Talk:Tetragrammaton/Archive 3

message: The previous Wikipedia Article:Transcribing YHWH has been changed to the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton content fork During this major change, once again, the Wikipedia Article: Jehovah was deleted.
Seeker02421 11:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Transcribing YHWH" is now "Tetragrammaton content fork"

message: ::Does Wikipedia's "Speedy Deletion" policy, allow an Article like Wikipedia:Jehovah to be deleted without warning??????
::Was a warning label ever placed on the Wikipedia Article:Jehovah before the deletion took place?????? 
::Seeker02421 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does a Wikipedia "Speedy Deletion" normally take place without any warning?

message: The Wikipedia Article:Transcribing YHWH now exists.
It is found at the Address below:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcribing_YHWH
The Wikipedia Article:Transcribing YHWH 
replaces The Wikipedia Article:Jehovah 
which apparently was deleted by a process explained at:
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
*Castanea dentata did major changes without discussion. Does everyone feel comfortable about this? A new page was started,  "Transcribing YHWH "  which is scholarly dealt with here, Or should I say was scholarly dealt with here.  He has now removed much information here.   It also appears he only transferred what was in favor of his agenda.  How does everyone feel about these acts?
Besides this page now seems to contradict what was said before,  that the true pronunciation of YHWH is lost.  eg."this pronunciation of the tetragrammaton was never really lost."
Restored page due to vandalism by Castanea dentata.  This page has been restored enough for a day. 65.111.220.37 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcribing YHWH

message: Removed Jehovah's Witnesses's massive re-editing which forced a reader to conclude that their "Jehovah" is the only reasonable pronunciation of YHWH. 17:00 3 Dec 2005
Readers will be aware that the lead article states that the tetragrammaton consists of four Hebrew vowels, whereas other references within the entry indicate or state that the four characters are consonants. Perhaps someone should clarify this and ensure that there is some unity of definition, if one exists.--213.120.56.33 23:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The text clearly explains this issue with the Hebrew language. Please read the article again. --Zappaz 05:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: I changed the text "He Causes to Become" at one place to "He will cause to become", since if you indeed think of it as the verb [הוה] in the 3rd building [פיעל], it is a future form. Should I fix it in other places or explain that it is customary to consider this as present even though grammatically it is future? Also this text: Yahweh-Asher-Yahweh is obviously wrong, but I am not sure how to correct it. Was the Hebrew original present [יהוה אשר הוה] or future [יהוה אשר יהיה]? Can someone who knows his way around fix it?
:There was no answer (the question is here since September 16) so I just deleted this. Gadykozma 01:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Modern Hebrew, we would say that the prefix-tense is "future" or "potential," and that is indeed how it is used. However, in Classical Hebrew, tense was not the focus. The focus was more on the verbal Aspekt (to use the German term that is generally employed in this discussion). It is not a future action, but an ever incomplete action that is in view. Thus "he causes to be" is as valid as "he will cause to become" in this case. - Yonah mishael 13:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your contribution above seems to have no knowledge of, or relevance to, linguistics or textual history.  The issue is that many of those who are most highly-informed in the Hebrew language and the textual history of the Bible would insist that what is found in Hebrew cannot be most accurately transcribed into English as "Jehovah"[sic]. AnonMoos 23:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Grammar 

message: This is the whole crux of the matter...again, "Changing" the Bible, when the Revelation clearly states that to add or subtract anything from the Scriptures is a sin surely to get one the loss of any form of Everlasting Life" that we have been promised by the Son of God, Jesus Christ"Rev,:22: Vss.18-19,  and I'll qoute it for you so that there is NO MISUNDERSTANDING:
"Vs.18:"I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of THIS scroll.If "ANYONE" makes an addition to these things, GOD will add to him the plaques that are written in this scroll"vs.19:and , if "anyone" takes away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy,GOD will take his portion from the trees of life and out of the HOLY CITY, things which are written about in this scroll".
So, what do we start talking about the second there is a fair consensus about the NAME of the Sovereign LORD JEHOVAHin the English speaking world? and the English Transliteration is Jehovah's Himself of the Most Holy Name which noone has given Jehovah except Himself, and we are going to change it!
To What??? And, are we going to change the thousands of other Hebrew, Jewish and Yiddish names?Or Just the Most Holy Jehovah's alone?
Will the name of "MOSES become the Egyptian form of the Hebrew word for his name , for his could really be a great mix, living all of his life as a <U>Hebrew in Egypt!</u>More strikingly, what would it be?  Oh, we could add a vowel here , or two consanants there and we might get "Dudley"!(As "Dudley Moore"played "Moses" in his movie about him being the hearer of the "I am that I am"phrase that helps with all of the  confusion that the King James Bible declared in the 16th century?  We can all vote and <U>we shall call "MOSES" Motley Crue,</u> as we don't really know the VERY EXACT Pronunciation of the name MOSES!</B>or for any Hebrew, Jew or new Yiddish person in the Israeli Plains...we can have birthdays for all every day and stuff ourselves with cake and ice cream.
after all, it won't matter anyway according to Jesus Christ who came to bears witness about the TRUTH and the Name of God, as we shall all be dust as Jehovah, who told Moses that the transliteration of the tetragrammaton was HIS name as a memorial FOREVER</I>. Ex.20:7 says that "YOU MUST NOT TAKE UP THE NAME OF JEHOVAH IN A WORTHLESS WAY!"and is this less important than the rest of the ten words or the 600 commandments?...By a show of hands:Which commandment is the MOST IMPORTANT?..WHO gets the first vote?...I abstain as I know it already and I am NOT changing anything again!NO, NOT ME!Thanks!
Thank you for your time again,and who WAS is it that WAS concerned about the tense?.Oh, yes:"Yonah mishael"....Catch you later,Mish!-! 
Richard Lauzon71.51.170.34 15:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contribution above seems to have no knowledge of, or relevance to, linguistics or textual history.  The issue is that many of those who are most highly-informed in the Hebrew language and the textual history of the Bible would insist that what is found in Hebrew cannot be most accurately transcribed into English as "Jehovah"[sic]. AnonMoos 23:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tetragrammaton.((Yod-he-waw-he))Can we Change the Name of GOD to anything but Jehovah in English"

message: Seeker inserted some stuff about a Gerard Gertoux, who has certain views on how the Tetragrammaton should be pronounced. Unless he provides a reference, this will not stand - I have certainly never heard of Gerard, nor does his viewpoint sound plausible. The only reason the Tetragrammaton is printed without vowels is to prevent people from trying to pronounce it. Moreover, all ancient Hebrew texts were unvowelised.
I also doubt why we need a seperate Iaoue article, while this is essentially about the same thing. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: JFW, you are an incorrigible mergionist. The iaoue page is a really nice expansion of a specific aspect. The information on that page is too specific to be merged into this page. I really can't see why you would want to remove it. Gadykozma 06:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Iaoue thing

