn't mean that his views are representative of Judaism.  The fact that the editors of an Encyclopedia called "The Jewish Encyclopedia" chose to include claims that were in vogue in the world of biblical scholarship means exactly nothing when it comes to the question of a direct tradition of the correct pronunciation.


 * Live with the fact that you're wrong. Except possibly for a handful of unknown individuals, there's been no living tradition of how the Tetragrammaton is pronounced at least since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Possibly longer. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The question posed above by 87.68.244.212 has not really been answered. The question is not how was the Tetragrammaton pronounced in the time of the Temple.  What about today: the present era?  What do Jews say vs. what do others day when referring to the Jewish deity?
 * If one were to ask a Jew who had Jewish self-awareness what does he/she call the Jewish deity, that person might reply "God," "HaShem" (the Name), "Adonai," or "Elohim." But I suspect that virtually no Jew would reply, "Yahweh."  Furthermore, I suspect that the very, very few Jews who do call the deity "Yahweh" are totally secular and receive their knowledge of Jewish religion through the lens of Christian society and Christian-influenced culture.  Simply put, it's not a "Jewish thing" to call the deity "Yahweh."
 * As for Jon Stewart . . . if he does use the term "Yahweh," he probably does so in a sardonic or thickly humorous manner (as befits his television program). In fact,  Stewart might not call the Jewish deity "Yahweh" in his own, personal (i.e. not-for-TV) ruminations.  As for the Jewish Encyclopedia, I think that LisaLiel is right.  The editors were reporting on a theory then popular in Biblical scholarship.  That being said, I don't think that the editors of the JE went around calling their own supreme deity "Yahweh."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.127.239 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
On 12:20, 29 August 2008, Jheald made what Wikipedia defines as a BOLD change to the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh.

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle provides information on what a BOLD change is.


 * "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus
 * on any wiki with revision control.


 * It can be useful for identifying objections to edits, breaking deadlocks, keeping discussion moving forward.


 * Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.


 * This method can be particularly useful when other dispute resolution for a particular wiki is not present, or has currently failed."

Much more information, including a block diagram of the process, can be found in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Seeker02421 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Enlarged Block Diagram of the Process


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I would characterise my change as representing the REVERT part of the cycle, reverting the lead to its previous form, until there was discussion and consensus for the change on this talk page. Jheald (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jheald,

I have cut and pasted the Introduction of the Wilipedia Article:BOLD, revert, discuss cyle, which also included an image of the process involved, in this method.

In the actual Introduction of this article, the following text is found directly underneath the image:


 * "It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus.


 * By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist.


 * You can then discuss your issues with them"

Seeker02421 (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Now I'll revert your bold edit, because a wikipedia article should start by saying what its subject is, before discussing supposed controversy. Jheald (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jheald


 * The image to the right does appear to indicate that my edit was a bold edit, and that your edit was actually a revert, and you stated that a wikipedia article should start by saying what its subject is, before discussing supposed controversy.
 * The Wikipedia Article:Lead Section states:
 * It [ ie the lead section ] should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable,and summarize the most important points&#8212;including any notable controversies that exist.


 * I will try to modify my two lead sentences to meet those criteria.


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm being brave and bold and editing the article. I'm starting with the first line, the definition of the subject. Already a hot topic. Are we about the pronunciation of the word, or the meaning? Time will tell. However, I agree that the article needs a bit more about Yahweh and lot less about vowels. Tel Arad, for instance (the ostraca, that is). And -yah theonyms outside Biblical Israel. Lots of stuff without touching on theology.PiCo (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Yahweh
This article seems completely about the name Yahweh, but lacks information about Yahweh himself.

In the Source, I'm pretty sure Michener mentions Yahweh's wife (also found at Asherah and his parents. It would also be nice to have a history of things that Yahweh has done such as create the world, stop the sun, bring the plagues to Egypt, impregnate Mary, etc. I wasn't able to find anything about his deeds or family under Jehovah, either.

