Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yahweh Is the Sweetest Name I Know
Desiring God ^ | July 23, 2013 | John Piper

Posted on 03/10/2014 12:36:42 PM PDT by redleghunter

You are not wrong to sing, “Jesus is the sweetest name I know,” even though Yahweh is.

Here’s why.

God gave himself the name Yahweh. No man gave him this name. It is God’s chosen personal name. He loves to be known by this name. It is used over 5,000 times in the Old Testament. It is almost always translated by *Lᴏʀᴅ* (small caps). But it is not a title. It is a personal name, like James or Elizabeth.

You know the name Yahweh best from its shortened form Yah at the end of Hallelujah, which means “praise Yahweh.” I love to think about this when I sing. When I sing, “Hallelujah,” I love to really mean, “No! I don’t praise you Bel, or Nebo, or Molech, or Rimmon, or Dagon, or Chemosh. I turn from you with disdain to Yah! I praise Yah. Hallelu Yah!”

God announced his name to Moses in Exodus 3:15. God said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers. . . . This is my name forever.”

He preceded this announcement with two other statements so the meaning would be clear. He said, “I am who I am” (verse 14a). And he said, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you’” (verse 14b).

The Hebrew name Yahweh is connected to the Hebrew verb “I am.” So Yahweh is most fundamentally the One-Who-Is. “I am who I am” is the most foundational meaning of Yahweh. It means: My am-ness comes from my am-ness. My being from my being. My existence from my existence.

There are vast personal and covenantal implications of this. But this is foundational. No beginning. No ending. No dependence. He simply is, always was, and always will be. He communicates all of this with a personal name. To be sure, he has titles, and he has attributes. But this is a personal name. He packs the weightiest truth about himself into a personal name. Infinite greatness and personal knowability are in the name Yahweh.

Then in the fullness of time, Yahweh came into the world to seek and save the lost. The angel said to Joseph, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Jesus is an English transliteration of the Greek Iesoun. And this in turn is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Joshua. And Joshua is a combination of Yah and “salvation” or “save”. It means “Yahweh saves.”

So Jesus means “Yahweh saves.” Jesus is Yahweh with a human nature coming to save his people from sin.

Paul confirms this in Philippians 2:11. He says of the risen Jesus, “Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is a quote from Isaiah 45:23 where Yahweh is the one to whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. Paul is saying that, in the end, the whole world will acknowledge that Jesus is in fact Yahweh incarnate.

So you don’t have to choose between singing, “Jesus is the sweetest name I know,” and, “Yahweh is the sweetest name I know.” Indeed you dare not choose.


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: piper
There have been names that I have loved to hear, But never has there been a name so dear To this heart of mine, as the name divine, The precious, precious name of Jesus. Refrain: Jesus is the sweetest name I know, And He’s just the same as His lovely name, And that’s the reason why I love Him so; Oh, Jesus is the sweetest name I know.

There is no name in earth or Heav’n above, That we should give such honor and such love As the blessed name, let us all acclaim, That wondrous, glorious name of Jesus. And someday I shall see Him face to face To thank and praise Him for His wondrous grace, Which He gave to me, when He made me free, The blessed Son of God called Jesus.

1 posted on 03/10/2014 12:36:42 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; metmom; CynicalBear; boatbums; Iscool

PING

Acts 4:

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”


2 posted on 03/10/2014 12:38:21 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
But it is not a title. It is a personal name, like James or Elizabeth.

Incorrect. The word means "God" or "Existing One" and is not His proper name, which no man knows. The letters JHVH or YHWH is a tetragrammaton (greek for 4 letters). The Jews considered it a mortal sin to speak, or write, the name of God so the letters JHVH/YHWH came into being as a way to get around that. The letters are Yod, Heh, Wah, Heh and are spoken by the Jews as 'adonai' when reading the holy text.

The only name God has given that man may know Him by is "I am, that I am." which is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh in Hebrew.

3 posted on 03/10/2014 12:49:23 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Except no man knows how to pronounce it.


4 posted on 03/10/2014 12:55:03 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
"Incorrect. The word means "God" or "Existing One" and is not His proper name, which no man knows."

I believe if you check Gen. 4:26, you will find that men began to call on the Name of YHWH. Likely these were men only from the line of Seth and Enosh (since Cain's line was definitely self-absorbed). It may be both a name and title, because after all, this is the Holy One the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Rescuer of souls...There is no other.

