Community

quote:

Well now that is a better post. It is my understanding that gendering of Hebrew is more modren than the most ancient. I do not know when that change came about. Because I am not a linguistic expert I have been useing information from those who are, and are also Archaeologist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Well now that is a better post. It is my understanding that gendering of Hebrew is more modren than the most ancient. I do not know when that change came about. Because I am not a linguistic expert I have been useing information from those who are, and are also Archaeologist.

Gendering in Hebrew is and has always been a critical part of the langauge. It exists in every known Hebrew document, even the very oldest, and it is an intrinsic part of the language, not something that was added on later. In fact, in Hebrew (unlike other languages) there is no neuter form at all.

Who ever told you that gender in Hebrew was a modern invention clearly has never studied Hebrew.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel

It would be nice if you would find something else to do besides harass me.

Mike, when I address something seriously, you either completely ignore it (like part of that post above) or start spouting some of the drivel you've posted in other forums/places on the Internet.

You hold to positions clearly not accepted in Christendom now nor at any time in its history, yet that doesn't bother you.

Grandmother once told me, "Son, when you think everybody but you is crazy, you just might have it all wrong." It's a general principle that can help one from drifting off the main road and into the abyss.

quote:

I don't think we are getting anywhere here. According to you the Archaeologist and myself are 100% wrong, 100% of the time. Perhaps we shoud not speak to each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Out of curiosity, Michael, who is "the Archaeologist"? Perhaps if you could provide some basis for your claims that isn't something you wrote yourself, people might take you more seriously or possibly see where you're coming from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel

Although your request is a reasonable one, I have my reasons for not sharing that information. If you do not want to believe that Yahwah is God's name in the most ancient Semitic language, then that is fine with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Out of curiosity, Michael, who is "the Archaeologist"? Perhaps if you could provide some basis for your claims that isn't something you wrote yourself, people might take you more seriously or possibly see where you're coming from.

quote:

Although your request is a reasonable one, I have my reasons for not sharing that information. If you do not want to believe that Yahwah is God's name in the most ancient Semitic language, then that is fine with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel

Although your request is a reasonable one, I have my reasons for not sharing that information. If you do not want to believe that Yahwah is God's name in the most ancient Semitic language, then that is fine with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Out of curiosity, Michael, who is "the Archaeologist"? Perhaps if you could provide some basis for your claims that isn't something you wrote yourself, people might take you more seriously or possibly see where you're coming from.

Translation: he has been unable to find any reputable source that backs up his claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JimboFletch

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichaelTheeArchAngel

Although your request is a reasonable one, I have my reasons for not sharing that information. If you do not want to believe that Yahwah is God's name in the most ancient Semitic language, then that is fine with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Out of curiosity, Michael, who is "the Archaeologist"? Perhaps if you could provide some basis for your claims that isn't something you wrote yourself, people might take you more seriously or possibly see where you're coming from.

Translation: he has been unable to find any reputable source that backs up his claim.

Interestingly, the false religion of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to release the names of their "translators" that produced a version of the Bible that reduced God the Son to just "a god" that is no greater than an angel - the in carnation of Michael the archangel. Coincidence or just another sign that Mike has no real support for his whacked heresies?

quote:

I thought I should point out that I am not a member of any congregation. I visit many different churches and Christian forums. I am not going to ask for any scholars to back me up on what I have said. I have had people from the Middle East say that what I have said makes good sence to them. I will start taking the time to improve my commentary tomarrow. Perhaps by next week it will hopefully be improved enough to be more acceptable. But here is something to think about. Look at all of the many different interpretations the SCHOLARS have given for God's personal name. Why should anyone listen to me. Because I am a Judaeo Christian, I do not believe in deforming God's personal name to mislead anyone. Personally I would say that is a good reason. I do not no of any other persons that believe that way except those called Holy Namers. And no, I am not a member of theirs either. I am for the 7 Thunders to be. If you have studied that subject, then you know who I'm talking about. If not, Oh well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

I thought I should point out that I am not a member of any congregation. I visit many different churches and Christian forums. I am not going to ask for any scholars to back me up on what I have said. I have had people from the Middle East say that what I have said makes good sence to them. I will start taking the time to improve my commentary tomarrow. Perhaps by next week it will hopefully be improved enough to be more acceptable. But here is something to think about. Look at all of the many different interpretations the SCHOLARS have given for God's personal name. Why should anyone listen to me. Because I am a Judaeo Christian, I do not believe in deforming God's personal name to mislead anyone. Personally I would say that is a good reason. I do not no of any other persons that believe that way except those called Holy Namers. And no, I am not a member of theirs either. I am for the 7 Thunders to be. If you have studied that subject, then you know who I'm talking about. If not, Oh well.

But Michael, you have to understand here... you have produced no documentation, no backup sources, and have claimed no personal knowledge of ancient Hebrew (other than having in your possession a Strong's Concordance, which, so do I, but it certainly doesn't make me a Hebrew scholar) or training whatsoever. You've just come in and said this is what you think, with no proof, but we should all accept what you say just because you said so. Did you really expect us to just go along with that?