Because this is a disputed page, I'm hesitant to start writing anything. Is this the correct page for such information or is there another page? Wakablogger (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't a more appropriate place for information like that be articles like God in Judaism, God in Christianity, etc? Movingboxes (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'll add links. Those articles are really hard to find. Wakablogger (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Catholics
Do Catholics accept the Name is Yahweh, but refuse to use it??? That's what the article says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.53.7.171 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Catholic didn't use the term lord out of respect for the name of YHWH. That's a new excuse, brought up recently to why they haven't used the Name so far. 143.53.7.76 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Catholics are pretty mainstream in scholarship, and the Jerusalem Bible uses the Y form of the Name. I believe the "respect" you eliminated in the article referred to Catholic respect for God (a given) instead of Catholic respect for Jewish law (unnecessary since they have their own).Tim (talk) 10:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting
Someone seems to playing the revert game. Now, would someone kindly explain why evidence presented on this article about a certain point of view should be reverted by a handful of people because they don't like the truth? Or is someone just being immature and selfish? Peace anybody? Alleichem (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is Wikipedia practice. We've given you a number of articles to study and invited you to pick a different subject until you get the hang of how things work here.  Please read the articles and follow the friendly advice people are giving you.  There's no cabal going on. SkyWriter (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was you Sky on my talk page remember. You're the only one who told me to go to all articles except for religious ones, until I got the hang of it. It's not the best advice. Ussually, when one is stuck you tell them to read a tutorial which I have done. Don't worry, I can understand your confusion with your name changes all the time.

Is someone going to explain why this page - which has been backed up by research material galore - keeps getting reverted. I put hours in to researching all those books. I think I've done quite well to hold my peace so far, don't you? Peace. Alleichem (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I only removed the "Tim" from the handle because you said it had confused you initially. It was a favor to you, and it ocurred to me that other people could get confused in the future.  Now, we've explained this to you -- you can't give undue weight to fringe elements and synthesize a view not stated in notable sources.  Please follow the advice you are given.  People are trying to help you get the hang of it here. SkyWriter (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what are you accusing me of here. Whose views have I synthesized? Have you actually read the material? Alleichem (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been told to do one change at a time,but if you follow my userpage you'll see they agree with me. My sources are verifyable. Firstly I'm going to add this: "In this book, Jellicoe draws together evidence from a great deal of scholars (B. J. Roberts, Baudissin, Kahle and C.H Roberts) and various segments of the Septuagint to draw these conclusions. There is therefore a strong possibility that the Sacred Name was once integrated within the Greek text, but eventually disappeared." It gives some information about Jellicoe so people like Sky can't complain and say Jellicoe, nor what this scholar says doesn't exist, or is not true :]. Agreed? Alleichem (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. No problems there. Alleichem (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes there are problems there. The sentence starting "There is therefore a strong possibility"... is that a quote from Jellicoe, or is that your conclusion from Jellicoe?  Also, if you're going to say that Jellicoe draws evidence from those four scholars, you should give the appropriate citations.  You don't give a citation from Jellicoe about those scholars, and you don't say who those scholars are or where they say what you claim. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Next I' adding this: Scholars recognize that the original copies have perished, and the Greek manuscripts available to us are far from the originals. This has led many scholars to explore the likelihood that the original copies were written in Hebrew or Aramaic.(2). Although the Divine Name is not found in any Greek manuscript of the New Testament text, scholars have discussed the strong possibility of the original texts being written in Hebrew or Aramaic and containing the sacred Name also see “The Name in the Septuagint” section.

Under "Relevance in the New Testament".

If anyone has a problem with any of these things please do explain. The reason for it is that a member keeps trying to say that the possibility of Hebrew or Aramaic originals only lies within a couple of loan words, which it doesn't. I have the sources to prove it, and you might want fries with that :] Alleichem (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't a reputable New Testament scholar anywhere who says "it's a strong possibility that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew." If this Jellicoe is trying to push that, he's fringe.  You are trying to make the article say the equivalent that the earth is flat. SkyWriter (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The NT section is problematic. Lamsa is a dubious source and the other sources seem to be improperly synthesized here. Aramaic uses 'Marya' for the Tetragrammaton in the Peshitta OT, and this use continues in Syriac NT. Aramaic primacy remains little more than a popular speculation, and should not be peddled here in full. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth
In Verifiability, the first paragraph states:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.


 * Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Seeker02421 (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * However, that is not the point in question. There is a problem with some of the sources and with their synthesis. That is that some sources are not reliable, as insisted upon above, and that reliable sources are used to support conclusions they do not directly support. If you like looking at rules, the latter is found under WP:OR. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Gareth. Speaking of speculation I've decided to add some tags to this article. It's a great idea. Also, I paln to add the scholars names and ctations to back up some of the work on this article, since obviously the source material isn't enough. Peace and Shalom Alleichem (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a source for the Yahweh or Jehovah section: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=8512. Someone can cite it if they want to... Your helpful friend Alleichem (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking aboutincluding the problem Catholics now face of taking out the Name Yahweh (and Yah) out of their Bibles (Jerusalm Bible) and song books. Apparently this has already begun to take plaItalic textce: see above link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleichem (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Divine Name
Is it appropriate to say Divine Name or divine name. Name or name? See, this article suffers a lot from caps on and off for these words. Shouldn't we be using caps? Would anyone mind if I used caps to refer to the Divine Name? If we said Yah, we use caps. If we use anything to do with the Name of YHWH we should use caps whether we dislike or not shouldn't we? Alleichem (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, just as in God vs. god. IMO, when Divine Name is being used as a title, in taboo avoidance of Yahweh ('and the Divine Name came forth'), then it is a proper name and should be capitalized. When it is used as a descriptive phrase ('refuse to utter the divine name'), then it is a common noun and should not be capitalized. kwami (talk)

Aramaic Priority
Folks, I can't keep up with the plethora of edits being inserted here by Alleichem. When (and if) the article can stabilize, this quote may be appropriate in the New Testament section:

"There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the language in which all the parts of the New Testament were originally written, although Aramaic Christian texts may have circulated in the period before our Gospels (if an Aramaic tradition ever actually existed in a written and not merely an oral form). The quality of this Greek is varied, ranging from the "Jewish Greek" of Revelation to the literary aspirations of the Lucan writings and the relatively polished Greek of Hebrews. Yet when compared with the contemporary literature, none of the New Testament writings stands out for elegance of style, even if it be admitted that the elequence of Paul created a new literary genre. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the Greek of daily conversation. The fact that from the first all the New Testament writings were written in Greek is conclusively demonstrated by their citations from the Old Testament, which are from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and nont from the original Hebrew text. This is true even of the rabbinic scholar Paul." Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, page 52.

Next to Metzger, Aland (THE Aland of the Nestle-Aland) is at the pinnacle of scholarship during this past century for establishing the New Testament text. Their unified text for the United Bible Societies 4th edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition is the most respected text in the world today.

