Christian Aspie chat

Post Reply New Topic

Cannot remember the scripture where it says, "My people will know my name", but even in Malachi theres enough to tell you knowing Gods name is pretty important.
I guess with so much Satanic deciept in religion, we need to know we are speacking to the Almighty God and not a god.

Not sure what to make of this?, is it Satanic decipt?, or is the name Jehovah a deciept?, especially in view of the fact that Masons call thier God Satan by the name "Jah-Bull-On"

The Divine Name

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

-Exodus 3:14, King James Version

Like good Bereans, we are to examine and test all the inspired expressions in order to determine whether or not
they come from God. One of the main foundations of our faith is the very name of God Himself. Who do we
pray to, and how do we address Him? There are many names that have been proposed for God: Jehovah,
Yahweh, Yahoweh, Yahowah, Yahve, Jahve, Jah, Yah, etc. Are any of them correct?

Let's find out!

Here are the letters from which "I AM" is transliterated:

eie
HYH

These letters are not Paleo-Hebrew, they are Babylonian Aramaic!

Strong's Concordance: 1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come
to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished,
committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)
self, require, X use.

In the chart below, compare the main branches of the early Greek character with the North Semitic alphabet
and the classic Greek. 1=North Semitic alphabet (Paleo-Hebrew); 2=Earliest Greek character (9th-
6th centuries BC; 4-5 Eastern branch (4. Ionic; 5. Attic); 7=Western branch; 9=Classic Greek; 10=Names of
the letters (those in parentheses; names of letters now discarded in classic Greek.


































The Paleo-Hebrew and Greek are both essentially the same in a) alphabetic order b) appearance c) basic
pronunciation of the letters d) are from the same family of older ancient languages from which
they descended. Pronunciations and meanings associated with word forms can be smoothly translated from
Paleo-Hebrew to Greek without much loss. But what is it that is glaring out from this chart? The Paleo-
Hebrew had vowels! It was Aramaic that had no vowel usage! So we are told by "scholars" who would have us
believe in some corrupted name for the True God that the name was lost because of the vowel points for
"Adonai" (LORD) being erroneously inserted into the Tetragrammaton,
and then they point to the Aramaic alphabet!

Around the time of the Exodus, Greek speakers brought in a new tongue replacing the old, and this is believed
to be approximately 1450 BC. It is possible that the Philistines and Hyskos were the same people, becoming
Cretians and later Greeks. A careful examination of the scriptures shows that the Jews and Philistines spoke
the same language, and that was Babylonian Aramaic!

The good news is that rather than being lost, Paleo-Hebrew may be nearly replicated in Greek! That would
explain why God willed for the New Testament to be written in the Greek tongue,
rather than the Aramaic language of Mystery Babylon.

The next chart shows vowel deletion in the Masoretic and Aramaic text when compared to the ancient text:













What is the true Sacred Name for God?

"Jewish Literacy", pages 47-48 says:

"At the burning bush Moses says to God: "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, the God of your
fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is His Name?; what shall I say to them?" God answered:
"Ehyeh-asher-ehyeh." Thus you shall say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." The three-word name God
gives Himself is not easy to translate. The most precise rendering is 'I shall be what I shall be', although it
sometimes is translated as 'I am that I am'. The 1962 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah
despaired of coming up with an accurate rendition, and just left the words in their Hebrew original."

"I AM" in Egyptian is"nuk." If Moses went back and told them I AM sent me he would have said "Nuk" sent
me. "Nuk" then would have been a name for God.

The letters "I AM" do not form a name. I AM was placed in the text and EHYEH removed. In fact, EHYEH has
been removed from the text in hundreds if not thousand's of places. I AM is the "perfect present tense" of the
name EHYEH. Since when do we replace someone's name with the "tense" of their name when used as a verb?

Many claim that EHYEH and its replacement I AM should be interpreted in a future tense as: "I will be that I
will be (J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch And Haftorahs, p 215); I will be what tomorrow demands (W. Gunther
Plaut, The Haftartah Commentary, p. 405); I will be what I want to be (S.R. Hirsh from Plaut, p. 405).