message: Well, I edited it again... I left out a few pieces, here is why:
:Before the ninth century B.C., Hebrew was written with no vowels.
It seemed irrelevant: we don't have any text containing the Tetragrammaton that old, right?
:If the tetragrammaton was used in combination with Adonai, the vowels of Elohim (God) are used instead of those of Adonai, to remind the reader to say "Adonai Elohim", rather than "Adonai Adonai".
I think that the only importance of this fact is to substantiate the explanation of the Ben Chayim codex niqqud (it does a very good job at that, I must say). However, in order for it to do that one has to know Hebrew and see the precise niqqud, the hataf-segol under the yod etc. So, for the casual reader, this text is meaningless, while for the advanced reader, it is too short and uninformative. I think that in this page it is enough to state that the explanation is convincing, without actually showing why.
:The Greek form here represents four vowel sounds -- ου is a diphthong in Greek. However, already in the New Testament, ι had taken on a consonantal usage like English y, and a consonantal pronunciation of ου like English w is not unreasonable. Thus, combining Clement's vowels with the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, the pronunciation/transcription Yahweh was produced. 
The problem here is similar. This needs to be discussed in greater length, or none at all. I actually cannot understand it. Probably the best would be to do it in the iaoue page.
:Hundreds of years before vowel points were invented,  the Hebrew spelling of David’s name had been changed from דוד (daleth-waw-daleth) to דויד(daleth-waw-yod-daleth). [Note "b-hebrew Transcription Guidelines"] In the later spelling, the consonant “yod” had been added  to indicate the vowel “i” in David’s name. Thus while it is true that between the ninth century B.C., and the time period when the Masoretes invented vowel points, the Hebrew text had no true vowels, certain Hebrew consonants were being used to indicate vowels.
I didn't see how this is relevant
Finally, I reinstated the "partially" in the text 
:This can be partially explained by rules of Hebrew grammar, which forbid hataf-patah under Yod.
Please don't remove it. This explanation is bad because if we agree that this is Adonai vowels interlaced with יהוה then the rules of grammer are irrelevant. Worse, the interlacing with the vowels of Elohim puts a hataf-segol under the yod! So this really explains very little. I was actually tempted to write "a lame excuse is derived from the rules of Hebrew grammer"... Gadykozma 05:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More edits 

message: 1   JW BERT discusses why YHWH is spelled "Yehowah not Yahowah"
2.  Gerard Gertoux explains to JW BERT why JHW-H (sic) must be vocalized Yeho-ah or Yehou-ah. 
Seeker02421 22:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I removed the text (see below), which was imported from Reconstructing the vowelized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton for the following reasons:
* It is an incoherent collection of facts. It is probably POV, trying to belittle the Yahweh pronunciation, but it is too unclear to do that.
* It is too specialized to go into the Tetragrammaton page. Is the general reader really interested in Wilhelm Gesenius? A clear separation needs to be done between general pages and academically oriented pages.
* It makes the "pronunciation" section, which is already too long, the bulk of the page. With this text we might as well rename the page Pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. I do wish someone would expand the cultural or the ineffability part (Monty Python, duh?)
I guess this text could be useful for a specialized page on the Tetragrammaton, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is sufficiently staffed to write a page which is both scientific and POV-problematic on this topic. Gady 16:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gady: It is a pity to lose that text... why don't you move it to Tetragrammaton? Believe me when I say that many controversial articles with conflicting POVs can be resolved and becaome great articles. Time and patience... --Zappaz 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material from Reconstructing... 

message: I noticed that the tetragrammaton is spelt inconsistantly throughout the article. What should it be? A V or a W?
Benji man
:Tough choice.  The pronunciation in modern Hebrew is "V", but linguists generally believe the ancient pronunction was "W". Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to chose one or the two transliterations for consistency throughout the article. I would suggest we use YHWH . --Zappaz 22:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added a short paragraph to address the 'V' transliteration of vav (  ) (YHVH), so it doesn't seem that Wikipedia is making an arbitrary choice or ignoring that spelling. Otherwise readers familiar with modern Hebrew would probably expect to see vav represented as "v".  (I also made an edit in the introduction where jumping to YHWH seemed particularly jarring.) Anyway, I've linked to other Wikipedia pages, e.g., Biblical Hebrew; can anyone provide good external citations for the pronunciation of vav/waw (  ) as "w" rather than "v" and for the use of YHWH instead of YHVH?  --David Cohen 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  V or W? 

message: Excuse me for interrupting, but isn't the language of the second tetragrammaton in the picture paleohebraic and not Aramaic? Modern Hebrew today uses the square letters, correctly noted, that came from Aramaic, not early Hebrew. Early Hebrew's alphabet was similar to Hebrew, so the pictures actually represent PaleoHebraic and Square characters, not Phonoecian, Aramaic, and Modern Hebrew. Please make the appropriate changes as I do not see how to. Thank you. Chris Weimer 22:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I created that picture based on my references.  The square Hebrew glyphs were derived from Phoenician around 10 BC, and by 3 BC  an Aramaic-derived script was used, culminating in the modern Hebrew script. Both Phoenician and Aramaic are considered proto-sinaitic.  Check AncientScripts.com[ and . Do you have other references that differ with this? That would be very interesting indeed. Note that I am referring to the early Aramaic, or proto-Hebrew. Many scripts eveolved from this early Aramaic, including the Kharosthi alphabet. --Zappaz 03:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous Thoughts 

message: Actually Strong’s Hebrew word #3069 [e.g. Yehovih] does not have precisely the same Hebrew vowel points as "Elohiym" has.
James Strong’s spelling of Hebrew word #3069 [e.g. Yehovih] is 
"יְהֺוִה"  
The spelling of "Yehovih" that is thought to be found in the underlying Hebrew of the King James Bible is "יֱהֺוִה" It is this spelling of "Yehovih" [e.g. "יֱהֺוִה"] that that has precisely the same vowel points as "Elohiym" [e.g. "אֱלֺהִים"] has.
Seeker02421 20:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strong's Hebrew Word #3069

message: Should this article be merged with the Names of God in Judaism? Pinnecco 10:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but with care.  Users might search for "tetragrammaton" and not know to look for "names of God," so at the least it needs a redirect.  Also, I think the Pop Culture stuff needs to be kept, but maybe that could be added down at the bottom with any pop culture references to other Names of God on that page? Zabieru 20:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: No.  That article is already long enough, and we shouldn't ditch the info in this one.  We should have a brief summary of the main points in Names of God in Judaism, with a link here.  This is the format used for all sorts of things—to pick an example, see United States#History.  It has two paragraphs, and a link to a much longer article. —Simetrical (talk) 02:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Disagree to Strongly disagree. The topics are both quite long on their own, combining them might make them overwhelming and difficult to read/edit. Also, Tetragrammaton has information special to it that doesn't have to do with Names of God in Judaism. 66.229.160.94 02:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Names of God in Judaism]] 