Can we get rid of this nonsense about the New Testament being writtin in Aramaic when there isn't a single scrap of evidence for it? This is like trying to prove Bigfoot. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait one minute? You're prepared to believe one book, over dozens of scholars and research material? The originals have persished. We have copies of copies of copies. In that process it is likely that the text was translated. Since the Gospels was for the Jew first, this would fall right in to place. Zeitlin, Torrey, Rabbonowitz, Bullinger and much much more disagree with your one book Alleichem (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can add more, but Metzger and Aland are the foremost authorities in the field for the past century. They are mainstream.  Here's the rub -- there are more Bigfoot believers "researching" Bigfoot than there are mainstream zoologists.  One could create an assortment of Bigfoot scholars to outnumber explicit statements from mainstream ones.  There are no Aramaic source texts in evidence for an Aramaic priority.  If you found a Bigfoot in a freezer, or an Aramaic original in a jar, then there might be something to talk about -- but until then we are arguing a negative.  You can't prove a negative.  You can only choose not to waste your time. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one in academia supports Aramaic primacy of the New Testament. The view is put forward by enthusiasts in pamphlets and on the Internet. What there is in academia, is discussion of the possibility that certain Aramaic texts or oral traditions may have existed which formed the basis for certain Gospels. Now, this is your usual academic speculation: we do it to consider all the possibilities. There is no evidence for such Aramaic primacy, and no one in academia would say that the Gospels were written in Aramaic. Only if Alleichem produces direct quotations from reliable sources and bases findings on exactly what those texts say can they be included in articles. What has been produced by this user so far has been an illusionist's attempt to make source look like they are supporting a view they do not. Oh, and did I mention Aramaic is what I do? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Garzo and Skywriter. Hello and Guten Tag to you both. Let me just expose the hypocrisy of your views. In the Yahweh article, in the opening paragraph it states "While by convention יַהְוֶה can be found listed in Hebrew Lexicons,[2] as being God's name, no one knows for sure if Yahweh accurately represents the original pronunciation of יהוה.". This is what some would call a balanced opinion. Now in the same way, do most scholars believe that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, but very notable scholars have declared that evidence also points to Hebrew or Aramaic originals? If this view isn't clearly given, then you’ve lost what it is to be a wikipedian.
 * Garzo, as an administrator surely you can see the logical sense of putting the balanced view within the article as Alleichem had previously? Kght (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * David, can you slow down a bit? As I mentioned to the Alleichem avatar, this is like Bigfoot.  It COULD exist, but there isn't any evidence for it.  Are there some people who believe in it?  Yes (and yes to Bigfoot, too).  But what does mainstream scholarship hold? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support SkyWriter et al. Per WP:Fringe, I can't see how this is the least bit notable. kwami (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sky. You are comparing Hebrew or Aramic originals to big foot. I'm sorry Sky. but I think you really ought to study more. Dr Zetlin, Dr Torrey and Bullinger were no Big Foot, believe me. Kght (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for another overhaul
There's too much finge POV woven into this article from the recent edit warring. The article itself needs another overhaul. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Sky, but what gave you authority to act upon this opinion of yours without consulting anyone else? The overhaul which you have mentioned has taken out huge chunks of the article [] and I kindly suggest that you undo this unpleasant and notorious decision. The article is now no longer balanced, nor has it any consistency. You cannot delete huge chunks of the article and make the entire article based around Catholicism and Judaism though concerning the subject. Please stop this blatant vandalism Kght (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This user "Kght" is yet another sockpuppet of the infamous David Amos. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All I ask for is answers. Why is it that certain members are so commited to having their own agendas pushed forward? A Jew may not believe that YHWH should be pronounced so they remove any mention of Yahweh on the YHWH article? And so on and so forth. Where's the balance? Kght (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. The issue is disruptive editing from yourself.  Can you please just give this a rest?  This isn't about what one editor can get into an article, but about what many editors will leave in it.  We've all lost information that was interesting to us -- and that's the way Wikipedia is. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim. You and Lisa once argued a lot for months. Surely you understand the position I'm in. You keep deleting more and more,and so does Lisa. Your both Jews aren't you, so would you kindly have a little respect here, and respect the right for balance in the article. Kght (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Being Jewish isn't the issue, David. You've had more than half a dozen socks banned on Wikipedia already.  You're a bad faith editor, and you keep trying to sneak back in.  How long will it take you to realize that it's not going to work?  Go start a blog, David.  You can say anything you want on it. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How rude. No being Jewish isn't the issue because I'm a Jew too (I don't follow Judaism). Just because you don't want the Name Yahweh being pronounced, doesn't mean you can put it in the worst light possible and delete the mention of ti from any page you want YHWH. Okay? If you want to talk about evidence for the Name, ask and I'll show it. I'm not making any changes to any article. Kght (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sky and Lisa. You cannot keep deleting sections.
You cannot put "Yahweh is a guess word" Lisa. You may not like the Name Yahweh because of your own beliefs, and I respect those beliefs. However, scholarly EVIDENCE points to the Name being Yahweh. This includes historical evidence and simple pronunciation. What you are doing is wrong. You seem to be contravening this general scholarly view. So, what you are trying to do is say, the letters - the Tetragrammaton - cannot be pronounced, but those same letters can be pronounced in every other name of the Bible? Aren't you being hypocritical? I'm worried about your vandalism Lisa, and I'd appreciate it if you put your own opinions on hold about a scholarly and religious subject

SkyWriter (Tim) ' LisaLiel.