All efforts to make EHYEH mean: "I will be," "He will be," "He who causes to be" or "He shall cause it to
come to pass," are all future tense which does not exist in the Hebrew language (see Robert Young's Bible
Lexicon, p. 38; Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, p. 626; and Canon S.R. Driver, Westminister
Commentary, Genesis, p. 408).

We have the answer as to what should have been done with the Sacred Name that God gave to Moses at the
burning bush: It should have been left alone! There is no way to definitively translate something as important
as this! In Hebrew there is no future tense, there is only past and present!

In the chart below, we see that many Phoenician words descend from both Egyptian and Proto-Canaanite.
Hebrew is not a sacred language dating back to Adam, and neither is it the "pure" language that God gave to
the Israelites. Ancient Paleo-Hebrew is merely the Phoenician language with roots of Egyptian, Ugaritic, and
Proto-Canaanite words and phonetics.






















The name that God gave to Moses at the burning bush was "EHYEH asher EHYEH." This is said to mean "I
AM that I AM, and this has been proven false. To state that "EHYEH asher EHYEH" means "I will be
what I will be" is a futuristic statement and cannot be true either!

"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Adonai) God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this (or "EHYEH") is my name
forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

-Exodus 3:15

The words "LORD GOD" here in their original Hebrew are "ADONAI Elohim". This was the name or titles
by which God was addressed prior to Moses. How do we know this? The answer is at Exodus 6:3--

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name
JEHOVAH was I not known to them." -King James Version

If we take a look at the King James Interlinear, at Exodus 3:15 we find that "LORD" was transliterated from

euei
EUEI

Written from left to right the four letters are IEUE.

How do we get HWHY,or in reverse YHWH from these four letters? The answer may astound you!

From menorah.org we read:

From the evidence that was revealed to us, we came to the conclusion that the correctness of the form Yahweh is
not 99½%, but only 75%. Josephus, in his Wars of the Jews, Book 5, chapter 5, 7, was quite clear in stating that
the Name "consists of four vowels." Why then do we, who freely quote this statement of Josephus, accept the
form Yahweh, which contains a consonant, W? In our search we discovered that this form Yahweh, originated
right back in the year 1567. In G.H. Parke-Taylor's book Yahweh: The Divine Name In The Bible, p. 79,
we read that Genebrardus, in 1567, was the first to suggest the pronunciation, Jahve, largely on the strength
of Theodoret's assertion that the Samaritans used the pronunciation Iabe, subsequent to the time when
pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was stopped by the Jews. Bible scholars who made a study of the
Tetragrammaton, concluded that the Samaritans (enemies of God and Israel)were wrong with
their rendering, Iabe, and Dr M Reisel states that the form Iabe is of no value. The form Iabe is of course
inconsistent with Josephus' statement that the Name consists of four vowels. We can thus see how the form
Yahweh started on the basis of an erroneous form, Iabe. In 1815 Prof. Wilhelm Gesenius further promoted the
form Yahweh, and this is how we have accepted it, and this has become a tradition amongst us.

Let us analyse the Tetragrammaton, יהוה

י (yud) a vowel, is equivalent to the Greek I and to the English Y. That is accepted by everybody.

ה (hey) used as the second and fourth vowel. It is ah in the second letter of the Name, as is accepted by most
scholars. But in the fourth letter of the Name it is eh, equal to the Greek e, which is pronounced as the e
in met, because of the Greek transliteration of the Name by (Pope)Clement and in the Papyri2.

ו (vav) the third letter, a vowel, according to Josephus, and rendered ou in the Greek transliteration Iaoue,
and should therefore be rendered as U (pronounced oo) in the English,
because the Greek ou is pronounced oo.

In other words, adhering to the directive of Josephus, the Name consists of four vowels, Y, H, W, H and
has been transliterated by Clement as Iaoue = I-a-ou-e, pronounced I-A-OO-E, transliterated into English as
Y-AH-U-EH (and not Y-AH-W-EH).