message: As far as I know, in Italy the Name is written 'Iavè', or 'Iahvè', or 'Jahvè' (with 'J' pronounced like English 'Y') or 'Yahweh' (with 'w' pronoun like 'v'); however, it is rarely used by catholics, apart during the mass while reading the Scriptures excerpts where it is mentioned. In any case, 'Geova' is definitely used only by 'Testimoni di Geova' (the Italian branch of 'Witnesses of Jehovah'), and maybe by other protestant creeds, then for sure this info must be corrected. Very good article... I hope I'll understand it, at last :-)
--MOnSTEr 18:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Italian 

message: Added further explanation of the meaning of the name with 1st person 3nd person examples from context.   
--dmonty 03:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed because it is considered POV.  Primary source "The Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown and S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs". Someone should add the explanation EHYEH(1st person) and YWHW(3rd person) from how it is used in the context of Exodus 3 see the above mentioned Lexicon.  Also include the notes on HIPHIL and QAL verb found in this Lexicon.
*
Under MEANING, added the explanation of the name by poetic parallel that the bible provides, as surely no contemplation of the actual meaning of the name can be serious without what the authors of Exodus, themselves have given.Jiohdi 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of YHWH from Context of Exodus 

message: It seems to me that it is inappropriate to have Yahweh redirect here.  There is a place on wikipedia for a discussion of the God of the Israelites, specifically, and what scholars believe about his origins and so forth.  This article is (appropriately) largely focused on YHWH as a name, and the history of it as a name.  But I think there's a place for a discussion of the Hebrew God as a concept.  That place is neither here nor at God, which wisely focuses on the idea of God more generally.  The appropriate place for this, then, would seem to be at Yahweh, which is generally considered by scholars as the best rendering of YHWH.  What do people think? john k 02:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yahweh]] redirect 

message: I redirected a new short article titled IHVH here; there was nothing in the article not covered here. Basically it was just the alternate roman-character spelling, plus the theory mentioned here about a god named "Yah" or "Yaw" or possible "Jah".  If the author of IHVH would like to disagree, this section is a good place. MCB 08:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect of IHVH 

message: Both Tetragrammaton and Yehuah are about the same divine being. I say we merge them. --SoothingR 11:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Yehuah

message: My first impulse was similar on seeing the addition of Russian, but it should also be noted that the Serbian someone added (and for which we could use a version in Cyrillic) isn't alphabetal either.  I think a contributor can be excused for not doing this, as it ought to be acknowledged that adding an entry or two into the middle of this table is an enormous PIA, and that an editor with useful information to add to it might not feel up to the task of rearranging the whole table to accomodate it.  I didn't fix it myself for the same reason.  In any event, I can't see cutting information solely on formatting grounds. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription in other languages 

message: Dear IP 172.208.29.110 / 172.129.132.131 / 172.156.242.240 -- the changes which you're so insistent on don't really  add anything to this article.  Please discuss them on this page, if you feel that they have any validity, instead of just adding them in again. AnonMoos 19:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 172.208.29.110 /172.129.132.131 / 172.156.242.240 

message: An anon editor has added a comment to the head of this table wondering why it's in the article.  That's a good question.  Is it of any particular use in a general-interest article like this one? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription in other langages 

message: I have modified all occurrences of "Hashem", "hashem" to "HaShem".  "Ha" in Hebrew is an article but not ordinarily written as a seperate word.  In order to distinguish it from the noun that follows in Latin transliteration either a hyphen or CamelCase is employed.  The latter seems to be more common, so that's the one I used. Ditto for the single occurence of "Hameforash" and for the same reason.
I cut the "Other uses of the word" section since it was in the wrong place and its only content, the well-known huckster Prophet Yahweh, isn't terribly relevant here and has his own article.  I suppose he can go on a dab page if someone wants to make one. TCC (talk) (contribs)
===HaShem vs. Adonai===
Pronouncing YHWH as "HaShem" was not practiced during Masoretic times, and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the Masoretic pointing of the Tetragammaton, so please stop changing Adonai or Elohim to "HaShem" in the context of the discussion of Niqqud. AnonMoos 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HaShem and other matters 

message: Pronouncing YHWH as "HaShem" was not practiced during Masoretic times, and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the Masoretic pointing of the Tetragammaton, so please stop changing Adonai or Elohim to "HaShem" in the context of the discussion of Niqqud. AnonMoos 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HaShem vs. Adonai

message: Seeker02421 -- You developed most of that material at great length in article Iaoue, so why are you now adding it here also?  It's not really appropriate to include basically the same material here, also at Iaoue, also at KJV-Only Movement, etc. etc. Try to decide what's the best location for it, and only include abbreviated references at other locations. AnonMoos 19:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AnonMoos, Is there some Wikipedia rule involved in your request?  Does Wikipedia have some rule in which information found in one article, should not be posted in a different article? Seeker02421 11:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, and I'm not sure I particularly care.  It comes from common sense -- this article (Tetragrammaton) is starting to push length limits, and if there's a whole lengthy discussion of a sub-topic on separate page (Iaoue), then it's best to mainly defer discussion to that page (with an appropriate cross-reference link), rather than develop ANOTHER whole lengthy discussion of the sub-topic on this main page.  AnonMoos 18:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Gady: It is a pity to lose that text... why don't you move it to Tetragrammaton? Believe me when I say that many controversial articles with conflicting POVs can be resolved and becaome great articles. Time and patience... --Zappaz 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeker02421

message: Seeker02421, please don't unnecessarily duplicate material between here and Iaoue - AnonMoos 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AnonMoos, Is there some Wikipedia rule involved in your request?  Does Wikipedia have some rule in which information found in one article, should not be posted in a different article? Seeker02421 11:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, and I'm not sure I particularly care.  It comes from common sense -- this article (Tetragrammaton) is starting to push length limits, and if there's a whole lengthy discussion of a sub-topic on separate page (Iaoue), then it's best to mainly defer discussion to that page (with an appropriate cross-reference link), rather than develop ANOTHER whole lengthy discussion of the sub-topic on this main page.  AnonMoos 18:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Gady: It is a pity to lose that text... why don't you move it to Tetragrammaton? Believe me when I say that many controversial articles with conflicting POVs can be resolved and becaome great articles. Time and patience... --Zappaz 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication of material