Sky. Your behaviour is worrying and I think you should do something about it. You said this on Yahweh talk:
 * "There's too much finge POV woven into this article from the recent edit warring. The article itself needs another overhaul. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)"

- And then, without consulting anyone about it, decided to delete huge chunks out of the article which were well cited and [sourced]. You have given no reason for deleting prominent sections such as: "Jehovah or Yahweh?". it's unbelievable that you haven't been punished for these actions. If it was someone else doing such changes, I know that you and Lisa would be complaining about it on WP:RFC Kght


 * Glancing through edits over the last month, I don't see anything undue in what either did. You might consider writing up what you want included in your sandbox, and once you get it fully referenced with reliable sources, moving it here. There's too much contention in a topic like this to accept unsourced or poorly sourced material, which is mostly what they deleted. kwami (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly agree to taking a look at what subject matter people would like to see addressed. Notable and verifiable information can and should be included in proportion to its relevance, notability, and verifiability. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Sky. Have you noticed any changes to anything Christian? I don't think this is the correct article to be producing one theory after another as is the case, with no historic evidence at all: Kght (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic Primacy
Can I ask you -- while this user name is still available -- why you keep doing this? Editing in Wikipedia can be a constructive, rewarding experience. It doesn't have to be this way. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. What have I done that has not been constructive Sky? Tell me. I've been talking with you all. I have made no changes to any article myself. This is what I'm doing because I can see that you both are trying to push a POV unworthy of Wikipedia. We should be giving a balanced interpretation of the evidence, not your own POV. Kght (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask what Aramaic original you think you have access to? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask you if we have access to the originals? Kght (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There are no Aramaic originals; neither are there early generation Aramaic manuscripts.  What we have is Greek; not originals, but very early generation manuscripts.  The only ancient evidence we have is in Greek, not Aramaic. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You took some time to come out with that. 11 minutes in fact. The fact is we do not have the originals. The originals are therefore a source of debate as to whether they originally were written in Hebrew or Aramaic - in other words, we do not know: an argument that has been put forth by scholars for decades. Just because the oldest manuscripts we have are in Greek, doesn't mean the originals were. I might also mention that the manuscripts we have are copies of copies of other copies. Many problems are said to disperse when we consider that the NT was written in Hebrew. This is what one notable scholar has said and any amount of study would prove it. Read the material and see for yourself. Kght (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Balance is essential?
Of course I took time to get back to you. I DO have a life beyond this subject. In any case, Greek Primacy is the accepted mainstream view, and Aramaic Primacy is not. That's what Wikipedia goes by. We aren't here to prove anything. We are merely here to report notable and verifiable views in proportion to their notability and verifiability. That's it. If you are here to prove something, you are in the wrong place. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you have a life beyond Wikipedia Sky :). Yahweh is also the accepted scholarly view, so why do we have in the opening paragraph of the Yahweh article that no one knows for sure if the Name was Yahweh. In this same way, no one knows for sure that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, especially because we do not have the original manuscripts. Now, if the NT was written in Hebrew (perhaps not all but some), then the Name may have appeared there.
 * It's similar to the Septuagint. Mainstream scholars believe the Name appeared in the Septuagint but was later taken out by Christians who wanted to respect Jewish Law. Kght (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you look at what you just wrote? If then...maybe.  If then maybe?  That's not Wikipedia. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Balance Sky. It's all about balance. Before this time you believed that the NT was written in Greek, no doubt. Now you know there is doubt and plenty of it. We don't even have the original manuscripts. Kght (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My beliefs have nothing to do with it. We report what is notable and verifiable in proportion to its notability and verifiability.  That's it.  My opinion is that it was written in Greek because there is no evidence to the contrary.  If ancient Aramaic manuscripts were discovered, it would interest me.  If a Bigfoot body were discovered, it would also interest me.  In the absence of real evidence, however, I defer to the mainstream view -- regardless of how exciting or boring such a view may be. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now your being immature. You are comparing an Aramaic or Hebrew original to Big Foot. You don't realise there is EVIDENCE for Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Scholars cannot just say something and write books and volumes about subjects, with only a crumb of evidence supporting such a notion. As I said, read the material that was given and do some research. I have. Kght (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion:
We do not know what the original manuscripts were written in. Evidence tends to point to Hebrew or Aramaic originals. Please do some study on the subject, both you and Lisa. It's advisable to do research on a subject before forming erroneous conclusions. At the moment you're treating opinion as fact, and this is what I have a problem with. Kght (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from October - Why shouldn't mention of Aramaic be mentioned?