5 posted on 03/10/2014 12:56:15 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Thanks for posting this.


6 posted on 03/10/2014 12:57:15 PM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
I believe if you check Gen. 4:26, you will find that men began to call on the Name of YHWH.

Nobody knows what they called Him. Moses wrote Genesis well after that and He set the standard since he met God on Mt. Sinai and was given His name then.

7 posted on 03/10/2014 12:58:22 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
"Nobody knows what they called Him."

This is called isogesis, my FRiend. The assumption that you are maintaining is that your conclusion is already true and you will inflict it on Moses as he pens Genesis.

Interestingly, he did not write it that way. So, unfortunately, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that when they "called on the Name of YHWH" they did not actually call on the Name of YHWH, but called out, "I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME but I AM CALLING ON YOU". Hmmm. Peculiar hermeneutic.

8 posted on 03/10/2014 1:11:45 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

This song always reminds me of a story Dave Gorley used to tell. Dave was a musician who traveled with evangelist Dwayne Friend. When he met people after the services, he’d say, “Hi, my name’s David and Jesus is the sweetest name I know.” During his travels, he was learning sign language and once, when he met a deaf person, he inadvertently signed, “Hi, my name’s Jesus and David is the sweetest name I know.”


9 posted on 03/10/2014 1:43:08 PM PDT by ShasheMac (Be still and know that I am God. Psa;m 46:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Nope. My exogesis of Genesis is in harmony with orthodoxy. The worshippers of God began to distinguish themselves. The margin reads it, Then began men to be called by the name of the Lord, or to call themselves by it. Now that Cain and those that had deserted religion had built a city, and begun to declare for impiety and irreligion, and called themselves the sons of men, those that adhered to God began to declare for him and his worship, and called themselves the sons of God. Now began the distinction between professors and profane, which has been kept up ever since, and will be while the world stands.

Moses wrote in his vernacular. He was not saying that they used "JHVH" specifically.

10 posted on 03/10/2014 1:57:07 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

post of the day. halleluYah and amen!


11 posted on 03/10/2014 1:57:09 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

I am so pleased when anyone takes an interest in the name of our Creator.

Except for the dalet, the tetragrammaton (YHWH = yod he wah he) is spelled exactly the same way as the word YHDWH (yod he dalet wah he) from which we get the work Judah, which in Hebrew is pronounced “ya hu d ah”.

If we simply remove the dalet (D) from YHDWH and pronounce the remaining letters (YHWH) in Hebrew, we get “ya hu ah”.

See my tag line.


12 posted on 03/10/2014 2:03:03 PM PDT by TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed (Yahuah Yahusha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

His name isn’t really “Jesus”....it’s Yeshua. Yeshua means salvation.....”Jesus” doesn’t have a meaning. When the gosple spread to hellenized world they changed the Y at the beginning to a J. The hebrew ending “ah” sound did not go over well for Greeks because that was how they ended feminine names. So they gave it a greek masculine ending with an “s”. Notice a lot of greco-roman names end this way (Persius,Onesimus, Julius)....


13 posted on 03/10/2014 2:21:26 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

I love discussions like this. It taxes me to get out my Bible (large print,LOL) and get to studying. As long as things stay on a civil level, only good can come from posts like this. Thanks to all and blessings on you all. Maranatha


14 posted on 03/10/2014 2:22:11 PM PDT by fish hawk (no tyrant can remain in power without the consent and cooperation of his victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon; redleghunter; Dutchboy88
Incorrect. The word means "God" or "Existing One" and is not His proper name, which no man knows. The letters JHVH or YHWH is a tetragrammaton (greek for 4 letters).

No, He is right. It is HIS NAME.

Exo 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD [YHWH] God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

How can it be His Name forever and a remembrance (memorial) if it is not to be uttered?

The Jews considered it a mortal sin to speak, or write, the name of God [...]

The Jews were wrong. You use Moses downthread, but if you read Moses you will find YHWH's name is to be on our lips. it is the Name we are to swear by. Torah teaches differently than the Jews... And I would submit that the Brit Hadasha teaches the Jews (I would say Christians too) doubly their error - For they (we) will not see Messiah again until they (we) say 'Blessed is He who comes in the Name of YHWH!'

[...] so the letters JHVH/YHWH came into being as a way to get around that.