message: Section 2 [The Scholarly Reconstructed pronunciation "יַהְוֶה" ( i.e. Yahweh )]
and
Sub-section 2.1 [Scholarly sources in which "יַהְוֶה" is found]  
now work together as a team to present evidence that"Yahweh" has been derived from "Iaoue" , however it was only on November 12, 2004 that IZAK [who works for Wikipedia] first imported most of the text that is now in [Scholarly sources in which "יַהְוֶה" is found]
into the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton. 
IZAK imported it from Wikipedia "Limbo" where some unwanted Wikipedia Articles end up.
The following day November 13, 2004, Gadykozma [a Wikipedia moderator] moved the above mentioned text from the Wikipedia Article:Tetragrammaton into Talk:Tetragrammaton. 
16:44, 13 November 2004 Gadykozma (Material from Reconstructing...) 
Gadykozma moved the text below into Talk:Tetragrammaton.
>>>
Scholarly Sources in which "יַהְוֶה" is found 
The vowelized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton shown below:
"יַהְוֶה"
started to appear in scholarly sources in the 19th century, or possibly earlier:
"יַהְוֶה" was not the only vowelized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton that appeared in scholarly sources in the 19th century, but gradually it became accepted as the best reconstruction of the vowelized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton.  
Smith's " A Dictionary of the Bible" 3    [published in 1863] notes that Wilhelm Gesenius, who is noted for being one of the greatest Hebrew and biblical scholars,  4 punctuated YHWH as "יַהְוֶה". Wilhelm Gesenius wrote a  Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament which was first translated into English in 1824. 5. In 1863, Smith's "A Dictionary  of the Bible" does not consider "יַהְוֶה" to be the best vowelised Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton, of which it is aware of.
The Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown and S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs shows "יַהְוֶה" under the heading "יהוה"
"יַהְוֶה" is found in 
the online Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906, under the article: "NAMES OF GOD" and under the article sub heading: "YHWH".6 The Jewish Encylopedia recognizes that "יַהְוֶה" is spelled "Yahweh" in English, but "יַהְוֶה" is only one of two vowelized Hebrew spellings, that they believe might have been the original pronunciation of YHWH.
* Smith's "A Dictionary of the Bible"
*  Wilhelm Gesenius is noted for being one of the greatest Hebrew and biblical scholars.
*  Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament was first translated into English in 1824,
* The online Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906
</nowiki>
end removed text
>>>
On November 13, 2004 , after moving the text, Gadykozma wrote in Talk: Tetragrammaton:
 
>>>
Material from Reconstructing...
I removed the text (see below), which was imported from Reconstructing the vowelized Hebrew spelling of the Tetragrammaton for the following reasons:
* It is an incoherent collection of facts. It is probably POV, trying to belittle the Yahweh pronunciation, but it is too unclear to do that.
* It is too specialized to go into the Tetragrammaton page. Is the general reader really interested in Wilhelm Gesenius? A clear separation needs to be done between general pages and academically oriented pages.
* It makes the "pronunciation" section, which is already too long, the bulk of the page. With this text we might as well rename the page Pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. I do wish someone would expand the cultural or the ineffability part (Monty Python, duh?)
I guess this text could be useful for a specialized page on the Tetragrammaton, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is sufficiently staffed to write a page which is both scientific and POV-problematic on this topic. Gady 16:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gady: It is a pity to lose that text... why don't you move it to Tetragrammaton? Believe me when I say that many controversial articles with conflicting POVs can be resolved and becaome great articles. Time and patience... --Zappaz 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Why it does not have the meaning of "Yeshua Hanatzri Vemelech Hayehudim" mentioned? Was this article written by Jehova people? - unsigned comment by IP 84.240.42.28
:Maybe this was not mentioned because no serious scholar thinks it is the origin of YHWH.  Furthermore, it's really a rather stupid way of forming an acronym, since the little clitic words ha ("the") and we ("and") are used for  the initials in three out of four words.  Some people would transcribe the phrase Yeshua` ha-Notsri we-Melekh ha-Yehudim to make clear the clitics, as opposed to the stems. AnonMoos 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged acronym

message: I deleted this sentence:
:The Tetragrammaton appears 1,839 times in the Torah. Note that 1,839 is the Neutron/Electron rest mass ratio (Mn/Me) to 4 sig. figs. and also thrice 613, the number of Mitzvot of the Jewish faith.
Not least because I've done a little searching in the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, and I come up with something more like 1,819 occurrences.  But even if it were true, it would be very doubtfully relevant. AnonMoos 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminating numerical sentence

message: For ignorami, such as myself, who happen accross such a page as this, perhaps the structure should be changed because of possible... eh, problems which may arise in the current format. For instance, a foolish reverend, such as myself, who wishes to hold other faiths other than his own in good terms might be perusing such an article as this and start reading from the top, as I, for one, am rather used to doing. Now, this revered person, out of pure curiousity, happens accross the pronounciation key, and again, from said curiousity, attempts to pronounce it. Now we find ourselves at a problem, as this person who holds other religions in the utmost respect has now, unwittingly desecrated the holy name of God. Because of said reason, I think that it is in the best interest for the whole wikipedia community to perhaps explain what the Tetragrammaton is before the pronounciation key; that is all.
--Lucretius Julius Impavide, 10 January 2006
:Not sure what you're talking about; the first two paragraphs seem to define the basics adequately. AnonMoos 18:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural problems... 

message: I'm bewildered why searches for the Levantine deity Yahweh are redirected to a discussion of how His name is pronounced.  Shouldn't there be a separate article under "Yahweh" containing information about Jewish and other Near-Eastern cults of Yahweh, His relation to El, the discoveries at Ugarit, Mark Smith's work etc etc?  Could someone more knowledgable please delete the redirect and create a stub at least?
:YHWH is the personal name of the national God of Israel -- (just as Chemosh was the god of the Moabites etc.).  I'm not sure there are any significant attested "other Near-Eastern cults of Yahweh" (though there is of course the non-monotheistic Jewish worship at Elephantine in Egypt and elsewhere).  AnonMoos 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, some of the type of discussion you wanted is now at Yahwism. AnonMoos 08:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzling redirect 

message: YHWH occurs more often than any other word in the old testament.  The following computer software is used to prove this fact. http://www.chooselife.org.au/dean/ECC.htm Englishmans Contextual Concordance] -- unsigned comment by Dmonty 21:01, 4 February 2006
:I have no particular intention of downloading that software program to verify your assertion -- especially since the software seems to be English-based, and I much prefer to work with the original Hebrew text.  However, it would greatly clarify matters if you could specify on what exact basis the Tetragrammaton is said to be the most frequent word in the Bible.  If it's just that the Strong Number for the Tetragrammaton is the most frequently-occuring Strong Number, then I don't know that that really establishes anything.  There are many possible ways of counting "words".  If the clitic conjunction prefix ו we- / u- / wa- is counted as a "word", then it would undoubtedly be the most common word in the Hebrew Bible. AnonMoos 22:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is based on Strong's Number counts and not English word counts.  Englishman's Concordance, unlike Strong's Concordance, lists each Hebrew word and where it occurs in the Bible.  Strong's Concordance only lists where the English word appears in the Bible.  The software program counts the Strongs numbers which are linked directly to the Hebrew words. One can also affirm this fact by studying Lexicons with word counts for each Hebrew word, howbeit this would be slower methodology.  One could debate that conjunctions and prepositions like vav-(and/but), lamed-(to/toward), calf-(like), repeat more often, but they are joined to the Hebrew words and are not separate words by themselves. --dmonty 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that I'm not really persuaded that you've established anything other than that YHWH has the most frequently-occurring Strong's number in the Old Testament -- and this doesn't necessarily establish anything of general interest.  Strong was not trying to establish a linguistic definition of word in Hebrew, and probably would not have claimed to be establishing any linguistic definition of the word in Hebrew, but instead was doing whatever he felt would work out best in a strictly pragmatic and practical sense for his limited purposes of helping English speakers with no knowledge or little knowledge of Hebrew.  To find out what the most common word is in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, you've got to have a reasonable definition of "word" in the Hebrew language, and just relying on Strong's numbers won't cut it, because Strong's numbers weren't really devised for this purpose. AnonMoos 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Count 