That's like me telling everyone that they all need to sit back and give me complete control so I can fix the economy, despite the fact that I've shown no credentials in economics and no aptitude for it whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odeliya

Sorry if I miss smth, I am scrolling…But in fairness to Michael:The gender point brought up here is not quite applicable in this case, for Michael is making an argument about personal names, and there are more (proper) male names that end in -ah then female ones.

quote:


The whole deal of trying to argue over English vowel in a transliterated Hebrew word is sort of laughable for sounds are hard to transliterate, some sounds actually don’t exist in another language,and no combination of Latin characters can give the phonetically proper sound. So why fight against the acceptable , it is as good as it gets, its not broken, don’t fix it.What’s wrong with Yahweh? to me it looks good enough.

quote:


Not only various pseudo-scientific shysters but even real scholars - well studied, experienced, knowledgeable are in disagreement and perpetual debates on the various names of God but the point of Michael’s argument is really not about the name... Ben,what is the good word for "tahman", I seem to have hard time to find a really good english analog

quote:


oh,btw, many modern translits dont even bother transliterating hei - as in (h), they avoid it altogether, because the sound is so slight in modern ivrith. Have you noticed? ..yuck..inexcusable.

quote:


Sadly not many seem to be listening to Jimbo, he is a very brainy fellow, and said some profound things- Trinity is an accepted belief. Its all fun and games until we get to debates denying Trinity. It is a privately owned site, they can have any rules they wish.

Michael - i do respect your personal opinion, even i disagree with it. Honestly.. sometimes it seems like some christians like to see religious freedom only acceptable in a form of " freedom to think as i do." So as long as you are not pushing your view on others you can hold it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odeliya

:)
my dad blames the butchered language on pelephone and sms..my american host parents blame it on texting..All seem to like predicting that grammar rules as we know it will seize to exist soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Odeliya

Sorry if I miss smth, I am scrolling…But in fairness to Michael:The gender point brought up here is not quite applicable in this case, for Michael is making an argument about personal names, and there are more (proper) male names that end in -ah then female ones.

This is not true if you exclude the names that end in Yah (Yod hey) i.e. those that include the abbreviation for God's name. In General, the -ah ending is feminine. This is one of the reasons why scholars prefer Yahweh. However, I do agree with you, it is not really a big deal.

quote:


The whole deal of trying to argue over English vowel in a transliterated Hebrew word is sort of laughable for sounds are hard to transliterate, some sounds actually don’t exist in another language,and no combination of Latin characters can give the phonetically proper sound. So why fight against the acceptable , it is as good as it gets, its not broken, don’t fix it.What’s wrong with Yahweh? to me it looks good enough.

Absolutely agreed, I really doesn't bother about how someone pronounces God's name until they start making it into a commandment.

quote:


Not only various pseudo-scientific shysters but even real scholars - well studied, experienced, knowledgeable are in disagreement and perpetual debates on the various names of God but the point of Michael’s argument is really not about the name... Ben,what is the good word for "tahman", I seem to have hard time to find a really good english analog

It's kind of like trying to find a English word to describe "Chootspah"; something that very accurately describes some of the posts in this thread!

quote:


oh,btw, many modern translits dont even bother transliterating hei - as in (h), they avoid it altogether, because the sound is so slight in modern ivrith. Have you noticed? ..yuck..inexcusable.

Yes, I do notice things like this. It makes it much harder to figure out what Hebrew word was being referenced, if you don't get it at first glance.

quote:


Sadly not many seem to be listening to Jimbo, he is a very brainy fellow, and said some profound things- Trinity is an accepted belief. Its all fun and games until we get to debates denying Trinity. It is a privately owned site, they can have any rules they wish.

Michael - i do respect your personal opinion, even i disagree with it. Honestly.. sometimes it seems like some christians like to see religious freedom only acceptable in a form of " freedom to think as i do." So as long as you are not pushing your view on others you can hold it.

quote:

It takes chutzpah and hutzpahs to post here. I do listen to what you guys say. I'm hopeing that some where after picking on me, that you will provide some kind of useful information. Assume the obsurd That maybe I'm on to something. All good scholars agree that the first part of God's name is Yah. So what does the word "HaWeh" mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

It takes chutzpah and hutzpahs to post here. I do listen to what you guys say. I'm hopeing that some where after picking on me, that you will provide some kind of useful information. Assume the obsurd That maybe I'm on to something. All good scholars agree that the first part of God's name is Yah. So what does the word "HaWeh" mean?

All good scholars believe the first part is phonetically close, but not exactly, "yah"; the transliterations into other non-semitic languages seem to indicate a sightly different sound.

More to the point: Every good scholar knows that all we can do is guess, so your guess may be better (or more likely far worse) than someone else's guess, but it is nothing more than a guess. The idea that people should use that pronunciation over a more "traditional" one in order to be more "spiritual" is the part I completely reject.

quote:

What does HaWeh mean in Hebrew? I know that there is a rule for the ancient Hebrew for determining which vowel is to be used. Depending on which constanants are being used. Now how can I best write this in the English language without sounding like a fool. Lets see if an education has done you any good.