No. The name predates the use of vowel markers in Hebrew. It is unfortunate that their error caused them to omit the vowel points in His Name. But that is the reason.

We are reasonably sure of the Name - Yahoweh, Yahuweh - By it's use in proper Hebrew names. Yahweh, being a familiar contraction, is what I use, just as Yeshua (Jesus) is a familiar contraction of Yahoshua (Jehoshua, Joshua) - It is the sort of contracted nickname given by a family member or good friend. That we can call him Yeshua says we are part of the family.

15 posted on 03/10/2014 2:35:08 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Standing somewhere in the shadows you’ll find Jesus. ... And you will know him by the nail prints in his hands.


16 posted on 03/10/2014 2:55:40 PM PDT by shineon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

It’s so refreshing and wonderful to study His names, know them, and learn to call on Him by the name which represents your praise or your need at a particular moment. My favorite study on the names of God is “Lord, I Want To Know You” by Kay Arthur. I highly recommend it.


17 posted on 03/10/2014 2:59:05 PM PDT by WarEagle (America ain't doing so hot with a president named Hussein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; rjsimmon; Dutchboy88

I noticed the Lexham English Bible (LEB) by the LOGOS group uses “Yahweh” in the OT text in their literal translation:

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Lexham-English-Bible-LEB/

http://lexhamenglishbible.com/


18 posted on 03/10/2014 3:01:25 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
The name God used in Ex 3:15 was אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym which means God of gods. And if you recall, Ex 3:15 is RIGHT AFTER Ex 3:14 where God tells Moses His name: "I am, that I am."

How can it be His Name forever and a remembrance (memorial) if it is not to be uttered?

God did not make the rule, the Jews did. This is well established.

The Jews were wrong

Once again, their rules. It was a matter of reverence, same could be said about their belief that looking upon the face of God would bring instant death. That turned out to not be the case, but that did not stop them from believing it and covering their heads when praying.

it is the Name we are to swear by

Why do so many people get this simple concept all wrong? The Name, in this inference, is the POWER and AUTHORITY of God. Not whether you swear by Tom, Dick, or Harry. Same for "Blessed is he who comes in the NAME OF THE LORD." It is authority, not "Bob sent me.".

No. The name predates the use of vowel markers in Hebrew. It is unfortunate that their error caused them to omit the vowel points in His Name. But that is the reason.

So what? That has nothing to do with the text.

That we can call him Yeshua says we are part of the family.

Of that we can agree, though it is not because we get to call Him "Josh" but by His sacrifice and willingness to share in His inheritance.

19 posted on 03/10/2014 3:13:46 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon; roamer_1
That we can call him Yeshua says we are part of the family. Of that we can agree, though it is not because we get to call Him "Josh" but by His sacrifice and willingness to share in His inheritance.

Great discussion. Which we can point out we are on "this side of the Cross and Empty tomb" so it is the Name Yeshua/Jesus which we invoke as the Name above all names:

Philippians 2:(NKJV)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:(CJB)

6 Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God something to be possessed by force. 7 On the contrary, he emptied himself, in that he took the form of a slave by becoming like human beings are. And when he appeared as a human being, 8 he humbled himself still more by becoming obedient even to death — death on a stake as a criminal! 9 Therefore God raised him to the highest place and gave him the name above every name; 10 that in honor of the name given Yeshua, every knee will bow — in heaven, on earth and under the earth — 11 and every tongue will acknowledge that Yeshua the Messiah is Adonai — to the glory of God the Father.

20 posted on 03/10/2014 3:23:34 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
Great discussion. Which we can point out we are on "this side of the Cross and Empty tomb" so it is the Name Yeshua/Jesus which we invoke as the Name above all names:

Amen!

21 posted on 03/10/2014 3:36:05 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Well, your “tradition” may lead you to believe their isogesis, but the Hebrew text uses the tetragrammaton as the Name in Gen. 4:26. So, unless your new and spurious hermeneutic can overthrow the Hebrew, your contentions are incorrect.


22 posted on 03/10/2014 4:24:09 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Thank you for your very good, and clear, post. It is a sweet name, and is to be on our lips. Again, thanks.


23 posted on 03/10/2014 4:26:34 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
The name God used in Ex 3:15 was אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym which means God of gods. And if you recall, Ex 3:15 is RIGHT AFTER Ex 3:14 where God tells Moses His name: "I am, that I am."