message: The tetragrammaton was the "distinctive name of the God of Israel" (or of the Israelites) in the same sense that Chemosh was the god of the Ammonites, Milcom was the god of the Moabites, Qaws was the god of the Edomites, Moloch was the god of the Phoenicians, etc. etc.  AnonMoos 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: God of Israel

message: It's a fact that the "New World Translation" of the Bible replaces attested Greek kurios with "Jehovah" in its English version of the New Testament.  AnonMoos 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of this, The NWT Translators did this approximately 237 times (a point already covered in the NWT article).  This is not what the article says.  Witnesses teach and believe that it is likely authentic autographs of the books of the NT (if ever found) would include the Tetra (not "Jehovah") for various reasons.  The removed section was false on several fronts 1 - We do not teach or believe any extant or non-extant Greek NT manuscript would include the name "Jehovah", we believe it to be probable that the Tetra would be found in authentic autographs if ever found.  2 - "Jehovah" is not "the only sacred name of God".  The Tetra is; rendered in various forms in given languages "Jehovah" in English, "Jeová" in Portugeus, "Jehovových" in Czech, "Geova" in Italian, etc..  Instead of inundating the article with these irrelevant facts, I simply removed the erroneous sentence.  Duffer 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duffer1

message: One should not give so much as an ounce of credibility to the reconstructed 'Proto Indo-European language' and its so-called 'roots'. I have never seen so much hype concerning a hypothetical language the existence of which cannot be ascertained by any hard evidence, so why are the linguists so certain? In fact, each of these purported roots is far more of a conjecture than any of the hypothesized vocalizations of YHWH, and even there the much-touted (improbably bisyllabic) YAHWEH vocalization has been hailed by neo-scholars as a metaphysical truth, though it has been rightly assailed and questioned by many.
As an example, you mentioned that the Roman name for Jupiter, i.e. Jove or IOVE/IOVIS, is in fact derived from the 'proto-Indo-European root' *Deiwos or *Dyeus. How so? There are words in Latin obviously derived from a root along those lines, i.e. DEUS (God) and DIVUS (deified), which is etymologically related to Latin DIES (Day), and similar to the Greek God ZEUS. But the etymology of JOVE is not so obvious, as the Indo-European scholars are also quick to imply that Jove's wife, JUNO, has a name derived from a different 'proto-Indo-European root' *Yeu, vital force, related to the word 'youth'.  Furthermore, it will not escape the discerning eye that the full Latin name of IUPPITER, is of similar form to the Greek god, related to Zeus, called IAPETUS. It's interesting that Iapetus does not retain the initial consonant found in Zeus, just like Iuppiter does not retain the initial consonant found in Deus. 
Concerning YHWH in Hebrew,  it most likely based on the Hebrew root havah, which is an archaic form of hayah, which in the present tense signify 'to be'. Both of these roots, if used in the past and future tenses and followed by the inseparable preposition 'L' , are related to the word 'have', i.e. possession. Havah is a very ancient root, and its similarity to the words for 'have' in various European languages is obvious. Naturally, the Indo-European scholars will find a way to write it off as coincidence or conveniently tie it to some separate "proto-Semitic root" which has yet to be found. Hopefully, the field of pro-linguistics will be taken over by people who have a keen understanding of both families of languages, who will not be so quick to come up with non-existent proto-roots without a shred of hard evidence.
---JB
:Whatever -- you have your opinions, but if the consensus of scholars holds to a different opinion, then your opinion probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia (unless its the notable belief of a notable religious group).  The place to debate the non-existence of proto-Indo-European roots is the List of Proto-Indo-European roots article and similar articles, not here (but I doubt whether they will find your contributions useful there, either).  Meanwhile, I notice an interesting inconsistency in what you're saying -- you admit that Jove has a "d"-consonant in its original etymology, while YHWH has nothing like a "d" consonant in its original etymology.  So how can the words be related? AnonMoos 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. There's even an article Dyeus... AnonMoos 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon Moos, RE: "Proto Indo European Roots": Much ado about nothing 

message: I made an article just on Q're perpetuum, with an accompanying image... AnonMoos 17:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added [[Q're perpetuum]] article

message: If you're not familiar with historical phonology and the history of the pronunciation of ancient Greek and/or Hebrew, then please don't try to fake it.  Claiming that Greek omicron-upsilon couldn't be a transcription of a Hebrew [w] consonant is pretty much linguistic nonsense... AnonMoos 04:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical phonology

message: I removed this article from :Category:Wikipedia articles with off-topic sections because it is unclear which section(s) this refers to.  If anyone notices anything off-topic, please leave a note to that effect, or simply move the offending material to an on-topic article. Thanks! -- Beland 23:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was kind of wondering about that, too; probably a remnant of long-past edit wars. AnonMoos 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic sections? 

message: I don't know what this POV fork edit war is all about but I moved its talk page to Talk:Tetragrammaton/Transcribing the tetragrammaton.  I don't care what happens to it but it was at Archive:Talk:Transcribing the tetragrammaton which isn't the proper place for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it basically all means is that some people all of a sudden somehow seemed to perceive an urgent burning need to merge "Jehovah" into "Tetragrammaton" at top speed with blazing emergency priority -- and they don't seem to have really explained themselves at any length or consulted with regular editors of the articles in question, but instead merely loosely tossed around a few jargon terms like "POV fork", and then immediately proceeded with hasty drastic surgery which left several fragments of things lying around in different places. AnonMoos 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcribing the tetragrammaton 

message: Seeker, please put the material which is more relevant to the Iaoue article than to this article in the Iaoue article, and not into this article.  If you leave it up to me to make the transfer, then you're probably not going to be happy with how I'll do it. AnonMoos 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iaoue again