In our search, we found that Clement's form Iaoue was supported by a form Iawouhe (Iaooueêh), which was
frequently found in the Papyri2. The reason why we were inclined to consider this form Iaoue and the other
Greek form is this: We realised that both the Jews and the Greeks were guilty of using a surrogate title instead
of the Name. But whenever the Greeks did use the Name, they had no motivation to disguise the Name, as the
Talmudic Jews were determined to do. We found that many eminent scholars, such as Field in his preface to
Origen's Hexapla, state that the W (waw) has the vowel sound of a u. Apart form the influence of
the erroneous form Iabe, two other factors contributed to the confusion as to the W. The first is the well known
erroneous pronunciation of the waw (W), which developed among the Ashkenazic Jews on the continent of
Europe. The second is the earlier inconsistency of the Latin u and v. These were used interchangeably, and
only lately have they decided to use the u consistently as the vowel and the v as the consonant.
(See any encyclopaedia on "u" and "v').

But the confusion and deception originated much further back with the Jews who were instructed in the
Talmud to hide the Name and were determined that the Name must be kept secret. This was done by
substituting the Name, as we all know, but also by disguising it. Arnold, in his excellent Article The Divine
Name in Exodus 3:14, J.B.L. vol. xxiv (1905), p. 144 quotes Tamid vii.2, "In the sanctuary they
were accustomed to pronounce the Name as it is written; in the town by disguising it." This admission by the
Jews came as an important disclosure as to their modus operandi. In other words, these Jews were determined
to substitute the Name, and also to disguise it (apparently they were usually too scared to delete and substitute
it completely in the Scriptures). This explained to us why the Lamsa Aramaic Bible renders Exodus 3:14 as
AHIAH whereas the Massoretes vowel-pointed it to become ehyeh. This also explained to us why the early
Greeks transliterated the Name as AIA (Gesenuis and many scholars concluded that the Greeks found this from
2 Mosh. 3:14 and because many scholars mistakenly thought that ehyeh (ahyah) was His Name at some stage).
We further discovered that the Murasu texts from the 5th Century B.C.E. rendered the Yahwistic names
starting with Yahu- instead of the Massoretic vowel-pointed Jeho-, e.g. Yahuzabad, instead of Jehozabad and
Yahunatanu, instead of Jehonathan. And this finding caused us to propose that the vowel-pointing e o a
under the Name, was done for the purpose of disguising, and not for the purpose of substituting the Name with
Adonai, as has always been held. (We were never quite happy with the conflicting explanations as to why the e
o a differed from the vowels of Adonai).


Does anyone see a very crafty deception developing here? First fabricate a tetragrammaton, then make it look
like the Talmudic Pharisees wanted nothing more than to blot it out of the earth! This is deception of the
highest order!

____________________________________

"This hypothesis is not intrinsically improbable--and in Aramaic, a language closely related to Hebrew, "to be"
actually is hawa--but it should be noted that in adopting it we admit that, using the name Hebrew in the
historical sense, Yahweh is not a Hebrew name." -Encyclopedia. Britannica, 1958 Ed. Vol 12. p. 996.

"Today we can not know what the original vowels were, but Yahweh is as good as guess as we can make,
though other spellings are often used." -Samuel A. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction To The Old
Testament, p. 51

Are we supposed to put our trust in a guess name for salvation?

Aramaic is the language of mystery Babylon and was adopted by the Israelites while in captivity
in the fifth century BC! The original text appeared in Paleo-Hebrew and as we will see, the Tetragrammaton is
forgery! We will see that there is no evidence that Aramaic characters are pronounced the same as ancient
Paleo-Hebrew. To say that "HAWA", an Aramaic form of "TO BE", should have superimposed upon
it "HYH" as the basis for the Tetragrammaton, is a lie! To then in turn use that as a basis to say that God's
name is "Yahweh" amounts to linguistic fraud!

Now if the Kabbalistic Pharisees were going to corrupt God's name, they would make sure that it would become
something despicable!

In the 1860 Bible Dictionary by Sir William Smith, English lexicographer, there is an entry under the word
“moon” that has long been censored and revised:

--"Three names of the moon were used by the Hebrews: YAREAH, paleness; LEBONAH, white; and HODESH
(renewing) new moon" (p 206).

Regarding the name “Yareah”:

The first “H” after the letter “a” was dropped in the transliteration into English and also from more modern
Hebrew translations.

At Genesis 37:9 the word “moon” is rendered by Strong’s Concordance as “3394- Yareach”. This is a clear
attempt to corrupt the word to conceal the connection between Yahreah the moon god and Yahweh.