That's not what I have over here (KJV):

Exo 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

(e-Sword:KJV)

Exo 3:15 And GodH430 saidH559 moreoverH5750 untoH413 Moses,H4872 ThusH3541 shalt thou sayH559 untoH413 the childrenH1121 of Israel,H3478 The LORDH3068 GodH430 of your fathers,H1 the GodH430 of Abraham,H85 the GodH430 of Isaac,H3327 and the GodH430 of Jacob,H3290 hath sentH7971 me untoH413 you: thisH2088 is my nameH8034 for ever,H5769 and thisH2088 is my memorialH2143 unto all generations.H1755 H1755

(e-Sword:KJV+ [Strong's annotated])

H3068
יהוה

yehôvâh
yeh-ho-vaw'

From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

(e-Sword:Strongs)

Once again, their rules.

No, YHWH's rules. Torah means 'instruction'.

Why do so many people get this simple concept all wrong? The Name, in this inference, is the POWER and AUTHORITY of God. Not whether you swear by Tom, Dick, or Harry. Same for "Blessed is he who comes in the NAME OF THE LORD." It is authority, not "Bob sent me.".

No, I think not - Hosea is instructive in his words to the House of Israel:

Hos 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
Hos 2:17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.

'Baali' is 'Lord' or 'Master'... Authority, YES, But not the regimented respect of a title, born in fear, but rather the respect of a wife for her husband (Ishi), born of love. What woman calls her husband by his title? She calls him by his name. This passage should be eye-opening to Christians who have covered up His Name with 'The LORD', and use the generic 'God'...

So what? That has nothing to do with the text.

I wasn't faulting the text. I was faulting your statement: "[...] so the letters JHVH/YHWH came into being as a way to get around that."

'YHWH' did not 'come into being' that way, The name pre-existed the vowel markers. Moses wrote the name, along with every other word, without the vowel markers.

Of that we can agree, though it is not because we get to call Him "Josh" but by His sacrifice and willingness to share in His inheritance.

You miss the point. That we are to call Him Yeshua, rather than Yehoshua (which is the proper, formal name) indicates the sort of personal relationship YHWH intends.

24 posted on 03/10/2014 4:28:29 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter; rjsimmon
Great discussion. Which we can point out we are on "this side of the Cross and Empty tomb" so it is the Name Yeshua/Jesus which we invoke as the Name above all names:

Technically, Yeshua always pointed to the Father - Technically we are to pray to the Father in the name of Yeshua.

But in that, You and I will eventually be in agreement - No man has seen the Father. So who was it walking in the Garden with Adam? Who was it in the Burning Bush and on Sinai? In the end, I think YHWH has pre-positioned the term of endearment his bride will call Him by... Yeshua. Just sayin'.

25 posted on 03/10/2014 5:23:44 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter
Amen, Amen, and Amen!! No one should ever be ashamed to proclaim the name of Jesus. Only one name by which we are saved!

Acts 4: 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

26 posted on 03/10/2014 5:27:35 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter; rjsimmon; Dutchboy88
I noticed the Lexham English Bible (LEB) by the LOGOS group uses “Yahweh” in the OT text in their literal translation:

While I may seem to be a sacred name guy, I really am not - I am OK with Jehovah and Jesus - I use the Name as an in-your-face distinction to try to remind Christians who they worship. There is meaning in the names that are sadly lost in transliteration.

But more importantly IS the distinction. I think it is all too easy in the false-ecumenicism present today, to lean to generics - That everyone's god is our God - and that, FRiends, is *not* correct.

YHWH, Yahweh, Yahovah, Yahua, Jehovah... I know WHO you are talking about. allah... well, not so much. 'god'... many claim to hold that title.

27 posted on 03/10/2014 5:36:34 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Thx for your kind reply.


28 posted on 03/10/2014 5:39:10 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; redleghunter
>>His name isn’t really “Jesus”<<

Oh yes it is.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (Iēsoun): for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS (Iēsoun).

Iésous - 2424 Iēsoús – Jesus, the transliteration of the Hebrew term, 3091 /Lṓt ("Yehoshua"/Jehoshua, contracted to "Joshua") which means "Yahweh saves" (or "Yahweh is salvation"). [http://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm]

29 posted on 03/10/2014 5:42:33 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

It is the name of one of the original Anuna Gods. The one they call Enki or Ea as he was called on his place of origin. He was one of the good ones. We wouldnt be here if it werent for him. The other ones wanted us destroyed becuase we were too stupid, made too much noise and we were just a general nuisance to them for the most part.