message: Salaam,
I'm removing the rubbish about how the "Ya" (O) in "Ya Allah" is derivative of the YH (Yah) of YHWH (Yahweh).
The Qur'an (in its original Arabic) also uses:
Ya Musa = O Moses = O Moshe
Ya Da`uud = O David = O Dovid
Ya Haroon = O Aaron = O Aharon
And so on, and so forth. Ya means O (Oh), it does not find its root in the Tetragrammaton since Moshe, Dovid, Aharon etc. are humans, they are in no way associated with Almighty God.
Let me be crystal clear: "Ya Musa" (O Moses) does not MEAN OR IMPLY "Lord Moses". This implication is without basis, it's nothing but heresay and isn't accepted by anyone with a shred of Semitic knowledge or dignity.
No god but GOD, He alone is GOD, He has no partners or associations.
GOD be glorified.
:I think the argument actually was that near-homophony with the Tetragrammaton indirectly contributed to the loss of the vocative particle from Hebrew.  However, it was basically only speculation (I'm not sure how linguistically sound), so its deletion is no great loss. AnonMoos 07:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ya Allah 

message: Dear Adminster, you're unlikely to impress anyone very much, as long as your main "contributions" consist entirely of deleting large sections of the article.  If you have specific objections, then why not discuss them here first before you start trying major surgery? AnonMoos 09:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adminster

message: This article has been worked up well, and mainly discusses why some scholars feel the name should be included in the NT. Anyone care to join in? George 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tetragrammaton in the New Testament]]

message: Is the answer to the question people keep so simple many over-look it?
personally i think that YAHWEH is at least close to the correct pronunciation of GOD's name. not because of what the scholars say, its because i can breathe.  GOD is the GOD of life, and how do we stay alive, we have to BREATHE!  so as a reminder of who he is, for those who will take the time and listen, GOD has put his name into breathing itself.  take a nice, calm deep breath, what does it sound like?  yah.....weh......can anyone else besides me hear it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcsv (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 July 2006 UTC
And that is the basis for this validation?  I've heard this argued before and though it may have personal meaning, it is no basis for a deduction or conclusion pertinent to the pronunciation of YHWH.  You are anglicizing or Europeanizing what Israelite tribespeople of 3,000 years ago originally might have uttered phonemically.  That is pure speculation - hardly a proof.  Stevenmitchell 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about this? 

message: I met this dude yesterday who believes that the tetragrammation could be interpreted as something derived from Yahushua (but interestingly thought the name "Jesus" is blasphemous).  I was wondering if anyone who knows about this kind of interpretation of the tetragrammation as a name for a Jesus-like god could add a section on this interesting movement.  Daniel 71.200.160.117 17:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Yahshuah for a little of the background to this... AnonMoos 03:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Christian messianic interpretations? 

message: Is anyone familiar with the theory that the Tetragrammaton was never a real word but was a combination of the vowel letters which were developed by Hebrew to make reading & writing more "accessible" to the masses? And that these vowel letters symbolized the power of language as inspired by God? I thought this was a fairly well-respected theory, I know I've read about it in a couple of books about the Hebrew language. I at least expected to find a section on this in the article, but everyone seems to be too worried about the putative "correct pronunciation". Not that I'm saying there isn't one; I wouldn't know, but this article is written under the presumption that there is one.
:First, the correct term is Mater Lectionis.   The term "vowel letter" could be misleading, because all 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet had a basic and primary consonantal function during the whole ancient Hebrew period.  Second, I don't know that there was greater literacy among ancient Hebrew-speakers than among Phoenician-speakers, yet the orthography of the Phoenician language used almost no "matres lectiones" whatsoever (until the very late Punic period).  Third, there are rules as to the particular circumstances in which Matres Lectiones can indicate vowels (as I believe is discussed above), and the upshot is that no more than one of the letters of YHWH can be a Mater Lectionis -- either the "W" or the final "H" (but not both), and that's it.  The Y can't be a Mater Lectionis, because word-initial consonant letters are never Matres Lectionis (except in very special circumstances applying to the proclitic conjunction morpheme, which are irrelevant here).  The first H can't be a Mater Lectionis, because the letter he only occurs as a Mater Lectionis at the ends of words.  The "W" and second "H" can't be Matres Lectiones simultaneously, because two vowels in a word must be always separated by a consonant (except in the special case of the "furtive patach", which is not relevant here).  Fourth and last, most serious etymological speculation tends toward a derivation from a triconsonantal root meaning "to be" -- speculative synthesis of mystical words from scratch based on the properties of individual letters composing the word was not something that the Israelites/Jews of ca. 900 B.C. really went in for (it sounds a lot more like the kind of thing that the Qabbalists of 2000 years later would do...). AnonMoos 05:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, to cut to the chase, real scholars don't take such speculations seriously, so why should this article?  What is the "notability", other than some random book you can't even remember the name of? AnonMoos 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not meant to be pronounced?

message: Maybe instead of arguing about what to and what not to include in one article and still keep it reasonably small, this article should be turned into a category, so that a neutral summary not favoring any ideas can be placed at the beginning of the category, and all roots of the article be referred through Category:Tetragrammaton.
Austinian 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category please 

message: When did the practice of not saying YHWH aloud begin? The fact belongs in this article and I couldn't find it. Did I just miss it? Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it's known exactly, but probably some time in the Persian-Hellenistic period.  By Roman times, apparently the High Priest said it aloud once a year during a particular ritual. AnonMoos 13:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of not saying YHWH 