From touregypt.net under "Yah" we read:

"Of course, the complexity and controversy of Yah stem from the term's similarity to the early form of the name
for the modern god of the Jews (Yahweh), Christians and Muslims, as well as the fact that their ancestors were
so intermingled with those of the Egyptians. In fact, this distinctive attribute of this god makes research on his
ancient Egyptian mythology all the more difficult."

Meet the moon goat-god Yah here!

Thus, Yah is synonamous with the moon-god Allah worshiped by the Muslims!

From bibleorigins.net we read:

"Jeroboam established the FIFTEENTH DAY of the 8th month as a special feast day in honor of the Golden
Calf. We have noted that this day is the day of the Full Moon, which was called in Sumerian SHAPATTU,
translated into Akkadian as 'the day of the quieting of the heart,' and that in Sumerian belief, the Full Moon
was called Nanna, who is also called a YOUNG CALF. The bible condemns Israel and Judah for worshipping
the Sun, Moon, Stars, as well as the Baals, and Baal Hadad/Adad could take the appearance of a bull and sire
children called Adad's Calves, who are storm clouds, the very form Yahweh-Elohim assumed at Mount Sinai. A
potsherd from Samaria is inscribed Egeliah, "the bull-calf of Yah," suggesting it is NOT an Egyptian god
being honored by Jeroboam like Apis, Buchis or Mnevis, nor a Syrian god like Baal-hadad,
but Yahweh himself."

JEHOVAH

Under the name "Jehovah", Wikipedia says:Outside of the English-speaking world, the use of the name
Jehovah is mostly associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their official opinion as expressed in
The Watchtower:

"The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Nevertheless, many
prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have.
Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really,
for that is not the custom with Bible names.
To take the most prominent example, consider the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus' family and friends
addressed him [...]? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something
like Yeshua (or perhaps Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus."

(Copyright, Watchtower Corp., All rights reserved.)

(Yes the Gatekeepers in the Tower are now copyrighting Watchtower vomit (Isa. 28:8), evidently funds are low
at the Tower due to the decrease in printing as a result of changing their magazine format, and with the
burgeoning cost of protecting pedophiles, the money has to come from somewhere.)

The Watchtower admits that "Jehovah" is a guess name. It is unfortunate that they have chosen to
promote this as the Divine Name of God. Why?

Strong's Concordance: 1943 hovah ho-vaw' another form for 1942; ruin:--mischief.

If "Jehovah" is derived from the Tetragrammaton as the English version of "Yahweh", then the shortened form
of "Jah" is also corrupt. Sometimes when investigating to find out the truth, it is necessary to look into some of
the "deep things of Satan". We find that that Freemasons use the names "Jah" as part of a triune God,
"Jah-Bul-On":

* Jah (= Yahweh)
* Baal
* On, a name in Genesis in the Bible (in "Potiphar priest of On"), thought in older times to be a name of
Osiris (but now known to be the Hebrew form of the Ancient Egyptian name of the city of Heliopolis).

Since Freemasonry is derived from Kabbalah, we see that the corruption of the Divine Name with its links to
Jewish mysticism has been an ongoing process since the Babylonian exile.

For more information on "Jehovah", "Jah" and "Yahweh, see the essay "The Tetragrammaton".

Resources other than those cited:
"EHYEH ASHER EHYEH",
Cohen G. Reckart, Pastor



Back to top

Home

Moses and the Burning Bush

John 10:1-5 KJV
(1) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
(2) But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
(3) To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
(4) And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
(5) And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.


John 10:24-30 KJV
(24) Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
(25) Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
(26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
(27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
(28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
(29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
(30) I and my Father are one.


Voice, not name...

I am a Christian!

I get bored in church though. Any tips on making it less boring. I do better in small groups but there are none for adults.

I suppose it depends on whether you are talking about God to someone else, or whether you are talking to God directly. When Jesus spoke to God in his prayers, he called him "Abba", the closest English analogue for which would be "Daddy". And through Jesus' sacrifice, we are become adopted children of the divine.




If you're talking about God to someone else, then any name that conveys the depth of respect and worship is sufficient. If you're talking directly to Him, then a term that conveys devotion, love and familial affection seems most appropriate to me. I call Him "Father", because to me the word feels far more affectionate and intimate than "Dad".