30 posted on 03/10/2014 6:14:19 PM PDT by rwoodward ("god, guns and more ammo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwoodward; redleghunter
It is the name of one of the original Anuna Gods. The one they call Enki or Ea as he was called on his place of origin. He was one of the good ones. We wouldnt be here if it werent for him. The other ones wanted us destroyed becuase we were too stupid, made too much noise and we were just a general nuisance to them for the most part.

No... If you research the matter, YHWH's enemies are the Anunaki - The Anakim, Nephilim of the Bible.

31 posted on 03/10/2014 6:38:10 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; redleghunter
Iésous - 2424 Iēsoús – Jesus, the transliteration of the Hebrew term, 3091 /Lṓt ("Yehoshua"/Jehoshua, contracted to "Joshua") which means "Yahweh saves" (or "Yahweh is salvation"). [http://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm]

Technically this definition is not true.

The contracted form of Yehoshua IS Yeshua. The long form of the name means 'YHWH Saves'. The contracted form, Yeshua, Joshua, means 'salvation'.

And DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis is correct.

32 posted on 03/10/2014 6:49:43 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; redleghunter
>>Technically this definition is not true.<<

You would have to take that up with Strong, Thayer, NASEC, and others. They are the experts I quoted. I'm not sure where you get your information.

33 posted on 03/10/2014 8:23:52 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Sorry but you are incorrect. The sons of Anuk were not the original Anunaki. The Anakim were the sons of Anuk. And yes they were the enemy of Yaweh or as translated at the beginning of this post
“La Ea”. Ea = Enki. Anuk was most likely part of the Enliite clan but there is missing geneology links once you go back to a certain point.


34 posted on 03/10/2014 8:47:01 PM PDT by rwoodward ("god, guns and more ammo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

There is lot of hate and discontent stirred up by the under the law sacred namers on the tetragrammaton and how is should be pronounced, yet where is this controversy in the NT? Under the law sacred namers condemn each other to the lowest infernal regions for the slightest deviation from how they claim it should be pronounced: Yahweh, Yahovah, Jehoveh, Yahuah, Yahoo, and so on.

Yet when we go to our Strong’s Concordance and try to find “Yahweh” or any of these other names in the NT, they are not to be found. What we do find everywhere in hundreds of places is the name “Jesus” (the English transliteration of the Greek “Ieseus”) This tells me that “Jesus” is the name all the focus should be on - as the New Testament or new covenant name of God.

If the Jewish writers of the NT were under the law sacred namers, we would expect they would have left the tetragrammaton untranslated in the Greek text, so that great emphasis be put on this. But this we do not find. They simply translated the tetragrammaton as the Greek “Kurios,” our English world “Lord.” The Jewish translaters of the Septuagint did likewise several hundred years before this.

The Jewish writers of the NT certainly knew this tetragrammaton issue, and the Hebrew and Greek on it, better than any of these modern under the law sacred namers.


35 posted on 03/11/2014 2:36:23 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

One of the reasons I posted this article is because it is from John Piper. John Piper is hardly in any ‘sacred name’ movement.


36 posted on 03/11/2014 3:15:45 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rwoodward
Sorry but you are incorrect.

No, I am not.

The sons of Anuk were not the original Anunaki. The Anakim were the sons of Anuk.

I don't care which incursion or iteration. The seed of the adversary IS the adversary.

And yes they were the enemy of Yaweh or as translated at the beginning of this post
Anuk was most likely part of the Enliite clan but there is missing geneology links once you go back to a certain point.

It doesn't matter ALL of those who 'from heaven to earth came' are fallen ones. And their offspring are damned.

“La Ea”. Ea = Enki.

YHWH is *NOT* Enki. the character of Enki alone - His capricious nature, and fornication, are completely against the character of YHWH. Let the reader decide.

Primary proof is that Enki's son is Marduk, whom YHWH HATES. YHWH has ONE Son, whom He loves.

37 posted on 03/12/2014 5:19:39 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; redleghunter
You would have to take that up with Strong, Thayer, NASEC, and others. They are the experts I quoted. I'm not sure where you get your information.