message: I thought this was a pretty standard teaching, (the first part I'm going to say at least) but I guess not.  Here goes.
  The origional Torah was believed to be written with all vowels intact.  It was thus kept and guarded by the Priests of the Temple as precious as many believed the Hebrew Language itself to hold certian magickal powers, particularlly the word Tetragrammaton, which was only to be spoken within the Temple, and only within it's deepest layer, the holy of holies.
  Eventually, as time passed, Government became more powerfull than the Temple, and the people of Israel decided that they wanted a national language.  I forget exactally, but I believe it was mostly Aramaic that was spoken around that time, but I might be off on my timeline.  Anyway, the priests were horrified, because their belief was that others would learn to invoke these names, and thus use their powers for their own desire.  Thus all vowels were removed from the alphabet.  For this reason, punctuation marks are found only in Scripture, and not in Yiddish (common Hebrew).  I believe they may have been added much later though...
  YHVH, was therefore two words.  One was a name.  Another was a form of power.  The only difference was the vowels.  For example, if we were to take the vowel Maoch (sp?) and put it in it's proper place - obviously not including the other vowels for the above mention reasons (further discussed below) then it would read:
 YHMVH.
 Whereas Yahway, by whatever way you want to spell the pronounciation, would read with different vowels.  Thus, we have two different things.
  Tetragrammaton, as we now call it, was a formulae, a pattern, a mathamatical equation, whatever you would percieve it as.  In itself it is not a power or ability, it is simply a word which represents the ultimate controll (whether percieved as a pattern, formulae, or word invoked using gemmetria) through which all manifested action takes place.  Having the power to invoke this name, the "Ultimate Name," would, according to Legend, give you power over the entire universe.  The reality is, sadly, according to some, that it gives you control over the power you have, or in most case for those who obtain it without preperation, lack thereof.
  Thus it was legended that attempting to invoke the ultimate 'name', with it's true spelling, sought by scholars and mages for thousands of years through mathamatical and gemoetric methods (called gemmetria), would result in insanity, shattering the mind with thoughts of the ultimate understandings of the universe.
  Interestingly, some people with Schizophrenia are often diagnosised, as a precursor to symptoms to begin by saying that they believe they are starting to understand the mysteries of the universe, that there is a universal code, that everything somehow connects... but over time they become confused with reality, and stop looking outside themselves for the answers and look inside themselves, forsaking reality, thus begin dellusions and, in most cases, even hallucinations, most commonly of sight and sound (an interesting corrolation if you study the letters in question of the word and their values in Hebrew Gemmetria) to support a reality that no longer matches reality.
  Other interesting parrallels found in people whose dellusions begin in this way is that they somehow know information which is untrue, but represents a true reality.  (For example, one Mental Patient once stated of a Hospital that the walls and pipes were filled with mold, and everyone was getting sick.  It was eventually discovered that the lead based paint, and contamination in the pipes were making people sick, and that without aquiring any knowledge the patient knew this...  However, she created an internal, irrational justification that there was mold, which was not present.)
  Then of course lies the theory that Schizophrenia is not one illness, but many, with different root causes, but similar outward effects.  Since Schizophrenia is by medical definition not technically diagnosiable by anything but symptoms (cannot be scanned for in the brain, tested in the blood, etc) one can say this is a valid theory which can apparently be neither proven nor disproven my modern medical standards, only by belief.
  However, mental patients without both medication and psychological treatment will eventually "relapse" into a pattern of dellusional thinking which represents their last relapse, as if they were part-way into a puzzle, and can never get past that one peice.  Many resist taking medication, trying to reclaim a reality saying this time they will get it right, but this appears to be impossible.
  Regardless, many concepts found in Gemmetria (a mathamatical system which parrelles the concepts of the meaning of hebrew words - i.e. the mathamatical value for mother, added to the mathamatical value for child = the mathamatical value for child, thus mother + father = child) gives us a method for understanding Hebrew.  Perhaps the solution of life's ultimate riddle of the Universe is the solution of finding those letters, and perhaps it is best left alone.
  And perhaps people assume Jehovah, or Yahwey, is all powerfull while in fact Tetragrammaton is all powerfull, being that Tetragrammaton (being the manifestation of all actions, spiritual and physical laws) is all things which happen.
  Would it be appropriate (if not interesting) to consider it from this angle, both of the Kabbalistic study of Gemmetria, and of the correlations between Yahwey and Tetragrammaton as a person, and what we would now call a scientific law?
  Also, the mental illness and it's parrallels to Gemmetria are interesting, but I guess mostly in the context of the Legendary madness assoicated with obtaining T's power without being at at least Magus level (by the Order of the Golden Dawn's Standard of Spiritual awareness and control, since that seems to be the best standard I can think of).
  I know I spelled most of that wrong, sorry.
 - P.A. / 56
----
:You formatted what you wrote in a way that makes it very difficult to read, but in partial answer:
:1) There was no orthography for vowels until well after 500 A.D. (except for  the very partial system of matres lectionis).
:2) It's generally accepted that Yah is short for Yahweh (or whatever the original form of YHWH was).  If you subtract Yah from Yahweh, then you certainly don't get anything meaningful left over... AnonMoos 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Vowels 

message: When Moses asked god about his personal name, god answered him ..[ I am (who) what I am  .....אהיה אשׁיר אהיה] …. Aheh asher Aheh ...NOT YHWH . יהוה…read ..Exodus 3:14…
This Name 
..[ I am (who) what I am….... אהיה אשׁיר 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…not personal ONE, same as El, Elshadi, and Elohim.
……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…
YHWH is …. יהוה ....I am is Aheh   אהיה  …..where as  the word …what / who  ….in Hebrew is Asher אשׁיר..    …. I am what (who) I am… אהיה אשׁיר אהיה  … Aheh asher Aheh Exodus 3:14.
The Question is … HOW   the word [YHWH …יהוה ]….. is  .. extracted or taken from the phrase …. I am what I am… ...אהיה אשׁיר אהיה … and how it became the personal name of the lord …not I am what I am ?
….where.. the word [YHWH …יהוה]..come from?
And if we supposed that YHWH is Personal name..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 means ( No story of Isaac to be sacrificed in mount of YHWH will provide” יְהוה ירָאֶה   Gen 22:14 as Abrham himself gave it that name, ….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.
 
217.44.222.210 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the  word  YHWH  come from? 

message: Baptist is the logical standpoint. The catholics ad the word of the pope and the books inbeteen the old and new testament. The names of which escape my mind at the present moment.  Methodist ignore the spirit and preach in toungs, which helps noone understand the Bible. i cover on ly baptism methodism and catholoscism i do not have time presently to place other beliefs in for i need to get to bed -- A Warior for Christ, Samuel Robbins<><  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.52.201 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the arguing. 

message: Perhaps this can be placed within the page somewhere? However, I do see the point that pronunciation of the Name is more related to the article YHWH. Thoughts? --AustinWellbelove (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony. You know as well as I do, that there is something very odd about the fact that Sky and Lisa are so adamant in deleting this quote from the article. Two sentances referring to what scholars consider most accurate pronunciation to to be, cannot be a bad thing. Kght (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Anthony_Appleyard]] section: YHWH

message: I think it'd be appropriate to add a section on the transliteration of the Tetragrammaton in to english. What do others think? 82.203.3.3 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that such a section would be plausible. However, further details of the English transliteration can be found at Yahweh and Jehovah. Is there really a need for it? --AustinWellbelove (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the section, but added a link in the see also section to to information concerning the pronunciation of the name. The section added wasn't really about the English transliteration anyway, it was more about the correct pronunciation. --AustinWellbelove (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, I agree. I think it does deserve some mention. As long as it doesn't turn into content-forking then it should be fine. --AustinWellbelove (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a section