 * I stopped talking to you on your page because you weren't listening. Even here you have "Evidence tends to point to Hebrew or Aramaic originals."  No, it doesn't.  There isn't an accredited school teaching textual criticism that advocates that.  The primary authorities on the text of the New Testament, including Metzger and Aland, disagree with you.  I don't know why you choose to clutter up Wikipedia with arguments that cannot go anywhere by Wikipedia standards.  We document notable and verifiable views, in proportion to their relevance, notability, and verifiability -- PERIOD.  We do not try to prove fringe views that have no evidence and no credible academic standing. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why NO historic evidence!
I've noticed several wikipedians including Admins have been involved in this article. So why is it, that all we have in the article is theory upon theory and no concrete evidence. What about the Moabite Stone or the Lachish letters, which prove that Yahweh is not a "guess word" as Lisa and Sky has put. Would someone care to delete the theory and simply provide the evidence! I've discussed this with Sky and Lisa, but they've ignored it. Simply shows who wants to improe the article and who wants to debunk it. [] We should be using the Jehovah template as a basis for the Yahweh one perhaps? Kght (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is supposed to look clever, but isn't. The point is that neither the Mesha Stele nor the Lachish ostraca give an indication of pronunciation. In both cases, we get the same four palaeo-Hebrew letters. Now, a student who had about a term's Classical Hebrew would realise this. The problem is that Kght and the other manifestations, want to make a point and synthesize any set evidence improperly to support it. Mentioning ancient witnesses makes the user look clever; maybe they know what they're talking about we think. However, it doesn't really take very much knowledge of the subject to realise that none of the evidence presented supports the point made. I've come across a number of WP users who do this. Some do it knowingly, while others do not have the academic background to understand why their arguments are flawed. We should give them the benefit of the doubt that they are the latter. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kght. All evidence does indeed point to the Name beign Yahweh: I am starting to wonder about the genuinity of some of the admins.


 * Added the new sock to the list. For the record, the Lachish letter has no vowels. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gareth, WP:DNFTT. Giving him attention simply encourages him. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, several of the latest socks, Kurdle, Kght, and the 143 IP avatar have now been blocked. There are two outstanding ones that are currently loose, still, and more will no doubt come. I'd suggest we agree to some approach to keep from being endlessly bogged down by this. As Gareth said, the argument would seem to have merit to people who have no information on the script, or on the nature of languages. Even a full alphabet like Greek has pronunciation shifts (take the demotic and classical delta, for example). Heck, even regional differences in English create shifts in pronunciation. But Hebrew has the additional issue of not having vowels in the original writings. These were only invented centuries after Hebrew stopped being used as a state language, in order to preserve the best pronunciation information still available.

That being said, how do we avoid having to keep saying it across multiple incarnations with shifting strategies from the socks? These latest ones attempted to create a false sense of consensus off the article page, and more people were dragged into it. It's a lot of overhead for an unanswerable issue. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The only way to resolve it is to rent a time machine, bring a tape recorder back and snag it that way. Otherwise, it's not even a reasonable discussion. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, I was thinking of the sock question more than the Divine one! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Who can prove that Yehonathan can be derived from Yahweh?
If any editor can find evidence that "Nathan" can be prefixed with "Yahweh" to create the theophoric name "Yehonathan", it would immediately become more likely that the original pronunciation of God's name was "Yahweh".

Until some Hebrew scholar satisfactorilly demonstrates that theophoric names beginning with "Yeho" can be derived from "Yahweh", in my opinion, "Yahweh" remains only "a guess name"!

Seeker02421 (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeker, Yahweh *is* only a guess name.
 * On the other hand, I see no problem deriving Yeho- from Yahu. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User 213.84.53.62, Certainly there are many who believe that "Yahweh" is only a guess name.
 * What is interesting is that Gesenius, the Hebrew scholar who proposed the Hebrew punctuation, which is transliterated into English as "Yahweh", believed that theophoric names such as Yehonathan could more easily be explained if God's name was actually "Yehovah" or "Yehowah" !
 * Seeker02421 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Early Greek transcriptions of YHWH lack Scriptural authority!
While Early Greek transcriptions of YHWH, such as Ιαβε and Ἰαουε, provide evidence that the original pronunciation of God's name might have been "Yahweh", both of these Greek transcriptions lack Scriptural authority, and seem to be destined to be thought of only as "guess names".