I don't have to take it up with anyone. Your own sources tell you that 'Jesus' is a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. They affirm that 'Yeshua' is the contracted form of 'Yahoshua'. You may not know, but Joshua's actual name was Hoshea or Hosea which is 'deliverer' and is from the root 'yasha' (salvation) The name was changed by Moshe to 'Yahoshua' which means 'YHWH will save', or 'YHWH is salvation'.

Now, to actually contract 'Yahoshua', it should look like Yah'Shua or Y'Shua - But by 2nd temple time, 'Yeshua' is the accepted contraction. So while it still figuratively means 'YHWH is salvation' by it's derivation from Yahoshua, It also literally means 'He is salvation' or 'He will save'... Assuming you know that there was no 'J' in Hebrew, therefore 'Y', you will find 'Yeshua' in Strong's under 'Jeshua':

H3442
ישׁוּע
yêshûa‛
yah-shoo'-ah

For H3091; he will save; Jeshua, the name of two Israelites, also of a place in Palestine: - Jeshua.

(e-Sword:Strong's)
A primary aside is to look at the Zadok and Joshua prophecies, where Yehoshua and Yeshua are used interchangeably - Both the 'deliverer' and the 'righteous High Priest' are the only places the two are interchangeable. Remember Yeshua pointing thing out to His disciples in the Tanakh and saying, 'see, this is me!' ??? Hence we know it is a 'familiar' contraction.

BUT, the Tanakh was not delivered with vowel pointers... So one has to wonder about ANYWHERE the root 'yasha', or derivations of 'yasha' are used... Because without the vowels, they all are 'yasha' - SO, one can maybe find some more:

Isa 62:11 Behold, Jehovah has sent a message to the end of the earth, Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your salvation [yasha / Yeshua] comes. Behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.

How does 'salvation' have a male possessive? I will tell you how: His name is Yeshua.

38 posted on 03/12/2014 6:28:50 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1; DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; redleghunter

The New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew. In addition. We speak English not Hebrew. If you want to play the sacred name game don’t try to force it on others. The apostles were given the gift of tongues so all could here “in their own language”. If those who ascribe to the sacred name cult want to be consistent and not hypocrites they had better stop referring to (hard J) Jerusalem, the (hard J) book of John, the (hard J) Jews, the land of (hard J) Judah and all begin to speak Hebrew.


39 posted on 03/13/2014 3:00:38 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew.

Fine - All you have to do is explain how those Hebrew and Aramaic puns came to be hidden beneath the Greek text. That's all it takes... Otherwise your declarations are meaningless.

In addition. We speak English not Hebrew.

Right, so next time you meet a Mexican named Miguel, call him Mike, and be sure to tell him he has no right to be offended... because we speak English around here.

If you want to play the sacred name game don’t try to force it on others.

Read upthread

The bare FACT of the matter is that His name is undoubtedly YESHUA, as your own proofs admit. The one who is offended, and the one who is 'forcing', is the one insisting upon the Greek transliteration instead of the name it was transliterated from... The very height of absurdity. You want to call him Jesus, knock yerself out.

If those who ascribe to the sacred name cult want to be consistent and not hypocrites they had better stop referring to (hard J) Jerusalem, the (hard J) book of John, the (hard J) Jews, the land of (hard J) Judah and all begin to speak Hebrew.

Fine, if you want me to bump it up a notch, I surely can.

40 posted on 03/13/2014 3:42:48 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
>> Fine - All you have to do is explain how those Hebrew and Aramaic puns came to be hidden beneath the Greek text.<<

No, I don’t have to. It’s not difficult to understand that Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic and of course Hebrew especially when in the synagogue. The lingua franca of those days was Greek and the New Testament was written in Greek to relate to the masses. Talk to any translator and you will find that word puns can not be translated most of the time. That doesn’t mean the Matthew we first written in Hebrew it simply means that Matthew was writing what Jesus said and quotes from the Hebrew Old Testement in Greek so had to translate from Hebrew to Greek which caused the puns to remain. It’s a rather simply consept to understand really.

We know that Matthew was a Jew, it’s not difficult to understand that there are non common Greek words in his gospel. That does not by any means indicate he wrote his gospel first in Hebrew. We can find the same thing happening today with people from other countries who imigrated to the US who now write in English but still will use their original speech patterns which are foreign to us.

Another consideration is the historical evidence ot the Greek manuscripts that have survived while no Hebrew manuscripts are in existence. Surely the Shem Tov can’t be considered authentic.