message: In the article it says that "The Tetragrammaton is the ancient Jewish name for God". Shouldn't this be the ancient "Hebrew" name or am I getting this wrong? Peace. Alleichem (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if you could find other Hebrews using it... -LisaLiel (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's the ancient name that the Jews use for the Jewish God, so in that sense it is the ancient Jewish name for God. However, I do take your point that it is also the ancient Hebrew name for the Jewish God. However, the ancient general term for "god" is El (Hebrew: אל). What I propose is a rephrase? "The Tetragrammaton is the ancient Hebrew name for the Jewish God". I'll assume that this is fine and add it to the article. --AustinWellbelove (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "The Tetragrammaton is one of the ancient Hebrew names for the Jewish God."  It's not the only one. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, not to sure with the phrasing of "is one of". How about "The Tetragrammaton is an ancient Hebrew name for the Jewish God."? --AustinWellbelove (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the matter with "is one of"?  It's accurate, verifiable, and informative.  Not to mention true. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it depends how one defines "name". --AustinWellbelove (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that was cryptic enough.  Care to elucidate? -LisaLiel (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I guess not. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see.  So given the fact that Jews view it as one of numerous names, we'd go with that, right? -LisaLiel (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish Name of God" 

message: I really don't have much patience with many of the "special" or "unique" JW interpretations in this area (see User_talk:Ice9Tea#Tetragrammaton etc. etc.), but the basic count of the occurrences of YHWH in the text of the Hebrew old Testament seems to be reliable -- I get exactly the same number when searching the scholarly e-text of the BHS (see above), which is completely independent of anything JW... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "dubious source" tag

message: * Discussion of most of these articles is taking place at Talk:Jehovah.  The "speedy delete" is requested solely to facilitate getting the "edit history into the "right place".  There may be some significant restructuring of the articles after the discussion is over.  --Richard 09:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moves and merges (May 2007)

message: * I am wondering why this page is not an actual article about the Tetragrammaton, but instead a faux disambiguation page that doesn't give any guidance to the reader which page might have the information they're looking for.  If you follow the first link, it takes you to an article about "a proposed English reading of ", and the second takes you to one about "an English transcription of ".  So where's the article about "" itself?  I'd hardly know where to begin with one myself (which is why I came here looking for it). - JasonAQuest 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no article? 

message: * I am very pleased to see that the article on the tetragrammaton is, apparently, being restored in Wikipedia. Originally this article was quite extensive (I must confess, perhaps too extensive?), so I can understand why additional and separate articles were created for 'Yahweh', and for 'Jehovah'. However, it was ridiculous to remove the entire Tetragrammaton article from here and to merge it all under 'Yahweh'.
'Tetragrammaton' as a distict subject appears in all other dictionaries and encyclopedias, so why not in Wiki? The tetragrammaton is universally known. The tetragrammaton is the basis for Yahweh and Jehovah. A lot of information about this was in the original 'tetragrammaton' article which was here, but now that the data has, quite unilaterally, and thoughtlessly it seems, been lifted from here and merged all into Yahweh, systematic reading, study and research on the subject has been sorely frustrated and undermined. The tetragrammaton does not come from Yahweh, but rather, the word Yahweh comes from the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, in my view, to merge it all into one article under 'Yahweh' is illogical and a demonstration of indecent haste and questionable scholarship.
It is going to take a lot of concentrated effort to unravel the results of such misguided or naive editing to put back all the tetragrammaton information where it belongs, i.e. under 'Tetragrammaton'!
I don't know the mechanics of undertaking a complete reversal of the ill-conceived merge into 'Yahweh' and, as there has doubtless been subsequent editorial updates within Yahweh, perhaps it would be unwise at this late stage to press any 'restore' buttons! However, if other editors share my views on this matter, I would gladly contribute to unpicking this present muddle by slowly lifting relevant sections from 'Yahweh' and restoring them to their proper place, i.e. here! If editors would like to share in this task, they have my full and unequivocal support! Regards, Editor62
--87.115.6.26 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of 'Tetragrammaton' article 

message: *Outside of bible manuscripts, the יהוה is found in art, on coins, religious buildings, and on ancient non-biblical artefacts. This public display of the tetragrammaton is found in many countries. The Wiki article on Tetragrammaton makes no reference to these important facts. 
If someone wanted to add such information to Wiki, this page 'Tetragrammaton' would seem, to me, to be the ideal place for it.The article on Yahweh displays two pictures showing where יהוה is a feature in religious buidings, but, as that Wiki article is about 'Yahweh' rather than the tetragrammaton, it is understandable why information about the prevalence of יהוה have not been included. The article on Jehovah is similarly an exegesis about 'Jehovah', with no mention of the 'public' use of יהוה as far as I can see.
So, please may I have your views. Where would the best place be to provide information about the public display of  יהוה ? --Observer29 (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tetragrammaton (יהוה) in art, on coins, in artitecture, and on ancient artefacts:<br /> Your opinions please.

message: David, you strike me as someone who has some religious sentiments.  That being the case, I'd like to ask you to please try and have respect for Wikipedia and its rules, and stop trying to game the system by use of repeated sockpuppets.  It isn't just a matter of breaking rules; it's really disrespectful to those of us who are trying to edit appropriately.  There isn't one of us, I don't think, who hasn't accepted an edit (or several) that we disagree with on a personal level because this is Wikipedia, and not our personal blogs or online forums.
Please try and rein in your personal feelings and views and treat Wikipedia as it is meant to be treated.  It's a great resource, and you have the ability to be an excellent editor, if only you can get your need to pursue this single minded agenda under control. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open letter to David Amos 

message: I've deleted (again) a line in this article which presents one specific POV as fact.  This is regarding the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Frankly, from an encyclopedic point of view, it's bad enough that this article lists the article about that pronunciation as the "main article".  This should be the main article, with branches to the two different vocalizations, if necessary.
Nevertheless, I'm not aiming to change that at this point, unless I can get a consensus for it.  What I do want to change is the introduction of POV into this article.  There is a discussion of the different views of how this name is to be pronounced in the "main article" that's referenced at the top of this one.  It is inappropriate to do an "end run" around that discussion and present one view as fact in this article. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason whatsoever for deleting the quote other than allowing your own personal views on the subject - you don't believe in any pronunciation []- to obscure the article. The article of consensus is the one with the quote Lisa. The quote is well cited and well sourced. It fits in well and does not at all contravene any rules whatsoever. You seem to be acting very immature. Several members have voiced their concerns with your behaviour already, now please, would you kindly stop such blatant vandalism? Yahweh is considered by scholars to be the most accurate pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Two sentences stating this cannot be deemed "wrong".Now please, unless you'd like me to take this up with other wikipedian theologians, do stop . Kght (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This user "Kght" is yet another sockpuppet of the infamous David Amos.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Lisa here.  The information from BDB may be relevant, but not with the direct statement as it stands.  Right now it's not worded NPOV. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been concurring with Lisa, when she said Yahweh is a guess word. I don't think your "concurrence" is very valuable here Sky. Kght (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV statement about pronunciation 

message: Lisa's most recent edit redirecting to the main article is the most approprate solution. It prevents the potential for POV forking. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV forking Sky? Would you complain about the mention that "Jesus" was supposed to be a Jew, on the Jesus article. No. In the same way it is pointless to be complaining about a sentance about Yahweh on a tetragrammaton article. You and Lisa are being immature.  Kght (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation Redirect