How can anyone prove that either Ιαβε or Ἰαουε accurately represent the original pronunciation of God's name?

Both Ιαβε and Ἰαουε end up being represented by Gesenius's proposed Hebrew punctuation יַהְוֶה, which can be translterated into English as either "Yahweh" or "Yahveh", depending upon how the "waw / vav" is transliterated.

יַהְוֶה is found in no Extant Hebrew Text, and it remains to be proven by Hebrew scholors that "Nathan" can be prefixed with יַהְוֶה to produce Theophoric names [ such as "Yehonathan" ] which begin with the prefix "Yeho".

However, If the time should ever come when Hebrew scholars are able to demonstrate to their peers, that Nathan can be prefixed with יַהְוֶה to produce the Theophoric name "Yehonathan" [ which begins with the prefix "Yeho" ] the situation would definitely change.

Evidence can be found in the Wikipedia Article:Yahweh that indicates that Theophoric names prefixed with "Yeho" can be derived from "Yahweh", but I am not aware of any Hebrew Scholar who posts on the b-hebrew discussion board, that has demonstrated to his peers, on b-hebrew, that it can be done.

Seeker02421 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The First sentence of the article seems to be inaccurate
"The first sentence of the Article reads: Yahweh is an English transliteration of יהוה, (the Tetragrammaton), which is the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel [1] as it occurs in the consonantal Hebrew Text."

I do not believe that "Yahweh is an English transliteration of יהוה

I believe that YHWH is an English transliteration of יהוה

I believe that Yahweh is a letter-by-letter English transliteration of "יַהְוֶה" a vocalization of יהוה proposed by Gesenius in the 19th Century.



Seeker02421 (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are 100% correct. Why don't you change the sentence to be more accurate? -LisaLiel (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeker. You have to understand that no Biblical name can be pronounced without vowels. Since Josephus and other religious men were explicit in witnessing that the Sacred Name is made up of vowels, we can take this and understand that the letters Yod, Hay and Waw were used as vowels at a certain time in history. Jews can still read Names without vowel points to this day. The Name of YHWH is hardly going to be forgotten is it? Based upon the evidence, theologians and historians will refer to the name Yahweh. Gesenius didn't make those vowel points up, otherwise it'd be mentioned in the article and not considered an accurate transliteration by those who study languages. Trunkin (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

+ Also the Name YHWH was known before the 19th Century, before Gesenius was even born, most encyclopedia will clarify that. Trunkin (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Trunkin, that's not really relevant. That pronunciation is a guess.  A widely accepted guess, but a guess nonetheless.  Neither Gesenius nor you nor I know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in antiquity.  All we have from antiquity is the consonants.  To state that any proposed vocalization is a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton is inaccurate at best, and POV-pushing at worst.  It is a transliteration of a proposed vocalization that dates from the 19th century.


 * Again, the fact that it's widely used is purely a matter of convenience. It's one of the two pronunciations proposed in public, and the other one is clearly not correct.  So this one gets used a lot.  That doesn't mean it actually is a transliteration of the actual pronunciation, and to state that it is in a Wikipedia article is incorrect. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Trunkin, Gesenius's German writings indicate that he was influenced by the Greek transcription IaBe, considered to be the Samaritan transcription of YHWH.

Gesenius didn't make the vowel points of "Yahveh" up, he got them from "IaBe"

Thus Genenius used the Hebrew type-a-vowel patah for the Greek alpha, and added a simple shewa under the first heh, as a syllable divider because he wanted to create a 2-syllable Hebrew word, and finally he added a Hebrew e-type vowel segol under the waw, because he was creating a lamed-heh verb.

So indeed the pronunciation "IaBe" = "Iave" = "Yave" would certainly appear to have existed long before Gesenius was born, but Gesenius was the Hebrew Scholar who in effect transliterated the Greek transcription "Iabe" into the Hebrew vocalized spelling "Yahv'eh".

Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible" indicated that William Smith believed that a hebrew "waw/vav" was pronounced with a "V' sound in 1863, but in 1905 the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon seemed to change Gesenius's "Yahveh" into "Yahweh".

Hebrew scholars disagree with Hebrew scholars on this issue.

Clement of Alexandria's "Iaoue" seems to support "Yahweh".

Seeker02421 (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeker,

Genenius did not propose the name Yahweh. Have you any authoratative sources to back up what you are saying? Also it's not appropriate to have in the first sentence. Herertrert (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Herertrert,
 * Gesenius punctuated YHWH as yod-patah-heh-silent shewa-waw-segol-heh
 * The above image is found in William Smith's 1863 "A Dictionary of the Bible"


 * In my opinion Lead section Ok's making known in the lead section, that Gesenius proposed the Hebrew punctuation that is letter-by-letter transliterated into English as "Yahweh".


 * Seeker02421 (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord of Hosts
Lord of Hosts redirects here. The Bahá'í Faith also uses "Lord of Hosts" in translation for their God, as in the Summons of the Lord of Hosts. 71.242.202.228 (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"misunderstood?
There was a chunk of text in the Historical Overview section of this article:

"During the Babylonian captivity the Hebrew language spoken by the Jews was replaced by the Aramaic language of their Babylonian captors. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and, while sharing many vocabulary words in common, contained some words that sounded the same or similar but had other meanings. In Aramaic, the Hebrew word for “blaspheme” used in Leviticus 24:16, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of YHWH must be put to death” began to be interpreted as “pronounce” rather than “blaspheme”. When the Jews began speaking Aramaic, this verse was (mis)understood to mean, “Anyone who pronounces the name of YHWH must be put to death.” Since then, observant Jews have maintained the custom of not pronouncing the name, but use Adonai (“my Lord”) instead. During the first few centuries AD this may have resulted in loss of traditional memory of how to pronounce the name (except among Samaritans)."

Not a single source is presented for this outrageous claim. Judaism does not pronounce the Tetragrammaton because it is sacred, and not to be used except for very special things, such as the priestly blessing in the Temple in Jerusalem, which can't be done today, because the Temple isn't currently standing. So I'm removing it. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cult Advertisements
It is unfortunate that sacred name cults are trying to use this article for advertisements for their cult literature. It is very evident that what they are attempting to get a following from people who come here for unbiased facts, which you would expect from an encyclopedia. Their biased opinions and the use of quotes from THEIR own biased publications to try to "prove" their own far fetched point of view is very disturbing. If they want to believe that the translations of the names of God in the Hebrew scriptures are "PAGAN" gods, they may do so, but not here, go to their own cult meeting places and proclaim it from the pulpits there. Incidentally, they have a page in here -- Assemblies of Yahweh that they can use as their play ground. Even that article at one time was accurate and they have made it into an advertisement for their literature. They continually try to distort the facts and remove the historical facts in it as well and replace the facts with their opinions. They have made that article into a link farm for their many websites, trying to dominate search engines with their link spam. Now they are trying to use this article as a link farm as well. Some of these "socks" (see # 46) have been banned, but they just pop up again under a new name. It is time that the administration of this encyclopedia do something about this far fetched fringe group and put a stop to vandalism here. This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox for advertising cult doctrines. Trying to get followers here is really deplorable. Incidentally the word "Lord" is not a pagan god as they claim. In English it literally means "loaf keep" or "bread giver" and not "Baal" The translators of the Bible were correct by using this translation, after all they were believers in the Inspired New Testament, which clearly says, "Give us this day our daily bread." That bread giver or "loaf (bread) keeper" is YHWH. They claim that the word "GOD" is a pagan deity, however, if they would check up the origin of the word "EL" (which they insist on using in place of the translation "God") they would find that "EL" (Elohim is the plural) was the name of the father of Baal! Get educated! The takeover of Wikipedia by fringe groups is not good. We need facts in here not opinions of fringe cults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.64.139 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. But you don't need to put your whole comment in bold, and you shouldn't put it at the top of the page.  Put it at the bottom where all new sections go. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

meaning of YHWH?
Does YHWH mean something, etymologically, or is it just the deity's name and cannot be interpreted for any possible meaning? --206.248.172.247 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The root means "to be", but the declension is not found in any other word. -- Zsero (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)