Those who promote the sacred name movement put their understanding in a few Hebrew Rabbis who do not believe that Jesus is the messiah who promote the Hebrew. I’ll put my trust in God who used faithfull Christians who copied the 24,000 Greek manuscripts.

>> Right, so next time you meet a Mexican named Miguel, call him Mike, and be sure to tell him he has no right to be offended... because we speak English around here.<<

As a matter of fact I have done that very thing. In America we speak English. Want to do business with me. Speak English.

>> The one who is offended, and the one who is 'forcing', is the one insisting upon the Greek transliteration instead of the name it was transliterated from...<<

The day you can produce the Hebrew manuscripts that are older then the thousands we have in Greek we can talk.

>> Fine, if you want me to bump it up a notch, I surely can.<<

Go for it. Just keep it amongst the cult.

41 posted on 03/13/2014 4:49:55 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Talk to any translator and you will find that word puns can not be translated most of the time.

THERE's the truth, right there.

That doesn’t mean the Matthew we first written in Hebrew it simply means that Matthew was writing what Jesus said and quotes from the Hebrew Old Testement in Greek so had to translate from Hebrew to Greek which caused the puns to remain.

Except that the puns are not limited to the words of Yeshua... They are sprinkled throughout.

We know that Matthew was a Jew, it’s not difficult to understand that there are non common Greek words in his gospel. That does not by any means indicate he wrote his gospel first in Hebrew.

But that would be the simplest and most likely solution to the problem. If one doesn't have to protect Greek primacy, the simple solution would be the obvious one. Add the commentary of Josephus (who had a rough time with Greek, because 'his people' didn't encourage learning foreign languages), and the DSS vs Bar Kohkba letters showing vibrant Hebrew in use at the time complete with dialectic differences between Galilean and Judean, and there really is no doubt that Hebrew was a living language at the time.

Another consideration is the historical evidence ot the Greek manuscripts that have survived while no Hebrew manuscripts are in existence. Surely the Shem Tov can’t be considered authentic.

No consideration whatsoever - Rome, and the Roman church after Rome, destroyed everything Hebrew they ever got their hands upon. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, it is glaringly absent since it has become known that Hebrew was indeed a living language at the time (and for 400 years after). One would expect Hebrew primacy coming out of Hebrew synagogues. How odd that the only language the Hebrews didn't write in WAS THEIR VERY OWN LANGUAGE.

Those who promote the sacred name movement put their understanding in a few Hebrew Rabbis who do not believe that Jesus is the messiah who promote the Hebrew.

Ahh... So YOU have some idea of where my faith comes from? YOU are the authority on MY faith? ROTFLMAO!!!

In fact I only put my faith in ONE Jewish Rabbi. Always have and always will.

Go for it. Just keep it amongst the cult.

Ahh, see? I have to shut up and ride in the back of the bus... And I am 'forcing' YOU? I am the hypocrite? LOL! Naw... I will ride in the front, and I will sit right next to you every chance I get... And I will continue to spout Hebraisms and with continued frequency, because I have every right to do so. And if it pisses you off, that ain't my problem, it's yours.

42 posted on 03/13/2014 7:22:13 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
>>But that would be the simplest and most likely solution to the problem. If one doesn't have to protect Greek primacy, the simple solution would be the obvious one.<<

The obvious one would be that Matthew wrote the text in Greek. The Holy Spirit was trying to reach the largest audience so inspired the writers to write in Greek. Greek would have been Matthew’s second language so as anyone writing in their second language would retain some of their original language puns. I don’t have to “protect Greek primacy”. It’s evidenced by the many thousands of Greek manuscripts with no Hebrew manuscripts from the same period.

>>No consideration whatsoever - Rome, and the Roman church after Rome, destroyed everything Hebrew they ever got their hands upon.<<

Pure speculation in an attempt to inject Hebrew primacy. Besides, the Jewish Christians would have retained sufficient copies of any Hebrew texts. To think that they would have also destroyed any Hebrew texts defies credibility.

>>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<<

Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Catholics.

>>One would expect Hebrew primacy coming out of Hebrew synagogues.<<

Yes they would! And still no manuscripts predating the Greek. That should tell you something.

>>How odd that the only language the Hebrews didn't write in WAS THEIR VERY OWN LANGUAGE.<<

Not strange at all. The Holy Spirit knew what language would reach the most people.

>>Ahh... So YOU have some idea of where my faith comes from?<<

Well then why don’t you tell me who those supposed Hebrew texts came from that are dated long after any of the Greek manuscripts?

>>Ahh, see? I have to shut up and ride in the back of the bus...<<

No, I simply expect, as the Holy Spirit did, that one speaks and writes in the language of those he wants to relate to. Not try to denigrate those who speak one language because you somehow think a different language is somehow more holy or something. God caused the apostles to speak in the language of those who were listening. Sacred name people should take a hint.

43 posted on 03/13/2014 7:52:14 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The obvious one would be that Matthew wrote the text in Greek.

I am not speaking only of matthew - and no, your position is not obvious. Hebrew and Aramaic artifacts in the Greek text deny your claim.

The Holy Spirit was trying to reach the largest audience so inspired the writers to write in Greek.

There are pretty early translations into many languages - not just Greek... and that is my point. Nary an Hebraic copy at all. Likewise (for many years), no early Aramaic either. A dearth. That isn't natural, considering where the texts originated, and stinks of censorship.

Pure speculation in an attempt to inject Hebrew primacy.

Your grasp upon history is flawed. Hebrews were persecuted even more that the Christians - and once the pagan syncretic christianity was accepted, those which went contrary to it continued to be persecuted. Why do you think that so much of common era Judaism comes from Babylonian roots? Because the texts escaped the purges in the west, and could be preserved in the Parthian empire, beyond the control of Rome.

Besides, the Jewish Christians would have retained sufficient copies of any Hebrew texts. To think that they would have also destroyed any Hebrew texts defies credibility.

Those who stayed Jewish remained within the sphere of Judaism, subject to the anti-semitism of Rome, and more so thereafter, when the Roman church came to her power.

Start with the council of Laodicea and work backwards into the Western Empire - By Laodicea one can certainly see that the Roman church is on her way - mentions of 'mysteries', intentions toward regulation and insularity... And even yet then (4th century), they had the need to call Sabbath-keeping Christians 'anathema' and preventing things of the Jewish Holy days. Not to say that one cannot also work forward either - This same sort of thing can be found all the way into Medieval times. Between the Muslims and the Roman church, the hammer and the anvil, there is nothing left of the beginnings.

Yes they would! And still no manuscripts predating the Greek. That should tell you something.

Oh, it DOES! It tells me that nothing much survives centuries of persecution and destruction! Why do you suppose so very little survives from the late 2nd Temple through the early Church? Why do you think the history then is robust from Alexandria and Rome, but only later from Antioch, and even then, primarily from those three schools? You should do a study of tyrannical censorship - look at what is left in an area dominated by Muslims or Nazis,then compare. maybe then you would see the fingerprints that I see.

And 'predates' doesn't mean anything. The Masoretic Text, from which your Old Testament is derived, did not enjoy primacy or the ability to 'predate' the Roman church's texts for most of history - It was not until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that the proto-Masoretic school found succor. Now one would have to be a fool not to admit to the validity of the Masoretic, and the bare fact that it represents the texts of the Jerusalem Temple. Yet there are many who still do... Stuck in what their church has taught, and failing to see what is right before their eyes.

Well then why don’t you tell me who those supposed Hebrew texts came from that are dated long after any of the Greek manuscripts?

Ahh, the Shem Tov is stuck in your craw - So tell me, Do you think a Jew brought before a tribunal of the Roman church, to prevent himself from loss of all worldly goods, eviction from all Roman provinces, imprisonment, and perhaps even death, is going to use the occasion for propaganda? But it doesn't matter to me... As I have already told you, many times, I am not relying upon any of the Hebrew Matthew texts, nor am I exclusively pointing to Matthew, so the point is moot, as far as your accusations are concerned.

No, I simply expect, as the Holy Spirit did, that one speaks and writes in the language of those he wants to relate to.

Unfortunately for you, you do not have the authority to 'expect' anything from me.

Not try to denigrate those who speak one language because you somehow think a different language is somehow more holy or something.

ROTFLMAO!!! I am not the one denigrating here. Project much?

God caused the apostles to speak in the language of those who were listening. Sacred name people should take a hint.

I can certainly see that you are not listening - but others are. Careful now - The Ruach Hakodesh moves as He will.

44 posted on 03/15/2014 12:48:58 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson